COMMON GROUND
Tasmanian Fear of Crime Project Stage 2
Authors:
Lynne F. Lee, Project Officer, Tasmanian Fear of Crime Project
Janine Combes and Angela Marsh, Project Evaluators
To order any National Crime Prevention publications please contact:
Crime Prevention Branch
Australian Government Attorney-General's Department
Robert Garran Offices
National Circuit
BARTON ACT 2600
| Ph: | +61 2 6250 6711 |
| Fax: | +61 2 6273 0913 |
Publications are also available at http://www.crimeprevention.gov.au/
Common Ground - Tasmanian Fear of Crime Project Stage 2
Australian Government Attorney-General's Department, Canberra
© Commonwealth of Australia, October 2003
ISBN: 0 642 21154 X
The views expressed in this publication are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the view of the Commonwealth of Australia. Whilst all reasonable care has been taken in the preparation of this publication, no liability is assumed for any errors or omissions.
Publisher: Australian Government Attorney-General's Department
CONTENTS
Part A: Background to the Common Ground project
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Aims
1.3 Expected outcomes
1.3.1 Benefits to the Tasmanian community
1.3.2 Benefits to other jurisdictions
1.4 Project management
1.4.1 Three layers
1.5 Methodology and project design
1.5.1 Project stages
1.5.2 Methods used to collect data
1.5.3 Analysis and selection of strategies
1.5.4 Evaluation of the project
Part B: The Malls and Public Spaces Component
2.1 Auspicing body
2.2 Advisory groups involved in the project
2.3 Project aims
2.4 Methods used for collecting information
2.4.1 Survey
2.4.2 Focus groups
2.4.3 Interviews
2.5 Results of the survey
2.5.1 Frequency and main uses of public spaces
2.5.2 Main fears identified
2.5.3 Infrastructure factors
2.5.4 People perceived as possibly threatening
2.5.5 Direct and indirect experience of incidents causing harm or concern
2.6 Results of focus groups and interviews
2.6.1 Young people
2.6.2 Older people
2.6.3 Women
2.6.4 People from migrant, refugee, ethnic and Indigenous backgrounds
2.6.5 People with disabilities
2.6.6 Lesbians and gay people
2.6.7 Summary of results of focus groups
2.7 Strategies suggested by respondents
2.7.1 Risk minimisation strategies
2.7.2 Law and order and safety infrastructure
2.7.3 Community-oriented processes
2.7.4 Conclusion
3 Strategies arising from surveys, interviews and focus groups
3.1 Development of strategies
3.2 Implementation and outcomes of strategies
3.2.1 Media campaign
3.2.2 Disability awareness training for police recruits and serving officers
3.2.3 Safety awareness training for older people
3.3 Activities to continue beyond the life of the project
3.3.1 Tasmanian Crime Prevention and Community Safety Council (CP&CSC)
3.3.2 Hobart City Council
3.3.3 Glenorchy City Council
3.3.4 Metro Tasmania Pty Ltd
3.3.5 Tasmania Police
3.3.6 Tasmanians with Disabilities
Part C: The Youth Participation component
4.1 Auspicing bodies
4.2 Advisory groups involved in the project
4.3 Aim of the youth participation component of the project
4.4 Objectives of the youth participation project
4.5 Methods used for collecting information
4.5.1 Surveys
4.5.2 Consultations and focus groups
4.6 Results of surveys
4.6.1 Use of locations
4.6.2 Tensions between different space users
4.6 3 Problems with using spaces
4.6.4 Concerns with use of spaces
4.6.5 Suggestions for improving feelings of security in public spaces
4.6.6 Summary of the survey results
4.7 Results of consultations and focus groups
4.7.1 Tensions and concerns most commonly identified across the five sites
4.7.2 Inconsistency of application of laws
4.7.3 Negative youth image
4.7.4 Drugs and alcohol
4.7.5 Accessing the spaces by night
4.7.6 Specific location issues
4.7.7 Summary of the main issues identified by young people
5 Strategies arising from surveys, consultations and focus groups
5.1 Development of strategies
5.1.1 The need for more activities for young people in the targeted public spaces
5.1.2 Foster better relations between police and young people in the target areas
5.1.3 Promote a more positive image of young people
5.1.4 Bridge the gap between different groups in the community
5.1.5 Avoidance of public spaces at night
5.2 Implementation and outcomes of strategies
5.2.1 Rights and Responsibilities Card
5.2.2 Photospace Strategy
5.2.3 Photospace Activities Day
5.3 Recommended Activities to continue beyond the life of the Project
5.3.1 Rights and Responsibilities Card
5.3.2 Photospace information kit
5.3.3 Youth Consultative Committee
6 Issues emerging from implementation of the project
6.1 Issues relating to involvement of the Youth Consultative Committee
6.2 Issues relating to the Rights and Responsibilities Card
6.3 Issues relating to Photospace discussion groups
6.4 Media strategy
6.5 Strategies to come out of the Photospace discussion groups
7 Summary of youth participation component
7.1 How did the Youth Participation component measure up to the specific objectives established for this component?
8 Evaluation of the Common Ground project
8.1 Project Structure, Processes and Resourcing
8.1.1 Role delineation and decision-making
8.1.2 Different aims within the one overall project
8.1.3 Project staff skills, position descriptions and relationships between project staff
8.1.4 Project timeframes
8.1.5 Ongoing evaluation input
8.1.6 Scope of the project
8.1.7 Partnerships between agencies
8.1.8 Relationships between stakeholders
8.1.9 Capacity to consult broadly within the timeframe for the project
8.1.10 Resourcing the implementation of strategies
8.2 Evaluation of specific phases of the Project
8.2.1 Research and consultation phases
8.2.2 Strategy identification, development and implementation phases
8.3 Evaluation of specific strategies
8.3.1 Rights and Responsibilities Card
8.3.2 Photospace strategy
8.3.3 Media strategy - TV community service announcements
8.3.4 Disability awareness training for police recruits and serving police
8.3.5 Safety awareness sessions
8.3.6 Summary
8.4 Did the project achieve its aims?
8.5 Cost-effectiveness
8.6 Potential for continuing beyond the life of the project
8.7 Outcomes from the project
8.7.1 Outcomes for Steering Committee organisations
8.7.2 Outcomes for other stakeholders
8.7.3 Conclusions
8.8 Recommendations to other jurisdictions undertaking fear of crime projects
8.9 Recommendations for specific stakeholder groups
8.9.1 The National Crime Prevention Programmme (NCPP)
8.9.2 The Tasmanian Government
8.9.3 The Tasmanian department of police and public safety
8.9.4 Hobart City Council
8.9.5 Crime Prevention and Community Safety Council
8.9.6 Glenorchy City Council
8.9.7 Metro Tasmania Pty Ltd
Appendices: Common Ground Project
Part B. Malls and public spaces component
Part C Youth participation component
Executive summary
The Common Ground project was implemented in Tasmania during 1999 and 2000. At both national and state levels fear of crime has been identified as a priority issue. Common Ground was an initiative of the Tasmanian Crime Prevention and Community Safety Council in partnership with a number of key government and non-government agencies. This pilot project was funded by the Australian Government's National Crime Prevention Programme (NCPP).
Aims
The aims of the project were to:
- reduce fear of crime in selected public spaces in Southern Tasmania
- promote a more positive image of young people, and reduce people's fear of young people in selected public spaces in Tasmania, and
- develop a model project focusing on fear of crime in public spaces capable of being replicated and/or adapted for use in other Australian jurisdictions.
There were two inter-related components of the project - the Malls and Public Spaces Component and the Youth Participation Component. Each required strategies to address the project aims in relation to specific sites and the needs of various target groups within the broader community. The Malls and Public Spaces component was conducted over an 18-month period and the Youth Participation Component was implemented over a 12-month time frame.
Results of data collected
A range of methods was used to collect information, including interviews, focus groups and surveys. A highly consultative approach was used involving 684 people aged from 12 to more than 65 years. The participants described their experiences of the public spaces and provided valuable input into the development of strategies to overcome the issues identified.
The project found that, for the broader community, public space has multiple identifications and functions for different people. However, it also found that:
- fear of crime in the public open spaces studied in the cities of Hobart and Glenorchy is a significant concern for many people across all age groups
- fear of crime is a cause of people feeling negative towards public spaces and a reason to avoid these areas
- fear of crime is a problem that affects interactions and relationships between people of different ages and backgrounds in public spaces, thus highlighting the issue of public spaces as 'contested' spaces
- all age and target groups agreed that only a few people cause trouble in public spaces
- at night inadequate lighting increases feelings of vulnerability
- there is a perceived lack of safety features, such as safety zones and help points in public spaces
- negative views and media reporting affect how others see young people in public spaces
- many people felt anxious about assault, robbery, uncivil behaviour, young people in groups, verbal abuse, being asked for money and being fearful about saying 'no', and
- people feared harm from skateboards and impediments on footpaths.
The project also provided information about the following concerns of specific groups of people:
- significantly more women than men felt insecure in public spaces
- young people lack knowledge of their rights and responsibilities in public spaces, and
- many older people are concerned about young people congregating in large groups in public spaces.
Strategies to address fear of crime
The design and implementation of the strategies was facilitated by the earlier consultative process. A number of community-oriented project strategies were identified, developed and implemented by the two project components. As the project was concerned with perceptions of vulnerability and fear of crime, as opposed to the incidence of crime, the development of strategies focussed on addressing the main fears of target groups (eg assault, rowdiness, being asked for money) rather than the crimes that these people may have experienced. The strategy identification process also focussed on those people identified as feeling most vulnerable (eg older people, gays and lesbians, people with a disability) rather than those whom statistics indicate are most at risk.
Community members and members of key target groups involved in the project put forward a number of possible strategies to address fear of crime issues, including:
- creating opportunities for individuals to discuss and negotiate their rights in relation to public spaces in an ongoing way
- increased visibility/presence of police, and security personnel
- improved safety infrastructure and lighting and more activities to attract people
- a better understanding on the part of police of needs of target groups in public spaces
- more opportunities for interaction between young people and other community members;
- a need for programmes to assist older people to feel confident when using public spaces
- information that helps members of the public to know the rights of bus drivers to discipline passengers
- more late night buses to and from the city centres
- an increase in access to appropriate recreational facilities for young people, and
- fostering more positive media portrayals of young people.
Lessons learnt for other jurisdictions
The Common Ground project built upon its first-stage research in a way that is readily adaptable to other jurisdictions. All of the strategies developed by the Common Ground project could be used at other sites across Australia.
The Common Ground Project generated useful information about the type of community approaches that can be adopted to deal with fear of crime in small communities. It is important to create public spaces that support and assist the development of respectful relationships between different groups of people. The project has produced a set of principles and strategies to guide future work in this area. These are listed below.
Design of facilities and infrastructure
- Consider fear of crime concerns at the design stage for all public spaces.
- Take into account the diversity of needs of people who use public spaces by designing spaces that appeal to a range of user groups, and the inclusion of infrastructure that will meet the diverse needs of user groups.
- Recognise the potential impact of public space interactions and experiences on the behaviours and lifestyle of individuals (eg the impact on people's sense of vulnerability, feelings of victimisation and the impact on their enjoyment of public space).
- Develop facilities that are flexible and allow for both structured and unstructured activities to take place within public spaces.
- Include appropriate safety infrastructure at the design stage (eg good lighting, safety zones).
- Recognise that good street and safety infrastructure design can measurably increase people's sense of security and enhance their enjoyment of public spaces.
Planning
- Use a planning approach that acknowledges and acts upon the concept of public space as communal space and encourages social inclusion rather than exclusion.
- Consider the range of different socio-economic interests that have a stake in public spaces.
- Recognise the value of a community development approach in developing workable and lasting solutions to fear of crime issues.
- Recognise that the involvement of key user groups (eg young people, older people, people of low socio-economic status) in the planning and management of public spaces is essential.
- Adopt a 'safety first' planning approach that involves all components of the organisation, investigates the possible fear of crime issues in relation to a particular site and addresses them.
- Allocate resources to evaluate the impact of public space planning in relation to fear of crime (both anticipated and unanticipated outcomes).
Regulatory mechanisms
- Ensure the inclusion of community policing strategies as a central component.
- Strive for social regulation that is based on non-coercive mechanisms and includes informal mechanisms.
- Ensure that security features are visible but unobtrusive and involve 'people to people' contact.
- Involve the community in regulating what happens in public spaces.
Community education and information
- Use collaborative community education initiatives developed in partnership with media outlets.
- Provide information about possible ways of dealing with safety issues in public places as 'discussion starters' to ensure that discussions move beyond law enforcement and infrastructure issues.
Management of public open spaces
- Build opportunities for communication between public space users to build tolerance of difference and respect for each other and develop a shared understanding of how to use public open spaces (eg codes of conduct, hold forums and discussions between user groups).
- Build a sense of ownership and a new vision about how public spaces could be in our community rather than how they are currently viewed (eg as problem areas, areas to be avoided).
- Recognise the value of partnership approaches in the planning and management of public spaces.
- Create opportunities for partner agencies to work together on specific practical initiatives.
- Ensure that the managers of public spaces are accountable to other stakeholders in the community.
Management of projects addressing fear of crime
- Establish a simple, clear project management structure.
- Determine clear roles and responsibilities in relation to key stakeholders prior to project implementation.
- Ensure that strategies are selected and developed by target group representatives and other key operational groups.
- Limit the project documentation to one set of aims to ensure a cohesive approach across different components.
- Determine clear relationships between project staff.
- Clarify expectations and make sure that position descriptions match expectations.
- Where possible, use co-location of project staff.
- Establish an agreed project management position and delegate most operational matters to this position.
- Where possible, have the same time frame for all project components.
- Allow sufficient time for the effective implementation and monitoring of the impact of strategies.
- Involve evaluators in the early planning and development processes.
- Resource the project to be able to use a range of evaluation mechanisms.
- Limit the number of project sites to enable maximum impact and measurable outcomes.
- Balance the number of study sites across cities.
- If developing strategies that relate to the interactions between people in public places, assume that the outcomes will be applicable more broadly than just the study sites.
- Limit the number of target groups to maximise the capacity to achieve substantial impact from strategies from limited resources.
- Anticipate that a partnership between such different agencies will involve different perspectives.
- Discuss and plan how to run the partnership prior to the project commencing (eg hold a comprehensive planning day involving all key stakeholders, develop a formal agreement, identify roles).
- Develop consistent and agreed mechanisms for decision making and managing issues where partner agencies have different perspectives.
- Use existing consultative mechanisms to provide feedback about the project and to gain input on key issues.
- Establish an advisory group that is specific to the particular project and involves representatives of target groups and other key organisations.
- Allocate sufficient resources to enable the project to develop and implement a wide range of strategies.
- During the project development phase, set aside a pool of funds to be used for implementation of strategies, even though the strategies themselves have not yet been determined at this preliminary stage.
Did the Common Ground project achieve its aims?
The Common Ground project was very cost effective in meeting its aims. With a limited budget, the strategies implemented during the Common Ground project generated a number of tangible outcomes, many of which will continue beyond the life of this pilot project. The project was also able to bring together six major agencies in Tasmania to work on the issue of fear of crime over this period.
Raising awareness about the need to respond to fear of crime as a significant community issue
All of the agencies and groups involved in the Common Ground project have indicated that they now have a much greater understanding of fear of crime as it relates to the project sites in Tasmania. The Common Ground project has contributed to the planning processes of two local government bodies in Tasmania and a number of state government agencies.
The Common Ground project was successful in raising the level of awareness among some people of how we judge others and the assumptions that are made about young people, older people, gays and lesbians, people with disabilities and people from migrant, refugee, ethnic or Indigenous backgrounds. In some instances, the project had an impact on the way individuals view each other (eg how a group of older people view members of the Youth Consultative Committee or how a young person feels about a gay man). These are significant achievements in that, if they change the interactions between these individuals, it will make a difference to their experience of public spaces.
The project developed and implemented strategies that specifically addressed the image of young people within the broader community. It dealt with this issue by developing tools that enabled different age groups to examine how they judge and behave towards each other (eg the Photospace discussion groups and the TV advertisements).
The Common Ground project has demonstrated that this type of approach can promote a more positive image of young people as well as building links between age groups within the community. Such an approach could be applied on a much larger or more intensive scale to achieve significant outcomes in terms of how people interact within public open spaces.
The production of practical resource kits, training manuals, media campaign materials and information pamphlets
The Common Ground project developed and piloted five strategies, which resulted in the production of the following very useful resources:
- a Photospace kit to promote dialogue and interaction between older and younger community members
- the Rights and Responsibilities Card, which provides information for young people about their rights and obligations when using public spaces
- a disability awareness training programme for police (focusing on public space encounters and concerns)
- a safety awareness programme for older people which has a specific focus on the use of public space, and
- a series of community service media advertisements promoting positive interaction in public spaces.
These were developed in consultation with target groups and key stakeholders. The extent to which the strategies reduced fear of crime in the specific project sites is much harder to ascertain due to the limited time frame after implementation and a limited capacity to conduct large scale follow up. However, the available data shows that the project made a difference to some individuals by broadening their awareness and understanding of fear of crime and of other members of the community in which they live.
Building relationships between stakeholder groups
The project set out to deal with the issue of public spaces being shared environments. During the 18-month life of the project, it created a focus on fear of crime issues in the Tasmanian community. It is likely that this focus will continue over coming years as key stakeholders utilise the data and resources produced by this project to provide direction for their own planning processes.
The Common Ground project has generated new initiatives by local councils to address fear of crime issues. For example, Hobart City Council wishes to establish a networking project aimed at educating community groups about public space issues and develop more safety infrastructure in the central business district. Glenorchy Council will continue its redevelopment of a local crime prevention strategy as well as develop further mechanisms to support the involvement of young people in the decision-making processes in the city.
The City Heart Business Association has gained a greater understanding of fear of crime in relation to the Hobart CBD and can pursue policies that address the issues identified (eg promote the use of the city centre by a diverse range of groups at different times of the day).
The media outlets that participated in the media campaign now have a heightened awareness about fear of crime through developing and running the community service announcements in relation to this issue.
Commercial enterprises such as Metro Tasmania Pty Ltd will initiate new approaches to dealing with fear of crime as part of their daily business (eg supporting the training of security personnel in conflict resolution strategies).
Youth work agencies and young people will gain information about dealing with public space issues through the Rights and Responsibilities Card and future participation in Photospace discussion groups.
Practical strategies developed and implemented through the project have meant that key stakeholder groups have collaboratively responded to fear of crime issues in relation to specific sites. Police, the gay and lesbian community, young people, State government departments and local government bodies all worked collaboratively with a commercial television station to develop community service announcements about fear of crime. Victims of crime services, police and older persons organisations worked together to implement safety awareness training programmes. Young people worked with older people, police, disability groups and councils to conduct the Photospace discussion groups.
There is evidence that these improved linkages will continue over time and will thus support further joint initiatives. The Tasmanian Crime Prevention and Community Safety Council will support other agencies within Tasmania to develop projects that address fear of crime issues.
PART A: BACKGROUND TO THE COMMON GROUND PROJECT
1.1 Introduction
In 1995, the Tasmanian Government Parliamentary Committee on Public Safety and the Response to Crime commissioned an issues paper on crime prevention from Associate Professor Ken Polk, Institute of Criminology, University of Melbourne. In it, Professor Polk said: The nature of the crime problem in Tasmania seems to be as much about perceived fears of crime, and the feeling that the community is no longer the safe place that it once was, as it is about actual levels of offending.
Reflecting the directions set by this paper, in 1996 the Tasmanian Government released the Tasmanian Criminal Justice Strategy, which recognised that fear of crime has serious impacts upon the quality of life of many people.
In 1998, the Tasmanian Government established a Crime Prevention Council comprising community and departmental representatives. The Commonwealth's National Crime Prevention Programme (then known as the National Campaign Against Violence and Crime) provided funding for the Council in its first year of operation to establish a secretariat to provide administrative and research support to the Crime Prevention Council.
At the national level, fear of crime has been identified as a priority issue for research and action by the National Anti-Crime Strategy (NACS), the Criminology Research Council (CRC) and the Commonwealth Government's National Crime Prevention Programme (NCPP). In 1997-98, these key stakeholder groups developed Stage 1of the Fear of Crime Project. Stage 1 included a literature review, an audit of fear or crime reduction programmes and field work research undertaken in NSW and Tasmania.
The field work researched people's perceptions of crime in public spaces and on public transport systems, as well as media influence on people's attitudes to public spaces. The findings showed that, overall, it was places outside the home that made people more fearful, especially at night:
'For most people living in Hobart and nearby rural areas, the parks and the open-air city mall in the middle of the business district were identified as the places of most danger in terms of crime.'
The findings indicated that all respondents (including young people) considered young people, in particular, as a source of threat in public places:
'The Hobart young people's discussion group identified young unemployed men as engaging in criminal activities more than other groups.'
When asked how they thought 'dangerous places' could be made safer, Tasmanians mentioned:
'The placing of surveillance cameras and an increased police presence at the city mall (including the presence of a police information booth) as effective steps in reducing their fear of entering this area.'
The main findings from the Stage 1 research informed the design, aims and expected outcomes of the Common Ground project in the following areas:
- identification of key target groups
- involvement of young people as a sector
- identification of key sites, and
- the role of the media in influencing people's fear of crime.
1.2 Aims
The following aims provided the framework for both components of the Common Ground project.
- To develop a model project in Tasmania, applying the findings from the Stage 1 research, which focused on fear of crime in public spaces, that can be replicated and/or adapted for use in other Australian jurisdictions.
- To develop a project, which builds on existing and planned Tasmanian initiatives and projects, that will provide an ongoing emphasis on addressing fear of crime issues in the Tasmanian community.
- To develop a model for consultation with specific target groups about their fear of crime in specific public spaces in Tasmania.
- To develop and implement strategies, through consultation with the target groups, to reduce the target population's fear of crime in specific public spaces in Tasmania.
- To develop and implement strategies to promote a more positive image of young people, and to reduce people's fear of young people, particularly in specific public spaces in Tasmania.
1.3 Expected outcomes
The expected outcomes from the Common Ground Project were:
- a reduction in the fear of crime associated with malls and public spaces in Tasmania, through the implementation of strategies applying the findings from the Stage 1 research and consultation with key stakeholders and members of the target population
- a clearer understanding of the Stage 1 field work findings with respect to fear of crime in specific localities in Tasmania (eg transit malls) and specific target groups
- engagement of a wide cross-section of community members in the identification of issues, setting of priorities and the development, implementation and evaluation of strategies with respect to fear of crime in the target areas, with community members engaged including
- key stakeholders
- young people
- retailers
- local government, and
- interested community groups (eg public transport users, elderly people, gay and lesbian community, people from non-English speaking backgrounds, women) - engagement of stakeholders in a community development approach, bringing together disparate groups in the community to work towards a common goal (ie a reduction in fear of crime)
- fostering more collaborative partnership approaches to resolving issues relating to fear of crime
- fostering greater ownership amongst those participating in the target community, leading to wider acceptance of the outcomes and process.
1.3.1 Benefits to the Tasmanian community
At a local level, a number of expected outcomes from the project were identified. These included:
- identification of urban design features and other factors contributing to people's fear of crime
- engagement of the local community in the project
- a reduction in fear of crime among the target groups associated with specific localities (such as transit malls and other public spaces)
- promotion of a more positive image of youth among the wider Tasmanian community and a reduction in people's perception that young people are 'the problem' with respect to crime.
- positive interaction between young people and other members of the community
- fostering a greater sense of community cohesion among members of the target community.
- fostering a greater understanding between different groups in the target population of each other's perspective in relation to fear of crime and the use of public space.
1.3.2 Benefits to other jurisdictions
The project focused on fear of crime in relation to public spaces and the interactions between people within public spaces. These are issues that affect a large number of communities across Australia. It was therefore envisaged that the material collected during the Common Ground Project would be applicable to other communities across the country. A specific component of the evaluation requirement was that an assessment be made about how transferable the strategies would be to other locations.
The end result of the project was to be the development and documentation of a process of engaging the community at a local level in the identification of issues and the development of strategies relevant to fear of crime that could be applied to other jurisdictions.
1.4 Project management
1.4.1 Three layers
There were three layers of project management for the Common Ground Project. These are outlined below.
|
Level /Structure |
Role |
| 1. National Anti-Crime Strategy, Project Management Group (which included a Tasmanian representative) |
|
|
2. The Common Ground Steering Committee, made up of representatives from:
|
|
|
3. The Project auspicing bodies were:
|
|
The Tasmanian Crime Prevention and Community Safety Council
The Tasmanian Crime Prevention and Community Safety Council was established in 1998 by the State government to develop an integrated approach to crime prevention from a whole-of-government perspective. The Council comprises community and departmental representatives. The Youth Network of Tasmania is also represented on the Crime Prevention and Community Safety Council.
