Content uploaded by Margo van Felius
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Margo van Felius on Mar 19, 2025
Content may be subject to copyright.
Conceptualising and maintaining
partnership engagement, what is required?
An analysis of three third-party policing
partnerships in Australia and the UK
Margo van Felius
School of Criminology and Criminal Justice and Griffith Criminology Institute,
Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia
Julianne Webster
Queensland Police Service and Griffith Criminology Institute, Griffith University, Brisbane,
Australia
Lyndel Bates
School of Criminology and Criminal Justice and Griffith Criminology Institute,
Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia
Janet Ransley
School of Criminology and Criminal Justice and Griffith Criminology Institute,
Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia
Peter Martin
Griffith Criminology Institute, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia
Abstract
Third-party policing (TPP) partnerships provide police agencies with an opportunity to address underlying social issues,
and allow for longer-term solutions to crime and the development of innovative crime-reduction strategies. A review of
the multi-agency policing partnership literature identifies a range of formal and informal factors that impact on imple-
mentation and partnership engagement. However, the literature is limited in terms of how and why these factors facili-
tate or inhibit implementation, and/or how these factors interact. This article applies an international case study
methodology involving 55 semi-structured interviews with police officers and representatives from partner agencies
across three TPP partnerships, two in Queensland, Australia and one in the United Kingdom. The key findings highlight
a range of factors that are important. Five of these are imperative to the successful implementation and sustainability of
TPP partnerships and continued partner engagement: (a) clear and shared aims and objectives for the partnership; (b)
commitment from management and all involved to partnership working and adequate resourcing; (c) trust, respect and
open communication between the partners; (d) information-sharing protocols; and (e) measuring the performance of
Corresponding author:
Margo van Felius, 176 Messines Ridge Road, Mt Gravatt, QLD 4122, Australia.
Email: m.vanfelius@griffith.edu.au
Original Research Article
International Journal of
Police Science & Management
2025, Vol. 27(1) 78–94
© The Author(s) 2025
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/14613557241310019
journals.sagepub.com/home/psm
the partnership. This article further shows that these factors are interdependent and should be considered in the con-
text of the others.
Keywords
Third-party policing partnerships, partnership engagement, crime prevention, international case study
Submitted 12 Mar 2024, Revise received 29 Jun 2024, accepted 1 Aug 2024
Introduction
Multi-agency policing partnerships enable police agencies
to address the underlying social issues that contribute to
crime and allow for longer-term solutions to achieve
crime reduction (Crawford and Evans, 2012; Meyer and
Mazerolle, 2013; Rosenbaum, 2002). The benefits of
forming partnerships are multiple. Often several agencies
are involved with the same high-risk populations (Huey,
2008; Meyer and Mazerolle, 2013; Rosenbaum, 2002)
and efficiencies as well as synergies can be gained by
pooling limited individual agency resources, skills and
intervention approaches to collectively tackle a shared
problem (Rosenbaum, 2002) from a wide-angle perspective
(Meyer and Mazerolle, 2013). One type of multi-agency
policing partnership that attempts to harness all these bene-
fits is third-party policing (TPP). TPP is a unique partner-
ship because police and partner agencies extend their
reach through the application of non-police legal levers
(Mazerolle and Ransley, 2006; Van Felius et al., 2023).
However, the success of these initiatives depends on how
well police initiate and conduct these engagements (Scott,
2005; Van Felius et al., 2023). The concept of what
makes police and partner agencies work together effectively
is not well understood and under-theorised (Bjelland and
Vestby, 2017; Cherney, 2004; Jacobs et al., 2007;
Ransley et al., 2011; Van Steden, 2023; Webster et al.,
2018; Wolff, 2018). Much of the TPP literature focuses
on the outcomes of these partnerships, and whether they
are effective in reducing crime problems (Bennett et al.,
2017; Hoshino and Kamada, 2020; Lum et al., 2020;
Mazerolle and Ransley, 2006; Telep and Weisburd,
2016). However, a better understanding of the process
and system of engagement in these partnerships is also
needed. Therefore, the research questions for this study
are: (a) what are the key factors that are instrumental to
the processes of conceptualising, forming and maintaining
TPP partnerships; and (b) how do these factors interact?
Conceptual framework
This article uses a two-step approach to address this gap in
the research. First, we develop a conceptual framework
drawn from the theoretical and empirical literature
(Figure 1); and second, this is then used to guide data col-
lection and analysis.
Theoretical framework
No single organisational or criminological theory adequately
explains partnership implementation and engagement by
police agencies, and multiple theories can be applied
(Birken et al., 2017). This research adopts three theories –
structural contingency theory (Donaldson, 1995; Smith,
2019), institutional theory (Meyer and Rowan, 1977; Scott,
2004, 2005; Willis and Mastrofski, 2011; Worden and
McLean, 2017) and public value theory (Benington and
Moore, 2010; Moore, 1995) –each of which provides a dif-
ferent perspective and originates from different contexts, to
help explain what impacts effective partnership engagement
and is required for long-term sustainability.
Structural contingency theory, developed within the
context of a profit-based organisation with quantifiable out-
comes, explains the rational process of adopting new ideas
(Donaldson, 1995). Institutional theory, which originated
from studies of education as an institution, expands on
purely rational processes and suggests that the implementa-
tion of partnerships is influenced by mimetic, coercive and
normative forces (Donaldson, 2001; Meyer and Rowan,
1977; Mintzberg, 1983). Finally, public value theory,
which originated in studies of the public sector, focuses
on improving the working of public organisations, particu-
larly in terms of their efficiency (Moore, 1995, 2013).
Structural contingency theory explains the rational or
formal factors involved in partnership implementation,
institutional theory adds to these by exploring social, cul-
tural and environmental or informal factors, whereas
public value theory examines partnerships through the
lens of the legitimacy, ‘authorising environment’and
‘added value’of the partnership to the participating agen-
cies and broader environment. Collectively, this theoretical
framework suggests that for a public organisation, and part-
nership, to survive and continue to provide value to the
community, it needs to embrace opportunities and adopt
appropriate formal and informal factors (Donaldson,
1995; Meyer and Rowan, 1977; Moore, 1995; Scott,
van Felius et al. 79
2004; Van Felius, 2022; Willis and Mastrofski, 2011). In
this research, structural contingency theory provides a
guide to identifying formal aspects impacting on partner-
ship implementations, such as organisational structure,
including the level of centralisation or decentralisation,
and policy and procedural frameworks (Donaldson, 2001;
Koberg and Ungson, 2016; Maguire, 1997; Mintzberg,
1983; Zhao et al., 2010). Institutional theory assists in
exploring informal aspects, such as expectations, beliefs,
culture and ‘how’things should be done (Ashworth et al.,
2009; Scott, 2005). Public value theory extents both of
these theories by recognising the importance of the environ-
ment ‘authorising’implementation of the partnership; in
particular, the rationale for conceptualisation and forma-
tion, and subsequent continued support to maintain the part-
nership (Skidmore, 2006).
Empirical framework
The theoretical framework was used as a starting point to
identify formal and informal factors that impacted on the
partnership and key elements in the environment that
authorised the partnership. The key selection criteria for
including empirical studies were the initiative itself and
also documented operational issues related to conceptual-
isation of the partnership. Studies were sought from com-
munity and problem-oriented policing, and from health,
child services and community justice group research
involving partnerships (Van Felius, 2022). Community
and problem-oriented policing were chosen because of
their close relationship to TPP (Bullock et al., 2021; Eck,
2019; Ferrandino, 2014; Scheider et al., 2009; Skogan,
2019). Both problem-oriented policing and TPP emphasise
the use of a systematic problem-solving process in much the
same way (Eck, 2019; Eck and Spelman, 1987; Scheider et
al., 2009), whereas TPP and community policing both
engage others to assist with crime prevention and control
(Mazerolle and Ransley, 2006, 2019; Skogan, 2019).
Other partnership studies from health and social services
were also reviewed to ensure that as many factors as pos-
sible were covered. Review of these broader empirical
studies focused on exploring the formal and informal
factors and ‘authorisation’in the environment that impacted
on the implementation and sustainability of the initiative
under examination. Across the studies, all factors identified
as being relevant to partnership success were listed, exam-
ined, compared and then consolidated (Figure 2).
