UCWI-Safety & Security Final Presentation-5

1

Contents:❖ Project Introduction❖ Multidisciplinary Team Structure❖ Mixed Methodology Research and Results❖ Discussion, potential opportunities, and limitations❖ Open Forum

2

Elizabeth Brand

Anthropology

CeceWang

Communication Design

Jenny Latessa

Community Planning

RubyHe

Design

DanielWalton

Professional Writing

DavidHall

Nutrition

AarynGreen

Sociology

StaceyGruber

Biomedical Engineering

EmilyWarner

Professional Writing

3

❖ Project Introduction

4

Problem Statement

WHY is safety and security an issue of wellbeing?If people do not feel confident in their ability to go about their daily lives unthreatened, they will be less willing to participate in activities that could fulfill higher-level needs. Safety and security are thus of paramount importance in any wider effort to promote wellbeing.

Maslow's hierarchy of needs, represented as a pyramid with the more basic needs at the bottom

Project Introduction

5

Project Introduction

Context

Historical BackgroundPerceptions of crime in the city of Cincinnati have been largely influenced by racial inequality and social unrest.

UC Safety ResourcesThe University of Cincinnati currently provides a number of safety resources. These include educational programs such as “Be Smart. Be Safe” and the Safe Housing Initiative, as well as services like NightRide, the Safety Ambassadors and the LiveSafe application.

6

❖ Multidisciplinary Team Structure

7

Multidisciplinary Team

The research team consisted of nine individuals drawn from a diverse variety of backgrounds.

● Design● Anthropology● Community planning● Professional writing● Quantitative sciences

Multidisciplinary team structure

8

Multidisciplinary team structure

9

❖ Mixed Methodology Research and Results

10

Main findings

Perceptions of safety and security

Communication disconnect

between diverse stakeholders

Differences in resource

awarenessand use

11

1. Team Identity 2. Research Direction 3. Data Collection 4. Data Analysis

Mixed Methodology Research

12

● Multidisciplinary

team

● Collaboration

● Community building

● Research background

presentation

● “We exist to”

● Shared vision1. Team Identity


13

To achieve a common understanding of its interdisciplinary capacity.

“Wicked problems”: sociocultural issues with multiple and inseparable roots that escape the expertise of any one discipline.

1. Team Identity❖ Research background presentation❖ We exist to


14


“Define the safety and security issues in the greater Clifton community through interdisciplinary research that will stimulate future solutions.”

1. Team Identity❖ Research background presentation❖ We exist to

15

2. Research Direction ● Interdisciplinary

approach

● Unique

perspectives

● Benchmarking

● Multilevel determinants

of safety and security

● Wellbeing factors

● Expert

presentation/interviews

● Shared vision


16

2. Research Direction❖ Benchmarking❖ Multilevel determinants of safety and security❖ Wellbeing factors❖ Expert presentation/interviews

The broad overview provided very loose conceptual

and structural guidelines for the work that could

occur over the course of the semester project.


17

Top ten keywordsPeopleSocialAbuseHistoryPhysicalPreventionHomeDisabledAccessKnowledge



18


Multi-factors modelMulti-factorial weight analysis


19


13 interviews, 8 departmentsUnderstand the greater Clifton community’s relationship with the UC campusCompare perceptions of safety against existing incident and crime dataExamine perceptions of safety and security by demographicsEmploy free listing interviews to obtain a large amount of qualitative data with minimal interviewer bias


20

3. Data Collection ● Research

framework

● Diverse

perceptions

● Free listing interview

● Photovoice

● In-depth individual

interview/subjective

mapping

● Existing data

● Prototyping qualitative research

methods

● Diverse demographic perceptions


21

3. Data Collection❖ Free listing interview ❖ Photovoice❖ In-depth individual interview/subjective mapping❖ Existing data

95 free listing interviews through in-person interview and online survey

The survey contained two open-ended prompts to list things, environments, and places that make participants feel either safe and secure or unsafe and insecure.