The Youth Network of Tasmania (YNOT)
YNOT is a youth sector peak body which involves young people and service providers in identifying youth issues and developing strategies and policies to address them. It facilitates the development of coordinating mechanisms across the youth sector.
1.5 Methodology and project design
The project consisted of two inter-related components:
- the Malls and Public Spaces component
- the Youth Participation component.
Five project sites were selected across Hobart and Glenorchy cities:
- Elizabeth Street Mall
- Hobart Bus Transit Mall
- Glenorchy Bus Transit Mall
- Franklin Square
- St David's Park
1.5.1 Project stages
The Common Ground Project was developed as a four-phase programme that included specific milestones. The key stages of the project were:
- background research and literature review
- consultation
- strategy planning
- implementation and evaluation
A wealth of information had been collected during Stage 1 of the National Fear of Crime Project. The Common Ground project background research primarily involved analysing local research and the Stage 1 results to determine how they might be used within this project. The local reports considered included:
- Glenorchy Safer Communities Report, 1999
- Youth Image Forums Report, Glenorchy Youth Task Force, 1988,
- Tolosa Street Bus Interchange User Questionnaire results, 1996
- Safety in Hobart CBD - A Social Research Report, 1997
- Report of the Hobart City Council Alcohol in the CBD Working Party, 1995
There were two levels of consultation. The main target groups for the project were:
- young people
- older people
- women
- gays and lesbians
- people with disabilities
- people from migrant/ethnic backgrounds
An initial round of consultation was conducted (March to May 1999) to enable groups to find out about the project, elicit support from key organisations and find out which other agencies would be valuable to contact. The second round of consultation (June to September 1999) used a focus group format to elicit specific information about the fears of particular groups and individuals in relation to the designated public spaces, the strategies they employed to make themselves feel safer, and what would make a difference to their level of concern.
A diverse range of organisations was contacted, including disability groups, migrant organisations, youth groups, Aboriginal organisations, gay and lesbian groups, women's groups, councils, transport agencies, business organisations, and State, Commonwealth and local government bodies.
1.5.2 Methods used to collect data
The project design incorporated a high level of consultation with stakeholder groups using a range of methods as outlined below.
| Method/ Tool | Purpose |
| Focus groups |
|
| Attending meetings of existing community groups |
|
| Individual stakeholder interviews |
|
|
Surveys: (1) General community survey |
Collect baseline data relating to:
|
1.5.3 Analysis and selection of strategies
Following the completion of data collection, a lengthy data analysis process was undertaken. Given the limited resourcing available for the project, this process took longer than was originally anticipated. This had an impact on the capacity of the Steering Committee to identify and develop strategies within the established time frame. The project stakeholder agencies contributed time and resources to assist with data entry tasks and the evaluation consultants took part in the analysis and presentation of data. Data was analysed using SAS software and cross-tabulations. Key themes and strategies were identified within the focus group data. This provided the backdrop for the development of strategies.
The following strategies were selected:
| The Malls and Public Spaces component | The Youth Participation component |
|
|
Strategies were selected using the following process:
- development of selection criteria
- a workshop with the Steering Committee and other key groups (eg members of the Youth Consultative Committee) to identify potential strategies
- further development of individual strategies
- development of a project plan for each strategy.
The project plan for each strategy identified the aim of the strategy, the process for implementing it (eg who would be involved, staffing requirements, other resources required) and the evaluation methods to be employed.
The criteria identified as important in selecting strategies were as outlined below. All strategies selected were to:
- address at least one project aim
- maximise community participation and ownership
- enhance community and stakeholder input and foster a multi-agency approach
- involve more than one target group, including people who avoided the public
- achieve a balance between the competing priorities of target groups by ensuring that issues addressed were a priority of the groups involved in implementation
- target times of day/night when space users were most anxious/fearful
- be capable of being evaluated
- be replicable
- be flexible and able to be modified for different groups/sites
- have at least an identifiable component that can be implemented within the project time frame.
Not all of the strategies selected at this planning stage were implemented during the Common Ground project. Some strategies required a longer development time and further resourcing than was available within this project to be implemented effectively. Other strategies were not fully developed, even though the initial implementation steps were undertaken, due to a lack of public interest in the proposal.
1.5.4 Evaluation of the project
Independent evaluators (Community Focus) were appointed to the project during its early stages and were involved in all phases of the project. The role of the evaluation consultants is outlined below.
- Advise on the optimum strategies to meet the needs of the identified target groups of the project and the wider community of users of public spaces.
- Significantly assist in achieving the aims of the project through the selection and application of the most appropriate consultation, implementation and monitoring techniques and methodologies.
- Provide expertise on developing appropriate performance indicators, methodology and evaluation tools.
- Undertake formative and summative evaluation for / of the project over its duration.
- Evaluate consultation methodologies to determine their effectiveness in encouraging the participation of community members and target groups to identify, monitor and evaluating strategies to reduce the fear of crime and violence.
- Analyse, explain and establish the degree of effectiveness of strategies or combinations of strategies trialled in the project in achieving the project aims.
- Identify effective practices and directions for policy that can be employed by all levels of government, police, private and non-government service providers for the purposes of implementing the strategies trialed in the project.
- Produce regular progress reports for the Steering Committee about problems encountered within the project and the results of data collection and analysis.
In addition, the consultants contributed to the final report of the project. The evaluation consultants attended the regular Steering Committee meetings throughout the project as well as meeting individually with project staff and other key stakeholders. They worked closely with project staff members and members of the Steering Committee to provide a substantial level of input throughout the 18 months.
A range of methods was used to conduct the evaluation, including:
- observation of project processes (eg Steering Committee meetings, special working groups, consultations, strategy implementation sessions)
- stakeholder interviews with members of the Steering Committee, target group and other key organisation representatives
- analysis of written feedback from participants involved in strategies
- follow-up interviews with participants of programmes/strategies.
The evaluation consultants developed a framework for ensuring that all key outcomes would be addressed. This is outlined below.
| Outcome to be evaluated | Methods |
| Reduction in the fear of crime associated with selected malls and public spaces in southern Tasmania. |
|
| A clearer understanding of the Stage 1 field work findings with respect to specific localities in Tasmania. |
|
| Engagement of a wide cross section of community members in the identification of issues, setting of priorities and development and implementation of strategies. |
|
| Engagement of community members in a community development approach/bringing together disparate groups within the community. |
|
| Fostering a more collaborative partnership approach to resolve issues relating to fear of crime. |
|
| Fostering a greater ownership amongst those participating in the target community leading to wider acceptance of the outcomes and process |
|
Pre-intervention and post-intervention surveys of the broader population were planned to ascertain whether the project would have an impact on perceptions of the public spaces and the fear of crime of users of the spaces. However, given the scope of the project, the time frame and the limited resourcing available, a decision was made to evaluate the impact of each individual strategy rather than conduct a second post-intervention survey. The original survey data fulfilled a vital role in furthering the understanding of the types of concerns individuals had in relation to the selected sites, as well as providing information about their methods of dealing with fear and suggested strategies for improving the sense of safety within the sites.
The evaluation consultants worked with project staff to develop specific evaluation methods for each strategy developed within the project. These are outlined below.
Safety Awareness for Older People
- Participants completed feedback sheets at the time of the programme
- The evaluators followed up participants two months after completion of the programme to ascertain the value and impact of the programme
Disability Awareness Training
- Evaluator observation of some parts of the programme
- Participant feedback sheets
- Follow-up of a sample of participants
Photospace Strategy
- Meeting with the Youth Consultative Group to discuss their involvement in and the value of the project
- Feedback provided by participants of the Photospace Discussion Groups
- Individual interviews with members of the discussion groups
Rights and Responsibilities Card
- Feedback from the Youth Consultative Group about experiences developing the card
- Preliminary feedback from organisations using the card
Activities day in Elizabeth Street Mall
- Interviews with key stakeholders about the value of the activities day and the processes involved in developing the strategy
- Feedback from young people involved in the day
The media strategy
- Survey data - impact and value of the community service announcements in relation to fear of crime
- Focus group data from schools and colleges
- Stakeholder interviews
Evaluation input was provided at key stages of the project, including during its early phases. Evaluation input was used to:
- determine project roles (facilitated discussions between key stakeholders about roles and functions within the Common Ground project)
- develop and implement the surveys (sampling techniques, question design, data collation methods, coding etc)
- conduct focus groups (design of questions, collation of data, analysis of key themes)
- analyse data (assisted with the analysis of key themes, presentation of data); and
- develop strategies (facilitated a strategy planning session with key stakeholders, provided input into the analysis of likely strategies).
Notes
- Fear of Crime, NCAVAC, Fieldwork Report, p.25
- Fear of Crime, NCAVAC Fieldwork Report, p.72
- Fear of Crime, NCAVAC Fieldwork Report, p.75
- See Appendix Part B Appendix (i) for a list of Steering Committee members.
- See appendix (ii) Part B and appendix (ii) Part C for further details regarding the questions asked in the general and the youth specific surveys.
PART B: THE MALLS AND PUBLIC SPACES COMPONENT
2.1 Auspicing body
The Malls and Public Spaces component was auspiced by the Tasmanian Crime Prevention and Community Safety Council.
2.2 Advisory groups involved in the project
The Malls and Public Spaces component had two specific advisory groups:
- the Hobart Community Police Liaison Group, and
- the Glenorchy Safer Communities Committee.
Their role was to:
- share information and experiences about the project sites as they related to issues of public safety and shared use
- advise on individuals and organisations to be consulted, and
- suggest and support strategies to address people's fears of crime and incivility in public spaces and encourage use of them.
In an advisory capacity, members of the main target groups were also involved in the project. These included:
- older people
- women
- gay and lesbian people
- people with disabilities
- people from migrant/ethnic backgrounds
The target groups were asked about their experiences using public spaces and consulted about how their fears might be addressed. The consultations formed the basis for developing, implementing and evaluating community-based strategies to address fear of crime.
2.3 Project aims
The aims of the Malls and Public Spaces component were as follows:
- to establish the level of fear held by the target groups concerning malls (transit and shopping) and public spaces, and whether high levels of fear were generally restricted to a particular group or groups
- to identify:
- what it was that people were fearful of (eg personal violence, harassment) and who people were fearful of (eg young people, 'different' people etc.) in the malls and public spaces
- any factors influencing people's fear of crime in malls and public spaces (eg direct/indirect experience of victimisation, media coverage of crime in these public spaces, the existence of popular myths that may circulate among members of the community about these places)
- any avoidance or adaptive strategies used by people to deal with their fear of crime associated with the malls and public spaces - to identify and implement strategies to:
- resolve any conflicts between young people's use of the malls and public spaces and other interests
- reduce people's fear of young people in the malls and public spaces and to promote a more positive image of young people
- meet the needs of young people using the malls and public spaces and promote positive experiences of joint use of public space by young people and the wider community
- reduce people's fear of crime associated with the malls and public spaces; and encourage people to access the malls and public spaces - to evaluate the effectiveness of a range of strategies to reduce people's fear of crime associated with the malls and public spaces.
2.4 Methods used for collecting information
As well as consultation with the main target groups, focus groups gathered information on levels of fear in the project sites from a broad range of people in the community Interviews were also conducted.
Focus groups and survey questions covered:
- demographic data
- feelings of safety or vulnerability in public spaces
- experiences of sites and likes and dislikes about them
- what or who people were fearful of in public spaces and why
- factors influencing perceptions of safety in the sites;
- suggestions to make people feel more secure at the sites.
2.4.1 Survey
A questionnaire was designed by the project officer, with assistance from the evaluation consultants, and a representative group of members from the Steering Committee. Information and findings from consultations with the main target groups informed many of the questions relating to fear of crime in pubic spaces. 6 For the Malls and Public Spaces component, the survey document was pre-tested and refined before it was administered face-to-face in the various project sites.
2.4.2 Focus groups
Focus group questions were designed to correspond to the survey questions so that information gathered from both would be compatible and inform a comprehensive pool of data for analysis.
2.4.3 Interviews
Interviews were held in various locations and were conducted one-to-one or in small groups. People taking part in the interviews were in a position to advise on concerns of fear of crime. The discussions covered:
- safety concerns and their impact on people's use of the sites
- possible strategies to reduce people's fear of crime
- problems between groups using public spaces, and
- the role of the interviewee's group or organisation in the project.
2.5 Results of the survey
2.5.1 Frequency and main uses of public spaces
In the Malls and Public Spaces survey, a majority of women and of men surveyed visited at least one of the sites once a week or more for shopping or doing business, transiting elsewhere or meeting other people.
The people surveyed were frequent users of the sites and therefore could be considered to be reasonably representative of the total population of site users and to be suitably qualified to provide information about their concerns.
2.5.2 Main fears identified
The main fears in public spaces were identified and ranked as set out in Table 1 below.
Table 1: Malls and public spaces key concerns/fears by day and by night in rank order
|
| ||
| Key concerns | ||
| Rank | Day | Night |
|
| ||
| 1 | Assault | Assault |
| 2 | Rowdiness | Robbery |
| 3 | Robbery | Verbal abuse |
| 4 | Hassled for money | Hassled for money |
| 5 | No responses | Rowdiness |
|
| ||
Assault
Assault included all forms of physical assault, from being spat on to physical and sexual assault. Public toilets were mentioned as places to avoid. That they were used for 'shooting up' and for bashings were given as reasons why people, women more so than men, avoided using them. Occasionally during the day, unprovoked physical assault was also a fear for young people in the context of school rivalries (government and private schools).
Gender difference
Men indicated feeling vulnerable to physical assault at night, especially if they are gay. Women, including lesbians, said they felt vulnerable around groups of men, particularly if the men had been drinking. This is consistent with research findings in Stage 1of the National Fear of Crime Project. 8
Female respondents' fear of physical assault by day, more so than at night, reflects the fact that most said they did not go out much at night, avoided public spaces at night and were more cautious at night.
Robbery
Robbery included bag snatching, theft from the person and mugging.
For older respondents who feared being assaulted, it was usually in the context of being robbed - having their bag snatched or being mugged. Their fear of robbery with assault was often associated with an image of young people wanting 'money for drugs' and using public spaces opportunistically for this purpose.
Gender difference
Overall, robbery attracted a higher female response.
Rowdy and uncivil behaviour
While many respondents did not object to behaviour which showed 'high spirits' as long as it was not prolonged, many people across all age groups, including parents of young children and people with disabilities, said that rowdy behaviour often made the sites feel unpleasant for them. Behaviours contributing to this included being loud, swearing, spitting, littering, standing on seats or sitting on the back of seats, shoving or moving around without looking to see if this affected other people, and moving in groups, making it difficult for other people to pass. Parents with young children reported occasionally having to contend with things being thrown at their children and hearing language they did not like or did not want their children to hear.
During the day, there was a perception at all the project sites that there was a risk of accidental physical harm from rowdy behaviour, such as being shoved by young people 'messing around' or being inadvertently hit or knocked down by skateboarders. This anxiety was strongest in older people and people with some physical weakness or disability that was not necessarily obvious to others. The finding that there was a heightened sense of physical vulnerability connected to gender and age is consistent with research findings in Stage 1 of the National Fear of Crime Project. 9
Anxiety about rowdy behaviour and young people in groups was most often associated with the mid to late afternoon period when students left school and there were larger numbers of them meeting friends at the bus malls or Elizabeth Mall.
Gender difference
Women were more likely to be concerned about rowdy behaviour than men. At night, young women were more concerned about rowdy behaviour than were young men.
The above findings support those of Stage 1 of the National Fear of Crime Project, which found that:
Frequent experiences of incivilities and harassment can also influence perceptions of risk and levels of fear. These experiences constitute a rational and realistic source of fear that is not accounted for in official statistics. 10
Verbal abuse
Verbal abuse included being sworn at or being subjected to homophobic or racist abuse. Adults were more concerned about it at night, particularly gay men and lesbians who felt it might lead to a physical assault.
Gender difference
Anxiety about verbal abuse, day or night, was of equal concern to both genders.
Hassling for money and cigarettes
Overall, being intimidated or hassled to give money or cigarettes was not a significant concern across any age group. For female respondents in the Malls and Public Spaces component survey, it was more of a concern at night than during the day. Being hassled for money and verbally abused were linked by many respondents, who felt they may be verbally abused if they refused a request or demand for money or cigarettes. At night, this fear often escalated into fear of physical assault.
Gender difference
Across all age groups at night, being hassled for money or cigarettes was more a cause of anxiety for females than males.
2.5.3 Infrastructure factors
Day
In the Malls and Pblic Spaces component survey, respondents were asked if they felt they were at risk of any of their fears happening to them at the sites and, if so, did they worry about it. During the day, except for St. David's Park, respondents said the risk of something happening to them was higher than their level of worry about it, especially respondents in Elizabeth Mall and Glenorchy Bus Mall. In St. David's Park, people worried a little more about the risk of something happening to them.
Respondents perceived the following infrastructure problems as adding to their sense of risk during the day:
- inconsistent police presence at the sites
- lack of safety features, and
- inadequate seating and waiting area at Hobart Bus Mall.
Respondents of all ages said that the lack, or inconsistency, of a police presence at all of the sites exacerbated their feelings of vulnerability.
While not all respondents agreed, a majority said they felt less safe at sites where there was no video surveillance or other safety features, as there are in Elizabeth Mall, which has video surveillance and a call button at the police booth.
During the day, the lack of adequate seating at the Hobart Bus Mall, and to a lesser extent at the Glenorchy Bus Mall, caused crowding in the late afternoon. Younger and older respondents said that even though security guards were present at the bus malls from mid to late afternoon and this had helped considerably to lessen feelings of vulnerability and to curb threatening behaviour, crowding created conditions conducive to robbery, intimidation and, on occasion, assault.
Night
Respondents mostly had a low to moderate concern for their safety during the day, but at night this was not the case. A significant number of respondents surveyed by the Malls and Public Spaces component who reported concerns, said the sites were unsafe at night.
Elizabeth Mall, Franklin Square and to a lesser extent Hobart Bus Mall were sites where survey respondents worried more for their safety. At Glenorchy Bus Mall and St. David's Park, respondents worried far less about their safety. However, the main reason for this was that respondents said they did not go to these two sites at night. Therefore, they said, they had no concrete reason to worry.
Across all age groups, respondent's said the following infrastructure deficiencies added to their sense of risk at night:
- too little police visibility and no bus mall security personnel in the evening
- lack of safety features and inadequate lighting
- no quickly accessible police point (station) for help in the inner Hobart CBD, and
- little natural surveillance.
Respondents of all ages said that all the sites were inadequately lit - that is, the level and type of lighting did not decrease their sense of vulnerability. In addition, a sense of isolation developed in the evening as businesses closed, with few or no activities happening and few people around.
Comments about there being little natural surveillance at night were linked to a perceived lack of activities to bring more people, and a diversity of people, regularly to the inner city areas of Hobart and Glenorchy. On Friday night, the Hobart City centre attracted young male drivers doing 'blockies'. This deterred others from using the inner city area. 11
2.5.4 People perceived as possibly threatening
In survey responses there was a perception across age groups that only a few people were responsible for crime and threats to people's safety. Those responsible were generally perceived as 'undesirable', young, adult males, especially in groups. This is consistent with research findings in Stage 1 of the National Fear of Crime Project 12 that 'undesirables' and drunken men made people of all ages, especially young women and many young men, gays and lesbians, feel fearful or anxious. Despite saying that groups of young people had not threatened them, younger and older respondents were often anxious around young people congregating in groups.
2.5.5 Direct and indirect experience of incidents causing harm or concern
Observing other people's behaviour
In the Malls and Public Spaces survey, directly observing behaviour and incidents that disturbed them had a significant impact on respondents' perceptions of public spaces being unsafe.
Indirect experience, hearing of other people's experiences and media reporting
Being told of other people's adverse or frightening experiences had a moderate influence on people's perceptions of the sites being unsafe, but this was considerably less of an influence than the experience of directly observing an incident.
Media reporting had little impact on people's perceptions of safety in public spaces. This is best understood by the explanation reported by many respondents, even as they read media reports of violent or frightening incidents or of an 'increase' in crime, that the impact on them was lessened by their belief that the media, print media especially, sensationalise incidents. This finding supports those of Stage 1 of the National Fear of Crime Project. 13 Most respondents compared media reports to their own experience of the public spaces, which mostly did not include them being harmed. Thus the impact of media on their perceptions was lessened.
However, even though the media had a credibility problem, respondents did say that the accumulation of negative media reports influenced their perceptions of specific places over time. This finding also supports those of Stage 1 of the National Fear of Crime Project. 14
Many respondents said that they felt the media stereotyped young people as the perpetrators of crime or as a threat to safety in public spaces. This had negative consequences for how people thought about young people in public spaces and about the spaces themselves. Older and younger people said that adults perpetrated crime and exhibited anti-social behaviour but this was not balanced in media reporting concerning young people.
2.6 Results of focus groups and interviews
2.6.1 Young people
Stereotypes and myths about young people and crime
Young people felt that the community in general ignored the fact that much serious crime was perpetrated by adults and that young people, not adults, were most often the victims of assault. According to police, young people often did not report crimes and violence perpetrated against them, especially by other youths.
Generational differences
Young people felt strongly that what they believed was normal behaviour for them was frowned upon by adults, and that older people exhibited disrespectful behaviour towards them. An example given concerned the lack of respect shown by security guards when speaking to young people at bus malls. When these issues were raised with older people, they agreed that generational differences in the understanding of acceptable behaviour for people in public spaces caused bad feelings between younger and older people.
Conditionality of the right of young people to use public spaces
Across focus groups, there was some difference and conflict in the function and meaning ascribed to public space (eg as commercial or recreational, communal, personal or even 'home' for some). In the project, it became clear that public space had multiple identifications and functions for different people. However, the right of young people to use the spaces, especially as recreational places, was often discussed by a minority of adults and retailers in terms of conditionalities. In particular, the conditions they spoke about concerned young people not 'congregating' in groups or not 'loitering'; that is, being in public spaces without the intention of buying goods or transiting to other places. These conditions were not made for any other members of the community and were seen by young people, and a number of adult respondents, as discriminatory.
2.6.2 Older people
Victims of opportunistic crimes and fear of crime at night
Older people considered themselves to be at risk of 'shove and grab' crimes, such as bag snatching. They believed that these kinds of crimes could result in injury, cause significant and ongoing stress and a loss of confidence in using public spaces. Older women without their own transport feared assault at night in public spaces or at bus stops, so tended not to go out. This restricted their access to recreational and entertainment activities and deprived bus services of potential passengers. Consequently, bus malls were frequented less, resulting in decreased natural surveillance, fewer people about and little activity that would promote feelings of security.
Concern for the well-being of young people
Generally, older people felt there was only a small number of young males who were 'thugs', 'in gangs' and 'troublemakers' and that youth generally got a 'bad name' because of those few who abused others. They expressed concern for the well-being of young people and a strong sentiment that the world had become a hard place for young people, especially with drugs and unemployment. Older people were also concerned for young people whom they felt were intimidated and even bashed by a small number of 'rough' young people. The aggressors were often characterised as unemployed youth, usually males, but occasionally females.
Anxiety about skateboards, being asked for money and 'rowdy' behaviour
Older people were worried about new regulations to be introduced in Tasmania regarding skateboarding on footpaths. For a minority, this translated into a more generalised negative feeling towards young people as a group, who were seen as getting 'whatever they wanted' despite the needs of other community members.
At shopping and bus malls and in the street, it was considered not uncommon for young people to ask for money. This unnerved older people as they were concerned about the young person's reaction if they said 'No'. At bus malls, older people were concerned about rowdy behaviour because they thought they might be accidentally harmed from being shoved or by tripping over bags on walkways. They also disliked hearing 'bad' language.
2.6.3 Women
Bag snatching, verbal abuse, assault, physical injury due to rowdy behaviour
Older women's daytime fears related to robbery (bag snatching), verbal abuse or accidental physical injury due to rowdy behaviour, of young males in particular. Younger women were anxious about verbal abuse, including sexist remarks and being hassled for money at bus malls. In order to deal with such possible threats they tended to stay in a group.
At night, for women of all ages, fears were of a more serious nature, such as sexual harassment or assault. Middle-aged and older women who had been verbally abused in public places, for example by men drinking on the footpath, had become wary of other people. They avoided eye contact, especially with men, and did not make casual conversation at bus stops.
