Delivering safer neighbourhoods: lessons from the NDC programme

1
Delivering safer neighbourhoods lessons from the
NDC programme

• Reducing fear and crime in our neighbourhoods
• Scott Dickinson, SQWC and Richard Meegan, EIUA
• 30 October 2007

2
Structure of this presentation

• What we did
• Nature of the problem
• NDCs approaches
• Interventions and activities
• Neighbourhood-level change
• Working with communities and agencies
• Implications and conclusions

3
What we did

• Six case studies
• Bradford
• Knowsley
• Lambeth
• Newcastle
• Newham
• Walsall
• Using
• Project reviews
• Data analysis
• Household survey data
• Police recorded crime data
• Interviews and focus groups
• July 2006 and March 2007
• Plus other research

4
Nature of the problem issues and complexities

• Variation in levels of crime and fear of crime
• Crime hotspots linked to particular geographies
  or communities
• Crimes and the geography of crime change over
  time
• Increasing profile of youth nuisance and ASB
  issues
• Relative vulnerability of younger and older
  people
• Issues relating to drugs and drug dealing
• Problems associated with changing populations
  (particularly where increases in the number of
  refugee and migrant communities)

5
NDCs approaches

• Evidence
• Available data
• Visible issues
• Less on invisible and unreported
• Focus on tackling high levels of recorded crime
• early interventions
• vehicle crime
• property related crime
• Tackling the fear of crime
• resources for
• increased police presence
• neighbourhood wardens
• CCTV
• preventative and diversionary work with young
  people
• support to victims and, in some cases,
  perpetrators of crime
• flexible use of resources to enable targeting of
  hotspots
• agency collaboration with a focus on problem
  solving
• but emphasis on working within themes

6
Interventions and activities
Reactive interventions to tackle immediate
issues, e.g. drug dealing or prostitution
Improvements to local environments and public
space
Diversionary activities for young people
Support, information and awareness raising
projects
Crime prevention activities, e.g. improved street
lighting
Reassurance measures, e.g. wardens, additional
police
7
Neighbourhood-level change

• Positive change since the start of the programme
• Across most reduction in crime and across all
  reduction in fear of crime
• more positive for women than men
• BME communities saw more positive change for
  quality of life and satisfaction with area
  indicators
• overall reductions in burglary and theft, but
  only marginal reductions in criminal damage in
  three case studies and reductions in violent
  crime in only the two London NDCs
• Reductions in fear of crime lag behind actual
  reductions
• Little evidence that crime has been displaced
• Evidence benefits extended to surrounding
  neighbourhoods
• Linking interventions to outcomes is problematic
  but local evidence does suggest some plausible
  links between them

8
Working with communities and agencies

• Communities have had an impact by
• influencing project development and highlighting
  issues through engagement in theme groups and
  projects
• Agencies involvement has worked with
• early engagement in strategic and delivery work
  has been beneficial
• foci for partnership working e.g. neighbourhood
  policing, youth diversion and neighbourhood
  management
• multi-agency partnerships for the development of
  holistic approaches to crime and community safety
   

• Problems have been encountered
• difficult to engage young people
• communities have not always felt comfortable
  working with agencies and the police on sensitive
  issues
• need to ensure the safety/ confidentiality of
  community representatives
• tensions between community and agencies
  priorities sometimes resulting in NDCs being 'out
  of step' with wider strategies and approaches

9
Implications and conclusions

• NDC resources have 'enhanced' mainstream services
  
• additional services or flexibility in delivery
  which could be replicated in other neighbourhood
  programmes
• BUT police forces are unlikely in all cases to be
  able to maintain current levels of service beyond
  NDC
• Safer Neighbourhoods work has focused on
  prevention, detection and enforcement
• less emphasis on restorative justice
• little evidence of interventions to support the
  rehabilitation of offenders
• Neighbourhoods (c. 10,000 pop.) are an
  appropriate spatial scale at which to co-ordinate
  interventions and address some community safety
  issues
• crimes against property
• anti-social behaviour
• youth nuisance
• BUT some issues require interventions beyond NDC
  and spatial scales
• E.g. drug-related crimes which cut across a range
  of deprived communities

10
Implications and conclusions

• Community involvement has been critical
• Communities are a key source of information
• BUT they can focus on the visible and enforcement
  to the exclusion of the invisible and
  preventative
• Multi-agency partnerships that reach beyond the
  main criminal justice agencies can provide
• Valuable intelligence
• Mechanisms for crime prevention and project
  implementation
• BUT scant evidence the engagement with the
  Probation Service or prisons (only Bradford)
• AND limited evidence of systematic links with
  LSPs/LAAs
• Demolition and redevelopment might, in the short
  to medium term, result in increases in crime
  rates in particular hotspots

11
Implications and conclusions
They also serve to raise the profile of
interventions and provide safe conduits for
residents to provide agencies with intelligence.
Community based partnerships have a key role in
working with local communities and can broker and
strengthen relationships between communities and
agencies, notably the police. Communication to
residents through newsletters and consultation
through community forums and organisations is
vital in ensuring the vitality of crime and
community safety programmes.

• What we need is a strategic approach based around
  core themes
• policing and deterrence
• support to victims and perpetrators
• education and diversion
• Based on a flexible problem solving approach,
  complemented by the coordinated delivery of
  projects.

12
Implications and conclusions
An asset-based strategy may not be sufficient to
support social infrastructure projects which are
unlikely to be adopted by mainstream service
providers
But these are commonly delivered by third sector
agencies and evidence to date shows these
projects are the least likely to be mainstreamed
or attract secure funding
Projects on education, family support, youth
activities, community facilities and employment
play a crucial role in instigating the cultural
change required to sustain reductions in crime
levels
13
Contact
Scott Dickinson Associate Director SQW
Consulting t. 020 7307 7152 e.
sdickinson_at_sqw.co.uk w. www.sqw.co.uk
Richard Meegan EIUA t. 020 7307 7152 e.
R.A.Meegan_at_ljmu.ac.uk w. www.ljmu.ac.uk/eiua