Conceptual partnership model
Consolidating the learning from this review revealed three
main phases of sustainable policing partnership implemen-
tation: (a) conceptualisation of the problem and the identi-
fication of suitable partners; (b) forming the partnership;
Figure 1. Development of conceptual framework.
80 International Journal of Police Science & Management 27(1)
and (c) continuance and maintenance of the partnership for
the time needed to address the problem (Addison, 2015;
Meyer and Mazerolle, 2013; Sloper, 2004; Van Felius,
2022). The phases are interdependent and the extent to
which execution of one phase is successful has an impact
the next phase (Figure 2).
Emphasis in the conceptualisation phase is on the ana-
lysis and articulation of a crime or social problem (Braga
and Weisburd, 2019, Diamond et al., 2004; Goldstein,
2003; Van Staden et al., 2011) and the realisation that
this issue cannot be addressed effectively by one agency
(Rosenbaum, 2002). A coordinated response is necessary
to address the underlying causes and provide a long-term
solution to the crime problem (Gilling, 2005; Homel and
Brown, 2017; Thom et al., 2013; Van Staden et al.,
2011). This phase contains a second component: the identi-
fication of potential partners who can add value to the part-
nership (Addison, 2015; Meyer and Mazerolle, 2013; Sadd
and Grinc, 1994; Skogan, 2006, 2019).
Once a conceptualised idea shifts to an actual partner-
ship, coordination and integration are needed to ensure its
success and longevity (Grone and Garcia-Barbero, 2001).
The level of partner engagement is influenced by
eight key factors, some of which are more ingrained than
others. First, clear partnership aims and objectives are
necessary to gain the interest and engagement of partner
agencies (Gilling, 2005; Meyer and Mazerolle, 2013;
Skogan, 2019). These aims and objectives should be realis-
tic and achievable (Addison, 2015; Bond and Gittell, 2010;
Sloper, 2004), and should be formulated jointly and fit the
mission of each partner agency (Cherney, 2004; Lander,
2008; Van Staden et al., 2011).
Second, each partner agency needs to understand how it
can contribute, and its role and responsibility in the partner-
ship along with that of the other partners (Bond and Gittell,
2010; Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland, 2014;
Van Staden et al., 2011). In addition, partner agencies
require understanding of the capacities and organisational
boundaries of the other agencies to avoid misperception
and over-expectation (Bond and Gittell, 2010; Meyer and
Mazerolle, 2013).
Commitment was identified as a third factor.
Partnerships require commitment from staff at different
organisational levels. Commitment from senior manage-
ment is necessary to ensure a fourth factor: the development
of information-sharing and governance protocols (Cherney,
2004; Disley et al., 2009; Williams, 2009). In addition,
agency commitment is required for a fifth factor of ensuring
sufficient resourcing and the allocation of staff with the
‘right’personalities, skills and expertise, and sufficient
authority to make decisions (Gilling, 2005; Krogh, 2017;
Shaftoe, 2004). Staff should have protected time for part-
nership work (Cheminais, 2009; Cooper et al., 2016;
Sloper, 2004). Personal commitment is required for actual
Figure 2. Conceptual partnership model. Source: Van Felius (2022).
van Felius et al. 81
attendance and a willingness to communicate openly, listen
to the suggestions of others and think outside the box
(Gilling, 2005; Thwaites, 2013).
Trust in a partner agency and its representative was iden-
tified as a sixth factor that significantly impacts on partner-
ship engagement (Gilling, 2005). Trust facilitates open
communication and information-sharing (Bundred, 2006;
Disley et al., 2009). Whereas sharing of information is
often facilitated by protocols and understanding the ration-
ale for needing the information and its application, trust is
an important determining factor in whether information
will be shared (Diamond et al., 2004; Disley et al., 2009;
Van Felius et al., 2023; Van Staden et al., 2011).
Information-sharing is the seventh essential factor and is
required to identify and articulate the social or crime
problem and find solutions (Kleemans and Huisman,
2015; Meyer and Mazerolle, 2013; Van Staden et al., 2011).
Finally, an eighth factor identified from the empirical
review is performance measurement. The ability of partners
to adequately measure their performance is necessary to
ensure continued funding and support, and subsequent
functioning of the partnership. However, performance mea-
sures for partnerships need to include suitable methods that
may extend beyond traditional policing and measurement
strategies. Specific metrics and data sets may be have to
be developed for this purpose (Huisman and Kleemans,
2014; Loveday, 2005; Thwaites, 2013).
The last phase, the maintenance phase, focuses on contin-
ued engagement and the commitment of senior management
and partner agencies. Continuance of trust, respect and open
communication is imperative, as is the ongoing commitment
of senior management and engagement of partner agencies.
Trust, respect and open communication are impacted by
staff turnover; therefore, the permanency of personnel com-
mitted to partnership work is preferable. Finally, perform-
ance requires monitoring to ensure partnership work is
making a difference to the social or crime problem it is
attempting to address. However, as Breckenridge et al.
(2015) suggest, the last phase can only be entered into
when the partnership is formalised by written agreements
and protocols.
Methodology
This article uses a case study approach to examine TPP
initiatives. Case studies were selected based on seven cri-
teria: (a) the partnership was established to address a signifi-
cant community or crime problem; (b) the focus of the
multi-agency partnership was to reduce the risk of crime
occurring; (c) legal levers were clearly available to
partner agencies; (d) police played a significant role in the
partnership; (e) the partnership consisted of multiple regu-
latory agencies or agencies that utilise other forms of
legal levers; (f) the police agency was in a commonwealth
jurisdiction; and (g) the police agency was in an
English-speaking country. Following discussion with
domestic and international policing scholars and various
policing agencies, three case studies were selected from
two policing agencies to which the research team had
access and who were interested in participating in the
study, met all criteria and all key stakeholders indicated a
willingness to participate in the research. These partner-
ships were: the South Brisbane Coordinated Community
Response (CCR) group, the North Brisbane Liquor
Industry Accord Group (LIAG) and a multi-agency public
protection arrangement (MAPPA) in one England and
Wales police jurisdiction
1
.
The three case study examples differed in maturity and
the extent to which they were supported by legislative
and procedural frameworks. This allowed for cross-case
comparison of factors impacting on continued partnership
engagement (Yin, 2014). Fieldwork largely comprised
interviews and was conducted between 2017 and 2018.
The objective of the research was not to quantitively
examine the strength of the partnership relationships or out-
comes, but to qualitatively describe and explain the prac-
tical functioning of these TPP partnerships and explore
key factors that impact on obtaining and maintaining part-
nership engagement in different contexts.
Given the explorative nature of this research, our aim
was to gain insights into stakeholders’experiences regard-
ing partnership engagement. Central to this are the percep-
tions of a wide range of stakeholders (Table 1) regarding
factors that impact partnership engagement and sustainabil-
ity. Although the cases are located in different jurisdictions,
comparisons are drawn through ‘reflections’that were
apparent in the different contexts.
In total, 55 semi-structured interviews were conducted
with police officers ranging in rank from assistant com-
missioner to senior constable, staff members and
members of each of the other agencies involved in the
three partnerships. Interviewees’roles ranged from front-
line workers and liaison officers to strategic positions,
allowing for all-round perspectives on each case.
Although primarily to provide context, legislative and pro-
cedural frameworks, and partnership agreements were also
examined, some of these were publicly available and some
were requested.
In all three cases, the liaison officer was a senior police
officer actively involved in the partnership. The liaison
officer was asked to provide a contact list of police officers,
police staff and partner agency staff actively involved with
the partnership. All but four of the invited participants from
the police and actively participating partner agencies took
part in the study. Interviews ranged from 45 to 75 minutes
in duration.
82 International Journal of Police Science & Management 27(1)
The results were analysed using both inductive and
deductive methods with the assistance of NVivo and were
complemented with manual coding. The text was initially
analysed deductively based on the themes derived from
the conceptual framework. During this process, other
themes were identified and inductive analysis was used
(Braun and Clarke, 2006). The analysis was conducted in
four stages: (a) understanding the data using broad coding
derived from conceptual model; (b) identifying patterns in
and between the themes and subthemes; (c) understanding
what links and influences the themes and subthemes; and
(d) formalising and systemising the data in a coherent set
of explanations (Houghton et al., 2015; Miles et al., 1994;
Morse, 1994).
