Lisp toolkit powerpoint#8
1 like281 views
This document discusses an approach called Locally Identified Solutions and Practices (LISP) for neighborhood policing. LISP is an 8-step process that emphasizes intensive community engagement to better understand problems from different perspectives and co-produce solutions. It involves gathering information, identifying community assets, and analyzing problems in a way that avoids prematurely jumping to solutions or simplistic explanations. Key aspects of LISP include using techniques like "rich pictures" to map how various stakeholders perceive issues, forming working groups of community members and agencies to develop solutions, and establishing accountability for interventions. The goal is to take a more collaborative, asset-based approach versus a traditional deficit or problem-oriented model.
![Crisis in NHP
• lack of clarity of thought and vocabulary at all levels may be leading to some
tokenistic and unproductive activity
• most of it would be better described as consultation than engagement or
participation.
• transfer of power and decision-making to citizens and communities has either not
been fully grasped, or is being resisted
• roles for citizens are passive or limited in scope
• “mission drift” of engagement resources is taking place.
• a vision of pleasing [is common], rather than involving, citizens
• facilitated and strengthened …[a} type of symbolic and tokenistic representation
[from easy-to-reach people].
• the police service has developed an ethos of customer service, in which people are
seen as consumers of a service
• ignoring the needs and opportunities of many people and other models are
needed to harness the participation of individuals who are not affiliated in any
conventional way
• lack of recognition of informal policing carried out by citizens and institutions in
the course of their daily lives
90
Simmonds, D. (2015) Why is the clutch slipping? Developing clarity, capacity and
culture for Citizen and Community Engagement.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/lisptoolkitpowerpoint8-180428145451/85/Lisp-toolkit-powerpoint-8-90-320.jpg)
Lisp toolkit powerpoint#8
- 1. Locally Identified Solutions and Practices (LISP) Tim Curtis March 2018 1
- 2. WHY? What are the pressures on neighbourhood policing? 2
- 3. The context • “engagement and consultation with their communities was predominately focused on public meetings, local priorities were based on the concerns of a small and unrepresentative part of the community, and some hard-to-reach groups in these areas reported that neighbourhood teams did not engage with them” • Myhill, A (2006/12) Community engagement in Policing; Lessons from the literature. National Policing Improvement Agency 3
- 4. Neighbourhood policing is a ‘complex problem’ • Recognised by policy makers, the PCC and Chief Constable • A category of problems that are ‘resistant’ to the National Decision Model approach • Can’t agree on what the problem is, let alone what the solutions should be • Cannot be solved by projects, committees or joint working by professionals • Needs to be co-produced ‘with’ communities rather than solved by experts ‘on behalf’ of communities • The police cannot own the solution but can organise the community • Requires ‘Intensive Engagement’ with communities to understand the problem better Ackoff, Russell, "Systems, Messes, and Interactive Planning" Portions of Chapters I and 2 of Redesigning the Future. New York/London: Wiley, 1974.
