Upload
jaylynn-boone
View
215
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Interagency Crime Prevention for Rail Station Environs
Trudi Cooper2, Terence Love1, Fred Affleck1, Erin Donovan2
1 Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia
2 Edith Cowan University, Perth, WA, Australia
PATRECPATREC
2
Funding
• Office of Crime Prevention (OCP)• Public Transport Authority (PTA)• City of Armadale (CoA) • City of Gosnells (CoG) • City of Joondalup (CoJ)• City of Swan (CoS)
3
Participants• City of Armadale• City of Gosnells• City of Joondalup• City of Swan• WA Passenger Transport Authority
(Transit Guards)• WA Passenger Transport Authority
(Community Education) • Armadale Youth Resource Centre • CentreCare, Joondalup• C of G APLOs • C of G Safer Cities • C of G Travelsmart• C of G Youth Services• Corridors College, Midland • DCD, Joondalup• DCD, Midland
• DCD, Armadale• DrugArm, Armadale• ECU Youth Work, Joondalup• GreatMates, Kelmscott• Hills Community Support Group• Joondalup Youth Support Services• Juvenile Justice, Midland• Lakeside Joondalup Shopping
Centre• Mission Australia, Gosnells • Police & Citizens Youth Club,
Midland• WA Police Crime Prevention,
Gosnells• YMCA mobile youth service,
Joondalup
4
Map
5
Real life problem
• Public concern about anti-social behaviour by some young people in public and pseudo-public spaces around station environs
• Develop interagency collaboration between youth agencies and PTA to enable sustainable locally appropriate solutions
6
Factors that shaped the project - Office of Crime Prevention
• Address real life crime prevention and public safety problem
• Practical outcomes • Sustained commitment by community partners to on-
going collaboration after project completion • Transferable model of interagency collaboration• Process informed by relevant academic literature
Implies: Action research method plus inter-agency collaboration
7
Factors that shaped the project - Participating agencies
• Multiple (6) collaborating funding partners with diverse perceptions, goals, practices and operational priorities
• Participation by large number of community agencies• Shared commitment to community safety
Implies: Interagency collaboration, locality based
8
Policy background
• Government policies encourage increased public transport usage
• Fear of groups of young people inhibits some patrons’ rail use
• No existing relationship between PTA and local youth agencies
• History of conflict between some young people and various security services that police pseudo-public space
9
Research literature – interagency collaboration
• Interagency collaboration important because actions of agencies positively and negatively affect each others’ work in a locality
• Interagency collaboration extremely difficult to establish and maintain
• Variance of operational practices, values, goals and roles exacerbates problems
Partner agencies have diverse organisational goals, roles and values
10
Interagency collaboration is important
• Enables complex problems to be addressed effectively• Mobilises more resources• Synergies between operations
• Experience indicates uncoordinated single agency responses:– Move ‘problem behaviour’ from one location to another at
considerable expense– Increase youth alienation, which may increase anti-social
behaviour
11
Known problems of interagency collaboration
• Potential misunderstandings about goals, priorities and roles of other agencies
• Miscommunication when issues oversimplified and viewed only from perspective of each agency’s central concerns
• Group dynamics and interagency politics• Individual agencies dominate discussions • Inaction if problem(s) seem too complex and intractable • People try to ‘shift the problem’ to another agency
(related to feelings of helplessness/ hopelessness above)
12
Research literature – young people
• Well-documented worldwide history of conflict between young people and authorities in public space and public concern
• ‘Hanging out’ easily escalates to public disorder offences if not handled carefully
• Young people are the age group most likely to be victims of crime (especially young men)
Community perceptions of ‘anti-social’ behaviour by young people are variable and often include both legal and illegal behaviour
13
Research literature – crime prevention
• Increased policing is expensive and frequently moves location of problem rather than prevents it
• Better to control problem ‘in situ’ than displace crime• Satisfactory ‘in situ’ management requires physical,
environmental, cultural or relationship changes
Identify local priorities and possibilities
14
Research methodology
• Action Research for supporting inter-agency collaboration, resolving group conflicts, overcoming apathy and hopelessness, and as a foundation for sustainable outcomes
• Soft Systems Method for contextual data collection, analysis, choosing interventions
15
Transferable model principles - 1
• Build understanding of roles and priorities of different agencies
• Build respectful personal relationships between people in different agencies and organisations
Identify shared goals
16
Transferable model principles - 2
• Explore how the work of each organisation positively or negatively affects other agencies
• Acknowledge where roles and priorities differ
Identify local actions that can support the goals of multiple participants
17
Transferable model process - 1Understand agencies’ perceptions of issues
• Separate initial meetings with agencies whose goals, purposes, roles or values conflict
• Create ‘rich pictures’ for each locality
18
Transferable model process - 2Build mutual understanding & respect and identify local issues
• Highly-structured joint meeting to share information about roles and priorities
• Explore interrelationships between work of different organisations;
• Share and discuss ‘rich pictures’; • Use discussion to identify priority issues where
collaboration could bring about positive change
19
Transferable model process - 3Plan, implement and evaluate collaborative action
• Agree roles, processes and timeline for interventions• Hold additional meetings as required to:
− Maintain momentum− Review progress− Identify obstacles− Modify plans (action research model)− Ensure that decisions are acted upon− Ensure relationships are maintained and problems are solved
collaboratively
20
Transferable model process - 4Project evaluation and closure
• Document and share achievements and acknowledge barriers
• Make local arrangements to continue collaboration• Maximise learning by sharing experiences • Acknowledge and celebrate successes (effective
collaboration isn’t easy)
21
Things that support the process
• Process begins with the right local organisations• Initial group includes:
– Activists– Creative problem solvers– People with sufficient seniority and sufficient organisational
flexibility– Solution-focused individuals
22
Things that inhibit the process
• Group members feel local situation is too hopeless to try anything
• People are over-constrained by bureaucratic procedures or mindsets
• People with insufficient authority to do anything• Lack of continuity of involvement• Participants have too many competing priorities• Key organisations omitted from initial process