Findings
The interviews and documents indicated that of the three
partnerships only MAPPA was formalised and thus in the
maintenance phase. The CCR group was in the process of
completing formal arrangements; however, these were not
completed at the time of the case study. LIAG had formal
arrangements in place between two of multiple partner
agencies. The results of the data analysis indicated that all
factors outlined in the conceptual model were relevant.
However, some factors were mentioned more often than
others within each case study. Across the three cases, the
analysis indicated that five factors were consistently identi-
fied as being important, namely the need for: (a) clear aims
and objectives for the partnership; (b) commitment from
management and all involved in partnership working and
adequate resourcing; (c) trust, respect and open communi-
cation between the partners; (d) information-sharing; and
(e) measuring the performance of the partnership. Each of
these five factors, and how they interact, are discussed in
greater depth below per case, prior to summarising the find-
ings across all cases. The first case study discussed is the
CCR group, followed by LIAG and finally MAPPA.
Case study 1: CCR group
Background. The CCR group was conceptualised by the
Queensland Police Service (QPS) in 2016 in response to
increases (in severity and volume) in reported domestic
and family violence incidents. Agencies participating in
the partnership were the Queensland Department of Child
Safety, Youth and Women (Child Safety), Queensland
Corrective Services (Probation and Parole), Queensland
Table 1. Case study participants.
Case study code Type of interviewee
Coordinated
Community
Response
Queensland Police Service (South Brisbane Vulnerable Persons Unit, Domestic and Family Violence Unit)
Queensland Department of Child Safety, Youth and Women (Child Safety)
Queensland Corrective Services (Probation and Parole)
Queensland Department of Housing and Public Works (Housing)
Queensland Health (Metro South Addiction and Mental Health Services)
Domestic and Family Violence Support Agencies (two local) Total number of interviews: 15
Liquor Industry
Accord Group
Core partner agencies
•Queensland Police Service (North Brisbane Liquor Unit, Drug and Alcohol Coordination Unit)
•Queensland Office of Liquor and Gaming Regulation (Compliance)
•Queensland Office of Liquor and Gaming Regulation (Licensing)
Auxiliary partner agencies
•Queensland Health (Environmental Health Unit)
•Office of Industrial Relations (Work, Health and Safety Unit)
•Queensland Fire and Rescue Service
•Brisbane City Council (Compliance and Regulatory Services)
Total number of interviews: 18
Multi-Agency Public
Protection
Arrangements
Core partner agencies (responsible authority)
•Police Violent Offender Management Unit
•Police Sex Offender Unit
•National Probation Service
•HM Prison Service
Auxiliary partner agencies (duty to cooperate)
•National Health Service (Forensic Mental Health Services)
•National Health Service (Safeguarding Adults and Children Unit)
•Local Authority (Children Services)
•Local Housing Trusts
Total number of interviews: 22
van Felius et al. 83
Department of Housing and Public Works, Queensland
Health (Metro South Addiction and Mental Health
Services) and two local domestic and family violence
support agencies. Information-sharing was facilitated by
the Domestic and Family Violence Protection (DFVP)
Act (QLD) 2012 and the protocols of the individual agen-
cies; however, no other formal arrangements had been
implemented at the time of the case study. Partners came
together once a week to discuss high-risk cases. A total of
15 semi-structured interviews were conducted across all
partner agencies: 8 with police and 7 with partner agencies.
Police participants in this case are identified as CP and
partner agency participants as C. Participants are given a
number in order of interviews.
Results
Aims and objectives. Interviewees commented that agen-
cies had been invited to join the CCR group without a
clearly documented partnership aim and objective. This
impacted on obtaining engagement from potential partner
agencies:
[T]hey [partner agencies] were asking some questions as well,
more along the lines of what they were doing, what objectives
and how they thought it would fit in. (CP6)
[W]e probably needed to document some of our strategic
objectives a little bit better about what we were trying to
achieve as a group, I think it was a bit of an afterthought in
some respect …because I am sure some people came to the
table who said, ‘I don’t know why I am here’. (CP8)
Those partner agencies that did join, did so to achieve their
own objectives, such as to gain opportunities to share infor-
mation and provide long-term solutions (all participants),
create referral pathways, build relationships or gain more
in-depth understanding of other agencies. Two participants
joined the partnership because it presented an opportunity
to hold the police to account and assess the adequacy and
legitimacy of the police response itself:
[T]o check that the police response has been according to the
legislation and was the appropriate response to the incident.
(C7)
Commitment and resources. The lack of clear aims and
objectives for the partnership impacted on commitment to
it. Without clear aims and objectives, partner agencies
found it difficult to determine the value of their contribution
and whether it aligned with the aims and objectives of their
own agencies.
QPS interviewees, however, had a different perspective
on the need for alignment of each agency’s aims and
objectives with the partnership. Their perspective was that
everyone’s aims and objectives should be acknowledged
and accepted, in addition to agreeing and committing to
common aims and objectives for the CCR group:
[E]veryone had to sort of step back and accept, this is where
you are coming from, this is what your agenda is that you
have to meet, but how do we discuss it so that everyone is
trying to make the objectives and agendas they want to meet.
(CP1)
The partnership was significantly impacted by resourcing.
The initiative was driven from the executive level, but the
aims and objectives were not clearly communicated to
middle management, who were subsequently reluctant to
provide resources:
…the other challenge from the QPS perspective was number
one getting the OICs [officer in charge] onboard, getting staff
onboard, getting them to understand. For me, it was a really
simple concept, but they didn’t seem to understand. (CP6)
In addition to the quantity of resources, the quality was
also relevant. The partnership was perceived as working
well because of the individuals involved; having the ‘right’
people with the right personalities, who were willing to con-
tribute without having personal agendas. This in turn pro-
moted trust, respect and open communication.
Trust, respect and open communication. Trust, respect and
open communication were negatively impacted by partici-
pants not understanding the aims and objectives of the part-
nership, which affected what everyone was expecting and
caused misunderstandings. However, as the partnership
developed, and participants were communicating more,
understanding of how everyone fitted in and what the part-
nership could achieve improved. This promoted trust,
respect and open communication:
…trust is the biggest thing: you can put ten people in a room
and tell them they can talk about anything, and they won’t until
they trust the other people with that. (CP2)
Trust, respect and open communication promoted
information-sharing. One of the rationales for conceptualis-
ing the CCR group and for partner agencies to join was the
ability to share and obtain information. Interviewees com-
mented that information-sharing was imperative to under-
standing the problem and ensuring that an appropriately
coordinated response was provided. However, although
information-sharing was facilitated by legislation, it was
complex. Each agency had their own protocols, and partici-
pants did not always understand what they could share.
84 International Journal of Police Science & Management 27(1)
Some were concerned that once information was shared it
was in an open domain, or could lead to action by other
agency, which was not always deemed beneficial to the
victim:
[A]t the first meetings, they [partner agency participants] didn’t
want to discuss cases or give too much information because
they felt that would initiate action on behalf of the police or
probation –they gave that sort of information. (CP1)
Others commented that having non-government agen-
cies with different legislative and procedural frameworks
in the partnership caused a barrier:
…it wasn’t an issue for me and government sharing with
police, because we can share with government partners, but
it certainly was an issue with NGOs [non-government agen-
cies] at the table. (C13)
Performance. Interviewees commented that resourcing
was impacted by the difficulty of measuring performance.
The ability to measure performance in a quantitative
format giving a measurable outcome for the partnership
was a key consideration for providing resources. Some
interviewees suggested that the partnership’s performance
was considered difficult to measure because of its preventa-
tive aim and objective:
[W]e would not know how to measure performance. (CP2)
In summary, interviewees commented that the CCR
group lacked clear aims and objectives and performance
measures, impacting on gaining commitment and resour-
cing. At the same time, one of the rationales for conceptua-
lising and forming the partnership was information-sharing
and providing a coordinated response. However, without
clear aims and objectives, trust, respect and open communi-
cation were impacted, which affected information-sharing.