- 5. Problems with current approach • Police only see a part of the problem • Other agencies and the residents are seen as a problem, rather than part of the solution • The Police like to solve problems • The Police can’t solve all of the problems that influence their performance • The Police spends a lot of resource on repeats of ASB and SAC 5
- 6. ‘Hard’ problem analysis- the standard approach 6
- 7. Early days- SARA • Scanning - spotting problems using knowledge, basic data and electronic maps; • Analysis - using hunches and IT to dig deeper into problems’ characteristics and causes; • Response - working with the community, where necessary and possible, to devise a solution; and • Assessment - looking back to see if the solution worked and what lessons can be learned 7
- 8. 8
- 11. Instead of forcing change, we need to ‘motivate’ change 11
- 12. Challenges • How to DO problem-oriented policing better • How to integrate it into the police systems and methodologies • Shifting from a “strategy that could only be applied short-term, in certain circumstances and to deal with particular issues.” to • Normal business • Have clear lines of responsibility & accountability in and outside Police through a (shared) agreement – LISP • Shift from ‘problems’ to ‘solutions & practices’ 12
- 13. LISP JOURNEY gather information & intelligence 13
- 14. An 8 step process 14 Intensive Engagement- Locally Identified Solutions and Practices (LISP)- 8 step toolkit LISP step 1 Clarify the justification for commencing Intensive Engagement -scan what is known about the neighbourhood. What does crime and other data tell us? What are the issues identified? What is the evidence for this? Is there an evidence base for adopting as a location? LISP step 2 What community assets already exist in the location? What networks and associations are there? What are the vulnerabilities are in the area? (what makes this area already mostly successful?) LISP step 3 Who shares the problem? Stakeholders & networks Identify who are directly involved in this issue? (individuals, agencies, businesses, residents etc). How are all people/ agencies involved associated? LISP step 4 Develop Problem Rich Pictures – Engage with community members to establish how all stakeholders see the problem? Where do the issues arise? What parts of the neighbourhood are successful? Map the results LISP step 5 Form a working group made up of stakeholders who are engaged and able to make changes LISP step 6 Develop Solution Rich Pictures –Engage the working group to identify what the solutions look like from the stakeholders perspective? How can they be achieved? What would the neighbourhood look like if all the issues were solved? LISP step 7 Agree Interventions & Evaluation (Who is doing what, when, how, by when, what does success look like?) LISP step 8 Establish escalation processes with stakeholders, authorities and agencies- what will make the interventions fails? What are you going to do about it to prevent that happening? Who will you need to approach to unblock barriers to progress?
- 16. Benefits for communities • Solutions focussed not problem- oriented • Gathering different perspectives from all types of citizen • Helping citizens to see that different people see problems differently • Focusses on capabilities and assets, not deficit and blame • Allows (hard to hear) residents to speak on their own terms 16
- 17. Benefits for the police • Demonstrates and legitimates what you already do • Creates an evidence base for you to influence behaviour & police strategy/resourcing • A clear basis of action in partnership with other statutory agencies • Doesn’t require ‘resources’ or funding • Can be done ‘on the fly’ 17
- 18. TASK 1: RAPID APPRAISAL first engagement with a neighbourhood ‘good enough’ data informal engagement 18 Time for the walkabout
- 19. Contexts and methods • Visibility & Street walking • Reassurance visist • Victim support • Community meetings • Get the residents – talking to you – explaining what they see ‘I’m not sure I understand fully, can you draw that?’ – doing rich pictures – remember grass roots, not ‘tips’ 19
- 20. Essential distinction • ‘Grass-tips’ - usual suspects/’professional’ community activists – Consultees are only partly connected to their community and not well informed about community politics, (or not demonstrated) or • ‘Grass-roots’- unusual suspects – Consultees are not well informed about the interests of the organisation consulting – Or might be ambivalent about the Police 20 Make a list of people you know in each category
- 21. WALKABOUT • Be as observant as possible- people, places and processes • Ask questions of your guide- what is going on? • You will be expected to recall your observations • You will be looking for non-police problems • And identify solutions 21
- 22. 22 Working out a ‘perspectives’ map
- 23. 23
- 24. 24
- 25. 25
- 26. 26
- 27. 27
- 28. 28
- 29. 29
- 30. EXERCISE: On the flipchart paper in front of you, draw a picture of ‘what you saw’ 30
- 31. TASK 2: DEVELOP NETWORKS getting to the grassroots finding capable & connected people 31
- 32. Social Capital- networks • How many acquaintances does an individual have? • Who knows who? • How do they solve problems? • Who do they go to get problems solved? Rough Guide to Social Capital: How do you get a problem solved with no money?32
- 34. EXERCISE: draw over your original rich picture, the people that you would expect to find in this locality 34
- 35. TASK 3: ASSETS AND CAPABILITIES DOES YOUR RP LOOK A BIT THIS?......... addressing the deficit model 35
- 37. Traditional development vs ABCD • Needs, deficiencies, problems • Negative mental map • Client mentality • Resources go to social service agencies • Undermines local leadership • Dependency • Separates community • Outside in • Capacities, assets, dreams, strengths • Optimistic mental map • Citizen participation • Minimizes bureaucracy, resources to community • Builds local leadership and confidence • Empowerment • Builds connections • Inside out 37 Discovering Community Power: A Guide to Mobilizing Local Assets and Your Organization’s Capacity by John P. Kretzmann and John L. McKnight, with Sarah Dobrowolski and Deborah Puntenney (2005).
