Community governance is concerned with the structures and processes for decision-making, accountability, control and behaviour at a community level. These include partnerships and networks between different levels of government, the business sector, the not-for-profit sector , community and other stakeholders.

This website presents the results of a study undertaken by the Centre for Corporate Governance Research (CICGR), Faculty of Business and Law, Victoria University, in partnership with Crime Prevention Victoria (CPV) and supported by an Australian Research Council (ARC) Grant, to evaluate the worth of community governance as a vehicle for crime prevention. CICGR is a University designated research centre of Victoria University located within the Faculty of Business and Law.

Governments are increasingly turning to local communities to resolve such problems as crime, drug addition, and youth alienation. The rationale behind this move is that local communities are best placed to resolve local problems and that assuming responsibility for such problems enhances the development of social capital and the general well-being of a community. At a government level, co-ordination of various government activities can be more productive than ‘silo' attempts by individual departments attempting to address what are often complex problems with many causes and ramifications. “Whole of government”, “joined up government” and “partnership” initiatives harness the combined resources of different government departments, the corporate sector and local citizens.

One of the vehicles for local cooperation in crime prevention is through Local Safety Committees (LSCs). In many cases the present LSCs evolved from previous arrangements put in place by Victoria Police in their Local Priority Policing (LPP) initiative and/or Local Government Committees (see Auditor General Victoria, 2001).

The LSCs, which demonstrate many of the attributes of community governance, (community consultation, identifying local needs, developing multi-agency and community partnerships, and providing and sharing information) became the focus of this study. We undertook focus groups and surveys with a sample of LSCs to understand the role of community governance structures and processes in building community capacity and enhancing safer and less crime prone communities. The development and analysis of a state-wide database consisting of crime rates and community indicators further contributed to this interest in understanding how to build community capacity and enhance safer and less crime prone communities. The study answered the questions:

• What evidence is there of community governance structures and processes suggested in the community governance literature?
• Do different types of communities have different community governance structures and processes?
• What leadership structures are in place?
• To what extent are local and state governments and community stakeholders involved in identifying community problems, developing responses and obtaining resources?
• What evidence is there of ‘whole of government', ‘joined up government', ‘evidence based planning' and ‘community ownership'? Do collaborative arrangements achieve additional benefits by ‘leveraging'?
• What are the relationships between crime rates and community demographic characteristics?
• To what extent do partnerships strengthen community building and capacity to prevent crime?
• To what extent do safety committee members have the right skills, knowledge, values and culture to participate in community governance processes?
• What are the components of community capacity?
• What is the relationship between community governance, capacity and successful program outcomes?
• What factors inhibit or promote successful community governance?