Case study 2: LIAG
Background. The LIAG was conceptualised by the QPS as
part of a government initiative after two young men were
killed near licensed premises in alcohol-fuelled assaults in
2005. Other agencies involved were the Queensland
Office of Liquor and Gaming Regulation (OLGR),
Queensland Health (Environmental Health Unit), Office
of Industrial Relations (Work, Health and Safety Unit),
Queensland Fire and Rescue Service and Brisbane City
Council (Compliance and Regulatory Services). The QPS
and OLGR, both have compliance responsibilities under
the Liquor Act (QLD) 1992 and have a long-running
engagement, formalised in a memorandum of
understanding (MOU) to cooperate. However, there are
no formal arrangements with the other partner agencies,
referred to as ‘auxiliary’regulatory agencies in this study.
Periodically, the LIAG runs a joint enforcement operation
in which they visit several licensed premises. These visits
often occur after business hours and when these premises
are in full operation and at their busiest. A total of 18 semi-
structured interviews were conducted with participants: 7
with QPS, 4 with OLGR and 7 with representatives of the
other agencies. Participants were given a number in order
of interviews. QPS participants in this case are identified
as LP, OLGR participants as LO and auxiliary partner
agency participants as L.
Results
Aims and objectives. Participants from the auxiliary
partner agencies did not indicate much awareness of the
overall aim and objective of the LIAG to prevent and
control alcohol-fuelled violence near licensed premises
through ensuring complete regulatory compliance. They
provided a more self-focused obligation of fulfilling their
own agencies’aims and objectives for joining the LIAG.
From the interviews it became clear that the LIAG was
very much a group of individual agencies attending a
venue together, not necessarily to achieve a common
goal, but to achieve their own organisational aims and
objectives.
In addition to not fully understanding the aims of the
partnerships, some of the agencies, including the QPS and
OLGR, had conflicting objectives or were not aligned
with the partnership’s aims. For example, within the
liquor industry space, the QPS’s aim is to enforce the
law, whereas OLGR has a dual aim of enforcing compli-
ance under the Liquor Act and promoting the entertainment
industry. To achieve the aims of both agencies was difficult
and resulted in different approaches. Whereas the QPS
would issue a fine on the spot, OLGR officers had less
authority, had to seek approval, had a longer decision-
making process and were often more lenient, causing incon-
sistent penalties across liquor licensees:
[W]e clearly do have some barriers and frustrations, and I think
that comes down to just having different priorities, different
focuses. (LP4)
The difficulty of managing seemingly conflicting organisa-
tional aims and objectives of LIAG and the individual
partner agencies was also expressed by this auxiliary
partner agency participant:
[T]he fire service has an image of helping people, whereas
when we go in en masse with the others, it kinds of detracts
from that…if we are being seen as more of a police role,
van Felius et al. 85
coming in the middle of the night with surprise …it may
detract from them allowing us to carry out those local action
plans…if they see us as more of an authority figure they
may be more reluctant to let us do that. (L18)
Commitment and resources. The lack of awareness of
LIAG’s aims and objectives impacted on partnership
engagement and the commitment of the auxiliary agencies.
They participated in the LIAG operations only when the list
of target venues was beneficial for them, they had sufficient
overtime available and there were no competing higher
demands. This lack of full participation had an impact on
achieving the overall aim and objective of the LIAG. The
‘auxiliary’partner agencies participated in the LIAG opera-
tions because it provided them with an opportunity to attend
outside their regular business hours when these venues were
in full operation, while still complying with their work,
health and safety regulations because of the ‘security’the
police provided:
…the workplaces we visit with the LIAG are specific and nor-
mally they work at night; in our case we work from normally
from 6.30 a.m. till 6 p.m. and we cannot reach these venues.
But with the LIAG, our management team are happy to
release us and give us the chance to reach these kinds of work-
places. (L9)
Other benefits included networking opportunities with
other regulatory agencies, and the ability to access the
QPS’s stronger powers of entry, especially when licensee
holders refused entry or cooperation with the auxiliary
agencies, as well as showing licensees that compliance
was enforced 24/7.
Trust, respect and open communication. Partnership
engagement between OLGR and the QPS was different
from that with the auxiliary agencies. These three elements
were deemed imperative between OLGR and the QPS
because of the need to show a ‘united front’to licensees,
particularly because venue operators were sometimes
unable to differentiate between the QPS and OLGR:
…the trust and respect thing is an ongoing matter, we con-
stantly have to keep doing it and every time our people don’t
get what they want, they feel like they have been disrespected
and that their skills are being disrespected. (LP4)
Trust, respect and open communication between the indivi-
duals participating were not deemed that important by the
auxiliary agency participants. It was more about respecting
each other’s organisational boundaries.
Similarly, the auxiliary agencies did not require any
information-sharing, because they participated to enforce
their own regulations. However, information-sharing
between the QPS and OLGR was imperative. Even
though information-sharing was formalised in the MOU,
this was not without difficulties. QPS participants commen-
ted that sometimes information was not shared because of
ongoing criminal investigations; however, this was not
always understood. On other occasions, there appeared to
be a lack of trust between OLGR and the QPS:
[The] police will often have a reticence to share certain infor-
mation with local OLGR officers because they simply don’t
trust, they are not going to tell the industry. (LO1)
Performance. The performance of the LIAG was not
measured. The QPS collated all the information and used
it for internal purposes. Performance was difficult to
measure because ‘a good outcome is when nil issues are
found’(LP8); however, some interviewees wondered
whether this caused a lack of commitment and dedication
of resources from senior management.
In summary, except for the two core agencies, the QPS
and OLGR, the others were not really aware of the aims
and objectives of the LIAG. They joined the target operation
when it aligned with the objectives of their own agency.
This affected commitment and resources. Individual trust,
respect and open communication were also not seen as
important by the auxiliary partners. However, they were
deemed very important between the QPS and LIAG, impact-
ing information-sharing. Performance was not measured,
and some suggested that this had an impact on senior man-
agement’s commitment and resourcing.
Case study 3: MAPPA
Background. The MAPPP in this case study involved one
territorial police force
2
in the England and Wales jurisdic-
tion. MAPPA were initially developed in the 1990s
across England and Wales as a partnership between
police and probation services, against a background of
increasing social and political concerns about violent and
sexual offenders in the community (Yakeley and Taylor,
2018). Enactment of the Criminal Justice Act (UK) 2003
expanded MAPPA to include prison services and other
agencies who were to work together in a two-tiered partner-
ship with police and probation to proactively assess and
manage future risk of harm posed by certain violent and
sexual offenders (Bryan and Doyle, 2005; Yakeley and
Taylor, 2018). Under the Act and related MAPPA guidance
(Ministry of Justice National Offender Management
Service, 2018), a first tier of agencies, involving a partner-
ship between police, probation and prison services, referred
to as the responsible authority (RA) can require a second
tier of agencies to cooperate. This second tier consists of
86 International Journal of Police Science & Management 27(1)
a range of government agencies and local authorities,
referred to as duty to cooperate (DTC) agencies (Ministry
of Justice, National Offender Management Service, and
HM Prison Service, 2018; National Offender
Management Service, 2016). In this case study, the other
agencies involved were the National Health Service
(NHS), local authorities and trusts. A total of 22 intervie-
wees participated in this study: 7 police participants, 7
RA participants and 8 DTC agency participants. Similar
to the other case studies, participants were given a
number in order of interviews. Police participants are iden-
tified as MP, participants from the RA partner agencies as
MR and the DTC partner agency participants as M.
Results
Aims and objectives. Most interviewees perceived the
main objective of MAPPA as being to reduce the risk of
harm through sharing information in a coherent and struc-
tured manner, and discussing and coordinating resources
and expertise to enable a better response and management
of high-risk offenders:
[T]he aim and objective is collaborating on information that
they [the RA] have, the lateral check and balances that need
to be made, and that people have the right facts. (M14)
[I]t’sjusttryingtoseethebigger picture rather than just
looking at it with your police hat on. I suppose the overall
objective has got to be to manage the risk and then which-
ever way we do that we try a number of different options.