- 38. Categories of Assets • Individuals – Skills, talents, capacities – Dreams, visions • Associations – Families, friends, groups, teams • Institutions – Businesses, schools, libraries, police, fire, non- profits • Physical environment – Greenspaces, transportation • Local economy 38
- 39. A B C D Processes • Map of community’s assets – Rich picture format • Individuals mobilize, contribute gifts, talents • Internal connections – Develop a vision, “common good” – Define and solve problems – Multiple pathways for leadership • External connections – Reinforce internal strengths – Appropriate to community’s vision • It is a guide for relationship building, not just data. • Knowing others in your community that have similar interests allows groups to gather for a common cause 39
- 41. TASK 4: ANALYSE COMPLEX ISSUES avoiding jumping to solutions understanding the problem better solving the right problems 41
- 43. 43 Crimes are not always committed by criminals
- 44. 44 Crime is often a symptom of other problems
- 45. Solving the right problems 45
- 46. 46 What we need is to understand how different stakeholders ‘see’ the problem in the first place and appreciate how they go about problem solving
- 47. Chapter 1 of Dialogue Mapping: Building Shared Understanding of Wicked Problems, by Jeff Conklin, Ph.D., Wiley, October 2006. 47 “Some problems are so complex that you have to be highly intelligent and well informed just to be undecided about them.” Lawrence J Peter
- 48. Wicked Problems • The solution depends on how the problem is framed and vice- versa (i.e., the problem definition depends on the solution) • Stakeholders have radically different world views and different frames for understanding the problem. • The constraints that the problem is subject to and the resources needed to solve it change over time. • The problem is never solved definitively. • You don’t have the right to get it wrong 48
- 49. Avoid taming the problem • Simplistic causes “it’s all because…..” • Tackle a small part of the real problem • End of a project means the problem has been ‘fixed’ • Solution is definitely right or wrong. • Problem is just like one that we have seen before. • Solutions can be tried and abandoned. 49
- 50. ENRICHING OUR PERSPECTIVES use ‘rich pictures’ (RP) to understanding different worldviews use RP as an engagement tool use RP as a problem analysis tool 50 This is NOT the only community engagement method It is my favourite It works for me most of the time I teach it to my students
- 51. 51 Metaphorical language is superior to literal language because it captures experience and emotions better and because it can communicate meaning in complex, ambiguous situations where literal language is inadequate (Palmer & Dunford, 1996 p. 694).
- 52. What to put in a rich picture • People, places, processes, perspectives – Structure, e.g. • departmental or organisation boundaries, • geographical considerations, • people and institutions. – Process - activities, information or material flows. – Climate - the relationship between structure and process, and any associated problems. – ‘Soft facts’ - concerns, conflicts, views. – Environment - external interested bodies, factors affecting the organisation. 52
- 53. Hints and tips • Start with a person in the middle • Think about ‘boundaries’ – The limits of your ‘system of interest’ – External factors: that affect your system, but is not affected by changes inside your system • Think geographically – map emotions and reactions in specific locations – map known data on the same RP 53
- 54. 54
- 56. TASK 5: IDENTIFY SOLUTIONS & PRACTICES behaviours and practices as well as projects 56
- 57. What does success look like? • For you? • For the victims? • For the perpetrators? • For the other stakeholders? 57
- 58. Getting agreement 58 SOLUTIONS – One off events, projects or facilities What? Why? (What is the intend effect?) With whom? How? By when? Measures of success PRACTICES – ongoing behaviours or activities to sustain success What? Why? (What is the intend effect?) With whom? How? By when? Measures of success
- 60. Evaluation & Escalation • Evaluation – What factors will indicate ongoing success? • i.e. How many crime incidents are being prevented – How are they to be measured? • Escalation – When, how or why should this LISP be escalated up the Police for action at a higher level? – When, how or why should this LISP be escalated outside the working group for action? 60
- 61. CASE STUDIES Asian Gold Burglaries
- 68. Street Drinking & Drug Abuse
- 77. TEAM WORK
- 81. Case Study 81
- 82. SPENCER HAVEN
- 83. 83 HO Group HO Classification CountCrim e BURGLARY DWELLING ATTEMPTED BURGLARY IN A DWELLING 4 BURGLARY DWELLING BURGLARY IN A DWELLING 5 BURGLARY OTHER BURGLARY IN A BUILDING (NOT DWELLING) 1 CRIMINAL DAMAGE CRIM DAMAGE TO DWELLINGS 1 CRIMINAL DAMAGE CRIMINAL DAMAGE TO VEHS 6 OTHER OFFENCES ROWDY/INCONSIDERATE BEHAVIOUR 20 TOTAL 37 The results indicate the amount of crime that occurred over a two year period. Nearly all those burglaries occurred in the last 6 months of 2013.