Women who were consulted during this project were very wary of groups of men and, if possible, avoided waiting at bus malls or public spaces at night. Few women reported verbal or physical harassment or sexual assault in public spaces. One reason cited for this was that victims tended to think that others would blame them.
2.6.4 People from migrant, refugee, ethnic and Indigenous backgrounds
Anxiety about verbal abuse, rowdy behaviour, skateboards, groups, and being hassled for money
People from migrant, refugee, ethnic and Indigenous backgrounds who were consulted within this project said that they were wary of people in groups, especially young males in groups. They noted that they were afraid of being harassed for money, verbally abused or physically hurt, usually but not always unintentionally. Migrant and refugee people consulted during the project often felt that young people should be more 'disciplined'.
Lack of English language skills and confidence in language use, racism and sexism
Migrant and refugee women with poor English skills or little confidence in using their English skills felt less safe in public spaces than those with better English language skills. In terms of gender difference, people of migrant background reported little difference in the likelihood of being verbally abused or a victim of crime, but women recounted more incidents of physical harassment than did men. African or Asian people reported that they were often the recipients of racist and sexist remarks on buses and in public spaces. One Filipino long-term migrant said she had been the victim of racist remarks made to her, surprisingly, she said, from 'well dressed adults'. Asian and African women reported that they were occasionally physically harassed or assaulted. The main safety strategy adopted by this group was to travel in small groups.
2.6.5 People with disabilities
Victims of opportunistic crimes, rowdy behaviour, verbal abuse
People with disabilities consulted as part of this project noted that they were often targets for theft. Perpetrators checked to see how much money they had by asking for money for cigarettes and then snatched their purse or wallet.
Rowdy behaviour that could cause accidental injury was cited as a serious source of anxiety for people with disabilities. In particular, they feared being knocked down by skateboards and being further disabled. The also reported being intimidated by verbal abuse, and they feared this occurring in public spaces. As a result, people with disabilities would forgo rights such as claiming designated seats in buses because they feared how others would react.
This group commented that public toilets designated for people with disabilities, known to be used for 'shooting-up', were becoming increasingly unsafe.
People with intellectual disabilities noted that they found teenagers (12-18 years) and people over 60 years of age tended to feel the most uncomfortable around them. Young teenagers sometimes made fun of them, especially on buses, and older people could be critical of them being out in public. By contrast, those consulted found that bus drivers were almost always helpful.
The 1996 Port Arthur shooting in southern Tasmania had a considerable impact on the way people with intellectual disabilities were treated in Tasmania following the tragedy. People with intellectual disabilities and their support workers had become the targets of abusive language as people within the broader community have made connections between intellectual disability and potential threats of violence.
2.6.6 Lesbians and gay people
Hate abuse and assault
A serious issue identified by lesbian and gay people was verbal hate abuse. They reported that in the central city area on Friday and Saturday nights it was common for gay men attending a gay disco to suffer verbal abuse and, on occasion, physical intimidation or physical/sexual assault. Such assaults would also occur in public parks surrounding the CBD. This group reported avoiding Hobart bus malls because they feared being assaulted at such locations. The perpetrators were mostly men, usually in groups, and generally aged between 16 and 25 years.
Lesbians and gays reported the impact of hate abuse and oppressive behaviour as leading to feelings of alienation, suicide and lack of trust in others in public spaces. Gay activists noted that middle class, better educated gay men who had a politicised understanding of sexuality and more resources were generally more confident in dealing with attackers and in reporting incidents to authorities, than were working class men.
Lesbians felt strongly that they had more cause to be concerned about their well-being in public spaces than women in general. They recounted experiences of verbal abuse and physical assault and pointed out that, in public spaces, while heterosexual women would show they were disapproving of lesbians, men were more abusive. Lesbians and gays found that perpetrators operated on stereotypes of them as lacking power and not being a threat to them.
Amongst the many reasons gays rarely reported hate assaults was that they were unsure about what legally constituted an incident, particularly if it wasn't a violent attack. Lesbians and gays indicated that they couldn't assume that police or security guards would stand up for them if they had problems in public spaces.
In all the focus groups, lesbians and gays said that they always assessed the possible risks and continuously watched for possible adversity if using these public spaces. Risk minimisation was always necessary, which included not showing affection in public, monitoring who was around and avoiding parks at night.
In public spaces, avoidance and survival strategies were practised at a great personal cost. Lesbians and gays suggested that they survived by pretending the name calling didn't hurt or affect them. However, such behaviour denied them the ability to live their lives as openly and freely as heterosexuals, and tended to reinforce self-blaming responses.
2.6.7 Summary of results of focus groups
There was a marked gender difference in feelings of security in public spaces. More men than women expressed a sense of security because they said they could take care of themselves, particularly during the day.
At night, many people said they felt (or would feel) nervous at the project sites and generally avoided them. This was due mostly to the persistence of a word of mouth 'bad image' of the sites. Media reports of incidents that occurred in the inner city area also gave them feel a general sense of vulnerability in public spaces at night. The minority who did not avoid the sites at night were mostly young adult males and some women who used them regularly. Elizabeth Mall and the bus malls were avoided by adults and some young people in the mid to late afternoon period when these spaces were quite crowded with young people.
Overall findings are listed below.
- The most common response to adverse experiences or fears of public spaces was to avoid them. People felt that they could not do anything to moderate the behaviour of others which caused them concern.
- There was a common perception that it was only a few people who caused serious trouble at any of the sites, characterised as young adult males.
- According to women's services, few women reported verbal abuse, harassment and sexual assault in Hobart's public spaces.
- People of migrant/ethnic background, especially people from Asia and Africa had occasionally experienced racist verbal abuse, physical intimidation and harassment, women more so than men.
- Indigenous respondents felt they were harassed by people and authorities who did not want them in public parks. Some felt there was more open racism displayed in suburban streets than at the project sites. They believed that tensions would decrease if police had more cultural awareness training and practised better communication skills.
- Lesbians felt they might not get the same protection a heterosexual woman would if threatened in a public space and could not assume that authorities such as police or security guards would support them if they encountered problems in public spaces.
- Rowdy behaviour such as pushing and shoving, use of bad language, spitting and noisy people in groups made others feel anxious. Many people strongly disliked being 'asked' ('hassled') for money or cigarettes and felt insecure about saying no.
- There was a perception that there was no accessible police point for help in the Hobart CBD at night. This led to the common feeling that the city should be avoided at night, even if a person believed the risk of harm was low.
At all project sites, perceptions that lighting was inadequate made a significant contribution to feelings of vulnerability.
There was a consensus that media reporting and television programmes influenced perceptions of crime and heightened feelings of vulnerability in public spaces.
Factors identified by adults and young people as contributing to young people's difficulties included:
- unemployment
- lack of income and recreational facilities
- lack of purpose and appropriate emotional/social outlets
- lack of literacy/numeracy skills
- peer pressure
- drugs and a lack of services to manage substance addiction
- family breakdown
- violent television shows and movies and some music influences.
2.7 Strategies suggested by respondents
In surveys, focus groups and interviews, respondents were asked for suggestions to address their fears and concerns at the sites. Survey responses tended to focus on police presence and infrastructure issues. However, in consultations and focus groups the discussion was much broader. The responses are summarised below.
2.7.1 Risk minimisation strategies
Respondents suggested a number of risk minimisation, conflict avoidance and survival strategies. Examples of these were:
- invisibility and vigilance
- using humour with others, while noting who is in the vicinity and how close they are
- not walking around alone at night
- staying away from the malls and public parks at night
- not moving around or arriving at or leaving places alone
- using cabs.
2.7.2 Law and order and safety infrastructure
Police
- Increase police visibility, with foot patrols by day and night.
- Have plain clothes police at bus malls from the afternoon until late in the evening.
- Ensure that the Elizabeth St Mall police booth is manned at night.
- Have a manned police point in the city centre closer to the Hobart Bus Mall.
- Encourage reporting by lesbians and gays of hate motivated abuse and assault.
- Develop police communication skills and knowledge of the community.
Security
- Extend the time security personnel patrol the bus malls should be extended into the evening.
- Train security staff in conflict resolution and communication.
Safety features, city councils, Metro and police
- Make available, at all times and at all sites, emergency assistance features, such as surveillance cameras, push-button distress signals or telephones connected to police stations.
- Install adequate lighting at the sites and their amenities (eg toilets).
- Clearly mark borders between footpaths and roads in parks and at bus malls.
- Develop a system to enable private motor vehicle access to Glenorchy Bus Mall at night (eg as at the Eastlands bus mall) to increase natural surveillance.
- Redevelop Hobart Bus Mall with adequate shelter and seating to lessen crowding.
- Encourage Tasmania Police, Glenorchy City Council and community groups representing frequent users of buses to discuss a possible joint services information kiosk and safety point at the Glenorchy Bus Mall.
- Encourage local councils to develop codes of behaviour/management protocols for public spaces in a consultative process that includes young people.
Bus service - Metro
- Make known to the public the rights of bus drivers to discipline passengers (eg for verbal abuse).
- Train drivers to assert passengers' rights to be free of harassment (eg racism).
- Schedule more frequent bus services, late night hourly buses and night 'Doorstoppers', such as a service from Glenorchy to Hobart and return on at least two nights per week.
- Employ more inspectors in the bus system.
2.7.3 Community-oriented processes
- Encourage more interactions to bridge the 'generation gap', to build mutual respect and promote a more positive image of young people.
- Encourage police to develop a better understanding of the needs of people from the project target groups in relation to public spaces.
- Develop programmes for older people to feel more confident in public spaces.
- Build infrastructure in St David's Park, rated as the most under-utilised site, to attract a greater range of people over the day and into the evening.
Meeting the needs of young people
- Build better relations between young people, police and private security personnel.
- Build more entertainment and recreational facilities at the sites and under-age venues.
- Create employment opportunities and services.
- Employ more youth workers and services to deal with drugs and alcohol.
- Encourage Metro, city councils and the business sector to consult with young people when planning public open spaces.
Media
- Local government, police and non-government agencies to use the media to promote positive attitudes about people using public spaces.
Respondents' uncertainty about options to address fear of crime in public spaces
Many respondents could not suggest strategies to address their concerns or fears. There is a need for further discussion to develop strategies and to address the issues identified by the community. More information is required and work needed to empower all people to be able to contribute to their own safety in public spaces.
2.7.4 Conclusion
Differences of significance
In the Malls and Public Spaces component survey, females were more likely to have fears about assault, robbery and rowdy behaviour than males.
The fears and anxieties identified in the focus groups were similar to those cited by survey respondents. In addition, young people's concerns about intolerance and disrespectful behaviour shown towards them and for some, a generalised feeling that they were not welcome in public spaces, was made clear in the discussions. Amongst adults, older people, gay and lesbian people, people from migrant, ethnic and Indigenous backgrounds and people with disabilities, there was a more marked concern about verbal abuse and anti-social behaviour. Young people and people from the project target groups felt that their right to be in public spaces, to be safe in them and not be discriminated against needed to be more strongly asserted in society.
In terms of addressing fear of serious crime, such as assault and robbery, respondents' main suggestions were for increased and more diverse security infrastructure to be put in place by police, councils and Metro bus services.
Strategy planning and implementation should take into account those who felt the most vulnerable - that is, which was females across age groups, older people from all backgrounds, women especially, and people from target groups, particularly gay and lesbian people and people with a disability.
Notes
- See Appendix Part B Appendix (ii) for a copy of the survey for the Malls and Public Spaces component
- See Appendix Part B: Table 2b, for a breakdown of organisations and sectors from which interviewees were recruited.
- Summary Volume, Fear of Crime, NCAVAC, Attorney-General's Department, Canberra, page 8, 1998.
- Summary Volume, Fear of Crime, NCAVAC, Attorney-General's Department, Canberra, page 8, 1998.
- Summary Volume, Fear of Crime, NCAVAC, Attorney-General's Department, Canberra, page 8, 1998.
- 'Blockies' involve groups of young people in cars driving continuously round and round the inner city blocks.
- Summary Volume, Fear of Crime, NCAVAC, Attorney-General's Department, Canberra, page 8, 1998.
- Summary Volume, Fear of Crime, NCAVAC, Attorney-General's Department, Canberra, page 10, 1998.
- Summary Volume, Fear of Crime, NCAVAC, Attorney-General's Department, Canberra, page 10, 1998.
3 Strategies arising from surveys, interviews and focus groups
3.1 Development of strategies
In response to the findings of the consultation phase, possible strategies were presented to the Steering Committee in September 1999 . 15
Strategy suggestions for key stakeholders (police, Hobart and Glenorchy Councils and Tasmania Metro) that were beyond the project's scope are included in the report's recommendations.
The Committee developed a list of issues arising from the survey, interviews and focus groups. A number of selection criteria were also developed to guide the selection of strategies. These have been outlined in section 1.5.3 of the report.
3.2 Implementation and outcomes of strategies
Three possible strategies were discussed and outlined for development and implementation for the Malls and Public Spaces component. These strategies addressed the issues raised through the survey, consultations and focus groups. The three strategies were:
- a media campaign
- disability awareness training for police recruits and serving officers.
- safety awareness training for older people and people with disabilities.
3.2.1 Media campaign
The principal message to be conveyed to the community through the media campaign was that, Public spaces are for everyone.
This strategy used television, radio, cinema and print advertisements (ads) to raise awareness in the community that, through our behaviour, we can all contribute to the perception that public spaces are enjoyable and safe spaces for everyone to use.
A key finding of the consultations was a strong feeling that too few people practised respectful behaviour in public spaces and this could make them feel unsafe. The other impact of such behaviour was the perception that public spaces were unpleasant places which were to be avoided.
Respondents felt that respectful behaviour was built upon an understanding of public spaces as shared spaces and an acknowledgment that everyone has a right to be in them and a responsibility to contribute to making them feel safe and enjoyable. Respondents thought that respectful behaviour in public spaces required sensitivity to the diversity of people in the community and how different behaviours would affect them.
The strategy addressed the following issues: respectful behaviour; non-judgmental attitudes; everyone's right to use and be safe in public spaces; and individual responsibility in public spaces. These issues had been raised by all target groups, the general community and young people.
The strategy recognised that younger and older females and minority groups especially, tended to be more fearful for their safety than were others. It also acknowledged that most people who responded to the surveys and participated in the focus groups identified a higher fear of crime in the project sites at night. It sought to target and negate stereotyping of young people which had been identified by a significant number of people in the consultations as being both unjust and a cause of unnecessary fear in public spaces.
Aims of the Media Campaign Strategy
- To encourage community members to be aware of their behaviour in public spaces.
- To provide direction to the community on behaviours and attitudes which would create a perception that public spaces are safe and enjoyable environments for all community members to use.
Target group
For this strategy the target group was identified as the general community. The diversity of representation in the TV community service announcements and radio and print media ads was intended to ensure that they appealed to the various sectors of the general community.
Southern Cross Television (SCTV) produced five TV ads, HOFM produced three radio ads and TTT-FM radio station, Village Cinemas and the Mercury and Advocate newspapers sponsored the campaign. All ran ads for free or at a minimal cost as a community service.
Process
Scripts for TV and radio ads were developed by the project officer with the input of members of the Youth Consultative Committee, the Steering Committee, the evaluators, people from the project target groups and Southern Cross Television station (SCTV).
ABC television broadcast all the TV ads. City Heart Business Association Ltd contributed financially to the campaign.
Cinema
One TV ad was transferred from video tape to 35mm film by Cinevex Film Laboratories, Melbourne and run by Village Cinemas. The advertisement called The Bus was run for a month in Village Cinemas in Hobart and Launceston.
Radio
HOFM, Hobart, produced three 15-second ads, which were broadcast in 48 slots in prime time over a two-week period. TTT-FM, Hobart, had three sessions on talkback radio with young people from the Youth Consultative Committee discussing what public spaces meant to them, safety, behaviour and ways to share public spaces.
The Mercury and Advocate newspapers each produced and ran an advertisement. The Advocate contributed half the cost of printing its ad a poster that was placed on the bulkhead of some Metro buses in Hobart and Launceston.
Media, TV advertisements, themes and scenarios
Five separate 30-second ads were produced by SCTV. These were broadcast state-wide on SCTV for three months and on the ABC for one month.
Ad descriptions
Channel 31 in Melbourne, a community TV channel, broadcast the ad called Assault.
The TV ads were market tested with community members from a range of backgrounds and ages, and with the Steering Committee, the Tasmanian Minister for Police and Public Safety and the Tasmanian Commissioner of Police as Chair of the Crime Prevention and Community Safety Council (CP&CSC). The ads were endorsed by the CP&CSC.
Television
The themes of the TV ads were:
- respectful behaviour
- non-judgmental attitudes
- everyone's right to use and be safe in public spaces, and
- individual responsibility in public spaces.
The community service announcements started with the same music, scenes and voice-over: Public spaces are for all of us - what you do makes a difference, and finished with the voice-over: Whatever your age, gender, appearance, race or sexuality, public spaces are for all of us - what you do makes the difference'.
The following is a brief description of each advertisement. This has been included so that the evaluative feedback in relation to specific announcements can be understood.
Bus: Older woman on a bus doing a crossword, we hear her think, Words for young people? As some young people get on, two older people look at them and we hear them think druggie', criminals, we hear the older woman doing the crossword think, Me, thirty years ago. On the screen are the words 'We judge too much by appearances'.
Objective: to promote understanding and non-judgmental attitudes towards others in public spaces, especially people different from us.
Vox Pops: Excerpts from interviews with women and men of different ages.
Objective: to encourage people to reflect on their attitudes and behaviours which impact on people's sense of safety, enjoyment or inclusion in public spaces.
Assault: Young adult man says, I was walking home when three guys came up to me. A mate said I should've got a taxi or crossed the road, but why should I? They had the problem. They laid into me yelling 'Faggot!'. I'm not a faggot. I'm gay. Public spaces should be safe for everyone, it doesn't matter who you are. And they can be if we look out for each other and show some respect.
Objectives: to project the principle that everyone has a right to be in, and be safe in, public spaces, and that public safety is everyone's responsibility.
This ad was not shown during early viewing time as it was not considered suitable for young audiences. Therefore, young people taking part in the feedback interviews were not asked to rate this ad.
Steps: Older woman with a walking stick wants to go up some steps. Two young women are sitting on them near the hand rail. When they see her they smile and move over, she smiles and acknowledges their gesture.
Objective: to present a situation between younger and older people that is handled by both parties in a friendly way, to project an image of public spaces as being inclusive and to promote good feelings between people of different ages.
Respect: Three young people are sitting in Elizabeth Mall. Two older people walk by. A voice-over says, I feel respected in public places when..., followed by each person's thought: you speak to me in a friendly way, you make space for me to sit down, you smile at me instead of frowning, you say 'thanks', and, you move your bags so I won't trip over.
Objective: to give examples of behaviours that promote respectful behaviour in public spaces and enhance the feeling that they are pleasant and safe. This reflects a sentiment strongly expressed in the consultations.
Radio
1. Older man talking in a conversational style: Young people are boisterous, it doesn't mean they'll knock me over or rob me. I see a lot of young people about and I say g'day. They're OK. We should give them a chance. Voice-over says, Public spaces are for all of us - what you do makes a difference.
2. Young man: When we're hanging out with our friends we don't mean to make you feel anxious. We cannot meet in pubs or clubs like you can, so we meet in public spaces, they're for all of us. Voice-over: Public spaces are for all of us - what you do makes a difference.
3. Young people: You probably didn't know that our body piercing and hairstyles, and wearing caps everywhere, aren't meant to offend you, times change, don't judge us on appearances. Voice-over: Public spaces are for all of us - what you do makes a difference.
Community feedback from the media campaign
The project officer designed a questionnaire for written responses and ran discussions 16 about the TV ads with 136 people aged 11 to 19 years and 60 adults aged 20 to over 65 years, in Hobart and Glenorchy. Feedback was also sought from members of the Hobart City Council Disability Access Committee, Glenorchy City Council Disability Access Committee, the Friends of Community Health and the Glenorchy Safer Communities Committee.
The TV ads achieved their aims
Overall, the young people who participated in the evaluation discussions and filled out the questionnaire, and the adults who were interviewed for the questionnaire, thought that the ads were successful in achieving their aims.
Bus: The reasons given for liking the ad included that it had a strong message about not judging people on appearances and showed an older person who did not think 'all young people are druggies'. Young people thought the range of opinions shown was good and realistic. The humour and use of the everyday scene of getting on a bus were appreciated - people said they found it easy to identify with. The ad was recognised as showing a range of age groups and was something 'everyone can relate to'. Some young people said it showed that not all older people thought the same way about them.
Vox Pops: People over 20 years found the ad to be very effective as it showed a cross-section of ages and backgrounds and it dealt with feelings. Also, people were 'speaking for themselves' in this ad. For some viewers it highlighted how 'some people notice the little things'. It had appeal to a wide audience, was 'honest' and provided humour. The younger respondents, 11 to 13 years old, found the vox pops to be less effective. The ad featured people expressing their feelings about public spaces. It was more complex, contextualised and raised multiple issues about using public spaces.
Assault: The ad was considered by young adults to be very effective, especially by males from 14 to 19 years old. It rated lowest with the over 50-year-olds. Respondents found it clear in its message. They said that it highlighted an important issue and 'got people thinking'. Some young people thought it was sad while others said 'it made you think about your attitudes and views'. Many respondents said it was relevant to other types of assaults and it raised an important issue that should have more attention paid to it. Some older people considered issues of respect in public spaces to be more important.
Steps: The ad was seen as effective by the over 50-year-olds and made a particular impression on some young people, as it showed an older woman acknowledging what the young people had done. They noted that achieving respect was a two-way process. It was a powerful ad for some people because it used visuals rather than words to project a message. Some said it was useful because it showed a simple thing could make a difference. Small actions were considered important.
Respect: The ad made a particular impression on women and men over 50, males more so, and on the youngest age group. Their main comments centred on it being 'understandable' and promoting the importance of people being more caring towards each other. It rated lowest with the 14-19 year age group and, overall, attracted less specific comment than did the other ads.
In the over 50 age group, males said the most effective ads were Respect and Steps, followed by The Bus and Vox Pops. Older females said the opposite. The 11-13 year olds, males in the 14 to 19 age group and the over 50 age group found Steps and Respect to be more effective than did females in all age groups. These ads were very straightforward in the way they delivered their messages.
These results indicate that the strategy was successful among those surveyed in raising awareness about the issues relating to shared use of public space. Furthermore, respondents across all age groups noted that having a range of different community service advertisements enhanced the strategy's effectiveness. The fact that the ads were set in a local and familiar setting was particularly important in terms of impact. There was a high level of recognition of the themes promoted through the strategy on the part of those respondents who participated in the evaluation.
General comments from those surveyed
Respondents noted that future ads should include:
- young people in school uniform
- 11-13 year olds
- people more clearly from an ethnic background.
During the period of time that the ads ran, they became familiar to a broad range of people within the community. The ads sought to raise awareness rather than change behaviour or attitudes.
For some of the young people who provided feedback about the media strategy, the outcome was that they 'did not find the people they see in the Mall as scary now'.
This strategy would be transferable to other jurisdictions.
3.2.2 Disability awareness training for police recruits and serving officers
This strategy dealt with the concerns and fears of people with disabilities in public spaces and the perceived need for police to better understand and respond to the circumstances and situations people with disabilities encountered in public spaces. The strategy had two parts:
- training for police recruits
- training for serving police.
Each part is separately as they were run by different groups, based in different locations and involved some different materials.
Disability awareness training for recruits
This training involved a day of activities, information sharing and discussions with people with a range of disabilities to help recruits gain a greater understanding of the experiences of people with disabilities in public spaces and how they could better respond to them.
Aims
- To enhance police-community relations in public spaces.
- To facilitate conflict resolution in public spaces.
Target group
Police recruits
Process
Twenty recruits undertook a one-day training programme developed and run by members of Glenorchy City Council's (GCC) Access Committee. Materials were adapted from the GCC Disability Awareness Training Package, developed for GCC employees. The Manager of the GCC Volunteer Programme facilitated the training and Tasmania Police enthusiastically supported the training programme.
The day began with trainers and recruits introducing themselves. The trainers were people with a disability (sight, mobility, hearing, physical). This was followed by a session defining terms and discussing the Commonwealth's Disability Discrimination Act and the Tasmanian Anti-discrimination Act.
As part of the workshop, recruits were required to simulate a disability while accompanied to the central business district by the trainers to undertake specific tasks. Some recruits were put in wheelchairs; some were made to be sight or hearing impaired. After lunch, recruits reported back on their experience and discussed how their 'disability' had impacted on them personally and how it would impact on their work.