(MP7)
Although each of the participating agencies agreed on
these common aims of MAPPA, the outcomes of achieving
these aims of the partnership were not always congruent
with the objectives of its own agencies. MAPPA was
focused on reducing risk to the offender and the public;
however, reducing risk was perceived differently by indi-
vidual agencies, sometimes causing conflict. This was espe-
cially evident between the RA agencies in the ‘early days’.
Police saw arrest and recalling an offender into custody as
the only way to reduce the risk, whereas National Probation
Service
3
interviewees saw their agency’s aim and objective
as almost the opposite:
…from the police point of view, their role is to lock up people
who commit offences and to keep them locked up. So, they are
not a danger to the public. Whereas our job is very much to
rehabilitate them and get them back out in the community.
(MR3)
[W]e [police] are more arrest focused as a whole; the more
arrests we make, the better we look, probation the less
re-calls they do, the better they look. (MP20)
Over time, perceptions of how to achieve the objec-
tives of reducing the risk posed by an offender gradually
changed. Although the police involved in MAPPA origin-
ally had a ‘lock them up and throw away the key’attitude,
they were moving more towards the National Probation
Service ideology of reviewing all options to reduce the
risk and manage offenders in the community first,
before requesting a re-call into custody. Some intervie-
wees even commented that the role of the police in the
dedicated offender management units and probation was
no longer that different:
I’ve actually had police turn around and say don’t re-call this
person yet, what else can we put in place. (MR18)
[P]robation in the early MAPPA days was still very much
social work-based, whereas the police potentially are more
enforcement and punitive even, and I think probation has had
to move closer to the police and the police have had to move
closer to probation in order to have an effective alliance.
You know there’sdefinitely had to be a shift, I think a bit of
a culture shock to be honest. (MR21)
Commitment and resources. Robust risk assessment was
based on a sharing of all information and expertise during
the MAPP meetings, making full attendance necessary.
However, attendance at the meetings was influenced by
agency commitment, which was subject to funding and an
understanding of MAPPA’s role by senior management.
Non-attendance impacted on the ability to obtain all infor-
mation in a timely manner, which subsequently affected
understanding of the risk the offender posed and comple-
tion of a risk management plan:
…really difficult, especially Children’s Services because if
they don’t attend and you’ve got a case where there are chil-
dren involved, there is nobody else around that table that can
take that action, because you haven’t got access to their infor-
mation. So, it literally ends up having to carry the action over
for next time. (MP19)
The commitment of all agencies was also imperative for
risk management of the offender, because each agency pro-
vided some form of stability to the individual, whether it
was housing, medical assistance or some other service.
Resourcing affected participation, and non-participation
affected the understanding of some factors, impacting on
appreciating the full risk posed by the offender. Overall
risk was perceived as consisting of multiple factors
making up that risk and each agency was responsible for
one or more factors:
[F]or probation, the bread and butter is protecting the public
and preventing further victims, it is about risk assessment
van Felius et al. 87
and risk management. For housing, they’re risk assessing in
terms of accommodation, not necessarily offending, but
when they come into MAPPA, they are part of that. (MR10)
However, agency commitment was affected because not
all senior managers, across the agencies, understood the
role of MAPPA, affecting ongoing allocation of sufficient
resources at practitioner level:
[Y]ou don’t always get the social worker attending, and I think
that’s pivotal …and if any agency, I think, is maybe not under-
standing of the MAPPA or not acknowledging the importance
of MAPPA. (MR18)
Trust, respect and open communication. Trust, respect and
open communication were considered imperative for proper
functioning of the partnership; however, this was based on
personal rather than organisational relationships. Once trust
and personal relationships were established it was easier to
discuss matters and share information, get things done,
accept each other’s professionalism and judgement, and
acknowledge that nobody was perfect and mistakes some-
times occurred:
…cases that had a very sad outcome have been where we
haven’t shared information well, where the relationships
haven’t been there or sometimes where the relationships
were difficult because they were not locally based. So,
you’re sharing information away from yourselves and you
haven’t worked on that relationship, so for me it’s very import-
ant that you have that trust of one another. (MP4)
However, trust and respect were impacted by several
factors, such as having the ‘right’staff participating, with
the appropriate level of skills, expertise and motivation.
In addition, for the DTC agencies, this included understand-
ing the rationale behind the decisions being made, under-
standing where everyone fitted in, deliverance on
promises and understanding and respecting the partnership
itself:
[Y]ou also need to respect the partnership and one another by
delivering on any promises you’ve made. (M15)
Trust and respect between the agencies influenced
information-sharing. Sharing of information was one of
the rationales to conceptualise MAPPA. The MAPPA
framework promoted information-sharing and everyone
had a duty to share. It was only when all available relevant
information was shared that the full risk an offender posed
to the public could be understood.
[W]e may not see the big picture, but you’ve got to feed the
information in, because when you are not feeding the
information in, you could miss that vital part of that puzzle,
which is not going to build that picture of that individual and
it could be that vital part which causes another serious
offence or a serious case review. (MR6)
[W]ithout the sharing of information, then the risk is not man-
ageable. (MP8)
However, before every MAPPA meeting, a confidential-
ity waiver had to be signed by each individual participant.
Unfortunately, this personalised information-sharing,
impacting on the transferability of cases, and making the
permanency of personnel an important factor. Not all infor-
mation could be recorded, and when individuals did not
attend or moved on this had an impact on any in-depth
knowledge of offenders.
Performance. Some participants suggested that the lack
of commitment was due to performance not being assessed,
primarily because preventative work was difficult to
measure. One participant suggested that the difficulty in
measuring performance and each individual agency’s con-
tribution affected resourcing and protecting work time to
dedicate to MAPPA:
[A]lthough we are supported, it could be better, and I person-
ally think it comes down to not being able to measure our per-
formance. (MP20)
In summary, MAPPA was conceptualised to share informa-
tion with the aim of reducing the risks offenders posed to
the community. These aims were well understood and sup-
ported by everyone. There was significant trust and respect
among the participants; however, information-sharing was
personalised through case-by-case information-sharing pro-
tocols, affecting agency involvement when an individual
left or was away. At the same time, commitment and resour-
cing were negatively affected by the inability to measure the
performance of MAPPA.
Discussion
This study used a cross-case methodology of three TPP
partnerships to address the two research questions: (a)
what are the key factors that are instrumental to the pro-
cesses of conceptualising, forming and maintaining TPP
partnerships; and (b) how do these factors interact? To
answer these questions, a conceptual model was used to
guide data collection and analysis. The conceptual model
was based on a theoretical and empirical framework.
Structural contingency, institutional theory and public
value theory were chosen to guide the exploration of
factors imperative to building sustainable partnerships in
relevant empirical studies. These three theories were
88 International Journal of Police Science & Management 27(1)
chosen because they complemented each other in recognis-
ing the importance of and interaction between formal
factors (such as organisational structures, policies and pro-
cedures), informal factors (including culture, expectations
and beliefs), the environment in which police agencies
operate and the continued need to maintain or regain
legitimacy.
The three chosen partnerships differed in terms of matur-
ity, level of formalisation and structure, were across two
jurisdictions and involved different partner agencies. The
CCR group did not have any formalised agreements
between its partner agencies; in the LIAG, two agencies
had an MOU, but the second group did not, forming a
loose coalition working together when it was in the
benefit of an individual agency; whereas in MAPPA, the
agencies were legislated to work together.
Despite, these differences, this study identified five key
findings. Finding 1, all factors outlined in the conceptual
framework (Figure 2) are important, but there are five inter-
dependent key factors that impact most on partnership engage-
ment and sustainability. These are: aims and objectives,
resources and commitment, trust, respect and open communi-
cation, information-sharing and performance measuring.
Aims and objectives
The first key factor is setting clear and achievable aims and
objectives. This was highlighted in both the CCR and
MAPPA partnerships. Whereas in MAPPA these were
well established and understood, this was not the case in
the CCR group. Within the CCR group, planning and doc-
umenting objectives should have been done more clearly in
the conceptualisation phase. This would have aided with
obtaining internal organisational support and continued
partnership engagement. A lack of understanding of the
aims and objectives also affected the LIAG partnership.