- 84. 84 Spencer Haven is a geographical cluster of Sheltered Housing, where vulnerable people live. This includes the elderly, hard of hearing or deaf, people with learning difficulties or mental health problems. Some of these residents are house bound or suffer with dementia/ Alzheimer’s. Some of these have fallen victim to those Burglaries.
- 85. 85 Their issues How we saw the problem Putting the mind maps next to each other there were some clear similarities, which helped us to see how we might be able to tackle not only the crime aspect that had hit the location, but some of the issues raised around communication as well.
- 86. Before the multi agency work After By cutting back the bushes trimming the tree’s provided better visibility, a sense of belonging
- 87. After a consultation with the deaf community these cards were designed, and over 2000 have been distributed. From the same consultation training on dealing with the Deaf, Autism and those with speak impediments, was requested to be included. Training has since been provided on best practise on communication and Understanding, which was provided by the charities themselves, in what is known as PVP training.
- 88. To improve security each home was provided with some security devises, which were provide by all stakeholders. Such as sticker, leaflets, door and window alarms, door chains and mirrors, purse bells, key safes, and better security front and rear doors, repaired garden fencing and Smartwater. These measures were welcomed as some had been victims more than once.
- 89. 89 Finally we are pushing to get the street lights back on, to increase visibility which and act as a deterrent and improve safety. By closing off a few unnecessary boundary entrances would improve security and not leave the area totally exposed as a rat run for anyone. With the majority of residents in the SPENCER HAVEN being vulnerable and often deemed as easy targets, a large number of reports of stranger /strangers going round to their homes, often being harassed, or pressured into having expensive, unnecessary work carried out on their homes. Reports of being bullied into buying something, or to hand over bank details for direct debits by charities. These often left them feeling distressed and confused. Residences were therefore encouraged to display a “NO COLD CALLING” sticker. The purpose of these sticker is to make “Cold calling doorstep traders” aware that they were not welcome, and to remind the householders to report them to the police and trading standards. To help end the heartache and financial loss to the victim caused by their unscrupulous behaviour towards the elderly and vulnerable. Boundary “NO COLD CALLING ZONE” signs were put up to remind traders they would not be welcomed.
- 90. Crisis in NHP • lack of clarity of thought and vocabulary at all levels may be leading to some tokenistic and unproductive activity • most of it would be better described as consultation than engagement or participation. • transfer of power and decision-making to citizens and communities has either not been fully grasped, or is being resisted • roles for citizens are passive or limited in scope • “mission drift” of engagement resources is taking place. • a vision of pleasing [is common], rather than involving, citizens • facilitated and strengthened …[a} type of symbolic and tokenistic representation [from easy-to-reach people]. • the police service has developed an ethos of customer service, in which people are seen as consumers of a service • ignoring the needs and opportunities of many people and other models are needed to harness the participation of individuals who are not affiliated in any conventional way • lack of recognition of informal policing carried out by citizens and institutions in the course of their daily lives 90 Simmonds, D. (2015) Why is the clutch slipping? Developing clarity, capacity and culture for Citizen and Community Engagement.