Feedback from recruits and trainers - disability awareness training
The project officer designed and implemented written evaluation questionnaires that were completed at the time of the training by the trainers and participants.
Questionnaires were answered by three female and two male trainers with an age range of 40 to 60 years. The types of disabilities represented were sight, hearing, speech and mobility.
Most trainers said the programme more than met their expectations. One mentioned that he anticipated some resistance from the recruits, but this did not occur. The trainers felt that the recruits were more aware, following the training programme, of the issues faced by people with disabilities in public spaces and how to respond to them.
The trainers said the programme would help to build police-community relations. It was felt that the open and friendly discussion between the recruits and trainers had helped to break down stereotypes.
The trainers also felt that they had gained a better understanding of how recruits dealt with situations in public spaces. However, the trainers expressed a need for more time for in-depth discussion, which could have taken place over an informal session during the lunch break.
Questionnaires were answered by 20 police recruits aged 19 to 35 years. The recruits noted the usefulness of the experiential activity. Police recruits felt that this training would help them in their work and, in particular, when they faced situations in public spaces which involved people with disabilities.
All recruits said the training would help them to be more broad-minded and more aware of people with disabilities and the problems they encountered. They also felt that they would be less likely to jump to conclusions, more aware of what they were required to do and more able to respond appropriately, confidently and therefore effectively.
A follow-up meeting was held with some recruits six weeks after the training programme. The information folder with contact numbers given out at the training was considered to be very useful 'on the job'.
Disability awareness training for serving police officers
This strategy sought to address the need identified in the consultations for people with disabilities and police officers to feel that police officers better understood, and could better respond to, circumstances and situations encountered in public spaces by people with disabilities.
The training involved a one-day workshop to explore the physical, communication and attitudinal barriers relating to people with disabilities.
It included a range of interactive activities involving discussion and experiential components.
Aims
- To help serving police officers to develop an awareness and a greater understanding of the meaning of:
- disability, its scope, complexity and diversity
- discrimination, attitudes and beliefs which impact upon behaviour and practices, linked to a greater understanding of discrimination within legislative frameworks
- To raise awareness of the issues people with disabilities face in public spaces
- To explore opportunities which could lead to improved outcomes for police and people with disabilities when accessing and using public open spaces
- To model a partnership process within the training format
- To develop an ongoing partnership between Tasmania Police and Tasmanians with Disabilities in the provision of further training.
Target group
Serving police officers.
Process
In four separate groups, 45 serving police officers took part in a one-day experiential training programme, organised and presented by Tasmanians with Disabilities in partnership with Hobart City Council. The training was facilitated by the Vice President of Tasmanians with Disabilities and the Community Development Officer from Hobart City Council, in conjunction with a panel of people with disabilities. The group developed the training materials. Tasmania Police enthusiastically supported the training programme.
The day began with introductions and small group discussions about what disability means, led by panel members, followed by a whole-group discussion. A speaker from the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Commission gave an overview of the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Act.
Following this there was a group session, led by the panel, who spoke about the issues they faced as individuals with disabilities and how this could relate to police officers in their work. In turn, police officers discussed their work and how people with disabilities could assist them with it.
Another session involved the police officers in an experiential activity, 'taking on' a disability and undertaking tasks in the city, accompanied by the trainers. This was followed by a de-briefing and a group activity that gave the officers an opportunity to apply some of the principles learned in the earlier sessions.
Feedback from serving officers and trainers
Questionnaires were answered by a total of seven trainers: three females and four males, aged 33 to 69 years. The type of disabilities represented were sight, sound, mobility and multiple sclerosis. A disability worker on the panel represented people with intellectual disabilities.
The trainers said the training had established links between police and disability groups as well as increased the police officers' knowledge of issues relating to people with disabilities. The trainers indicated that they hoped that this increased knowledge would mean that police would be more comfortable and confident in dealing with people with disabilities in situations in public spaces. The trainers identified a need to hold further discussions with police about some regulations and their enforcement, as well as a need for ongoing training at all levels of the police force.
Questionnaires were answered by 36 police Officers, the majority of whom were male. Thirty-two of the 36 participants rated the course at or above 8, out of a score of 10.
Serving police officers who completed the training said their awareness of the issues faced by people with disabilities had changed and this would help them in their work in a number of specific ways, including being more tolerant and more conscious of different communication styles. Most participants said the programme had 'opened their eyes' significantly.
Police officers said the training had fostered their understanding of the importance of being more tolerant and aware of different people's perceptions of situations, in order to be able to respond in a way that would minimise tensions in public spaces. The programme had taught the officers how to better communicate with people with disabilities, to know what people with disabilities might want from them and how they could help police in their job.
At the end of the training programme, police officers and trainers expressed the importance of the training being offered by Tasmania Police to other serving police officers.
The evaluation follow-up indicated that participants had gained an increased awareness of disability issues and, in some instances, had been able to use the information gained in their daily work.
Suggested changes for future training programmes
Participants said the programme was 'good fun, very well presented, well structured, educational and informative with good topics, good group sessions and excellent practical exercises'. For future programmes, they suggested additional experiential activities with time to experience a range of disabilities, not just one, and time to hear from individuals with different disabilities. More information on mental disability and on the range of available resources was also suggested. While some officers wanted time to discuss the anti-discrimination legislation at length, others wanted less time spent on it.
Outcomes from recruits and serving officers' disability awareness training
The feedback indicated that this strategy would enhance police-community relations in relation to people with disabilities. The skills learned included:
- assessing the requirements of an individual, and
- not making rash assumptions
These skills are likely to be transferable to other public space situations.
The strategy provided a model for training police which involved:
- use of consumer advocates, and
- experiential training.
The model is replicable and it could be extended to incorporate other issues, such as working effectively with people with mental health problems.
This strategy, thought to be valuable by Tasmania Police, has been continued.
3.2.3 Safety awareness training for older people
This strategy addressed older people's need to have a greater feeling of control when in public spaces. It recognised that their main fears centred on assault and robbery. It also recognised that women more so than men feared for their safety in public spaces.
Community-based organisations were asked to participate in the one-day workshops so that they could act as information gatherers and disseminators. The rationale for this was to provide safety information to as many segments of the older population as possible through community groups. Each community group representative was encouraged to take the information and any literature received during the workshop back to their organisation and to disseminate it to other members of their organisation through meetings and newsletters. This would then ensure that a wider percentage of the population was reached.
Twenty-one older women and men from community-based organisations, including women's, migrant, ethnic and disability organisations, took part in the workshops on safety concerns. These workshops were conducted by resource people who had expertise in personal safety. The community groups' members who took part in the workshops received information on how to protect themselves and their belongings and on support services available to victims of crime.
Aims
- To enhance older people's sense of safety in public and private spaces.
- To inform organisations of safety and support services.
Target groups
Older people, through the following community-based organisations:
- Older Person's and Women's Organisations: Tasmanian Pensioners Union; Country Women's Associations; and Hobart Senior Citizens Club.
- Migrant and Ethnic Organisations: Polish Association; Polish Welfare Office; Hobart-German Club; German-Australian Association; Hobart Reformed Church (Dutch community); Italian Australian Pensioners Association; and Chinese Cultural Association.
- Disability Organisations: Deaf Society; Tasmanians with Disabilities; Hobart City Council DDA Committee; and Glenorchy City Council Disability Access Committee.
Process
Resource people
- Bronilyn Smith, Managing Director, Defence Dynamics
- Constable Harry Ebsworth, Tasmania Police
- Jocelyn Freedman, Coordinator, Victims of Crime Service, Southern Tasmania
Two one-day sessions were held, one in Hobart and one in Glenorchy, with a total of 14 female and seven male participants. At each location, the programme began with information sharing and discussions by Ms Smith with the resource people. This included a video on safety techniques and practices made specifically for older people. Constable Ebsworth led a discussion about coping with change and perceptions of others in public spaces. This related particularly to young people and dealing with feelings of vulnerability and anxiety. The day finished with Jocelyn Freedman discussing safety strategies in public spaces, the impact of crime on people, how the Victims of Crime Service could assist people after a crime or incident and how the organisations involved in the safety awareness training could assist the Victims of Crime Service to perform its role.
Feedback from safety awareness training for older people
The results of the evaluation of the safety awareness sessions were mixed. Some participants felt 'more wary' about public spaces following the sessions because they had become more aware of other people's experiences and what could happen in public spaces.
When asked at the end of the workshop day, almost all participants said their knowledge of services had increased. Before the session, most participants had not been aware of the Victims of Crime Service, and they learnt new information about Tasmania Police.
The participants said they had a greater awareness of their responsibilities in relation to protecting themselves and their property; they would have a more positive approach to daily life, having learnt techniques to help them look after their own safety; and now knew better how to defend themselves. They said they would be more inclined to report any crime to the police and better understood how crime impacted on others. While some said they practised safety techniques in public spaces, most said they would now change how they used them. A number said they felt more confident about self-protection and were more prepared in case of assault. The majority of participants felt more secure as a result of the information they had gained.
All participants said the information would be useful to their organisations and that they would organise information sessions led by resource people from the services who spoke to them. They also intended to use their organisation's newsletter and networks to impart information they had learnt. Further, they would encourage others to become safety conscious by talking to friends and colleagues.
Follow-up feedback of safety awareness session
The project officer designed and implemented a written evaluation questionnaire that was administered at the end of the information sessions. Participants were asked about the usefulness of the information provided, how they might apply it to their everyday life and how they might share the information within their own organisation.
Participants noted that they had gained new information on the services available to help them. However, many of the people involved in the information sessions tended to avoid public spaces. Some participants provided the information they had received in their organisational newsletter while others informally discussed the information during organisational meetings.
Most participants, while they shared the information with family or friends, did not feel they were in a position to pass on the information in any structured way to others. They felt that in order to do so they would need training on how to do this and access to educational aids such as videos.
Most participants suggested that their organisations would benefit greatly from 'first hand information' from people from the support agencies. While a number of participants spoke of organising information sessions for their members, none had done so by the time the evaluation was undertaken.
The strategy achieved its aim to enhance participants' sense of awareness of safety mechanisms, which to some extent provided a feeling of being more able or more self-assured. It also informed participants about the organisations available to provide support services.
3.3 Activities to continue beyond the life of the project
While the Malls and Public Spaces component of the project raised awareness of issues relating to fear of crime within the broader community, part of the development of this project involved establishing a network of organisations involved in addressing fear of crime as a community-based issue. These government and non-government organisations, while lending assistance to the project, were also involved in the further development of programmes and projects to combat fear of crime within the community.
3.3.1 Tasmanian Crime Prevention and Community Safety Council (CP&CSC)
The value of the project in raising the profile of fear of crime as an issue needing to be more broadly and strategically addressed was underscored by the activities of the CP&CSC. It supported local governments and community groups to design proposals addressing community safety, including fear of crime, and sought funding for them from the National Crime Prevention Programme. It also provided funding itself to assist some communities in this.
3.3.2 Hobart City Council
Hobart City Council has had a long commitment to addressing community safety issues. While council staff and aldermen were actively involved in the strategies developed through the project, they continued to address these issues through a number of processes and activities, such as:
- participating in the Hobart Community Police Liaison Group, chaired by an alderman
- participating in Hobart City Safe-Safety Cameras
- refurbishing the CBD, which has incorporated safety considerations in urban design
- Park Watch
- the Youth Services Programme, which has involved a range of youth initiatives and the employment of youth workers
- exploring infrastructure and community development strategies to address fear of crime
- supporting the disability awareness training programme for serving police officers in conjunction with Tasmanians with Disabilities.
3.3.3 Glenorchy City Council
Glenorchy City Council has had a distinct focus on crime prevention issues over recent years and worked on these in parallel with this project. It has initiated activities such as:
- developing an ongoing crime prevention strategy
- developing other ways of involving young people in decision-making within the city
- adapting the police recruit training programme developed by the Council's Access Committee for the purposes of this project, and
- inviting local police to participate in the organisation's ongoing disability awareness staff training programme.
3.3.4 Metro Tasmania Pty Ltd
Metro Tasmania was actively involved in the project. It helped develop a number of initiatives, such as:
- distributing the Rights and Responsibilities Guide for the Youth Participation component
- continuing to hold a dialogue with local Councils to address infrastructure issues
- ensuring that appropriate skills development for bus mall security personnel was provided (eg by addressing communication skills), and
- assisting in the development of a code of conduct, which included conduct on buses and within street infrastructure such as bus malls.
3.3.5 Tasmania Police
- Tasmania Police offered disability awareness training to its recruits and serving police officers and indicated a commitment to continue to do so.
3.3.6 Tasmanians with Disabilities
Based on their experiences training serving police officers, Tasmanians with Disabilities intended to develop further training programmes for other agencies and services.
Notes
- see Appendix Part B (iv) for list of the strategies considered.
- see Appendix Part C Appendix (v) for the evaluation questionnaires, and details of results.
Part C: The Youth Participation component
The project plan for the Youth Participation component was designed by the auspicing bodies listed below. The project plan was endorsed by the Australian Government's National Crime Prevention Programme. The Youth Participation component was managed by the Youth Network of Tasmania.
It was considered necessary to identify and deliver strategies and community projects to facilitate better community/youth interaction and mutual use of public space.
4.1 Auspicing bodies
Crime Prevention and Community Safety Council
The Crime Prevention and Community Safety Council was established by the Tasmanian Government in 1998 to develop an integrated approach to crime prevention from a whole-of-government perspective. The council consists of community and public sector representatives. The Youth Network of Tasmania is also represented on the council.
The Youth Network of Tasmania (YNOT)
YNOT is a state-wide peak body for the youth sector in Tasmania. YNOT's role is to facilitate the participation of young people and service providers in the identification of youth issues and the development of strategies and policies to address these issues.
The Common Ground Steering Committee
The Steering Committee comprised representatives from the following key organisations:
- Department of Justice.
- Crime Prevention and Community Safety Council
- Tasmanian Department of Police and Public Safety
- Youth Network of Tasmania
- Glenorchy City Council
- Hobart City Council
- Metro Tasmania Pty Ltd
The Steering Committee met every six weeks to be updated and to make decisions relating to key aspects of the project.
4.2 Advisory groups involved in the project
In addition to the auspicing bodies, a number of other groups and projects informed the project. Initially, two groups were set up to become advisers to the project and to facilitate access to youth services, information and young people.
The Joint Youth Action Priorities (YAP) Project
This group preceded the Common Ground Project (Youth Participation component).
In 1997, YNOT received a grant of $5000 from the Communities Tasmania Grants Programme. This was used to initiate a youth participation mechanism for southern Tasmania. With this funding, a committee of young people was established to focus its activities on issues surrounding young peoples' use of public space, community perceptions of young people, and positive interactions between young people and the wider community. The committee helped to identify the need for consultation with young people to resolve issues about public space.
The reference group
This group consisted of the youth development officers from Hobart and Glenorchy City Council and the peer support worker for the Youth Participation component. This group met regularly throughout the life of the project. Its function was to support and advise the peer support worker and, through her, the Youth Consultative Committee, primarily to ensure that the aims and outcomes of the project were met.
The Youth Consultative Committee
The Youth Consultative Committee consisted of nine people aged between 15 and 25 years from a variety of backgrounds. 17
These young people were drawn from a previously established group formed in 1998 known as the Greater Hobart Youth Consultative Committee. The Youth Consultative Committee was engaged as an advisory committee for the project in a volunteer capacity and acted as a channel for communication between the youth sector and young people. It also aimed to facilitate greater support and empowerment for young people and to promote more effective service delivery to young people.
The function of this Committee was to consult on the progress and process used for the Youth Participation component of the Common Ground project. The committee also made significant contributions to the Malls and Public Spaces component of the project (eg providing input on the media strategy). It was the role of the peer support worker to liaise and relay information between the Common Ground Steering Committee and the Youth Consultative Committee.
The Committee initially met once every two weeks at the Youth Network of Tasmania. During busier periods, while devising and implementing strategies, the committee met weekly or more often as required.
4.3 Aim of the youth participation component of the project
The aim of the Youth Participation component of the project was 'to develop a youth participation mechanism for southern Tasmania that can engage with the wider community to effectively identify and respond to community perceptions and fears about young peoples' use of public space'.
4.4 Objectives of the youth participation project
The Youth Participation component, while working to the broader Common Ground aims and objectives, also operated under a specific set of objectives. These are outlined below.
- Consult with young people and the broader community about fear of crime and related issues such as:
- the relationship of young people to the malls and surrounding public spaces (eg the ways young people use public space)
- urban design issues in the Malls and surrounding public spaces, and
- how to resolve tensions, real and perceived, between young people's use of public space and other interests. - Create opportunities for young people and other sectors of the community to meet together (eg business representatives, older people, service providers) to discuss the use of the malls and surrounding public spaces and to develop their own strategies and compromises regarding the use of the malls and public spaces.
- Promote a more positive youth image (working with the media and the community in general) addressing any negative images surrounding young people and tackling, in particular, people's perception that young people are 'the problem' with respect to crime.
- Reduce people's fear of young people by facilitating positive interaction between young people and other members of the community.
4.5 Methods used for collecting information
The overall methodology of the Common Ground Project has been described in Part A of this report. The Youth Participation component utilised a mix of quantitative and qualitative data collection methods, to enable an understanding of the issues on a macro and micro level. Baseline data was collected to establish the most common issues raised by young people in the community in relation to the spaces being investigated.
Initially a broad representation of young people's attitudes to, and perceptions of, using the public spaces involved in this project was sought. A survey appropriate to the target group was developed, with a high level of input from the Youth Consultative Committee. It was developed to be relatively quick to complete and was administered by members of the committee with the peer support worker and support from youth development officers from the two participating councils.
The survey was followed by consultations with:
- groups and services that provided assistance for young people, and
- young people.
The aim of these consultations was to gain further knowledge of the issues affecting young people in relation to use of the public spaces. The focus groups also sought to gather information about what young people believed was needed to make the spaces safer or more user friendly for all members of the community.
The collated information from the survey data and from the consultations and focus groups was discussed by the Youth Consultative Committee and the peer support worker. The committee then formed strategies and activities to address problem issues and gain community endorsement.
Throughout the project, the peer support worker, while acting as an adviser to the Youth Consultative Committee, gained advice on the construction of survey tools, methods and procedure from the evaluation consultants. She acted as a conduit, relaying information and recommended changes, between the Youth Consultative Committee, the Malls and Public Spaces component and the Steering Committee.
4.5.1 Surveys
Timeframe: May to August 1999
The general survey for the Common Ground project was designed by a group including representatives from the Steering Committee, the project officer, the evaluation consultants and the peer support worker. The Youth Consultative Committee provided input to the general survey.
Why a specific survey for young people?
The Youth Consultative Committee expressed the need for a youth survey to gather information about public spaces that young people considered most relevant. Features of the youth survey included an interview length of about 3-5 minutes as compared to the general survey, which was about 15-20 minutes in length. The questions and the language used were kept as straightforward as possible in an attempt to gather the information required from the young person in a short timeframe.
This shorter survey conformed to questions in the larger, general community survey, enabling the integration of data for analysis purposes. 18
4.5.2 Consultations and focus groups
Time frame: July to August 1999
A series of focus groups was conducted with young people in the southern region of Tasmania. The sessions were facilitated by the peer support worker and a member of the Youth Consultative Committee.
The rationale for conducting the focus groups was the need to gather more qualitative data on top of the quantitative data gathered from the surveys.
The focus groups also made it possible to gain information from non-users of the designated spaces. Perceptions and opinions of non-users who lived within the vicinity of the spaces were considered to be an integral part of identifying and exploring the issues. 19
4.6 Results of surveys
The surveys were completed across the five sites. The age range for respondents was from 10 years to 24 years.
4.6.1 Use of locations
All of the study sites are centrally located within the central business districts of Hobart and Glenorchy cities. However, there were some differences in the use of these locations - some were places young people like to 'hang out'. Others served as a pathway to other sites.
Some locations (eg the bus malls) had been planned by city councils and Metro specifically to channel pedestrian traffic and to minimise vehicle traffic within the designated areas. St David's Park is set further away from the central part of the city and was often used by young people to walk through from one part of the city to another.
Table 7: Site most often used and reasons to use the spaces
|
| |||||||
| Used most often | Hang out | Meet people | Shop | Catch a bus | Walk through | Other | |
|
| |||||||
| Elizabeth Mall | 25 | 6 | 13 | 13 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Hobart Mall | 3 | 5 | 10 | 7 | 2 | 0 | 1 |
| Glenorchy Bus Mall | 12 | 3 | 12 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0 |
| Franklin Square | 12 | 9 | 12 | 7 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| St David's Park | 2 | 5 | 7 | 6 | 2 | 3 | 0 |
| Total | 54 | 28 | 54 | 38 | 12 | 5 | 2 |
|
| |||||||
Young people travelled across town maybe two or three times a day and these places are the centrally located and designated convergence points.
Across all the sites, meeting people was the most common reason for frequenting a public space. Young people would arrange to meet up with friends or parents during the day or after school and often met to 'hang out' or go shopping. However, not all young people felt good about using these locations.
4.6.2 Tensions between different space users
Tensions between young people, and between young people and others in the community, were also noted from the survey. These tensions occurred between:
- young people and other age groups
- different groups of young people, and
- young people and police and security personnel.
These results were evident across the five spaces. This is reflected in the feeling of concern expressed by young people when using these spaces.
Across all the spaces young people and school kids, followed by Mallies and Bogans, were considered a cause of tension.
Mallies and Bogans are the names given to particular groups of young people frequenting these sites. Bogans or Heavies are also known as Chiggers, Skeggs, Meatheads, Hoons, Losers, Bevans, Headbangers, Metallists, Cogs, Metal Punks or Metal Freaks. They tend to be characterised by wearing ripped, dirty or mainly black clothes, large boots and chunky socks, torn stretch jeans, heavy metal t-shirts or flannels. The young women have long hair (often dyed), permed, shaved or gelled (young women), heavy eye make-up and chunky jewellery.
Mallies are the young people who make Elizabeth Mall their hang-out spot. They tend to come from the Northern suburbs and the numbers of the loosely constructed group fluctuate from day to day. The terminology undergoes a high level of change over time. Bogans are known as Mallies in the south of the state.
4.6 3 Problems with using spaces
The survey results indicated that in all five sites young people witnessed instances of violence.
Verbal abuse was also a prominent issue for young people across all the spaces. In all five sites the use of alcohol was associated with threatening behaviour by some respondents. And in all five sites, this combination of alcohol and threatening behaviour was seen as possibly leading to assault. The use or dealing of drugs was also found to be an issue across all the sites.
Perhaps because of the instances of adverse behaviour often observed by young people, whether by day or by night, many of the young people stated concerns about using the spaces, particularly at night.
Assault was by far the principal concern for young people. More males were concerned about assault compared to females. For males, begging and robbery were also issues. Young women were more concerned with encountering verbal abuse or witnessing the adverse behaviour of others.
4.6.4 Concerns with use of spaces
Noting the types of concerns young people have about using the spaces, it is not surprising that many young people said that they would avoid the spaces at night.
4.6.5 Suggestions for improving feelings of security in public spaces
What could be done to create a feeling of greater safety for young people using the spaces, particularly by night?
Many young people were not able to respond to this question with positive ideas. The most common response to this question was 'nothing'. Some responses, typically, were familiar answers and ideas such as more police, more security and improved lighting. However, a few people suggested more acceptance of others who used the space.
4.6.6 Summary of the survey results
A lot of young people said they had witnessed some form of adverse behaviour. Further research would be required to gain a greater understanding of this phenomenon.
The fact that young people found it difficult to generate answers to the survey question about what might be done to make them feel safer when using these public spaces indicated that more work is needed to empower young people to be able to contribute to their own safety. There is a need for further discussion with members of the youth community to determine strategies that could be useful in meeting the perceived needs of the youth community while at the same time addressing the issues for the broader community, who also use public open spaces.
It is evident that young people do have concerns. However, it is also evident that young people, like older people, are often uncertain about other options for addressing these problems. Thus, there is a need for more information and strategies to empower young people to be more active participants in shaping their own strategies.
4.7 Results of consultations and focus groups
The information gathered during focus groups and consultations was analysed by the Youth Consultative Committee, the evaluation consultants and the peer support worker.
This team looked for common themes and issues that impact on young people's sense of safety and feelings of acceptance in public spaces. The results of this analysis informed the strategies that were developed.
A number of key issues were identified.
4.7.1 Tensions and concerns most commonly identified across the five sites
The concerns most commonly identified in the five sites related to tensions between different users of the spaces. This was very similar to the results from the survey. However, the focus groups revealed that tension was not only thought to be between different members of the youth population but more generally between members of the youth population and other communities such as older people, people from other cultural backgrounds and the police and private security personnel. This issue was one that was thought to need more attention. It was felt that it should be addressed though strategies that would bridge the gap between young people and others in the community. Fostering a more positive youth image was also considered important.