Each of the agencies focused on achieving their own aims
and objectives; however, inversely, through their contribu-
tion, they achieved complete regulatory enforcement. In
addition to understanding, the need for some alignment of
the aims and objectives of the partner agencies and the part-
nerships is also necessary. This was evident in all three
cases and especially in LIAG, where misalignment
between organisational and LIAG’s aims and objectives
led to inconsistencies in regulatory approaches causing con-
flicts with the community. This finding, and previous
research indicate that the aims and objectives of the partner-
ship should be outlined and communicated clearly within
each agency and across the partnership (Laycock 2005).
This is necessary to identify relevant partners and gain
internal and external stakeholder support at conceptualisa-
tion, and impacts positively on continued partnership
engagement and internal and external commitment
throughout the formation and maintenance phases. For con-
tinued partnership engagement and commitment, some
alignment or overlap between the aims and objectives of
the partnership and the partner agencies is necessary
(Addison, 2015; Bond and Gittell, 2010; Cairns and
Harris, 2011; Cheminais, 2009; Cooper et al., 2016; Sadd
and Grinc, 1994; Skogan, 2008, 2019; Sloper, 2004).
Finding 2, this study extents these previous findings, in
that it is more important to understand the aims and objec-
tives of the partnership and how each agency can achieve
their own aim and objective within the broader goal of
the partnership.
Resources and commitment
The three case studies further highlighted that resources and
commitment to partnership working are interrelated. As
others have suggested, partnership working requires leader-
ship, engagement and commitment from senior level
members (Disley et al., 2009; Thom et al., 2013). At the
same time, this commitment must be followed through by
the provision of appropriate resources and staff with sufficient
time allocated for partnership working (Cairns and Harris,
2011; Cheminais, 2009; Cooper et al., 2016; Sloper, 2004),
authority and decision-making powers (Cherney, 2004). In
this study, we had similar findings: an insufficiency of
senior management commitment resulted in a lack of
funding and ‘protected’time to undertake joint working activ-
ities, affecting long-term sustainability. Finding 3, this study
further found that the quality of staff, particularly the neces-
sity of having staff with the ‘right attitude’was more import-
ant than expertise and training.
Trust, respect and open communication
The finding that having the ‘right staff’influences the third
key factor of building and maintaining trust, respect and
open communication in the partnership and between the
partnership and partner agencies coincides with previous
findings (Bond and Gittell, 2010; Cairns and Harris,
2011; Cheminais, 2009; Gittell, 2011). Finding 4, in our
study, there was a more pronounced difference between
organisational and individual trust and respect.
Organisational trust and respect were considered more
important in LIAG, whereas in the CCR group and
MAPPA engagement was built on individual trust and
respect. The three case studies show that trust, respect
and open communication are influenced by the type of rela-
tionship within the partnership. Partnership engagement in
MAPPA and the CCR group was based on personal rela-
tionships; however, this was not the case in LIAG, where
the individuals participating in each enforcement operation
varied.
van Felius et al. 89
Information-sharing
If trust and respect are lacking between partners, this nega-
tively impacts information-sharing (Gilling, 2005; Thwaites,
2013). Even if information-sharing is supported by legislative
and procedural frameworks, as shown in these case studies,
they are often perceived as complex and hindered by the
risk-averse nature of agencies. The primary concern is not
the sharing, but what happens with the information once it
is shared. This was especially evident in the CCR group
case study in which non-government agencies participated
in the partnership. The complexity of sharing information is
also raised in previous research. Informal factors such as
trust and respect between participants, clear guidance on
what can be shared (Disley et al., 2009; Van Staden et al.,
2011) and understanding the context and relevance of the
information (Meyer and Mazerolle, 2013) all impact on infor-
mation sharing.
Performance
Measuring performance was difficult. The partnerships in the
three case studies focused on preventing crime, which is dif-
ficult to measure. None of the case studies had quantifiable
performance measurements in place to gauge outcomes or
the effects of the partnerships on the crime they had part-
nered up to prevent and control. Indirect results were mea-
sured in the three case studies, because there was a lack of
reliable data and assessment to ascertain the effects of the
partnership. This difficulty in measuring performance was
perceived to affect consistent and long-term executive com-
mitment and resourcing in MAPPA. This coincides with the
findings by other scholars, who note that measuring perform-
ance is necessary to monitor the effectiveness of the partner-
ship and for continued funding (Loveday, 2005; Thwaites,
2013); however, this study extends these findings, in that
measuring performance is necessary to secure long-term
commitment from senior management (finding 5).
Structural contingency, institutional and public value theory
all assisted in reaching these findings. Implementing sustain-
able partnerships requires structural contingency factors,
particularly regarding information-sharing guidelines, amend-
ment of organisational structures such as decentralisation,
clear lines of communication, quantity of resourcing and alloca-
tion of dedicated time to partnership work. At the same time,
continued partnership engagement is impacted by institutional
factors that influence the acceptance of aims and objectives, the
willingness of staff to work in partnerships, trust, respect and
open communication, and a willingness to share information.
Finally, public value theory assists in understanding the
drivers required to conceptualise a partnership, the rationale
for joining the partnership and the impact of these partnerships’
aims and objectives on continued engagement.
Limitations
Although this research has addressed an important gap in
the literature by examining the key factors required to con-
ceptualise and maintain engagement in TPP partnerships,
there are some limitations. First, this research examined
three different partnerships across two jurisdictions involv-
ing two police agencies. Both jurisdictions involved large
police agencies with similar organisational structures. The
findings of this research might not be generalisable to part-
nerships with smaller police agencies. Second, this research
was conducted in highly developed countries and thus the
findings of this research may not be generalisable to non-
western countries.
Conclusion
There are benefits to using TPP partnerships to apply innova-
tive crime-reduction strategies. However, this study adds to
our understanding of this approach by examining the key
factors that are critical in the conceptualisation, formation
and maintenance of these partnerships. Conceptualisation,
formation and continued partnership engagement require,
as a minimum: (a) clear and achievable aims and objectives;
(b) commitment from senior management to allocate
adequate resources; (c) the allocation of appropriate staff to
ensure trust, respect and open communication; as well as
(d) information-sharing and (e) the development of a per-
formance measure. The presence of these five factors
should ensure a more effective multi-agency partnership
policing approach. However, these factors are interactive
and interdependent. The first key factor of clear and achiev-
able aims and objectives should be clearly outlined and com-
municated within the police agency and across the
partnership. This assists with the second key factor –obtain-
ing internal agency commitment and support as well as
improved engagement from partner agencies. Commitment
drives resources; without sufficientcommitmentadequate
resourcing is impacted negatively. Resourcing should be
adequate in terms of both quantity and quality. A partnership
without staff who have sufficient expertise, skill, the ‘right
attitude’and authority will not function optimally. Having
the ‘right staff’influences the third key factor of building
and maintaining trust, respect and open communication in
the partnership agencies and between the partnership and
police agency. Information-sharing, the fourth key factor,
even if supported by legislation and policies, is impacted
by trust, respect and open communication, affecting per-
formance. Measuring performance is the fifth key factor.
The performance of partnerships is often difficult to assess,
but quantifiable measurement should be attempted. If per-
formance cannot be measured this affects commitment and
resourcing long-term.
90 International Journal of Police Science & Management 27(1)
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.
ORCID iD
Margo van Felius https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2615-0210
Notes
1. As part of the research committee agreement, the identity of the
MAPPA jurisdiction participating in this study cannot be
disclosed.
2. Under the research agreement, the name of the territorial police
in the England and Wales jurisdiction cannot be disclosed.
3. At the time of this study the Probation Service was called the
National Probation Service. The original name is kept in this
study.
References
Addison L (2015) Building collaborative partnerships. In: Barton
H, Thompson S, Burgess S, et al. (eds) The Routledge
Handbook of Planning for Health and Well-Being. London,
UK: Routledge, 343–358.
Ashworth R, Boyne GA and Delbridge R (2009) Escape from the
iron cage? Organizational change and isomorphic pressures in
the public sector. Journal of Public Administration Research
and Theory 19(1): 165–187.
Benington J and Moore MH (2010) Public Value: Theory and
Practice. London, UK: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Bennett S, Mazerolle LG, Antrobus E, et al. (2017) Truancy inter-
vention reduces crime: results from a randomized field trial.
Justice Quarterly 35(2): 309–329.