- 91. Initial response • PCSOs operating in complex (messy) social environments – Soft Systems Methodology specifically designed for this • Police being measured on performance where solutions owned by non-Police actors – Community organising to get other working to deliver Police outcomes • Long tradition of expecting Police to solve everything – Weekly ‘you said, we did’ closed loop cycle – Required developing ‘self-efficacy’ in neighbourhoods 91
- 92. Principles • Focussed, intensive and sustained dialogue with refreshed community representatives, going beyond the ‘usual suspects’ • Supporting the self-efficacy of the community to contribute to safer communities • Developing a dialogue rather the just informing and reassuring • Policing the boundaries of what is genuinely a policing issue, and sharing the burden with other parties • Providing a backdrop of intelligence and engaged community support for operations, projects and other reactive work 92
- 93. An 8 step process 93 Intensive Engagement- Locally Identified Solutions and Practices (LISP)- 8 step toolkit LISP step 1 Clarify the justification for commencing Intensive Engagement -scan what is known about the neighbourhood. What does crime and other data tell us? What are the issues identified? What is the evidence for this? Is there an evidence base for adopting as a location? LISP step 2 What community assets already exist in the location? What networks and associations are there? What are the vulnerabilities are in the area? (what makes this area already mostly successful?) LISP step 3 Who shares the problem? Stakeholders & networks Identify who are directly involved in this issue? (individuals, agencies, businesses, residents etc). How are all people/ agencies involved associated? LISP step 4 Develop Problem Rich Pictures – Engage with community members to establish how all stakeholders see the problem? Where do the issues arise? What parts of the neighbourhood are successful? Map the results LISP step 5 Form a working group made up of stakeholders who are engaged and able to make changes LISP step 6 Develop Solution Rich Pictures –Engage the working group to identify what the solutions look like from the stakeholders perspective? How can they be achieved? What would the neighbourhood look like if all the issues were solved? LISP step 7 Agree Interventions & Evaluation (Who is doing what, when, how, by when, what does success look like?) LISP step 8 Establish escalation processes with stakeholders, authorities and agencies- what will make the interventions fails? What are you going to do about it to prevent that happening? Who will you need to approach to unblock barriers to progress?
- 94. 94 Principles of Quality LISPing Good Poor 1. Breadth and depth of engagement on a few localities 1. Large numbers of LISPS not focussed on complex issues 2. Refreshed community contacts of capable people 2. Usual suspects, professional consultees, agency representatives 3. Engage and active contacts 3. Passive and dependent contacts 4. Evidence of co-solving of problems 4. Limited to informing and reassuring 5. Group based analysis of problems to increase community ‘buy-in’ 5. Solo ‘I know how to sort this’ process, telling people what to do 6. Challenging apathy and inactivity 6. Supporting status quo or getting frustrated and moving too quickly 7. Sustained activity 7. Focus on projects and one-off events 8. Developing teams of teams to affect behaviour of hundreds of people 8. Delivering interventions to a few tens of people 9. Clear escalation pathways 9. Inertia or barriers not addressed 10. Partner agencies held accountable 10. Police doing it all
- 95. 95 Different contexts = different neighbourhoods Different outcomes = different success factors Same process and same mechanisms every time
- 96. Contexts 96 C1 Vulnerable locality or area of significant multiple deprivation, and C2 Long-term chronic crime patterns C3 Complex, publicly contested crime types inc ASB, SAC
- 97. Mechanisms 1 97 No. Proposed Mechanism Features of LISP based Intensive Engagement Neighbourhood Policing Evidence: What works M 1 In-depth understanding of people, place and problems In-depth investigation of the police crime problem in the context of the other problems experienced in the locality M2 Full and consistent application of interventions The training (and subsequent evaluation of the quality of LISP work), and standard proforma M3 Sufficient ‘dose’ of intensive engagement with sufficient time Success, i.e. depth of understanding of the problem and success of the interventions is determined by the working group rather than police timeframes M4 Proactive contact Deliberate choices are made at the screening stage about the importance of the locality to policing outcomes. Process requires identification of all potential stakeholder groups, including hard to reach. M5 A group of residents Where community organisations appropriate to the problems don’t exist, the LISP process creates the social capital and networks to allow this to happen M6 Joint problem solving Co-production of the problem analysis and solving stages is central
- 98. Mechanisms 2 98 What is promising M7 Highly connected individuals The LISP working group is made up of ‘highly connected and highly capable people’ M8 Support is won Working group members elicit a clearly understood self-interest that underpins expected successes to secure and ‘win’ support M9 Attuned to community dynamics The rich picturing processes develop a nuanced and empathetic understanding of the community and the issues and tensions within it. M10 Tacit skills Training, with the aid of the publicly available handbook, briefings to senior officers and a process of identifying the best implementations of LISP and mentoring of officers ensure that police skills are embedded and propagated across the force M11 Not reliant on multi-agency delivery Where statutory partners are actively engaged, LISP provides a clear and discrete method for limited involvement. Where statutory agencies are not engaged, LISP provides a clear evidence base for Police and community to hold statutory agencies to account.