4.7.2 Inconsistency of application of laws
Inconsistencies in the interpretation of laws and law enforcement in public spaces were also raised as problematic. During the discussion relating to laws and public spaces, the need to be able to participate in community activities and to feel a part of the community was raised. However, there was an awareness of a need to 'understand the rules'. Young people were concerned that they wanted to be able to use public spaces without feeling that they 'didn't belong'. There was a strong wish by young people that they be accepted by the wider community. It was also considered important that young people understood their responsibilities and rights within the community.
Young people thought that an inconsistent application of laws accounted for some of the antagonism between young people and police or security officers in many of the sites. This not only caused tension between the relevant authority and the young people concerned, but was noted to have an impact on others who might be in the vicinity. It was felt that these 'others' might not be aware of the nature of the problem between the young person and the authority figure and therefore perceive the situation wrongly, identifying most of the trouble to be emanating from the young person involved rather than stemming from ambiguity and inconsistency in law enforcement.
4.7.3 Negative youth image
Young people consistently raised the issue of their age group being perceived negatively within the community and within the study sites. It was felt that a pervasive negative youth image existed within the broader community, which needed to be overcome. Young people felt that this was partly due to the media portrayal of young people in relation to the sites. Some young people did not like the idea of being constantly filmed in a public space by the media. A frequent comment made to the peer support worker was, 'I don't like them filming me in the Mall'. Some young people believed that the media typecast them, especially young men, as perpetrators of crime. They also believed that the media tended to 'sensationalise' incidents, creating feelings of vulnerability. Young people noted that the newspapers did not print letters from them, air their views or seek their opinions on issues.
4.7.4 Drugs and alcohol
Drugs, alcohol consumption and consequent violent behaviour and intimidation in the five sites were raised as issues by participants. Some young people acknowledged concerns about witnessing fights and being targeted for a fight.
4.7.5 Accessing the spaces by night
Many young people had safety concerns about accessing the spaces at night.
For young people living in rural areas, or away from the sites, the issue of public transport was raised. A common comment from these young people was that 'if there were more buses, then we'd use public space more', which is also a specific location concern.
4.7.6 Specific location issues
The Glenorchy Bus Mall
The general appearance of Glenorchy Bus Mall was thought by some to be of significance in contributing to young people's concerns about how the space was used or abused by others. Specifically, young people noted a concern about the appearance of the Bus Mall that gave the impression of a downgraded location, which attracted certain types of behaviour. Particular behaviours noted were of people spitting and people putting dirty feet on seats. It was considered that an upgraded, or a 'better' type of location would be less attractive to people who did these things or obversely, people did not do these things in upgraded or more acceptable facilities.
Inadequate lighting was also considered to contribute to problems with this space.
The Elizabeth Mall
The lack of space for activities was identified as a site-specific issue by young people. Specifically, it was thought that space should be created for older young people to do activities such as skateboarding. It was thought that this would alleviate boredom and tension caused through inactivity at this site.
St David's Park
It was also considered that St David's Park lacked structured sites for activities. It was believed that this site was under-utilised by young people and other age groups. Specific problems that related to this site included its frequent use by 'undesirables' and drunks. This was considered a major deterrent to other groups using it.
4.7.7 Summary of the main issues identified by young people
The main issues identified through the consultations involved tension between different groups:
- young people from different backgrounds
- young people and law enforcement authorities, and
- young people and the general community.
Much of this was attributed to misconceptions exacerbated by media misrepresentation, but nevertheless contributing to a negative youth image.
A source of tension between 'authorised officers' and young people often involved the application of loitering laws. Young people expressed a need to be spoken to in a respectful manner by authorities, as well as to know what their rights were in these situations. Tensions between different groups of young people, for example between private and public school students, was also identified as an issue.
Inadequate lighting was identified at all the project sites as a reason for people avoiding them at night. There was also a perception that greater visibility of police at the sites at night would make people feel safer.
Antagonism and violence and the threat of violence were considered important issues. Violence was attributed not only to tensions between different youth groups but to excessive use of alcohol and drugs. This particularly became a problem at night.
One of the main issues for young people concerned the need for more youth specific facilities in central city areas as well as youth oriented activities at, or in the vicinity of, the project sites.
There was also a perception that activities were needed that would 'bridge the generation gap' between younger and older people and promote a more positive image of young people across the community. The fostering of better relations between police and private security personnel and young people was also identified as a priority issue.
Notes
- See Appendix Part C Appendix (i) for a profile of the Youth Consultative Committee members.
- See Appendices Part C, Appendix ii for a copy of the Youth Participation component survey
- See Appendices Part C, Appendix iii for a list of the focus group questions
5 Strategies arising from surveys, consultations and focus groups
From the issues that arose in the survey, consultations and focus groups, five key areas for consideration were identified for strategy development in consultation with the Youth Consultative Committee.
5.1 Development of strategies
5.1.1 The need for more activities for young people in the targeted public spaces
Strategies
- Open the Youth Arc (Hobart City Council) at different times and for extended times to span mornings and evenings. (Youth Arc was not considered to be a central space by some young people.)
- Summer activities in the central business district of Hobart were also considered important. These included:
- summer theatre and outdoor movies in St David's Park, and
- attracting local bands to play in locations like St David's Park at affordable entry costs.
5.1.2 Foster better relations between police and young people in the target areas
To address the need for more consistent application of the laws about loitering, the following strategies were developed:
- Young people to facilitate a series of discussion groups with police to discuss 'issues on the street' and identify further strategies together.
- Run an in-school campaign to inform young people of their rights and responsibilities on the street.
5.1.3 Promote a more positive image of young people
Strategy
- Plan a positive media campaign to address this issue.
5.1.4 Bridge the gap between different groups in the community
Strategies
- Run activities that would appeal to the interests of more than one group (eg a skate day at Elizabeth Street Wharf with 50s and 60s music and a public morning tea). Young people to provide a public skate show. Promote the day among different groups in the community.
- Develop an event revolving around food in public space and involving all groups in the community.
- Hold a public debate. Enlist well-known local people to speak on issues involving young people.
5.1.5 Avoidance of public spaces at night
Strategies
- 'Reclaim the night' activities (eg busker entertaining in the evening and night movies in Elizabeth Mall).
- Increase lighting in some locations. This could be interesting lighting such as tree lights or sensor lighting.
The Youth Consultative Committee, through the peer support worker, took the outcomes from the first stages of discussions and strategy identification and development to the project officer, consultants and the Steering Committee for consideration.
During this process some of the recommended strategies, such as a media campaign, were identified for inclusion in both components of the Common Ground project. Other strategies, such as the Youth Arc and summer activities strategies, were noted to be passed on to relevant key stakeholders in the project. It also became evident during these discussions that the short timeframe for the Youth Participation component would necessitate those involved concentrating on three main strategies.
5.2 Implementation and outcomes of strategies
The three strategies were selected by the Youth Consultative Committee on the basis that they were innovative ways of responding to the project objectives and the issues raised by young people during consultation. They were also seen as those strategies that could be achieved during the life of the project. The three strategies were:
- the Rights and Responsibilities Card
- Photospace activities and discussion groups, and
- a Photospace Activities Day in the Elizabeth Street Mall.
The development, implementation and outcomes of these strategies will be discussed in the following pages.
5.2.1 Rights and Responsibilities Card
The Rights and Responsibilities Card was developed as a wallet size document for young people. The information presented in this card outlined some key issues of interest to young people that related to their use of public space.
The strategy aimed to assist young people to understand their rights and responsibilities in relation to public open space.
The strategy was designed to respond to issues or concerns raised during consultations with young people. Young people said that they lacked clear guidelines and information about their rights in public spaces. It was noted that many young people did not fully understand about the law and public spaces and how it could affect them. They were unsure about their responsibilities towards others who used the spaces and about their rights to use the spaces and not feel intimidated by others. Therefore, this card was developed by young people, in consultation with the community, for young people.
The development of the card was an attempt to address the following issues:
- tensions between security guards and young people
- tensions between police and young people
- use of alcohol and threatening behaviour in public places
- being hassled or hassling for cigarettes and money
- the negative image of young people held by many in the community, and
- the inconsistent application of loitering laws.
The Rights and Responsibilities Card made relevant information more accessible to young people. It was hoped that this would assist in reducing the tensions that existed between different users of the public spaces.
The Youth Consultative Committee and the Steering Committee for the project endorsed the Card as a strategy to address the issues that had been raised.
Strategy implementation
The Youth Consultative Committee played a key role in identifying the strategy and developing the document. The Committee informed the issues that would be addressed, and had significant input into the wording of the document. Prior to the final draft being submitted for printing, the document was distributed to various youth organisations in the community for comment, as well as to the Steering Committee for the Common Ground Project and the Crime Prevention Branch in the Australian Government Attorney-General's Department. This was in addition to the ongoing input from the Youth Consultative Committee.
Outcomes of the Rights and Responsibilities Card
There were a large number of stakeholders involved in developing the card, many of whom had different views about its role and the content. Some of those involved felt that this may have led to a 'compromised' product. YNOT took responsibility for printing and disseminating the card to various locations and services for distribution on to young people. Since the end of the project, it has been decided to develop a more comprehensive product over time as feedback on the initial card is received. The idea of developing such a card received positive support from a range of different audiences, including young people and service providers.
5.2.2 Photospace Strategy
Photolanguage was originally developed by a company called 'Photolanguage' in 1986. It was described as a 'means of communication designed to facilitate personal expression and interaction in small groups'. 20
Photolanguage was adapted to the Common Ground project to improve dialogue between young people and the wider community around public space issues. The name was later changed to Photospace in order to recognise the different way the strategy was using the tools. The strategy was developed in consultation with the Youth Consultative Committee. It was chosen on the grounds that it was a creative way of responding to the objectives of the project and to the issues raised during the consultative period.
Permission to use the concept 'Photolanguage' and redevelop it for this project was sought from the original developers.
The aim of this strategy was to bring many groups of people together (including young people) so that, through interactive discussion around common themes, each group would develop a deeper and more positive understanding of the other. The strategy was developed to address the following issues:
- a need to promote a more positive image of young people
- a need to 'bridge the gap' between young people and the wider community
- a need to strengthen relationships and break down barriers between police/security guards and young people
- a need to address negative stereotyping of young people, portrayed through the media.
Members of the Youth Consultative Committee took photographs with disposable cameras that captured their perceptions of local public spaces. These photographs were then used during a series of discussion groups conducted with participants from the wider community and young people.
The intention was to create opportunities for people to share issues and concerns with each other. In this respect the process and the outcomes were as important as each other. For the young participants, the process of going out into the community was a positive exercise because they could consider their own perceptions of our public spaces and capture them on film.
The young people/groups who participated in the Photospace activity included:
- the Migrant Resource Centre
- the Glenorchy Youth Task Force
- the 'Common Ground' Youth Consultative Committee
- the Tasmanian Youth Consultative Committee (TYCC), and
- young people attracted to the Project through media articles.
The discussions engaged the participants in developing ideas and recommendations about the management and use of our public spaces. It was envisaged that these ideas would then be presented back to the community.
Outcomes of the Photospace strategy
There was a high level of participation and interest from the community in the discussion groups, which may suggest that there was a demand for a strategy of this nature. The feedback from the groups was positive and many comments indicated that there was a need for more time to discuss the issues in greater depth.
Photospace created the opportunity for young people and other sectors of the community to meet and to arrive at their own strategies and ideas about the use of malls and public spaces.
By bringing young people together with other groups (for example the Hobart Senior Citizens Club) the strategy fostered a more positive image of young people. It helped to address some of the negative stereotypes and, in particular, the associations that people can make between young people and crime. In this respect the strategy effectively reduced people's fear of young people by facilitating positive interaction between young people and other members of the community.
Young people who participated in the Photospace activities and discussion groups said they:
- learned new skills
- learned about the issues, and
- gained experience and skills in how to work together as a team.
They believed Photospace:
- provided a good starting point for discussion
- 'opened people's eyes' to public space issues
- provided an opportunity to hear several different perspectives on the same events
- enabled people from the different target groups to find out about how other groups felt about events that occurred in public spaces.
Other participants in the Photospace discussion groups made the following comments:
- 'it was useful to hear lots of people's opinions and to compare them with my own'
- 'the Photospace 'photos' give you a visual object to focus on and this helps with understanding and promoting discussion'
- 'having an opportunity to say something and being listened to was most useful'
- 'finding the common threads that run through the problems that we all face was useful'.
5.2.3 Photospace Activities Day
Posters of the photos taken for Photospace were exhibited as an open day event, which included artwork, juggling and other activities. These activities were held in Elizabeth Mall. The aim was to promote the Photospace kit and to draw public interest to the project.
The aim of this strategy was to promote the Common Ground Project, to promote the joint use of public spaces and to improve the image of young people. The Youth Consultative Committee also identified a need to address the demand for more activities in the Mall, as was raised during the consultations.
The schedule for this day included an exhibition of the Photospace photos as well as an open invitation to the community to participate in the discussion groups. Art activities were organised for the general public, which were generally well received. These included a 'make your own juggling balls workshop' and another activity, which offered people the opportunity to express their perceptions and opinions about public spaces by contributing to a banner.
The purpose and the outcome of both the juggling ball workshop and the banner activity were to engage different users, bringing them together in 'positive interaction'. The Youth Consultative Committee deliberately selected activities that would create an opportunity to facilitate positive contact between young people and the wider community. Youth Consultative Committee members were key organisers on the day and therefore were seen through the eyes of the media, as well as the general public, to have an interest in making better use of our public spaces. This served to foster a more positive image of young people in public spaces. This strategy also responded to a need for more activities in the public spaces, highlighted during consultation. 21
5.3 Recommended Activities to continue beyond the life of the Project
5.3.1 Rights and Responsibilities Card
The card has been distributed in Tasmania to schools, Metro Tasmania, councils, Legal Aid, The Hobart Community Legal Service, Tasmania Police, the Youth Network of Tasmania and youth agencies in both rural and metropolitan areas. This strategy met a central objective of the project and continued to address information needs in the community.
5.3.2 Photospace information kit
This information kit was distributed to municipalities around Tasmania. The purpose of the kit was to promote the benefits of using photography as a means of having dialogue with people in the community. It was an effective means of breaking down barriers to reduce fear of crime in public spaces.
5.3.3 Youth Consultative Committee
The members were offered the opportunity to get involved with alternative youth committees after the funding for the Youth Participation component finished, enabling knowledge and momentum created by the Youth Consultative Committee to be further utilised by the community.
With the support of the Hobart City Council youth workers, the project was able to involve some young people who may not otherwise have had such an opportunity. In some instances, it was noted that young people might have needed additional support to be able to participate. It was recognised that this produced a positive outcome for the individuals concerned as well as being of great benefit to the project. Some young people consequently became involved in other youth groups and continued to represent young people and support activities relevant to reducing fear of crime in public spaces.
Notes
6 Issues emerging from implementation of the project
6.1 Issues relating to involvement of the Youth Consultative Committee
As already outlined, the committee was involved in the wider decision making processes for the project to ensure that young people's views were included in all phases. The role of the committee was central to all activities conducted during the Youth Participation component.
The project budgeted for the committee to meet 15 times throughout the 12 months allowed to achieve the goals of the youth component. This meant that some decisions were made and activities started without the direct input of the members. During the consultative period, in particular, it was difficult to involve the Committee in all aspects of the Youth Participation component. In addition, the members did not always have the time or the skills to fully participate in the design of surveys and focus group questions. However, they did have input into how the questions would be asked. The committee also designed and helped produce a promotional brochure for the project. This included art by one of the members. 22
The committee expressed a greater sense of ownership over the process and outcomes during the second half of the project, which involved strategy design and implementation. Youth participation was fully embraced by all those involved in the project. However, it was potentially limited by the fact that all decisions required the support of the Steering Committee. This administrative issue may have been limiting in two ways. First, it meant that the committee did not feel fully empowered to influence the project outcomes. Second, the Youth Committee sometimes had to wait until the following Steering Committee meeting before decisions could be discussed and, in many cases, endorsed. This issue was raised with the Steering Committee and, as much as possible, recognised throughout the project as a consequence.
Without the commitment and support from the Steering Committee and from the Youth Consultative Committee, the Youth Participation component would not have been able to achieve the outcomes it did. Overall, engaging young people through the committee was a worthwhile strategy, and this group made a significant contribution to the project's outcomes.
6.2 Issues relating to the Rights and Responsibilities Card
This strategy was a means of addressing the issues raised during consultation. It was considered to have the potential to have a direct impact on young people's access to information and feelings about public spaces. It utilised an opportunity to produce a document that was tailored to the needs and interests of young people.
The Youth Consultative Committee's input was often limited to the scheduled fortnightly meetings. This meant that some decisions were made without the initial endorsement of the committee. The Youth Committee, however, was aware of this and accepted it as a necessary part of the process.
The nature of the Common Ground project meant that there were a number of stakeholders and, therefore, a variety of perspectives to be considered when developing the content. This was partly due to the legal nature of the card. The Youth Committee sought and accepted legal advice during the process of its development to ensure that the information was correct and in no way misleading for young people.
Young people involved in the project noted that it would have been useful to have had the Rights and Responsibilities Card completed ready for the Photospace discussion groups and meetings with other groups.
The Youth Consultative Committee would have been involved in the promotion and distribution of the card to young people in the community if the project had continued for longer. It would have created an opportunity to liaise with agencies and councils in Tasmania about youth image and fear of crime in public spaces.
6.3 Issues relating to Photospace discussion groups
A challenge, from a facilitator's perspective, was the need to balance the discussion equally among participants so that everyone had equal input. The verbal feedback received from the Youth Committee was that sometimes there was not enough opportunity to speak and/or direct discussion from their perspective. This may have been due, in one discussion group, to the role played by a particularly outspoken participant and/or the inexperience of young people in a forum of this nature. It may also point to an entrenched attitude in the community that older people's views are more valuable than young people's, even in relation to youth issues.
Some common themes emerged during the discussions. Generally, people were interested in discussing the issues of surveillance and the design of public spaces to encourage more people to use and feel comfortable in them. Most people were aware and agreed that there was a need to foster a greater sense of community. There was a general feeling that society was moving further away from, rather than closer to, an environment that promoted shared use and understanding amongst different users. It was agreed that there was a need for strategies to break down barriers and become more creative with the use and management of public space to encourage people to access our public spaces.
Another comment from participants of the discussion groups was that more time was needed to discuss issues in greater depth and generate real solutions. Some participants felt that the issues were so big that it was difficult to develop suitable solutions. It was noted that it was hard to achieve clear outcomes in the timeframe available. However, most people considered the approach taken in the Photospace discussions worthy of further follow-up. The Photospace 'tool' was considered a valuable way of approaching these topics.
In some instances, the range of people present for the discussion groups was not sufficiently broad for a full exploration of the issues (eg in one group participants noted that it would have been good to have some participants from the over 65 age group). While a good mix of participants was achieved across the total of groups conducted, some of the groups had a limited range represented within them.
At times some participants were keen to 'get on with solutions', while others were more inclined to spend time on understanding the issues.
The discussion groups generated some practical suggestions for dealing with fear of crime and interaction issues in public spaces. With more time, the committee would have participated in more Photospace discussion groups in the region and promoted the information kit to other municipalities around Tasmania. The Photospace approach was considered to have great potential for use by groups within Tasmania and other states. It was an inclusive tool that seemed to 'break the ice' and encourage different target groups to communicate about open space issues.
6.4 Media strategy
With more time it would have been possible to develop a 'media watch' strategy that responded to negative coverage of young people. The group expressed a desire to work closely with the media to help them understand the implications of their stories. The purpose of this strategy would have been to improve the image of youth and to reduce people's fears of young people in relation to crime. This issue was picked up by the other component of the overall project in the development of a range of media strategies focusing on the themes of 'public space is for everyone' and 'what you do makes a difference'.
6.5 Strategies to come out of the Photospace discussion groups
The following strategies suggested in the Photospace discussion groups were not implemented due to time constraints, but could be used in the future:
- introduce more focused in-school programmes relating to community participation and citizenship
- promote and encourage trading in the mall after 5pm
- open up malls to traffic after business hours at certain times of the week
- organise regular groups for young people and older adults to get together
- erect a wall specifically for graffiti artists, and
- conduct art competitions in public spaces - to improve the look of some public facilities.
Notes
7 Summary of youth participation component
7.1 How did the Youth Participation component measure up to the specific objectives established for this component?
The objectives of the Youth Participation component were kept to the fore throughout implementation. As a consequence, the youth component was able to make a significant contribution to addressing fear of crime. This was achieved particularly through two key strategies: the Rights and Responsibilities Card and the Photospace strategy. These two strategies were developed by young people, in consultation with the community. They enabled those involved to identify and respond to community perceptions and fears about young people's use of public space.
The Rights and Responsibilities Card provided young people with a valuable source of information to help improve relations between themselves and other users - for example, security guards and police. It was planned that the strategy would continue beyond the life of this initial project and then evaluated.
The Photospace strategy was instrumental in drawing different users of public spaces together to develop their own strategies and compromises for using and sharing public spaces. While these discussions represented the beginning of a process rather than an end in themselves, they were a valuable tool which could be used in other cities and situations. The development of an information kit to enable others to use these tools was a valuable result.
The initiatives developed sought to build a sense of public ownership and responsibility for the issues at hand. This was an innovative exercise that created the opportunity for community stakeholders to resolve their own issues and breakdown the barriers that contributed to fear of crime in the community.
It needs to be acknowledged that the involvement and commitment of the Youth Consultative Committee in this component contributed significantly to the success of this project. The committee allowed the project to connect with young people in the community. In addition, it developed the strategies that engaged the wider community to respond to issues about fear of crime in public open spaces.
PART D: CONCLUSIONS
8 Evaluation of the Common Ground project
The Common Ground Project brought together a wide range of stakeholders from different agencies (eg government and non-government, commercial enterprises and public services, as well as different tiers of government). In so doing, the project identified a number of issues to be considered in future projects of this nature. The issues identified below were documented by the evaluation consultants and were identified through individual interviews with key stakeholders (eg Steering Committee members, members of community groups who participated in project strategies, and young people involved in the Youth Consultative Committee).
8.1 Project Structure, Processes and Resourcing
8.1.1 Role delineation and decision-making
The project produced useful outcomes despite some structural issues that had a significant impact on its operation, especially during the early stages. At the beginning of the project there was a lack of clarity about the roles of the key agencies, the contribution to be made by each agency, who made which decisions and the delineation of project staff and their roles. This slowed down decision-making processes. Some stakeholders attributed these difficulties to a lack of time spent in defining roles in the early stages of the project. Others noted that the problems encountered were, in effect, due to the complexity of the project structure, which comprised three separate layers and a number of advisory groups related to specific components of the project. The complexity of the project structure created some dilemmas for those working on it, as outlined below.
- While the Steering Committee provided an avenue for key stakeholders to be represented in the formal decision-making processes for the project there were no representatives (apart from YNOT as a peak youth organisation) of the key target groups on the Steering Committee (eg gay and lesbian community, people with disabilities). An even greater sense of ownership of the Project by the target groups may have been possible had they been involved on the Steering Committee.
- There were two separate auspicing bodies for the two project components (one a state government department and one a small non-government organisation). Problems arose when a decision was made by one group and not the other as it became evident that decisions made in one component impacted substantially on the other.
- The advisory structures developed in each component of the project were not sufficiently 'connected' to the Steering Committee decision-making processes for members to feel that they had a real say in shaping the project. For example, the Youth Consultative Committee - established to provide support and direction for the Youth Participation component - was connected to the Steering Committee only through the peer support worker. This meant that at times the members felt somewhat cut off from the decision-making processes. It also placed pressure on the peer support worker to relay the rationale behind decisions made by the Steering Committee to the Youth Consultative Committee. The Youth Consultative Committee was sometimes delayed in implementing the strategies it had identified while awaiting a decision on some aspect of the project by the Steering Committee. In practice, this tended to sap the enthusiasm of the young people involved.
- The Reference Group for the youth participation component of the project was made up of youth development officers from the two participating councils. This group provided valuable input to the project through the peer support worker. However, their relationship to the project and the broader Steering Group was not well defined.
- The Malls and Public Spaces component of the project had two advisory mechanisms - one for Hobart City and one for Glenorchy City. One of the advisory structures, the Glenorchy Safer Communities Committee, specifically focused on community safety. However, the other advisory structure, the Hobart Police Community Liaison Group, focused on a much broader range of issues and may not have been the most appropriate group to work on this project. It may have been more useful to have an advisory group made up of representatives of the key target groups and people who would be actively involved in implementing strategies (operational stakeholders).