Birken SA, Bunger AC, Powell BJ, et al. (2017) Organizational
theory for dissemination and implementation research.
Implementation Science 12(1): 1–15. DOI: 10.1186/s13012-
017-0592-x.
Bjelland HF and Vestby A (2017) It’s about using the full sanction
catalogue: on boundary negotiations in a multi-agency
organised crime investigation. Policing and Society 27(6):
655–670.
Bond BJ and Gittell JH (2010) Cross-agency coordination of
offender reentry: testing collaboration outcomes. Journal of
Criminal Justice 38(2): 118–129.
Braga AA and Weisburd DL (2019) Critic: problem-oriented
policing. In: Weisburd DL and Braga AA (eds) Police
Innovation; Contrasting Perspectives, 2nd edn. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press, 182–202.
Braun V and Clarke V (2006) Using thematic analysis in psych-
ology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2): 77–101.
DOI: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
Breckenridge J, Rees S, Valentine K, et al. (2015)
Meta-evaluation of existing interagency partnerships, collab-
oration, coordination and/or integrated interventions and
service responses to violence against women. Australia’s
National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety.
Retrieved from https://anrows-2019.s3.ap-southeast-2.amazo-
naws.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/19024627/
H4_3.2_IRME_WEB-270616-1.pdf
Bryan T and Doyle P (2005) Developing multi-agency public pro-
tection arrangements. In: Matravers A (ed.) Sex Offenders in
the Community: Managing and Reducing the Risk. Portland,
OR: Wilan Publishing, 189–206.
Bundred S (2006) Solutions to silos: joining up knowledge. Public
Money and Management 26(2): 125–130.
Cairns B and Harris M (2011) Local cross-sector partnerships.
Nonprofit Management and Leadership 21(3): 311–324.
Cheminais R (2009) Effective Multi-Agency Partnerships: Putting
Every Child Matters Into Practice. London: Sage.
Cherney A (2004) Crime prevention/community safety partner-
ships in action: Victorian experience. Current Issues in
Criminal Justice 15(3): 237–252.
Cooper M, Evans Y and Pybis J (2016) Interagency collaboration
in children and young people’s mental health: a systematic
review of outcomes, facilitating factors and inhibiting factors.
Child: Care, Health and Development 42(3): 325–342.
Crawford A and Evans K (2012) Crime prevention and commu-
nity safety. In: Maguire ER, Morgan R and Reiner R (eds)
The Oxford Handbook of Criminology, 5th edn. Oxford,UK:
Oxford University Press, 769–805.
Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland (2014) Policing and
community safety partnerships; A review of governance, deliv-
ery and outcomes. Retrieved from https://www.cjini.org/getat-
tachment/aacda6ac-11fa-4d0a-944a-4ba2cd4eed28/Police-and-
Community-Safety-Partnerships.aspx (accessed 1 June 2021).
Diamond A, Charles C and Allen T (2004) Domestic violence and
crime and disorder reduction partnerships: Findings from a
self-completion questionnaire. Home Office Online Research
Report No 56/04. London, UK: Home Office.
Disley E, Ling T, Rubin J, et al. (2009) Tackling violent crime:
Findings from regional workshops with 12 Crime and
Disorder Reduction Partnerships. Retrieved from Rand
Corporation website: https://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_re-
ports/TR698.html (accessed 12 August 2022).
Donaldson L (1995) American Anti-Management Theories of
Organization: A Critique of Paradigm Proliferation (Vol.
25). Cambridge University Press.
Donaldson L (2001) The Contingency Theory of Organizations.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Eck JE (2019) Why problem-oriented policing. In: Weisburd DL
and Braga AA (eds) Police Innovation; Contrasting
van Felius et al. 91
Perspectives. 2nd edn. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press, 165–181.
Eck JE and Spelman W (1987) Problem-Solving: Problem-
Oriented Policing in Newport News. Washington, DC: Police
Executive Research Forum. Retrieved from https://www.ojp.-
gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/111964NCJRS.pdf
Ferrandino JA (2014) An integrated theory for the practical appli-
cation of “governance-based policing”.An International
Journal of Police Strategies and Management 37(1): 52–69.
DOI: 10.1108/pijpsm-06-2012-0050.
Gilling D (2005) Partnership and crime prevention. In: Tilley N
(ed.) Handbook of Crime Prevention and Community Safety.
Cullompton, UK: Willan, 734–756.
Gittell JA (2011) Relational Coordination: Guidelines for Theory,
Measurement and Analysis. Waltham, MA: Brandeis
University.
Goldstein H (2003) On further developing problem-oriented
policing; the most critical need, the major impediments, and
a proposal. Crime Prevention Studies 15: 13–48.
Grone O and Garcia-Barbero M (2001) Integrated care: a pos-
ition paper of the WHO European Office for Integrated
Health Care Services. International Journal of Integrated
Care 1(e21): e21.
Homel P and Brown R (2017) Implementation: Partnership and
leverage in crime prevention. In: Tilley N and Sidebottom A
(eds) Handbook of Crime Prevention and Community Safety,
2nd edn. London, UK: Routledge, 536–559.
Hoshino T and Kamada T (2020) Third-party policing approaches
against organized crime: An evaluation of the Yakuza
Exclusion Ordinances. Journal of Quantitative Criminology.
DOI: 10.1007/s10940-020-09466-6.
Houghton C, Murphy K, Shaw D, et al. (2015) Qualitative case
study data analysis: An example from practice. Nurse
Researcher 22(5): 8–12. DOI: 10.7748/nr.22.5.8.e1307.
Huey L (2008) ‘When it comes to violence in my place, I am the
police!’Exploring the policing functions of service providers
in Edinburgh’s Cowgate and Grassmarket. Policing and
Society 18(3): 207–224.
Huisman W and Kleemans ER (2014) The challenges of fighting
sex trafficking in the legalized prostitution market of the
Netherlands. Crime, Law and Social Change 61(2): 215–
228. DOI: 10.1007/s10611-013-9512-4.
Jacobs K, Burke T, Green M, et al. (2007) Making sense of
partnerships: a study of police and housing department
collaboration for tackling drug and related problems on
public housing estates. Retrieved from University of
Tasmania website: http://eprints.utas.edu.au/2575/1/
Monograph_26_Making_sense_of_partnerships.pdf
Kleemans ER and Huisman W (2015) Multi-agency approaches in
‘criminogenic’settings: the case of the Amsterdam Red Light
District. Crime, Law and Social Change 64(4-5): 247–261.
Koberg CS and Ungson GR (2016) The effects of environmental
uncertainty and dependence on organizational structure and
performance: a comparative study. Journal of Management
13(4): 725–737.
Krogh AH (2017) Preventing crime together: The promising per-
spectives and complicated task of promoting collaborative
crime prevention in Denmark. PhD Thesis, Roskilde University,
Denmark.
Lander SD (2008) Policing partnerships: An investigation into the
police response to partnership working in the wake of the 1998
Crime and Disorder act. PhD Thesis, University of Plymouth,
UK.
Laycock GK (2005) Deciding what to do. In: Tilley N (ed.)
Handbook of Crime Prevention and Community Safety.
Cullompton, UK: Willan, 674–698.
Loveday B (2005) Police and community justice in partnership. In:
Winstone J and Pakes F (eds) Community Justice: Issues for
Probation and Criminal Justice. Cullompton, UK: Willian
Publishing, 72–90.
Lum C, Koper CS and Telep CW (2020) The evidence-based
policing matrix. Geroge Mason University Center for
Evidence-Based Crime Policy. Available at: http://cebcp.org/
evidence-based-policing/the-matrix/
Maguire ER (1997) Structural change in large municipal police orga-
nizations during the community policing era. Justice Quarterly
14(3): 547–576. DOI: 10.1080/07418829700093471.
Mazerolle LG and Ransley JA (2006) Third-Party Policing.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Mazerolle LG and Ransley JA (2019) The case for third-party
policing. In: Weisburd DL and Braga AA (eds) Policing
Innovation: Contrasting Perspectives. 2nd edn. Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press, 251–272.
Meyer JW and Rowan B (1977) Institutionalized organizations:
Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal
of Sociology 83(2): 340–363. DOI: 10.1086/226550.