- 99. Mechanisms 3 99 Pawson’s Public Policy ‘Hidden’ Mechanisms Mechanism Ingredients in LISP Intensive Engagement M13 Recruit the stakeholders with care Looking for the most highly connected, capable, and motivated: whose self-interest and motivation to contribute to public safety is understood M14 Create expectations of change Intensive Engagement is oriented towards collaboratively deciding on what change is needed, to design Solutions & Practices M15 Demand effort from stakeholders The LISP approach is designed to flip the Police response from ‘what can we do?’ to ‘What solutions have you got?’ for the Police. M15 Offer encouragement and feedback The process is designed to recognise existing assets and capabilities that the community, with the help of the Police, that can be enhanced to support Police outcomes (Kretzmann and McKnight, 1993) M17 Build trust and resilience Long-term, locally based relationships are key to developing mature LISP informed interventions M18 Make accommodations for set-backs The embedding of the Motivational Interviewing ‘stages of change model’ (Prochaska and DiClemente, 1994; Rollnick and Miller, 1995; Miller and Rollnick, 2012) accounts for set-backs within the process of engagement M19 Explain the theory of change The theory of change for LISP is described as “collaboratively designed solutions and co-produced practices are more robust than short-term projects and limited engagement” M20 Share execution and control of the intervention The whole LISP model is built on recruiting capable and connected decision-makers and resources to the support of Police outcomes, and an attempt to ‘loosen the reins’ of Police controlled design and implementation M21 Ensure onward external continuation The purpose of the community designing and delivering the interventions that are unique to a locality is to ensure that the Police have a ‘step-back and sustain’ (rather than an exit) strategy freeing resource up to tackle other localities and
- 100. Mechanisms 4 100 Additional insights from case study Mechanism Ingredients in LISP Intensive Engagement M22 Stable team Inspectors ought to be clear about the resource implications of choosing to undertake a LISP, in terms of long- term commitment (against a backdrop of ‘weeks of action’ and three month long ‘operations’). Outcomes based resource planning is required within LISPs rather than activity based. Sergeants need to decide with Inspectors on the justification to LISP. The decision was made by the PCSOs to undertake the LISP, but in this, the decision was aligned to the sergeants’ interests in managing the high profile performance issues. This was sustained through a change of sergeant, but only after significant progress had been made on the LISP process. The long-term stability of the PCSOs allowed significant connections to a marginalised and hard-to-reach community to be made within the attention span of the senior officers. M23 Responsibilisation This LISP hinged around a form of responsibilisation, a quid pro quo where the attention of the police shifted from being visible through patrols to being the distributor of socially valuable goods- the smartwater etc. Rather than this being devalued though being given away, the LISP established a ‘transaction value’ – being required to complete the 6 points of action before receiving enhanced ‘attention’ through the distribution of freebies and receiving funding from the PCC. M24 A mix of ‘contingent’ interventions The PCSO was clear that a number of different strategies, that could be introduced at different times, and with drawn if they don’t work, would strengthen the initiative. The six point action plan developed in the Asian Gold burglaries case is insufficient here, and over 20 different initiatives are used, including those that are existing successful practices M25 Perspective taking A cognitive shift required to think of all the different stakeholders in a given problem situation, and systematically think through their interest and investment in the status quo in that context. The needs to be a deliberate attempt to this, at the point of evaluating the potential stakeholder group. The interests (and perhaps importantly, the self-interest) of the stakeholders need to be considered, as does the lived experience of those stakeholders (empathy). M26 Hidden community Attention should be paid to the less obvious communities of interest. Whilst there was a strong sense in which the street drinking was being driven by transient workers and off-licenses exploiting the immediate situation, the more