- In the early stages of the project, an informal executive group was used to oversee some decisions and provide day-to-day management of some aspects of the project. While this group was not formalised and ran for only a few weeks, in practice this led to some confusion about who made which decisions and may have unintentionally excluded some key stakeholders (eg the city councils).
During the evaluation process, a number of stakeholders said that the structure was a workable one that contributed to the involvement of a broad range of stakeholders and promoted cross-community, cross-agency collaboration. Others would have preferred a Steering Committee that included a mix of target group representatives and representatives of those agencies that would implement the strategies. The rationale for this approach was that it may have strengthened the sense of ownership by these groups and made the process of selecting suitable strategies easier.
In summary, the two components did work together during the project. However, the link between the two components could have been stronger had they not been separate projects auspiced by different organisations and had the timelines been more compatible.
Lessons learnt
- Establish a simple, clear project management structure.
- Determine clear roles and responsibilities in relation to key stakeholders prior to project implementation.
- Ensure that strategies are selected and developed by target group representatives and other key operational groups.
8.1.2 Different aims within the one overall project
The Common Ground project had one set of aims. However, the Youth Participation component had its own separate set of objectives, which contributed to a 'sense of separateness' rather than bringing the project components together. The key elements common to both project components were contained within the five overall project aims (eg finding out about the fear of crime, the need to consult appropriately, the need to promote a more positive image of young people etc).
Lessons learnt
- Limit the project documentation to one set of aims if a cohesive project approach is to be achieved.
8.1.3 Project staff skills, position descriptions and relationships between project staff
The two components of the project employed separate project staff with different skills. They were employed under different position descriptions (eg one was a peer support worker and one a project officer). The expectations of the two positions were at times unclear. For example, was the Malls and Public Spaces project officer to undertake an overall project management role? While some stakeholders held the view that this position would 'manage' project components, this view was not shared by all of those involved.
The confusion about roles in the two project components did lead to a degree of conflict between project staff and organisational representatives at different stages of the project. Most stakeholders suggested that co-location of the project staff, using one auspicing body and compatible position descriptions, would have assisted in creating a more consistent working environment. In addition, it would have been useful to have an agreement in place in relation to an overall project manager. This daily management could usefully have been delegated to one staff member of the project team.
Despite the difficulties, the Common Ground project achieved positive outcomes.
Lessons learnt
- Determine clear relationships between project staff.
- Clarify expectations and ensure that position descriptions match these expectations.
- Where possible use co-location of project staff and compatible position descriptions.
- Establish an agreed overall project management position and delegate most operational decisions to that position.
8.1.4 Project timeframes
The timeframes for the two components were different - the Malls and Public Spaces component ran for 18 months while the Youth Participation component ran for 12 months. The two components began on a parallel work plan, but quickly became 'out of step' with each other. During the first six months, the timelines for both components were congruent. However, during the second phase of the project, which involved strategy design and implementation, the implications of having two different deadlines became evident.
This caused frustration in that while the Malls and Public Spaces component undertook an extensive consultation and research phase, the Youth Participation component was required to implement strategies at a much earlier stage in order to have some identifiable outcomes to measure by the completion date.
These problems occurred despite the fact that an integrated work plan was developed. They emphasised the need to be able to fine-tune the project approach over time to respond to changing or unanticipated situations.
The Common Ground project was formulated as one that would take the results of the Stage 1 research of the National Project on Fear of Crime and verify the results before developing appropriate local strategies and implementing them. Some stakeholders noted that, either the consultation phase for the pilot project should have been shorter to enable more time for strategies implementation, or the whole project should have had a longer timeframe.
Lessons learnt
- Where possible, have the same timeframe for all project components or, if different timeframes are desired, enable each component to establish suitable work plans. A discussion about the impact of different work plans is an important component of this planning process.
- Allow sufficient time within the overall project planning for effective implementation and monitoring of the impact of strategies.
8.1.5 Ongoing evaluation input
Most stakeholders noted that the involvement of external evaluators from the early stages of the project was a positive factor. Given that many of the issues faced by the project related to structures and processes, it would have been of greater value to have had the evaluators involved even earlier. The evaluators may have been able to assist in clarifying roles, developing advisory structures and strategic planning within the project.
Another factor that impacted heavily on the evaluation was a lack of resources to undertake effective monitoring of some strategies. For example, while the media strategy was considered by most stakeholders to be an important strategy, there were not sufficient resources to develop and implement measures that would gauge the level of impact of these advertisements within the broader community (eg to conduct large scale telephone surveys).
Lessons learnt
- Involve evaluators in the early planning and development processes within a project of this type.
- Resource the project to be able to use a range of evaluation mechanisms.
8.1.6 Scope of the project
There following issues about project were raised as problems:
- the number of sites
- linkages between project sites
- the number of stakeholder groups.
The number of project sites was identified by several stakeholders as being too large for the achievement of long-term outcomes. Some stakeholders noted that it may have been more possible to achieve long-term measurable results if there had been fewer sites and had all sites been linked (eg there was only one Glenorchy site, but four sites in Hobart). For some stakeholders it was important to have an approach that encompassed different cities. While it was important to trial a cross-city approach, the results indicated that it may have been more useful, given limited resourcing, to focus on one city or to select an equal number of sites across cities.
The outcomes of this project related to public spaces in general and not just to the sites chosen for the project. However, the sites provided a focus for community consultation. Several of the strategies involved interactions between people and awareness of others, rather than changing the infrastructure, so the impact was broader than the sites in question.
The project focused on a large number of target groups, such as young people, older people, people with disabilities, gays and lesbians, women, and people from non-English speaking backgrounds. The 'general community' was also considered a target group for the project. Given the limited resources available and the fact that fear of crime is a topic that is itself difficult to 'scope', it may have been more useful for the project to have focused on one or two defined target groups. This may have made it easier for the evaluators to measure and analyse any changes that had occurred during the project.
Some stakeholders noted that, at times, youth issues tended to dominate the agenda.
Lessons learnt
- Limit the number of project sites to enable maximum impact and measurable outcomes.
- Balance the number of study sites across cities.
- If developing strategies that relate to interactions between people in public places, assume that the outcomes will be applicable more broadly than just the study sites.
- Limit the number of target groups to maximise the capacity to achieve substantial results from strategies with limited resources.
8.1.7 Partnerships between agencies
The project involved a partnership between large and small organisations, government and non-government, different tiers of government and a commercial enterprise. These organisations each had a different approach to project management and decision-making which, at times, resulted in clashes.
While difficulties were encountered with the project structure and the different ways of operating, the project staff managed to 'move through' these difficulties to meet the project goals.
Lessons learnt
- Anticipate that a partnership between such different agencies will involve different perspectives.
- Discuss and plan how to run a partnership prior to starting the project (eg hold a comprehensive planning day involving all key stakeholders).
- Document roles and responsibilities (eg develop a partnership agreement).
- Develop consistent and agreed mechanisms for decision-making and managing issues when partner agencies have different perspectives.
8.1.8 Relationships between stakeholders
Several key stakeholders noted that the project had acted as a catalyst for improved relationships between the key agencies. Improved linkages resulted from involvement with the Steering Committee and strategy implementation (eg between police and disability organisations). The stakeholders who expressed this view noted that the project had created a greater capacity for networking, communication and future strategy development. However, this view was not shared by all of those involved. Some stakeholders believed the project had not created any new or improved linkages between the stakeholders at the formal organisational level.
Lessons learnt
- Improved linkages are best created through agencies working together on practical strategies.
8.1.9 Capacity to consult broadly within the timeframe for the project
The Youth Participation component established a youth consultative structure to work closely on this part of the project. Had the project started earlier, it could have used an existing youth consultative group developed through the Youth Network of Tasmania (YNOT). However, this group had disbanded while the project's funding was still under negotiation. As a result, the Youth Participation component conducted less consultation than was originally intended.
The Malls and Public Spaces component consulted widely with all the key target groups and relevant organisations. This component of the project used two advisory groups to provide valuable input into the consultative phase. They also operated as a mechanism for the project officer to provide feedback. The creation of a project advisory group comprising people from the target group organisations would have assisted the development of its consultative approach. Such a group would have assisted in the provision of effective feedback, in a coordinated manner, to a diverse range of interest groups. While the principle of using existing structures for a pilot project is an important one, it is also important to develop suitable mechanisms for the specific needs of the particular project.
Lessons learnt
- If the timeframe for a pilot project is relatively short (eg 12 to 18 months), it is important to use existing consultative mechanisms to provide feedback about the project and to gain input on key issues.
- However, an advisory group that is specific to a particular project is needed to ensure that the project can operate effectively. An advisory group ideally involves target group representatives and representatives from other key organisations to ensure a strong sense of ownership and to enable members to contribute to the development and implementation of strategies.
8.1.10 Resourcing the implementation of strategies
A budget of $10,000 was allocated to both project components to develop and implement strategies to address fear of crime. This placed a limitation on the kinds of strategies that could be implemented. These budget limitations impacted on the data collection and analysis within the project. Further, it was difficult to accurately cost 'developmental' strategies.
Lessons learnt
- Allocate sufficient resources to enable the project to develop and implement a wide range of strategies.
8.2 Evaluation of specific phases of the Project
8.2.1 Research and consultation phases
A comprehensive level of consultation was undertaken across target groups, using different methods: surveys, focus groups, group and individual interviews. The methods were appropriate to ensure input from target groups whose views may not have been captured through surveys alone. The introduction of various methods ensured that people who did not frequent the spaces were represented.
The consultation approach adopted by the project, which was one of going to established groups rather than creating 'artificial' consultation groups, worked well. This approach was appreciated by the groups involved and it helped to foster a higher level of commitment to the project than may otherwise have been the case.
The feedback from these stakeholder groups indicated that the consultative approach enabled them to clarify the difference between fear of crime and experience of crime, and to contribute to a higher level of community awareness of the issue of fear of crime. The consultation phase could be considered a community awareness strategy in its own right, given its capacity to focus the attention of those interviewed on the issue of fear of crime.
It was particularly important for the project to conduct focus groups with gay and lesbian people, migrant communities, people with disabilities and specific groups of young people (eg young people with mental health issues) to gain insight into their concerns about using public spaces, especially the project sites.
The consultative phase of the Youth Participation component was hampered by the delayed start to the project. It was originally intended that the project would follow on from another Youth Participation Project, which would have enabled use of an established youth consultative group to oversee the consultation and strategy development. The project's late start meant that time was spent establishing a new youth consultative group instead of moving straight into the consultative phase. Additional youth-specific consultation, especially in relation to developing strategies to address young people's fear of crime in public spaces, would have been of value.
The survey approach adopted by the project was a useful one for gaining a broad level of input about the specific issues of concern. It also provided an overview of how respondents used the public spaces studied. The surveys were conducted only at the project sites, which resulted in a strong bias towards the views of the space users, and limited capacity to gain input from people who avoided the spaces. The project did not have the resources to conduct a large random telephone survey to gain the input of both users and non-users of the project sites. However, some information from non-users was gathered in consultations and focus groups. Many of the points raised during the consultation phase were included in the survey as questions, to gain an understanding of the spread of these concerns throughout the general community.
The development of questions to identify people's public space concerns without inciting fear for the Malls and Public Spaces survey was a difficult task. However, the general survey was trialled and refined over a period of time. The Youth Participation component developed a much shorter survey containing similar questions to the main survey, which was also administered by young people. The general survey was considered too long for use with young people. This approach was developed to facilitate maximum input by those young people who frequented the spaces, often in groups. The results showed that there was a high response rate to both surveys (general and youth specific) by young people.
8.2.2 Strategy identification, development and implementation phases
The consultation phase identified what the people consulted feared and why. It built on the Stage 1 findings by clearly identifying common fears between different user groups, as well as specific differences. The respondents' identification of strategies was less successful than their identification of fears. Many respondents suggested more adequate lighting and a greater police presence as key strategies, but were not able to think of anything else that could be done to address fear of crime. However, when the issue was discussed in more depth, people began to talk about the need for older and younger people to have better relationships, for example.
It might be useful, if a similar project were to be run in the future, to provide background information on a broad range of possible strategies to foster discussion during the consultation phase. This could include strategies that had been used in other states or countries, or results from research projects conducted in relation to fear of crime.
Some stakeholders noted that they would have liked the consultation phase completed earlier in the overall timeframe to allow more time for strategy implementation.
However, the consultation phase successfully identified the types of concerns expressed by many people. This provided a solid base for the development of appropriate strategies. For example, the misunderstanding between some members of the older community and some young people when both used public spaces was resolved for those people who attended the Photospace Discussion Group. This issue was also picked up in the Malls and Public Spaces media strategy.
8.3 Evaluation of specific strategies
8.3.1 Rights and Responsibilities Card
The production of the Rights and Responsibilities Card proved to be a useful approach to addressing young people's need for accessible and relevant information on their rights and responsibilities in public spaces. The Card's content addressed the key issues raised in the consultations - namely, tensions between authorities and young people in relation to a perceived inconsistency in the application of loitering laws, use of alcohol in public places, threatening behaviour and being hassled or hassling for cigarettes or money. It provided a mechanism for young people to actively develop information for other young people.
However, the process of developing the card involved trying to reconcile a range of different perspectives and, for this reason, the strategy may have fully realised its original aim. The amount of information that could be printed on the card was limited and some stakeholders felt that it was not comprehensive enough to be of significant value.
If the timeframe for the Youth Participation component had been longer, it would have been valuable to involve young people in the organisation, management and production of the card to further support skill development and confidence building. The strategy demonstrated that the production of an information card of this type, with an increased level of information and a structured process for follow-up evaluation, had merit.
Future evaluation of a more comprehensive product should include the input of security guards at the bus malls, follow-up with young people who have read the card and follow-up with service providers to assess the value of such an approach.
The Rights and Responsibilities Card was a means of addressing the issues raised by young people during the consultations with the potential to directly impact on their access to information and their feelings about using public spaces. This strategy used an opportunity to produce a document that was tailored by young people, to the needs and interests of young people.
8.3.2 Photospace strategy
The evaluation results indicated that the PhotoSpace approach was useful in addressing the negative stereotypes of young people. While the strategy was used with a relatively small number of people, the feedback indicated that the strategy did have an impact on the perceptions of young people held by the participants. Whether this perception could be generalised to all young people is not known. The strategy that could easily be transferred to other settings.
8.3.3 Media strategy - TV community service announcements
The evaluation results indicated that respondents considered the TV ads to be an effective way to promote positive messages about public spaces to people of different ages. Furthermore, respondents across all age groups noted that having a range of different community service advertisements enhanced the strategy's effectiveness. The fact that the ads were set in a local and familiar setting was particularly important in terms of impact. There was a high level of recognition of the themes promoted through the strategy on the part of those respondents participating in the evaluation.
The advertisements addressed the project aim of encouraging community members across different ages and genders to be aware of their behaviour in public spaces. They provided direction on behaviours and attitudes which will would encourage a perception of public spaces as safe and enjoyable for all community members to use.
The evaluation results indicated that the strategy was successful among those surveyed in raising awareness about the issues of shared use of public space. Whether this raised awareness would translate into changed behaviour over time was not known and would have been a valuable area for further study. A small number of young people who provided feedback on the media strategy said they no longer found people in the mall 'as scary'.
The media strategy continued beyond the life of the project but there were no resources available for further evaluation. The strategy could be used by other jurisdictions with the necessary resources.
8.3.4 Disability awareness training for police recruits and serving police
Evaluation results indicated that the trainers believed that, following the training, the recruits became more aware of issues people with disabilities faced in public spaces and how to respond to them. Trainers also noted that they had gained a better understanding of the situations recruits faced and how they dealt with them. Trainers considered that the aims had been met and recruits believed the training would help them in their work, particularly in situations in public spaces which involved people with disabilities.
This strategy enhanced police relations with people with disabilities and taught them skills such as how to assess the requirements of an individual and not to make assumptions. The strategy enabled the project to address issues raised in the consultations with people with disabilities. It provided a training model which could be replicated elsewhere. It would be useful to extend the use of such a model to incorporate other issues that could lead to conflict in public spaces (eg working effectively with people with mental health issues). It was planned that the strategy would be sustained in the Tasmanian police service.
The training, from the perspective of the trainers, established links between police and disability groups, as well as increasing the knowledge of police officers in relation to issues faced by people with disabilities. The trainers indicated that they hoped that this increased knowledge base would mean that police would be more comfortable and confident in dealing with this group in situations in public spaces. The trainers identified a need to hold further discussions with police about some regulations and their enforcement, as well as the need for ongoing training at all levels of the police service.
Serving police officers who completed the training said their awareness of the issues faced by people with disabilities had changed and that this would help them in their work in a number of specific ways, including being more tolerant and more conscious of communication styles. The evaluation follow-up after the course indicated that participants had gained an increased awareness of disability issues and, in some instances, had been able to use the information gained in their daily work (eg to respond differently to someone with a disability).
As with the recruit training, this strategy could be easily replicated and could have flow-on effects for other police training approaches. The strategy successfully addressed the project aims, as well as addressing a key issue identified in the consultation phase. That was enabling the police to better understand, and respond to, circumstances and situations encountered in public spaces by people with disabilities.
At the end of the training programme police officers and trainers expressed the importance of the training being available to all serving police officers. Tasmania Police were interested in expanding the training to other serving police officers and began making plans with Tasmanians with Disabilities.
8.3.5 Safety awareness sessions
The results of the evaluation of the safety awareness sessions were mixed. Some participants felt 'more wary' about public spaces after hearing about other people's experiences. The majority of participants, however, indicated that they felt more secure because they were more informed. These participants welcomed information on personal security options such as carrying a torch, screaming loudly if under threat and carrying a personal alarm. Participants noted that they had received new information on the services available to help them. However, when questioned as part of the evaluation follow-up, none of the participants had used the safety strategies discussed during the sessions. This was partly because they hadn't felt the need to use them and partly because many of them avoided the public spaces studied.
Some participants passed on information learned at the sessions through their organisational newsletter. However, most participants, while willing to share the information with family or friends, did not feel in a position to pass the information on to others in any structured way. In order to do so they would have needed training on how to do this and access to educational aids such as videos. However, the sessions directly benefited the individuals who participated in terms of information and awareness. Most participants indicated they wanted 'first hand information' from representatives of the support agencies, which was provided at the sessions. While a number of participants spoke of organising information sessions for their members, none had done so by the time the evaluation was undertaken.
The strategy successfully addressed its aims to enhance the participants' sense of safety and inform participants about the organisations available to provide support services.
8.3.6 Summary
The process of developing and implementing strategies has provided some key pointers for any future projects of this type. The useful 'lessons' from this project are outlined below.
- For the strategies to be effective they need to be informed by consultations with key stakeholder groups. Without consultation, there will be little support for project initiatives and the strategies are unlikely to address the key issues. In this project, there was a gap between those suggesting the strategies 'on the ground' and those making the decisions about which strategies would be implemented (the Steering Committee).
- Strategy development may be hampered by a lack of access to information about innovative ideas developed in other states or countries. It could be useful to have a resource folder of innovative ideas which groups could use as a starting point to develop their own strategies. Most groups and individuals consulted struggled to come up with possible strategies.
- Adequate time is required to analyse the consultation phase data before proceeding to the strategies development phase. In this project, there was considerable pressure to 'get started', in terms of implementing strategies so that outcomes could then be measured. In practice, this meant that there was a lack of clarity for some stakeholders about the basis for the strategies chosen (although there was a set of selection criteria to which the stakeholders could have referred).
- The available resources influence the types of strategies that can be developed. For example, the media strategy was only possible because media organisations supported it as a community service.
- Community based organisations and community oriented businesses are willing to contribute financial and human resources to implement strategies to address fear of crime if they are well researched, appropriately targeted and clearly focused. There is a considerable level of goodwill and community spirit that can be accessed, and strengthened, through community based initiatives to address fear of crime.
In terms of the strategies developed by this project, most could be used in other locations. The evaluation of the media strategy indicated that locally produced products may have more impact than 'glossy' nationally produced ones. The concepts of the advertisements would be readily transferable.
8.4 Did the project achieve its aims?
Aim 1
To develop a model project in Tasmania, applying the findings from the Stage 1 research, which focused on fear of crime in public spaces, that can be replicated and/or adapted for use in other Australian jurisdictions.
This project built upon the Stage 1 research in a way that is readily adaptable to other jurisdictions. All of the strategies could be used in other sites across Australia. The consultative approach developed by the project could also be replicated in other jurisdictions.
Aim 2
To develop a project, which builds on existing and planned Tasmanian initiatives and projects, that will provide an ongoing emphasis on addressing fear of crime issues in the Tasmanian community.
During the 18-month life of the project, it created a focus on fear of crime issues in the Tasmanian community. It was considered likely that this focus would continue over coming years as key stakeholders utilised the data and resources produced by this project to provide direction for their own planning processes. The project linked in with other initiatives wherever possible and would provide a solid base for planning for a range of organisations over coming years (eg local government, state government, non-government and commercial enterprises).
Aim 3
To develop a model for consultation with specific target groups about their fear of crime in specific public spaces in Tasmania.
The project used a range of consultation methodologies to meet the particular needs of each target group (eg focus groups, youth-specific surveys, working with established target group organisations such as the Tasmanian Gay and Lesbian Rights Group). It consulted extensively about the issues in relation to the designated sites, involving target group members not only in identifying issues but also in developing and implementing the strategies to address them.
Aim 4
To develop and implement strategies, through consultation with the target groups, to reduce the target population's fear of crime in specific public spaces in Tasmania.
The project developed and implemented five strategies over 18 months. These were developed in consultation with target groups and key stakeholders. The extent to which the strategies reduced fear of crime in the specific project sites was difficult to ascertain given the short time frame between implementation and evaluation and a limited capacity to conduct large-scale follow-up. However, the available data showed that the project made a difference to some individuals by broadening their awareness and understanding of fear of crime and related issues. The results also indicated that the project provided some specific information to individuals and groups about what they could do to deal with fear of crime.
Aim 5
To develop and implement strategies to promote a more positive image of young people, and to reduce people's fear of young people, particularly in specific public spaces in Tasmania.
The project developed and implemented strategies that specifically addressed the image of young people within the broader community. It dealt with this issue by developing tools that enabled different age groups to examine how they judged and behaved towards each other (eg The Photospace discussion groups and the TV advertisements). The project emphasised that public spaces were shared environments.
The project was successful in raising awareness among some people about assumptions often made about young people, older people, gays and lesbians. In some instances, the project had an impact on the way individuals viewed each other (eg how a group of older people viewed members of the Youth Consultative Committee or how a young person felt about a gay man).
The project demonstrated that this type of approach could promote a more positive image of young people as well as building links between age groups within the community. Such an approach could be applied on a much larger or more intensive scale to achieve significant outcomes in terms of how people interact within public open spaces.
8.5 Cost-effectiveness
The project budget was $149,845 over 18 months. The project brought together six major agencies in Tasmania to work on the issue of fear of crime.
Several resources were developed within the project and these resources and made available for use across other communities. However, additional funding would have been required to reproduce additional copies of these resources.
A normally expensive media strategy was developed and implemented at minimal cost through community service arrangements achieved through the consultations.
8.6 Potential for continuing beyond the life of the project
Fear of crime occurs across all sectors of the community, and continues to be a major social issue. Aspects of this project have continued beyond the pilot stage to further the notion that public spaces are spaces for the whole community to share.
Disability awareness training
The disability awareness training offered as part of the project has continued beyond the life of the project. The role of organisations such as the Glenorchy City Council and Hobart City Council in supporting disability access committees to provide training to police recruits and serving police officers has been of paramount importance. While these groups have continued to be involved in training for police, the training has been provided by disability groups rather than by councils. Tasmanians With Disabilities has continued to develop training and education materials as well as conduct disability awareness training programmes for Tasmania Police and other agencies. The project was a significant contributor to this group, establishing the linkages necessary to generate a strong partnership approach between a government department and a small non-government organisation.
Tasmania Police has continued to offer the disability awareness training for police personnel initiated through this project. This has led to an increased focus on anti-discrimination legislation for Tasmania Police.
Ongoing development of project proposals to address fear of crime
The Crime Prevention and Community Safety Council has actively supported local governments and community groups to submit funding proposals to the National Crime Prevention Programme. These proposals have sought to address fear of crime issues within local communities. In several instances these proposals have sought to continue initiatives arising from the project.