Meyer S and Mazerolle LG (2013) Police-led partnership
responses to high-risk youths and their families: challenges
associated with forming successful and sustainable partner-
ships. Policing and Society 24(2): 242–260.
Miles MB, Huberman AM, Huberman MA, et al. (1994)
Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Sage.
Ministry of Justice National Offender Management Service (2018)
MAPPA Guidance 2018 Version 4.3. Retrieved from https://
www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/offenders/mappa/mappa-guid-
ance-2012-part1.pdf
Ministry of Justice, National Offender Management Service, and
HM Prison Service (2018) MAPPA Guidance 2018 Version
4.3. Retrieved from https://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/
offenders/mappa/mappa-guidance-2017.pdf
Mintzberg H (1983) Structure in Fives: Designing Effective
Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Moore MH (1995) Creating Public Value: Strategic Management
in Government. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Moore MH (2013) Recognizing Public Value. Harvard University
Press.
92 International Journal of Police Science & Management 27(1)
Morse JM (1994) “Emerging from the data”: The cognitive pro-
cesses of analysis in qualitative inquiry. In Morse JM
(ed.) Critical Issues in Qualitative Research Methods.
Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 23–46.
National Offender Management Service (2016) Public Protection
Manual 2016 Edition. Retrieved from https://assets.pu-
blishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/
attachment_data/file/911340/psi-18-2016-pi-17-2016-public-
protection-manual.pdf
Ransley JA, Mazerolle LG, Manning M, et al. (2011) Reducing the
methamphetamine problem in Australia: Evaluating innova-
tive partnerships between police, pharmacies and other third
parties (NDLERF monograph series no. 39). Retrieved from
Australian Institute of Criminology website: https://www.aic.-
gov.au/publications/ndlerfmonograph/ndlerfmonograh39
Rosenbaum DP (2002) Evaluating multi-agency anti-crime part-
nerships: theory, design, and measurement issues. Crime
Prevention Studies 14: 171–225. Retrieved from Arizone
State University Center for Problem-Oreinted Policing
website: http://www.popcenter.org/library/crimeprevention/
volume_14/06-Rosenbaum.pdf
Sadd S and Grinc R (1994) Innovative neighbourhood oriented
policing: an evaluation of community policing programs in
eight cities. In: Rosenbaum D (ed.) The Challenge of
Community Policing: Testing The Promises. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage, 27–52.
Scheider MC, Chapman R and Schapiro A (2009) Towards the
unification of policing innovations under community policing.
Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and
Management 32(4): 694–718. DOI: 10.1108/13639510911
000777.
Scott MS (2005) Shifting and sharing responsibility to address
public safety problems. In: Tilley N (ed.) Handbook of
Crime Prevention and Community Safety. Cullompton, UK:
Willan, 385–409.
Scott WR (2004) Reflections on a half-century of organizational
sociology. Annual Review of Sociology 30(1): 1–21. DOI:
10.1146/annurev.soc.30.012703.110644.
Shaftoe H (2004) Crime control models and frameworks. In:
Shaftoe H (ed.) Crime Prevention: Facts, Fallacies and the
Future. London: Macmillan Education, 98–116.
Skidmore P (2006) Public value and policing. Available at: https://
www.politieacademie.nl/kennisenonderzoek/kennis/mediathe
ek/PDF/82344.pdf.
Skogan WG (2008) An overview of community policing: Origins,
concepts, and implementation. In: Williamson T (ed.) The
Handbook of Knowledge-Based Policing: Current Conceptions
and Future Directions. Chichester, UK: Wiley, 43–57.
Skogan WG (2019) Advocate: community policing. In: Weisburd
DL and Braga AA (eds) Police Innovation; Contrasting
Perspectives, 2nd edn. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press, 27–44.
Sloper P (2004) Facilitators and barriers for co-ordinated multi-
agency services. Child: Care, Health and Development 30(6):
571–580.
Smith JJ (2019) To adopt or not to adopt: Contextualizing police
body-worn cameras through structural contingency and institu-
tional theoretical perspectives. Criminal Justice Review 44(3):
369–385. DOI: 10.1177/0734016819847267.
Telep CW and Weisburd D (2016) Policing. In: Weisburd D,
Farrington DP and Gill C (eds) What Works in Crime
Prevention and Rehabilitation: Lessons from Systematic
Reviews. New York: Springer, 137–168.
Thom B, Herring R, Bayley M, et al. (2013) Partnerships: survey
interviewees’perceptions of inter-professional collaboration to
address alcohol-related harms in England. Critical Public
Health 23(1): 62–76.
Thwaites CJ (2013). Increasing the effectiveness and impact of
community safety partnerships in two London boroughs:
practitioners’perspectives. PhD Thesis, University of
Portsmouth, UK.
van Felius M (2022) Improving the uptake of multi-agency and
third-party policing partnerships: facilitators, barriers and the
role of legal levers. PhD Thesis, Griffith University, Australia.
van Felius M, Bates L, Ransley JA, et al. (2023) Engaging non-
policing partners to prevent or respond to crime. Policing
and Society 33(6): 1–15. DOI: 10.1080/10439463.2023.
2189251.
Van Staden L, Leahy-Harland S and Gottschalk E (2011) Tackling
organised crime through a partnership approach: A process
evaluation (Research Report 56). U.S. Department of Justice.
Retrieved from U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice
Programs website: https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/
abstracts/tackling-organised-crime-through-partnership-
approach-local-level (accessed 2 June 2022).
van Steden R (2023) Theorising and illustrating the collaborative
practices of plural policing: an analysis of three cases in The
Netherlands and Belgium. International Journal of
Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice 47(1): 21–36.
Webster J, Mazerolle P, Ransley JA, et al. (2018) Disrupting domes-
tic ‘ice’production: deterring drug runners with a third-party
policing intervention. Policing and Society 28(9): 1025–1037.
Williams I (2009) Offender health and social care: a review of the
evidence on inter-agency collaboration. Health Social Care
Community 17(6): 573–580.
Wolff RS (2018) Under construction: Exploring partnership in
policing as a contextualized, organization-level approach.
Doctoral thesis, Northeastern University. Retrieved from
https://repository.library.northeastern.edu/files/neu:m 044c6516
Worden RE and Mclean SJ (2017) Mirage of Police Reform.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Yakeley J and Taylor R (2018) Multi-agency public protection
arrangements (MAPPA): Can we work with them?. In:
Containment in the Community London. London, UK, 161–185.
van Felius et al. 93
Yin RK (2014) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 5th
edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Zhao J, Ren L and Lovrich NP (2010) Police organizational struc-
tures during the 1990s: an application of contingency theory.
Police Quarterly 13(2): 209–232.
Author biographies
Margo van Felius is a lecturer in the School of Criminology and
Criminal Justice and Griffith Criminology Institute at Griffith
University. Since leaving her role as a detective with the
Queensland Police Service, she has worked on a variety of crim-
inal justice projects in the Institute and School. Margo has a
PhD in the area of engaging non-policing partners in multi-agency
and third-party policing partnerships.
Julianne Webster is a policy director with the Queensland Police
Service where she has delivered a broad range of policing
research, strategic intelligence, analytics and policy products.
She spent 9 years in academia and has published her research in
a range of peer-reviewed international journals including in the
area of illicit drugs policing partnerships.
Lyndel Bates is an associate professor with the School of
Criminology and Criminal Justice and Griffith Criminology
Institute at Griffith University. She is an award winning researcher
in the area of road safety, road policing and young drivers. Lyndel
has published her research in a range of international peer-
reviewed journals.
Janet Ransley is a former director of the Griffith Criminology
Institute at Griffith University and leads the Policing and
Security research group. Her research focuses on crime harm,
policing, integrity and criminal justice policy, with special inter-
ests in policing partnerships and third-party policing, policing
for crime and harm prevention, the treatment of Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander peoples in the justice system, and integrity
in criminal justice, legal and political systems and practices.
Peter Martin APM is a professor of practice with the School of
Criminology and Criminal Justice and Griffith Criminology
Institute at Griffith University. Prior to joining Griffith
University, he was the Commissioner of Queensland Corrective
Services, Australia and former Deputy Commissioner,
Queensland Police Service, Australia.
94 International Journal of Police Science & Management 27(1)