powerful communities of interest were the estate agents, landlords and employers, whose interests in the features of the problem situation were significant but invisible. When doing the scanning stage in the early part of the LISP process, there needs to be a more specific attention given to the owners or operators of buildings and consider them as a part of the community of interest M27 Connecting communities The briefing in the LISP documentation regarding the stakeholders is to ask whether they can be connected to together. This is too oblique. This case indicates strongly that vulnerability localities suffer from low bonding social capital (especially when the residents are transient) and social cohesion is low. Bringing eastern European workers together may be a part of the solution, but also bringing together business interests (who might not understand their responsibility to a given neighbourhood) like landlord and employers of specific segments of the population (bridging social capital). This requires much harder work bringing together and motivating stakeholders who might consider their contribution to a neighbourhood to be even more minimal than the transient residents.
- 101. Outcomes 101 Code For whom Outcome PO1 Police Performance. Reduced demand, lower crime rates, less enforcement activity PO2 Effectiveness/Efficiency Reduced activity per outcome. Greater focus on prevention than patrolling. Other statutory partners participating fully. Skills and assets levered from community to support crime reduction PO3 Improved legitimacy and/or confidence in policing
- 102. Most ‘active’ mechanisms 102 M7 Highly connected individuals The LISP working group is made up of highly connected and highly capable people, M9 Attuned to community dynamics The rich picturing processes develop a nuanced and empathetic understanding of the community and the issues and tensions within it. M10 Tacit skills Training, with the aid of the publicly available handbook, briefings to senior officers and a process of identifying the best implementations of LISP and mentoring of officers ensure that police skills are embedded and propagated across the force M14 Demand effort from stakeholders The LISP approach is designed to flip the Police response from ‘what can we do?’ to ‘What solutions have you got?’ for the Police. M16 Build trust and resilience Long-term, locally based relationships are key to developing mature LISP informed interventions
- 103. ‘Least active’ mechanisms 103 M1 In-depth understanding of people, place and problems In-depth investigation of the police crime problem in the context of the other problems experienced in the locality M3 Sufficient ‘dose’ of intensive engagement with sufficient time Success, i.e. depth of understanding of the problem and success of the interventions is determined by the working group rather than police timeframes M17 Make accommodations for set- backs The embedding of the Motivational Interviewing ‘stages of change model’ (Prochaska and DiClemente, 1994; Rollnick and Miller, 1995; Miller and Rollnick, 2012) accounts for set-backs within the process of engagement M18 Explain the theory of change The theory of change for LISP is described as “collaboratively designed solutions and co-produced practices are more robust than short-term projects and limited engagement” M19 Share execution and control of the intervention The whole LISP model is built on recruiting capable and connected decision-makers and resources to the support of Police outcomes, and an attempt to ‘loosen the reins’ of Police controlled design and implementation Ps, this does not mean that they are not relevant, just more difficult to activate
- 104. Conclusions • “The above analysis demonstrates that within the four most active mechanisms operating in the LISP toolkit, strong CMO configurations can readily be constructed between the context of a ‘vulnerable locality’, and a complex problem situation. • This doesn’t mean that in all other types of areas (low deprivation/high crime or low deprivation/low crime or low deprivation/low crime) LISP doesn’t work, but, in the terms mentioned above, less ‘pressure’ would be necessary on different mechanisms.” 104
- 105. Conclusions • “This study has demonstrated that the 27 mechanisms satisfactorily map from the vulnerable locality contexts to the PEEL policing outcomes, therefore LISP is an effective new tool in the neighbourhood policing toolkit for engaging with high risk vulnerable neighbourhoods in an effective, legitimate and confidence building manner.” 105
- 106. Strategic IE 106