Continuation of some aspects of the media campaign
The Crime Prevention and Community Safety Council endorsed the media campaign undertaken during the project. The council has recognised the importance of the media in dealing with fear of crime issues and has continued to address these issues. The advertisement on gay assault developed as part of the project has been shown by a Melbourne television channel.
The Rights and Responsibilities Card
YNOT produced and distributed 15,000 copies of Rights and Responsibilities in Public Space - A Guide. This guide was well received within communities across Tasmania and there was a high level of demand for the brochure. YNOT has been keen to evaluate the impact of the brochure and to further develop the resource in response to consumer feedback. Metro Tasmania Pty Ltd and other stakeholders have actively distributed the Rights and Responsibilities Guide.
The Photospace kit
This strategy could be implemented in other communities with further development. The kit includes the Photospace photos and a guide explaining how to use the Photospace approach.
Work to be undertaken by councils that participated in the Common Ground project
All metropolitan city councils deal with public space issues daily. The Common Ground project provided The Hobart City Council with a solid to assist in future planning in relation to community safety and fear of crime. The council planned also to explore the possibility of establishing a central business district-based older person's group to address fear of crime.
The Common Ground project added value to Glenorchy Council's planning processes through the provision of specific data from the community consultations relating to the Glenorchy site.
A model identified by a number of stakeholders was a local government 'shared approach' to fear of crime issues across Councils (Hobart, Glenorchy, Clarence, Kingborough). It was considered important to also involve other key stakeholders (eg Metro, City Heart, Tasmania Police). Some people have noted that this approach could be usefully built into partnership agreements between state and local governments.
Partnerships will continue to be forged
Following the Common Ground project, Metro Tasmania has continued to work with councils to address fear of crime issues within city bus malls.
The Common Ground project provided significant assistance to disability organisations like Tasmanians with Disabilities to forge partnerships with the state government. Such partnerships will continue and be further developed over time.
Interpersonal skills development for bus and security personnel/code of conduct on public transport
Metro Tasmania has supported further skills training for bus mall security personnel and has assisted in the development of a code of conduct for people at bus malls and on buses.
Community knowledge about fear of crime issues
The television community service announcements were considered by many stakeholders and general community members as visible attempts by government to address the issue of public space interactions. They reached a wide audience and were considered to be the type of campaign that 'government should be involved with'. The gay and lesbian community identified the gay-focused advertisement as setting 'a national standard'. The advertisements had the potential to run over a longer period, and to be shown in Tasmanian cinemas. The concepts could have been used as the basis for similar strategies in other states.
8.7 Outcomes from the project
The Common Ground project, as well as successfully addressing its goals, achieved:
- an increased awareness of public space issues and their links to fear of crime by government and non-government agencies, and individuals involved in the project
- improved linkages between stakeholder groups involved in the project
- the production of specific products that could be used beyond the life of the project:
- the Photospace kit
- A series of media (TV) community service advertisements
- Rights and Responsibilities in Public Space - A Guide
- a disability awareness training programme for Tasmania Police.
8.7.1 Outcomes for Steering Committee organisations
Hobart City Council
For Hobart City Council, the project provided a solid base to assist in future planning in relation to community safety. The project 'added value' to initiatives that council was already involved in, such as ongoing re-design work and maintenance, and youth services programmes. The project undertook in-depth research that council did not have the resources to conduct.
Glenorchy City Council
In some instances, the results of the project could not be separated from the activities particular groups were engaged in as part of their daily business. For example, Glenorchy City Council had been heavily involved in planning for community safety for several years prior to the project. In fact, the council was engaged in parallel processes over the life of the project. While the project added value to the council's planning processes (through provision of data from consultations), it did not generate substantial outcomes in relation to the one project site in Glenorchy.
Tasmania Police
Tasmania Police, assisted through the disability awareness training, has supported Commonwealth and state anti-discrimination legislation while at the same time fostering a positive ongoing relationship with disability groups. Through the Common Ground project, Tasmania Police has been able to work more closely with groups such as the Youth Network of Tasmania than in the past.
Metro Tasmania Pty Ltd
Metro Tasmania provided a valuable commercial organisation perspective to the project and identified practical, procedural and structural issues to be addressed in relation to fear of crime in public places. Metro has continued to hold dialogue with councils, in particular to address specific infrastructure issues as well as support skills development for bus mall security personnel and help to establish a code of conduct for bus passengers.
8.7.2 Outcomes for other stakeholders
Police officers
Many police officers indicated that they had been able to use the skills and information gained in the disability awareness training programmes in their daily dealings with people with disabilities. Some had formed links with people with disabilities who participated in the training sessions. The disability awareness training provided a model for a new way of providing training within police and other agencies (ie programmes run by target group organisations using an interactive, experiential learning style).
Commercial media outlets
Commercial media outlets showed their willingness to become involved in a collaborative way with state, Commonwealth and local government agencies to develop positive responses to fear of crime issues. These groups were prepared to contribute time and resources to the project and indicated that they would have been even more generous had their effort been matched by government agencies.
The Youth Consultative Committee
Young people on the Youth Consultative Committee learnt new skills through their participation in the Photospace activities, discussion groups and development of the Rights and Responsibilities Guide. They identified their involvement as a major learning experience that helped build their confidence and educated them about issues relating to fear of crime and public space. Positive outcomes resulted for young people who became involved in the project. For example, some young people returned to school, some gained confidence, others joined other youth consultative groups. Also, links were formed between young people and people from other target groups, such as people with disabilities and older people.
Adult participants in the Photospace discussions
One adult participant in the discussions noted that their contact with young people during the project had 'restored their faith in human nature'. Others suggested that they had gained a greater understanding of other people's perspectives in relation to the use of public space.
Participants in the safety awareness sessions
Participants in the safety awareness sessions learnt about the agencies available to respond to victims of crime and gained a greater awareness of the real Hobart and Glenorchy crime statistics. In some instances, people's increased consciousness of the incidence of crime in public spaces made them more wary rather than less so. However, this was balanced by information about what they could do if they did find themselves in a difficult situation and the knowledge that there were services available to help.
Trainers in the disability awareness training programmes for police
The trainers in the disability awareness training programmes for police, who were almost all people with disabilities, noted that they had developed a greater confidence in their skills as trainers and information disseminators as a result of conducting these programmes. They indicated that they felt more confident about promoting the training and the role of disability organisations in offering training and information sessions.
8.7.3 Conclusions
The Common Ground project consultation and research process confirmed that fear of crime in the public open spaces studied in Hobart and Glenorchy cities was a significant social issue. The project found that this:
- caused significant concern for many people across all age groups
- affected how people of different ages and backgrounds viewed one another, leading to increased fearfulness, stereotyping and intolerance of others, especially young people
- caused people to feel negative towards, and to avoid, these public spaces.
8.8 Recommendations to other jurisdictions undertaking fear of crime projects
The Common Ground project generated useful information about the types of community approaches that could be adopted to deal with fear of crime in small communities.
It was considered important to create public spaces that supported and assisted the development of respectful relationships between different groups of people. The project produced a set of principles and strategies to guide future work in this area. It found that the best results were achieved by incorporating the elements described below in the project design.
The Common Ground project built upon the Stage 1 research in a way that could readily be adapted to other jurisdictions. All of the strategies developed by the project could be used in other sites across Australia. The consultative approach developed by the project could also be replicated in other jurisdictions.
Design of facilities and infrastructure
- Consider fear of crime issues at the design stage of public spaces.
- Take into account the diversity of needs of people who use public spaces by designing spaces that appeal to a range of user groups and including infrastructure that will meet the diverse needs of user groups.
- Recognise the potential impact of public space interactions and experiences on the behaviours and lifestyle of individuals (eg feelings of vulnerability, victimisation or enjoyment).
- Develop facilities that are flexible and allow for structured and unstructured activities to take place within public spaces.
- Include appropriate safety infrastructure at the design stage (eg good lighting, safety zones).
- Recognise that good street and safety infrastructure design can measurably increase people's sense of security and enhance their enjoyment of public spaces.
Planning
- Take a planning approach that acknowledges and acts upon the concept of public space as communal space and encourages social inclusion rather than exclusion.
- Consider the range of different socio-economic interests that have a stake in public spaces.
- Recognise the value of a community development approach in developing workable and lasting solutions to fear of crime issues.
- Recognise that the involvement of key user groups (eg young people, older people, people from low socio-economic backgrounds) in the planning and management of public spaces is essential.
- Adopt a 'safety first' planning approach that involves all components of the organisation, investigates the possible fear of crime issues in relation to a particular site and addresses them.
- Allocate resources to evaluate the impact of public space planning in relation to fear of crime (both anticipated and unanticipated outcomes).
Regulatory mechanisms
- Ensure the inclusion of community policing strategies.
- Strive for social regulation that is based on non-coercive mechanisms and includes informal mechanisms.
- Ensure that security features are visible but unobtrusive and involve 'people to people' contact.
- Involve the community in regulating what happens in public spaces.
Community education and information
- Use collaborative community education initiatives developed in partnership with media outlets.
- Provide information about possible ways of dealing with safety issues in public places as 'discussion starters' to ensure that discussions move beyond law enforcement and infrastructure issues.
Management of public open spaces
- Create opportunities for communication between public space users to build tolerance of difference and respect for each other, and develop a shared understanding of how to use public open spaces (eg develop a code of conduct, hold forums and discussions between user groups).
- Build a sense of ownership and vision of how public spaces could be, rather than how they are currently considered to be (eg problem areas, areas to be avoided).
- Recognise the value of partnership approaches in the planning and management of public spaces.
- Create opportunities for partner agencies to work together on specific practical initiatives.
- Ensure that the managers of public spaces are accountable to other stakeholders in the community.
Management of projects addressing fear of crime
- Establish a simple, clear project management structure.
- Determine clear roles and responsibilities for key stakeholders prior to project implementation.
- Ensure that strategies are selected and developed by target group representatives and other key operational groups.
- Limit the project documentation to one set of aims to ensure a cohesive approach between different components.
- Determine clear relationships between project staff.
- Clarify expectations and make sure that position descriptions match expectations.
- Where possible, use co-location of project staff.
- Establish an agreed project management position and delegate most operational matters to this position.
- Where possible, have the same timeframe for all project components.
- Allow sufficient time for the effective implementation and monitoring of the impact of strategies.
- Involve evaluators in the early planning and development processes.
- Resource the project to be able to use a range of evaluation mechanisms.
- Limit the number of project sites to enable maximum impact and measurable outcomes.
- Balance the number of study sites across cities.
- If developing strategies that relate to the interactions between people in public places, assume that the outcomes will be applicable more broadly than just to the study sites.
- Limit the number of target groups to maximise the capacity to achieve substantial impact from strategies with limited resources.
- Anticipate that a partnership between different agencies will involve different perspectives.
- Discuss and plan how to run the partnership before starting the project commencing (eg hold a comprehensive planning day involving all key stakeholders, develop a formal agreement, identify roles).
- Develop consistent and agreed mechanisms for decision making and managing issues where partner agencies have different perspectives.
- Use existing consultative mechanisms to provide feedback about the project and to gain input on key issues.
- Establish an advisory group for the project and involve target group representatives and other key organisations in it.
- Allocate sufficient resources to enable the project to develop and implement a wide range of strategies.
- During the project development phase, set aside a pool of funds to be used for implementation of strategies, even though the strategies themselves will not have been determined at this preliminary stage.
8.9 Recommendations for specific stakeholder groups
The following recommendations are made to the stakeholders of the Common Ground project.
8.9.1 The National Crime Prevention Programme (NCPP)
That the NCPP:
- Note the success of the project's partnership approach and advocate it widely.
- Note the success of the training methodology (experiential activities, discussion, information sharing), used by disability groups and advocates.
- Require projects to include evaluation input at the planning stage.
- Resource training for funding recipients on evaluation and project management skills.
- Apply the findings from this report to the development of best practice in project design.
- Approve funding proposals submitted by the Hobart City Council, Glenorchy City Council and The Youth Network of Tasmania to continue to address fear of crime issues in Tasmania.
- Ensure that funded projects are appropriately resourced to enable effective strategy development, implementation and product development and distribution.
8.9.2 The Tasmanian Government
That the Tasmanian government:
- Note the success of the partnership approach and applies it to similar government initiatives.
- Note the success of the training methodology (experiential activities, discussion and information sharing) used by disability groups and incorporate it into future training programmes.
- Apply the findings from this report to the development of best practice in project design.
- Increase police manning levels to enable Tasmania Police to better address fear of crime by increasing police visibility and developing appropriate community policing strategies.
8.9.3 The Tasmanian department of police and public safety
That the Tasmanian Department of Police and Public Safety:
- Work with councils to develop appropriate safety features (eg a 'safety zone' with a direct link to a police station at the project sites).
- Develop and implement a formal protocol between the Tasmanian Department of Police and Public Safety and the Anti-Discrimination Commission to ensure the appropriate referral of criminal and civil matters. 23
- Work with minority groups to encourage the reporting of hate-motivated assault.
- Consider establishing a manned police point close to the Hobart Bus Mall/entertainment area through a partnership approach with Hobart City Council.
- Strengthen community policing strategies through:
- further development of flexible human resource approaches and employment arrangements
- increased police visibility (eg more foot patrols and involvement in community events)
- Prioritised resourcing for the Police in Schools programme.
- Ensure that evaluation methodologies are included in all future projects from the planning stage.
8.9.4 Hobart City Council
That the Hobart City Council:
- Develop emergency assistance safety features, including a 'safety zone' with a direct link to a police station, at the project sites.
- Ensure that lighting in public spaces in the central business district is of a type/level that measurably improves the public's perceptions of their safety.
- With Metro Tasmania, develop appropriate street infrastructure at the Hobart Bus Mall, and lighting that measurably improves the public's perceptions of safety and promotes use of the facilities.
- Promote regular meetings between council's youth and community development officers and Metro Tasmania to develop initiatives to address fear of crime.
- Use the project's products (eg the Rights and Responsibilities Guide and the Photospace kit) to promote a shared use of public spaces. This promotion could involve schools and colleges and assist in building relationships between young people and other groups in the community.
- Ensure that the planning stage of all projects that address fear of crime include the development of suitable evaluation methodologies.
- Implement strategies to encourage the use of St David's Park by a diversity of people (eg consider installing a passive fixed apparatus exercise circuit, tourist info/coffee shop and fixed tables/in-laid games boards, and re-designing the toilets).
- Open the YOUTH ARC for a longer period in the evening.
- Organise/facilitate safety awareness sessions for older people at council's 50 & Better Centre.
- Adopt a whole-of-organisation 'Safety First' planning approach (eg in planning processes to address fear of crime concerns).
8.9.5 Crime Prevention and Community Safety Council
That the Crime Prevention and Community Safety Council:
- Support the initiatives of project stakeholders and community groups that incorporate project findings or build on the strategies.
- Support stakeholders to develop ongoing evaluation methods for initiatives that address fear of crime issues.
- Use the project findings to plan a media/marketing campaign which focuses on the issues identified in the project.
8.9.6 Glenorchy City Council
That Glenorchy City Council:
- Develop emergency assistance safety features, including a 'safety zone' with a direct link to a police station at the Tolosa St Bus Mall.
- Promote regular meetings between council's youth and community development officers and youth taskforce and Metro Tasmania to develop initiatives to address fear of crime.
- Establish a 'Bus Mall Taskforce' with young and older people and key stakeholders to develop principles for public space use that could be used as a model for other public spaces.
- Promote the resources developed as part of the Common Ground project (eg the Rights and Responsibilities Kit).
- Adopt a whole-of-organisation 'Safety First' planning approach (eg address fear of crime concerns as part of planning processes).
- Ensure that the planning stage of all projects that address fear of crime include the development of suitable evaluation methodologies.
8.9.7 Metro Tasmania Pty Ltd
That Metro Tasmania Pty Ltd:
- Develop a customer information strategy to inform passenger groups of rights and responsibilities in relation to behaviour/conduct on buses and in bus infrastructure facilities.
- Assist security personnel to meet accreditation standards in conflict resolution and effective communication skills.
- Work with councils to develop street infrastructure and lighting at bus malls that measurably improve the public's perceptions of safety and promotes their use of these facilities.
- Meet with council youth/community development officers to develop initiatives that address fear of crime and concerns about behaviour at bus malls.
- Adopt a whole-of-organisation 'Safety First' planning approach (eg in planning activities and infrastructure to address assumptions and concerns about fear of crime).
- Develop appropriate evaluation methodologies during the planning stage of activities, procedures or infrastructure development that seek to address fear of crime issues in bus malls.
Appendices: Common Ground Project
Part B. Malls and public spaces component
Appendix i
Project Steering Committee
Richard Bingham, Chair, Tasmanian Department of Justice and Industrial Relations
Denbigh Richards, National Anti-Crime Strategy
Sue Willey and Penny Saile, Hobart City Council
Narelle Calphy and Rosanne Lee, Glenorchy City Council
Stuart Davies, Metro Tasmania P/L
Vanessa Goodwin, Secretariat, Crime Prevention and Community Safety Council
Dave Willans, Youth Network of Tasmania
Inspector Ken Saunders, Tasmanian Department of Police and Public Safety
Evaluation Consultants
Community Focus: Janine Combes and Angela Marsh
Appendix ii
Malls and Public Spaces Component, Survey Questionnaire July 1999
PART 1 GENERAL USE
1.1 How do you usually travel to the city am/pm?
1.2.a How often do you come here am/pm/Sat/Sun?
1.2.b What times do you come here in the am/pm?
1.2.c If you never comes here at night, why not?
1.3.a Why do you usually come here?
1.3.b Why did you come here today?
1.3.c Do you come alone/with someone am/pm/w'kend?
1.4 How long do you usually stay here am/pm?
1.5 What range of people who use the site am/pm
1.6 Like/not like about site design, facilities, features?
PART 2 PUBLIC SPACE ISSUES
2.1 Do you have concerns for yourself about the site?
2.2.a Do you feel unsafe due to others' behaviour?
2.2.b Who makes you feel unsafe am/pm?
2.3.a What might happen to you in the day or night?
2.3.b What chance (0,low, mod., high) is there of this?
2.4 How worried (not/slightly/moderately/very) are you?
2.4.c Is there any public place you feel more concerned for your safety than here? am/pm
2.5.a Are you concerned for anyone else, at the site?
2.5.c what is your concern?
2.5.b Who? Am/pm
2.6 Has anything influenced you re. the site, media, observation; others' experience; direct experience.
PART 3 PERSONAL EXPERIENCE CAUSING YOU CONCERN OR HARM
3.1 Has anything happened to you here that caused you concern or harm? What Happened?
3.2.a Who did you report it to?
3.2.b If not reported to police ask: Why didn't you report it to the police?
3.2.c Why didn't you report it?
PART 4 IMPACT OF YOUR EXPERIENCES ON YOUR USE OF THE SITE
4.1.a Do you avoid any places here in the day or night and
4.1.b why?
4.2 How do you make yourself safer at the site am/pmt?
PART 5. STRATEGIES TO MAKE PEOPLE FEEL SAFE
5.1.a What could be done to make you secure here?
5.2 Who could be involved in making these changes?
5.3 Could you be involved in activities to make the site feel safer/ enjoyable for yourself / others?
5.3.b What would stop you/why?
5.3.a What could you do?
5.4 What could encourage people to use it more often?
PART 6 DEMOGRAPHIC DATA (confidential)
6.1 Sex:
6.2 Age.
6.3 Name of suburb or area you live?
6.4 Employment status.
6.4.e Unemployed.
6.4.f Other?
6.4.g Type of Work?
6.5.a Education level attained?
6.5.b Still studying?
6.6 Marital status: married, defacto, single, divorced, widowed.
6.7 Live alone?
6.8 Children? no., ages.
6.9 Country of birth? Australia, other?
6.10 Aboriginality?
6.11 Torres St. Islander?
6.12 If you identify as part of an ethnic group, which group?
6.13 Main language spoken at home? English, other?
Optional questions:
6.14 disability: physical, sight, hearing, intellectual.
6.15 Mental illness?
6.16 sexuality: heterosexual, lesbian, gay, transgender.
Appendix iii
Data from the Consultations
Table A1 Project Summary - total numbers: focus groups, interviews, surveys by gender
Malls and Public Spaces Component, age 12 to >91
|
| ||||||
| Focus Groups | Surveys | Interviews (gender not recorded) | Total contacts | |||
|
| ||||||
| Gender | Male | Female | Male | Female | ||
| Number | 52 | 115 | 140 | 163 | 94 | 564 |
| Per cent of Total (%) | 9.2 | 20.4 | 24.8 | 28.9 | 16.6 | 100 |
|
| ||||||
Table A2 Malls & Public Spaces Component - Interviews by number, group, position
| Organisation | No. | Interviewees |
| Elizabeth Mall, CBD retail outlets; Cat & Fiddle Shopping Centre; City Heart Business Association | 32 | Managers, President, retail assistants |
| Hobart City Council; Glenorchy City Council | 10 | Alderman; Managers: Urban Design, Traffic; Community Dev.; Youth; Safety |
| State Government: Youth Affairs; Aboriginal Affairs; Multicultural Tasmania; Women Tasmania; Disability Services; Tas. Police. Federal: Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission | 9 | Directors, Managers, Policy Adviser; police officers. |
| Sexual Assault Support Service; Victims of Crime Service; Protective Behaviours Co. Defence Dynamics | 12 | Counsellors, trainers |
| Gay, Lesbian Rights Group; Lesbian Space; Council for Aids /Related Diseases; Women's Health Centre | 8 | Gay and lesbian health workers, activists |
| Tas. Pensioners Union; Hobart Senior Citizens Club; Older Women's Network, National Council of Women; Year of Older Persons Project | 7 | Presidents, Committee members, members; Project Officer |
| Ethnic Communities Council; Migrant Resource Centre | 6 | President, Secretary, staff |
| Cosmos Services for Intellectually Disabled People; Glenorchy City Council and Hobart City Council Disability Access Committees | 7 | Director, Manager, members |
| The Link youth health service; University researchers | 3 | Coordinator; Researchers |
| TOTAL | 94 |
List 1 Malls and Public Spaces Component. List of older persons, including migrant, ethnic and women's organisations, participating in focus groups and discussions
Glenorchy Branch Tas. Pensioners Union
Migrant Older Women's Healthy Living Group
Migrant Elderly Persons Group
Adult Migrant English Class
Catholic Women's League
Hobart Senior Citizens Club
Chinese Community Association
Elderly Chinese Group
Polish AssociationNational
Council of Women (Tas)
Table A3 Malls and Public Spaces Component - Site survey summary
|
| |||||||||||||
| Tot | Age 12-24 | Age 25-44 | Age 45-64 | Age >64 | |||||||||
| No. | M | F | No. | M | F | No. | M | F | No. | M | F | ||
|
| |||||||||||||
| Elizabeth Mall | 101 | 24 24% |
12 | 12 | 36 36% |
16 | 20 | 30 30% |
15 | 15 | 11 11% |
3 | 8 |
| Glenorchy Bus Mall | 62 | 22 37% |
10 | 12 | 18 30% |
7 | 11 | 12 20% |
6 | 6 | 10 17% |
2 | 8 |
| Hobart Bus Mall | 60 | 17 28% |
8 | 9 | 16 27% |
8 | 8 | 15 25% |
11 | 4 | 12 20% |
5 | 7 |
| Franklin Square | 40 | 13 33% |
6 | 7 | 13 13% |
8 | 5 | 11 28% |
4 | 7 | 3 8% |
1 | 2 |
| St David's Park | 40 | 16 40% |
6 | 10 | 11 28% |
7 | 4 | 10 25% |
3 | 7 | 3 8% |
2 | 1 |
| Total | 303 | 92 | 42 | 50 | 94 | 46 | 48 | 78 | 39 | 39 | 39 | 13 | 26 |
| % of Total | 100% | 31% | 14% | 17% | 31% | 15% | 16% | 26% | 13% | 13% | 13% | 4% | 9% |
|
| |||||||||||||
~Common+Ground+Figure+1/$FILE/Fig1.jpg)
Table A4 Malls & Public Spaces Component - Site concerns by number and %
of total mentions
|
| ||||||||||
| Elizabeth Mall | Franklin Square | Glenorchy Bus Mall | Hobart Bus Mall | St. David's Park | ||||||
| No. | % | No. | % | No. | % | No. | % | No. | % | |
|
| ||||||||||
| DAY | ||||||||||
| Assault | 18 | 42% | 7 | 29% | 24 | 49% | 14 | 41% | 4 | 100% |
| Robbery | 9 | 21% | 6 | 25% | 6 | 12% | 9 | 26% | ||
| Hassled for mon. | 5 | 12% | ||||||||
| Rowdy | 11 | 26% | 11 | 49% | 19 | 39% | 11 | 32% | ||
| NIGHT | ||||||||||
| Assault | 26 | 39% | 9 | 45% | 13 | 52% | 17 | 43% | 12 | 63% |
| Robbery | 17 | 26% | 3 | 15% | 3 | 12% | 11 | 28% | 2 | 11% |
| Hassled for mon. | 16 | 24% | 4 | 20% | ||||||
| Rowdy | 3 | 12% | 4 | 10% | ||||||
| Verbal abuse | 7 | 11% | 4 | 20% | 6 | 24% | 8 | 20% | 5 | 26% |
|
| ||||||||||
Table A5 Malls & Public Spaces Component - number of people experiencing incidents causing concern
|
| |||
| Site | Total no. survey respondents | No. experiencing incidents causing concern at the sites | As % respondentsfor site |
|
| |||
| Elizabeth Mall | 103 | 35 | 34% |
| Franklin Square | 40 | 7 | 18% |
| Glen. Bus Mall | 60 | 16 | 27% |
| Hobart Bus Mall | 60 | 14 | 23% |
| St. David's Park | 40 | 9 | 23% |
| Total | 303 | 81 | 27% |
|
| |||
Table A6 Malls & Public Spaces Component - Incidents causing harm/fear by % of total mentions for site
|
| ||||||||||
| Elizabeth Mall | Franklin Square | Glenorchy Bus Mall | Hobart Bus Mall | St. David's Park | ||||||
| No. | % | No. | % | No. | % | No. | % | No. | % | |
|
| ||||||||||
| Assault | 13 | 37% | 4 | 57% | 11 | 31% | 9 | 64% | 5 | 56% |
| Robbery | 3 | 39% | 1 | 14% | 1 | 3% | 1 | 7% | ||
| Hassle for mon. | 11 | 31% | 1 | 14% | 2 | 14% | 1 | 11% | ||
| Rowdy | 19 | 54% | ||||||||
| Verbal abuse | 8 | 23% | 1 | 14% | 4 | 11% | 2 | 14% | 3 | 33% |
|
| ||||||||||
Table A7 Malls & Public Spaces Component - Concerns compared to incidents, % total mentions
|
| ||||||||||
| Assault as % of mentions |
Robbery as % of mentions |
Hassled for $ as % of mentions |
Rowdiness as % of mentions |
Verbal Abuse as % of mentions | ||||||
| Concern | Incident | Concern | Incident | Concern | Incident | Concern | Incident | Concern | Incident | |
|
| ||||||||||
| Elizabeth Mall | 37% | 37% | 30% | 9% | 18% | 31% | 9% | 0 | 6% | 23% |
| Franklin Sq. | 36% | 57% | 20% | 14% | 9% | 14% | 25% | 0 | 9% | 14% |
| Glen. Bus Mall | 50% | 69% | 12% | 6% | 0 | 0 | 29% | 30% | 8% | 25% |
| Hobart Bus Mall | 42% | 64% | 27% | 7% | 0 | 14% | 20% | 0 | 11% | 14% |
| St David's Park | 70% | 56% | 9% | 0 | 0 | 11% | 0 | 0 | 22% | 33% |
|
| ||||||||||
Table A8 Malls & Public Spaces Component - Concerns compared to incidents at each site. Number of concerns mentioned and as % of total of concerns per site. Some people had more than one concern.