22

23

94 Photovoice photos

Photovoice is a method by which local participants identify, represent and enhance their community via photographs

First developed under the framework of community-based participatory research

The present project piloted a modification of the photovoice technique

3. Data Collection❖ Free listing interview❖ Photovoice❖ In-depth individual interview/subjective mapping❖ Existing data


24

24 interviews These interviews focused on safety concerns as they applied to daily routine. A subjective mapping portion was also included, in which the interviewee illustrated his or her daily routine and indicated the areas he or she considered particularly unsafe.



25


1. Incidents reported from 1/1/2014 to 4/12/2016

2. Incidents reported from 1/1/2014 to 4/12/2016 where Arrests were made

3. Incidents reported from 1/1/2014 to 4/12/2016 where Arrests were not made

1 2 3


26


NightRideBearcat ShuttleHelp Phone StationsSafety AmbassadorsBe Smart. Be SafeLiveSafe App


27

http://besafe.uc.edu/

http://besafe.uc.edu/

4. Data Analysis ● Empirical evidence

● Trustworthy

● Supportive

● Coding

● Safety and

security journey

map

● Free listing

● Mapping

● Summary of

Results


28

4. Data Analysis❖ Coding

❖ Safety and security journey map


29

30

Environment 0.755People 0.591

Experience 0.524Place 0.393

Crime/anti-crime 0.187Resource 0.084

Campus culture 0.024

4. Data Analysis❖ Coding: Unsafe Freelist Categories Sigma/n



31

People 0.820 Environment 0.558

Resource 0.321Place 0.393

Crime/anti-crime 0.187Resource 0.084

Campus culture 0.024

4. Data Analysis❖ Coding: Safe Freelist Categories Sigma/n



32

Environment

Safe

Lighting

Clean environment

Busy streets

Day time

Unsafe

Night

Poor lighting

Dark alleys

Empty streets

People

Safe

Campus police

Friends

Cincinnati Police

Campus watch

Unsafe

Homeless

Sketchy people

African Americans

Drunk people


33

Experience

Safe

Being in a group

Having a dog

Walking with someone else

Unsafe

Being followed

Walking along

Being Cat Called

Sexual harassment

Resource

Safe

Help phones

Night ride

Night walk

Phones

Shuttle

Alarm systems

Bearcat card

Unsafe

Crime reports

Reading about shootings

Broken help phones

Public transportation


34

4. Data Analysis❖ Coding: Subjective map coding



35

36


❖ Safety and security journey map: Photovoice sorting


37


❖ Geocoding

❖ Narrative/Storytelling: Photovoice timeline


38

Mixed Methodology Research and Results


❖ Geocoding


39



❖ Geocoding


40



❖ Geocoding


41

❖ Discussion, potential opportunities, and limitations

42

Discussion, potential opportunities, and limitations

Discussion: Key themes from the collected data

The role of environment in perception

Off campus = “unsafe”

Gap between perception and reality

1

Perceptions of safety and security

43



2

Communication disconnect between

diverse stakeholders

Off-campus crime reports

Limited access to public record data and resource data

44



3

Differences in resource awareness

and use

Night Ride and LiveSafe app

Lack of diverse stakeholder collaboration

45


Potential Opportunities

EducationUniversity trainings, new student orientations, and other incentives for safety resource use could create more options for learning about public safety on campus and increasing awareness of diversity among students and community residents.

ResearchContinue research to build a deeper understanding and expand upon our identified findings.

CollaborationEngaging students, administration, and community members in collaborative projects would allow a diversity of individuals to unite toward a common goal, ideally creating a sense of mutual ownership, pride, and cohesive community culture.

46


Limitations

TimeCircumscribed data collection and analysis efforts

Qualitative methods were limited by sampling concerns.The free list surveys were not administered to a sample demographically representative of the university, and subjects for the in-person interviews were chosen on a convenience basis.

Quantitative methods were also limited by access to data

Lack of comparative safety data from other institutions

47

Open ForumThank you very much!

Documents

UCWI-Safety & Security Final Presentation-5