Title of Event:

Name of Organisation:

Date and time of the session:

Urban Safety Audits: International Experiences and Tools

UN-HABITAT, International Centre for the Prevention of Crime, Canadian National Crime Prevention Centre

Tuesday June 20, 2006 – 16:30 – 18:30

Key Highlights

1. Estimated no of participants: 50
2. Stakeholder group representation at the event: federal and local government, UN-Habitat Safer Cities Programme local Coordinators, European Forum for Urban Security (EFUS), community groups
3. What were the expected objectives:

• Presentation of the usefulness of safety audit tools in conducting context-specific local assessments in order to identify risk factors and priorities for urban crime and violence strategies and initiatives

4. What did the networking event achieve:

• Showcased exemplary safety audit tools and victimisation surveys from developed and developing countries (specifically Canada & Cameroon)
• Discussed next steps for the replication of safety audit tools taking into consideration different urban contexts and challenges

2. What were the core issues identified in your event as they relate to the theme and sub-themes of WUFIII?

• Urban safety and security: crime and violence prevention as key for sustainable social and economic urban development
• Comprehensive local needs assessments to inform strategic, integrated, and sustainable urban planning
• Crime prevention through environmental design

3. What were the main points raised by panellists and participants in relation to these different issues?

The safety audit process is continually evolving to adapt to unique local contexts and challenges. Safety audit tools and local safety diagnoses provide valuable insight into context-specific challenges of local crime and insecurity, complementing other sources of information and primarily quantitative data such as from police or other justice system statistics. This more comprehensive baseline data can then serve as the foundation for setting priorities for strategic planning and action adapted to local realities.

Such tools also provide opportunities for collaboration among diverse stakeholders who can influence community safety. Key challenges are gaining government and institutional support for such approaches to urban safety planning and overcoming public distrust of police and authorities who may be seen as part of the problem rather than the solution, especially in developing countries and those in transition.

The very process of conducting safety audits is valuable by virtue of involving local residents in identifying their concerns and developing realistic and sustainable solutions. Public engagement is particularly important in building relationship with the most marginalised community members who are most severely impacted by urban crime and insecurity. Such processes provide the opportunity for meaningful participation through community dialogue, collaboration and partnerships. Doing so promotes empowerment of local residents and their “owning” and taking responsibility for their own problems.

What new ideas have been generated as a result of the discussion?

New ideas emerged through discussion of the challenge, particularly in developing countries, of the lack of official data and resources for conducting rigorous scientific crime and victimisation surveys. Creative approaches to data gathering and strategic use of scarce resources are needed, such as through participative approaches to data gathering. More participatory approaches can be mutually educational and empowering for social researchers and safety experts and community members.

The issue of “top-down” versus “bottom-up” and who “owns” the process of developing and conducting safety audits (government, NGOs, etc.) was discussed, exploring the differing potential roles and degrees of participation of the public, academics, contractors, and community organizations in the process.

4. What process steps have been identified in your event that could help turn ideas into operational reality?

• Safety audit tools and local safety diagnoses provide valuable insight into context-specific challenges of local crime and insecurity and serve as the foundation for setting priorities for strategic planning and action adapted to local realities. 
• Such tools also provide opportunities for collaboration among diverse stakeholders who can influence community safety. The tools may also aid sharing respective obligations of the various sectors for issues that are cross-cutting.
• The very process of conducting safety audits is valuable by virtue of involving local residents in identifying their concerns and developing realistic and sustainable solutions.
• Public engagement is particularly important in the audit tool
• Canadian developments in geo-coding for larger urban centres were presented along with the multi-sectoral nature of the data that included indices of poverty, homelessness, lower education, unemployment on a neighbourhood basis.
• There is need for creative use of scarce resources.
• The workshop highlighted the value of citizen engagement and participatory approaches to community safety diagnoses as these promote empowerment of local residents and “ownership” allowing them to take part in the solutions to local problems.
• Partnerships with local universities or public focus groups were suggested as resource sensitive means for data gathering and follow-up that  promote community dialogue, relationship-building, empowerment and ownership.
• The need to document and disseminate safety audit processes was emphasized in order to continue to learn from, and develop, the safety audit tool as a work-in-progress.

The collaboration to develop The Guidance – A Compendium of International Good Practice in relation to Safety Audits, funded by the NCPC and involving a wide range of country partners, intergovernmental bodies (UN Habitat, HEUNI) and specialized international NGOs was presented. There was a high level of interest expressed in this tool.