Number and % of total mentions of an incident.
|
| ||||||||||
| Elizabeth Mall | Franklin Square | Hobart Bus Mall | Glenorchy Bush Mall | St David's Park | ||||||
| C=Concern/perception I=Incidnet |
C | I | C | I | C | I | C | I | C | I |
| Assault | 44 (37%) |
13 (37%) |
16 (36%) |
4 (57%) |
31 (42%) |
9 (64%) |
37 (50%) |
11 (69%) |
16 (70%) |
5 (56%) |
| Robbery | 36 (30%) |
3 (9%) |
9 (20%) |
1 (14%) |
20 (27%) |
1 (7%) |
9 (12%) |
1 (6%) |
2 (9%) |
|
| Hassled | 21 (18%) |
11 (31%) |
4 (9%) |
1 (14%) |
2 (14%) |
1 (11%) | ||||
| Rowdy | 11 (9%) |
11 (25%) |
15 (20%) |
22 (29%) |
19 (30%) |
|||||
| Verbal abuse | 7 (6%) |
8 (23%) |
4 (9%) |
1 (14%) |
8 (11%) |
2 (14%) |
6 (8%) |
4 (25%) |
5 (22%) |
3 (33%) |
|
| ||||||||||
| Incidents per site respondent total | 35 out of 103 (34%) | 7 out of 40 (18%) | 14 out of 60 (25%) | 16 out of 60 (27%) | 9 out of 40 (23%) | |||||
|
| ||||||||||
Appendix iv
Possible Site Specific Strategies
ISSUES STRATEGIES
| ELIZABETH MALL | |
| Tensions between space users. | Hobart City Council (HCC) and City Heart Business Association to work on a programme to have cafes open longer in evenings. |
| Lack of facilities and activities for youth | HCC open Youth Arc at different and longer periods am/pm; open a facility right in the city centre. |
| Safety: fear and site avoidance image as unruly area at late afternoon unsafe image at night. |
Police: man police booth consistently daytime, Wed., Thur., Fri., Sat into nights. HCC: passive lighting 'waiting points'; create safe havens/shops; night movies and buskers entertaining in the evenings in summer. |
| FRANKLIN SQUARE | |
| Tensions between space users. | Skate day at Elizabeth wharf with 50s, 60s music, morning tea offered to attract people of different ages. Youth Committee to promote it in schools and in the community; a public debate with celebrities to speak for young people and vica versa. HCC: infrastructure: fixed tables in-laid games boards; more seats; children's play area (as at back of Argyle St. car park); improve lighting, |
| Safety: fear and site avoidance unsafe image at night. |
Police: educate users better about restrictions; consistent policing of by laws, no open alcoholic drinks, police bookings not helpful. HCC: interactive and more effective night lighting, xmas tree lights; sharps containers, toilets re-design. Create safety points. |
| ST. DAVID'S PARK | |
| Under utilisation: lack of passive infrastructure and facilities/activities to attract use by a diverse range and large number of community members |
HCC and community groups to provide: exercise circuit/ fixed apparatus; tourist info/coffee shop leased by HCC, hire tables, chairs umbrellas; fixed tables in-laid game's boards; children's area; ground level, open, covered area for debates, readings, music, puppet theatre, Tai Chi; summer theatre and outdoor movies; have local bands to play at affordable entry costs. |
| Safety: fear, avoidance, unsafe image at night. | Police: patrols at pm; push bike police. HCC: interactive and bright night lighting; push button alarms; clear growth path borders, less shadows; safety shops/houses; re-design toilets space around/open, well lit; sharps containers. |
| GLENORCHY BUS MALL | |
| Tensions between space users. | Police: foot patrols 2:30-6:30pm. |
| Safety: fear, site avoidance, image as unruly area at late afternoon, unsafe at night. | Glenorchy City Council (GCC): bright lights at shelters, interchange approaches, toilets; pavement border marked. Safety points created. Metro: security guards train in conflict resolution, be respectful in communicating; more inspectors on buses; passengers to know their rights and those of drivers re. acceptable behaviour at bus malls and on buses. GCC/Metro/police/community groups, discuss possible joint services info kiosk/safety point. |
HOBART BUS MALL |
|
| Tensions between space users. | Police: more patrols pm/night, plain clothes 2:30-6:30 school days; break up fights quickly. |
| Safety: fear, site avoidance, unsafe image late afternoon and night. | HCC: shelters re-designed, space for movement; security cameras be obvious, publicise safety features. |
Appendix v
Evaluation Questionnaires
Media Campaign: TV Ads
|
The Project Officer designed and implemented a written evaluation questionnaire. Respondents: 136 young people. Age range. Total number. Age group as % of total of 136 respondents Locations: Guilford Young & Elizabeth Colleges, Cosgrove and Ogilvie High Schools. Respondents: 60 adults. Age range. Total number. Age group as % of total of 60 adult respondents Location: random sample in public spaces in greater Hobart. QuestionnaireDevised for female/male Students in Years 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 Q 1. Are TV ads an effective way to get messages across to people in your age group about using public spaces? Q 2. What messages do the ads try to get across to people about using public spaces? Q 3. Which ads do you think are the most effective, Why? Q 4. By encouraging people in public spaces to be aware of their behaviour, the ads aim to make people feel that public spaces can be safe and enjoyable for people of all ages and backgrounds to use. Overall, how well do you think the Ads achieve this aim? Very well, well, quite well, not very well.
|
Responses to TV Ads Questionnaire:
Frequences: Question 3 - Which Ads do you think are the most effective?
gender disaggregated, in rank order (1 highest to 5 lowest), by age group
|
| ||||||||||
| Age 11-13 | 14-19 | 20-35 | 36-50 | > 50 | ||||||
| Ads | F | M | F | M | F | M | F | M | F | M |
|
| ||||||||||
| The Bus | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| Vox pops | 4 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
| Steps | 3 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 |
| Respect | 2 | 2 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| Assault | na | na | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
Question 3 - Which ads do you think are the most effective?
Summary: Percentage of total mentions, by age group
|
| ||||
| All age groups % | 11 to 19 years % | 20 to 50 years % | Over 50 years % | |
|
| ||||
| The Bus | 30 | 40 | 28 | 22 |
| Vox Pop | 22 | 16 | 23 | 22 |
| Steps | 22 | 16 | 16 | 20 |
| Assault | 17 | 18 | 19 | 13 |
| Respect | 15 | 11 | 14 | 20 |
|
| ||||
Question 4 - How well do the ads achieve the aim?
Number of mentions, and number as a % of total mentions, gender disaggregated
|
| ||||||
| Age 11-13 | Age 14-19 | |||||
| Rating | F | M | Total N % |
F | M | Total N % |
|
| ||||||
| Very well | 9 | 4 | 13 30 | 21 | 0 | 21 23 |
| Very well to well | 5 | 0 | 5 11 | 5 | 3 | 8 9 |
| Well | 13 | 4 | 17 39 | 38 | 7 | 45 48 |
| Well to quite well | 0 | 0 | 0 0 | 4 | 2 | 6 6 |
| Quite well | 5 | 2 | 7 16 | 12 | 0 | 12 14 |
| Not very well | 1 | 0 | 1 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 1 |
| Total | 33 | 10 | 44 98 | 80 | 13 | 93 101 |
|
| ||||||
Question 4 - How well do the ads achieve the aim?
Number of mentions, and number as a % of total mentions, gender disaggregated
|
| |||||||||
| 20 respondents in each age group |
Age 20-35 | Age 36-50 | Age > 50 | ||||||
| Rating | F | M | Total N % |
F | M | Total N % |
F | M | Total N % |
|
| |||||||||
| Very well | 3 | 3 | 6 30 | 3 | 2 | 5 25 | 4 | 4 | 8 40 |
| Very well to well | 2 | 1 | 3 15 | 1 | 3 | 4 20 | 1 | 2 | 3 15 |
| Well | 3 | 5 | 8 40 | 5 | 5 | 10 50 | 3 | 4 | 7 35 |
| Well to quite well | 1 | 1 | 2 10 | 1 | 1 5 | 1 | 0 | 1 5 | |
| Quite well | 1 | 0 | 1 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 5 |
| Not very well | 0 | 0 | 0 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 0 |
|
| |||||||||
Part C Youth participation component
Appendix i
Youth Consultative Committee
Beau-Lea Rogers, New Norfolk Youth Advisory Group
Becki Smith, Adrian Gauden and Leigh Oswin, Glenorchy Youth Taskforce
Laurence Barrington, Activities Committee, Hobart City Council's Youth ARC
Sophie Richards, Elizabeth College Student Representative Council
Boaz Shaw, Derwent Valley young people
Dane Cowley and Grady Cowley, Derwent Valley young people
Kim Ashlin, Tasmanian Youth Consultative Committee
Appendix ii
Survey Instrument: Young Peoples' Survey
Elizabeth Mall was the main project site for this survey.
This survey will take approximately 3 to 5 minutes to complete.
Do you have time to answer some questions? Thank you.
1.Which of the following spaces would you most frequently visit or pass through?
Please number 1-5
Elizabeth St Mall, Glenorchy Bus Mall, Hobart Bus Interchange, Franklin Square, St David's Park.
2.Why do you come to this space ? (The space they have nominated no. 1)
Shopping; Hanging out
Meeting friends; Waiting for the bus
3.Who do you usually come here (or go there) with?
Alone,With friends, Parent.
Apart from yourself and your friends/peers who else do you think uses this space?
a), b), c).
4.Are you OK with the way other groups use or hang out in this space?Yes, No.
If no, who and why ?
5 Have you ever observed any problems in this space? Yes, No.
a) If yes, what sort of problems have you observed ?
b) If yes, can you suggest who the problems are between?
c) Do you know why these problems exist?
6. Are there any times of the day or night that you would avoid using this space?
6a) Do you always feel safe when you are using or accessing this space?Yes, No.
If no, what are you worried about? Is it the same during the day /night or both?
7.What could be done to make you feel more comfortable here (there)?
8.Who do you think is responsible for making you and others feel more comfortable here (there)? Council, police, Everyone, Youth workers
9. Would you be prepared to be involved in actions or activities that would help improve this space?
10.What do you think could be done to encourage people, including those who avoid the space, to use it more often?
11.Is there anything more you would like to say about this space?
Demographic questions followed.
Appendix iii
Focus group questions
Start by asking which space they wish to focus on.
Can talk about one or more but will need to keep data separate.
- What is your experience of using the mall?
Best and worst experiences? What you do and don't like about the mall? - If you have concerns who/what is the cause of those concerns?
What could happen to you? What is it you worry about?
Do you like the Glenorchy Bus Mall? - What influences your feelings and ideas about the or other nominated space?
e.g personal experience, media, stories. can prompt here. - How do you think others see you when you are using the mall?
What type of reactions do you get when you are using this space? - What do you do to make yourself feel safer while using the mall or other nominated space?
eg. take a dog or go with a friend, take your skateboard. - How could we promote more joint use of a space like the mall, by different types of people?
If there was one thing you could suggest that would improve the mall ie. make it more comfortable or safe what would it be?
Table A9 Total number of young people consulted by age, gender, and location
|
| |||||
| Group | Age range | Number | Total | Geographic location | |
| Male | Female | ||||
|
| |||||
| Migrant youth | 13-19 | 4 | 3 | 7 | Newtown |
| Indigenous youth | 16-17 | 2 | 2 | 4 | North Hobart |
| Indigenous youth | 12-15 | 5 | 5 | 10 | Glenorchy |
| People with mental illness | 20-26 | 3 | 4 | 7 | Hobart |
| People identifying as gay and lesbian | 17-24 | 2 | 4 | 6 | South Hobart |
| People with disabilities | 22-26 | 2 | 2 | North Hobart | |
| Rural youth | 13-15 | 1 | 6 | 7 | New Norfolk |
| Glenorchy Task Force | 12-19 | 5 | 7 | 12 | Glenorchy |
| People planning businesses (YBEC) | 19-26 | 5 | 2 | 7 | Hobart |
| Young mothers | 18-20 | 4 | 4 | North Hobart | |
| Total | 29 (44%) |
37 (56%) |
66 |
||
|
| |||||
Table A10. Other consultative activities
|
| |||||
| Group | Age range | Number | Total | Geographic location | |
| Male | Female | ||||
|
| |||||
| Youth agency focus group | >25 | 4 | 5 | 9 | Hobart |
| Crime Prevention and Community Safety Council workshop | 12-70 | 20 (council and youth) |
Hobart | ||
| Total | 29 | ||||
|
| |||||
Table A11 Youth Participation Component - Focus groups, by age, gender and location
|
| |||||
| Youth Group | Age range | Number Gender |
Total | Area participants live | |
| male | female | ||||
|
| |||||
| Migrant | 13-19 | 4 | 3 | 7 | Newtown |
| Indigenous | 16-17 | 2 | 2 | 4 | North Hobart |
| Indigenous | 12-15 | 5 | 5 | 10 | Glenorchy |
| People: mental illness | 20-26 | 3 | 4 | 7 | Hobart |
| Gay and lesbian | 17-24 | 2 | 4 | 6 | South Hobart |
| People with disabilities | 22-26 | 2 | 2 | North Hobart | |
| Rural | 13-15 | 1 | 6 | 7 | New Norfolk |
| Glenorchy Youth Task Force | 12-19 | 5 | 7 | 12 | Glenorchy |
| People planning businesses YBEC | 19-26 | 5 | 2 | 7 | Hobart |
| Mothers | 18-20 | 4 | 4 | North Hobart | |
| TOTAL | 29 | 37 | 66 | ||
| 44% | 56% | ||||
|
| |||||
Other groups consulted: Youth agency focus group; Crime Prevention and Community Safety Council youth workshop.
Appendix iv
Text: Rights & Responsibilities in Public Space - A Guide
What is?...
Public space, such as bus malls, gardens, parks and open shopping areas, is for use by everyone. Public spaces can be used for recreation, hanging out, shopping, business, and a place to catch public transport.
Private space can only be used with the permission of the owner or occupier. An example of private space is a shop in a town. During business hours you don't need to ask for permission to enter. The owner or occupier of the space can however, without needing a reason, take away permission for you to be there and ask you to leave.
FAQ Legal Rights. You have a right to be in a public space.
Q. Can you play music in a public space?
A. Yes. However if the music interferes with another person's enjoyment of the public space, you may be guilty of an offence. It is ok to play music with friends in a park as long as it does not annoy others.
Q. Can you busk in a public space?
A. Check with your local council. You may need a permit.
Q. Is it ok to ask for money or cigarettes in a public space?
A. No. It is illegal to 'beg' in a public place.
Q. Is it OK to swear in public?
A. No. Swearing, cursing, using threatening and offensive language, physically intimidating or annoying others are offences.
Q. Is it ok to drink alcohol in a public space?
A. No. You must not drink alcohol, or have an open or unsealed container of alcohol (e.g. stubby, wine cask or can) in a public space. If you are 18 or over you may drink alcohol at a function in a public space for which a specific permit has been obtained from the Commissioner for Licensing. It is also an offence to possess alcohol in a public space if your are under 18.
Q. Is it an offence to be drunk in a public space?
A. No. It is not an offence to be drunk in a public space. However, it is an offence to be drunk and disorderly.
Q. Do you have to put up with discrimination and verbal abuse?
A. No. You have the right to be free from any discrimination, harassment and verbal abuse, e.g. based on age, disability, sex, ethnicity, sexual orientation, political activity, religious belief or pregnancy. Refer to Anti Discrimination Commission Tasmania.
Q. Who may have the authority to ask you to leave a public space?
A. The police, or an employee of the local council if you are on land managed by council.
Q. Why might you be asked to leave a public space?
A. The police can direct you to move on in certain circumstances, for example, if you are blocking the footpaths or road. The police must have a reason for asking you to move on. You are entitled to ask what that reason is.
Q. Do you have to give your name and address to a police officer?
A. Maybe. A police officer may require you to give your name and address only if he/she is aware, or has reasonable grounds for believing that you have committed, or are committing, an offence. A police officer can then arrest you if you refuse to supply your details, or you give a name and address that the officer believes is false.
This pamphlet is a product of the Youth Participation Component of the Common Ground Project. Under the auspice of the Crime Prevention and Community Safety Council. This project is partially funded by the Commonwealth Government's National Anti-Crime Strategy. For further information contact the Legal Aid Advice Line, Hobart, from 9am to 5pm weekdays, on 1300 366 611
Appendix v
Notes from Photolanguage discussion groups.
Discussion group 1
Retailer, young people, Tasmanians with Disabilities, Tasmania University and Alderman from Glenorchy City Council
Where: Speak Out Advocacy Service
Summary of discussion
One of the key themes to emerge from this discussion was that of 'citizenship and participation'. The group discussed the need for more genuine opportunities to exist for people to participate in community decision making.
This raised a concern about consultation with young people and why it does not occur to a satisfactory level in the community. It was noted that young people are not, to an extent, interested in becoming involved in the structures of decision making nor are they invited. Again this raised the issue of school education
Agreement: There is a need to change this pattern, not just for young people but for members of the wider community who are not motivated to be involved in decision making processes.
Strategies: To introduce more focussed in-school programmes relating to community participation and citizenship. To prioritise youth participation and engage in more 'genuine' consultation with young people.
Discussion group 2
Police (Bike Squad) and Youth Consultative Committee
Where: Youth Network of Tasmania
Summary of discussion: This discussion group focussed on broader social issues that are impacting on the communities ability to resolve issues relating to public space. These social issues are also impacting on our sense of community.
Human resource problems for police and the allocation of resources e.g. less police more surveillance cameras was also identified as issues.
'Surveillance cameras don't take sick days'.
The group spoke of the differences between young people today and young people of previous generations. It was noted that the community is not responding appropriately, for example, surveillance cameras, to these cultural differences.
People are being very reactive to problems, for example, it is the teachers fault, when the issues are a lot more involved
Some people noted that in relation to 'street kids - most troubled young people have little to no discipline'.
Police with the community should continue to develop preventative measures to address the issues of re-occurring crime.
Agreement: Those present felt that surveillance cameras are the answer to problems. They did not want a culture of this type of security
The community is lacking a common purpose 'each to their own' mentality- creating divisions.
The community is reactive to problems rather than proactive.
Strategy: Strategies were not suggested at this discussion group.
Discussion group 3
Young people, retail representative, environmental planner from Glenorchy City Council and TASCARD representative
Where: Speak Out Advocacy Service
Summary of discussion: In this discussion some comparisons were made between natural security and surveillance. Generally the group did not favour going down the path of camera surveillance and questioned its effectiveness. The discussion focussed on the management of spaces and designing so as to attract activity, energy and culture.
Comparisons were made between Salamanca Place and the Elizabeth St Mall. It was agreed that Salamanca is more 'organically' set up and the mall a more 'synthetic' set up. It was suggested that public ownership might be fostered by personalising the spaces.
Participants discussed the option of opening the mall to cars at certain times of the week. They felt that allowing access to cars after business hours may promote more use and increase feelings of safety.
Agreement: 'Society is lacking a sense of culture'
Strategies: Promote/encourage trading after 5.00pm. Opening up Mall to traffic at certain times of the week
Discussion group 4:
Hobart Senior Citizens Club and representatives from the Youth Consultative Committee
Where: Hobart Senior Citizens Club
Summary of discussion: Greater gaps exist between different groups in society today and there is not as much opportunity to mingle with each other e.g. the Wellington Walk playground has been moved and now the older adults don't have the pleasure of watching the children play in the mall. There needs to be more opportunity for people in the community to come together.
The group felt that it is everyone's responsibility to take care of our public spaces. It was suggested that civic pride be incorporated into the curriculum at schools to encourage the importance of this. The group talked about the reason why young people, in particular, use public spaces like the mall more than earlier generations. The fact that older generations did not have a central mall to go to nor did they have to travel to school was noted. Central meeting points and the fact that parents are not always home after school was also identified as a reason to 'hangout'.
The group discussed the issues of skateboarding around the streets and, in particular, in the cities.
Agreement: Skating is Ok and a necessary form of transport/recreation
Insurance issues need to be addressed
Appropriate places for skating are needed.
Strategy: Organise regular group where young people and older adults can get together.
Discussion group 5
Young people, Manager of Security at Metro, Representative from the University of Tasmania
Absent: Gay and Lesbian Rights Association, Moore and Moore Security and Metro Bus Driver
Where: Youth Network of Tasmania
Summary of discussion : This discussion was represented by more young people than representatives from the wider community. The group brought up the issue of surveillance as a subtle and acceptable form of security that gives the feeling of passive security. Later in the discussion it was determined that 'natural' or 'people security' is preferable. Salamanca Place was highlighted by some of the participants as an example of effective 'people safety'.
A difference was noted between Elizabeth St Mall and Salamanca Place. Salamanca was seen as more positive and natural use of public space as opposed to the mall, which was less natural, and not as appealing. The participants acknowledged that grass was more appealing than concrete. Cleanliness was an important feature to the group, however, an antiseptic feeling was undesirable.
Consultation with young people was raised as an issue as well as youth image in public spaces.
It was identified that the role of a 'peer support worker' can be a means of successfully involving young people in consultative processes.
Agreement: Need to think about creative solutions to surveillance
Need to be more creative when designing the public spaces
Need to use public spaces more creatively
Strategy: Erect a wall specifically for graffiti art
Conduct art competitions
Appendix vi
Brochure
~Common+Ground+Figure+2/$FILE/Fig2.gif)