[[PAGE 1b]]

What factors lead to violence?

There are many different factors that may lead to violence. Some of the most common risk factors include the following:

· Exposure to domestic violence and child abuse, especially for boys;

· Early school dropout;

· Negative peer pressure, deviant peer group;

· Lack of parental guidance and positive support;

· Lack of a sense of belonging and identity;

· Lack of self confidence, control and discipline;

· Social and economic exclusion and marginalization: lack of unequal access to proper housing, education, health care, water, electricity, employment, etc, and;

· Frustrations in the face of severe and sustained corruption in public offices.

Source: UN-Habitat, 2007, p6

[[PAGE 1b]]

What factors lead to victimization?

In the case of victimization, there are a range of risk factors that may lead to a person being a victim of violence. Some of the most common risk factors include the following:

· A history of victimization;

· Exposure to violence and abuse during childhood (domestic and family violence), especially for girls;

· Risk taking behaviour (frequenting hot spots);

· Low self esteem and low self confidence, and;

· Living in poor and socially disrupted areas.

Source: UN-Habitat, 2007, p6

[[PAGE 1b]]

What factors lead to feelings of insecurity?

Insecurity cannot be reduced simply to issues of crime. People’s individual experience of space and their anxieties about crime are catalysts for a more widespread and generalized feeling of insecurity. The sense of insecurity can dramatically alter an individual’s quality of life. Many factors can negatively influence people’s sense of safety. Some of these factors include the following:

· High crime rates;

· Limited access to and/or low quality of basic services (safe housing, clean water, employment, education, health, etc);

· Personal experience of violence (having witnessed violent acts);

· Low confidence in police, justice and government;

· Perceptions of human rights violations by the state;

· High unemployment rates and high numbers of casual labourers;

· Relatively high numbers of people living in unplanned neighbourhoods (informal settlements);

· Insufficient or unfair wealth distribution (pro-rich tax systems) and a significant gap between rich and poor;

· Crime hotspots and no-go zones;

· Drug abuse and trafficking;

· Use of weapons and small arms trafficking;

· Disorder, litter, graffiti, vandalism, noise, speeding, fires, etc;

· Racial, ethnic, religious, sexual harassment and discrimination;

· High truancy rates, and;

· High rates of domestic violence and violence against women and children.

Source: UN Habitat, 2007, p5

[[PAGE 1a]]

How does governance affect violence and insecurity?

In general, governance is the process by which government, the public sector and civil society engage in inclusive and transparent decision-making. In the specific context of violence prevention, governance relates to the process by which a government works to keep its citizens safe, to address safety concerns of the people, and to involve communities in the process of violence prevention. This includes how the government cooperates/coordinates with community-based organizations to implement violence prevention programs. Simply put, according to the Asian Development Bank (ADB, 1998), good governance is good government – that is, government that acts in good faith for the people, and produces good outcomes for those people.

The ADB (1998) identifies four general ‘pillars’ of governance, which also apply specifically to violence prevention. According to ADB, good governance is defined by:

1. Accountability. This refers to the capacity of the government to hold officials accountable for their actions and the actions of the government institutions that they direct.

2. Transparency. Related to accountability, citizens must have easy and low-cost access to the information that governments use in decision-making. This access allows for independent analysis of government programs.

3. Predictability. Predictability relates to the clarity of laws and regulations. To be predictable, the enforcement of a government’s laws, and the application of its social services, must be effective, fair and uniform.

4. Participation. There is strong evidence linking participation in civil society to good governance (Putnam, 1994). Participation refers to the ability of citizens to influence decision-making and provide feedback to governments on regulations and programs. Participation may occur through the community-based safe city initiatives such as these outlined in this toolkit.

Good governance requires a safe city: where inhabitants are free from fear and safety is improved, interaction between the people and with the public institutions becomes possible, and creates an enabling environment for better inclusion and participation. Conversely, addressing urban violence requires good governance, e.g. the development of solidarity practices, city consultation processes and institutional reform, which enhance citizenship and inclusion, otherwise perverse effects and even threats to democratic institutions set in.

In theory, the pillars of good governance introduced above apply to all levels of government – from national/federal, to provincial/state, to the local city and community level. The focus of this toolkit is on the local level. There is evidence to suggest that crime prevention is most effective when it is locally-based – that is, implemented through institutions at the local-government level, or by non-government organizations (NGOs) at the community scale.

Whitzman and Hayes (2006), for instance, identify a growing interest in “local governance partnership approaches” to improving community safety and preventing violence. Other studies and government reports identify various effective ways to reduce violence and crime, many of which are locally-based, e.g., communities; families; schools; labour markets; specific places; local policing, and criminal justice (Sherman et al, 1997).

[[PAGE 1a]]

Governance challenges in the Asia-Pacific Region

Many of the pillars of good governance identified above have proven to be difficult to establish in poor and developing countries, particularly in South and Southeast Asia, and in the Pacific Island nations. This section identifies some of the places in the governance structure where these pillars break down – that is, where a lack of accountability, transparency, predictability, or participation provide major challenges to preventing violence and insecurity. The toolkit provides a framework for organizations to engage with governments to improve governance, and ultimately, to improve safety and security in the cities within Asia-Pacific.

Weak government and weak institutions

Insecure tenure

Poor urban service provision

Unemployment

Uncertain education and economic opportunities for the young

Under-reporting of crime

Victimization of women and girls

[[PAGE 1b]]

Weak government and weak institutions

Weak government is a signature of many Asia-Pacific cities and nations – particularly those in the Pacific Islands, South, and Southeast Asia. When government lacks resources to provide urban services such as water and sanitation, enforce laws and police, the poor – and particularly those in urban slums – suffer heavily. A survey in Dhaka, Bangladesh, found that more than 90 percent of the city’s slum dwellers had been victim of some type of crime (World Bank, 2007). A 2005 survey in Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea, reported that more than two-thirds of households had been victimized by crime in that year (National Research Institute, 2006).

Informality and poor service provision by governments allows the proliferation of informal organizations to operate a variety of services that cater to the urban poor, or that exploit the poor. Either way, safety and violence concerns arise. For instance, in Brazil, informal van services run in parallel to formal train and bus services. These are popular with slum dwellers because they are cheaper than the formal services, even with the documented safety and security concerns associated with these van services (Golub, 2003). Similar jitney services operate in cities in the Philippines, India, and other Asia-Pacific nations.

More insidious than services such as informal transport are the criminal gangs that operate and control territory, particularly in slum settlements. The jurisdiction of the government often does not reach into the slums, and often does not extend to the poor. Weak law enforcement institutions allow for organized criminal gangs to control slum areas in many cities. Even worse, it is often the case that slumlords operate with the support of the local politicians and the police. These gangs engage in various criminal activities, including extorting local business (making them pay a fee to continue operations), drug sales, weapons trade, prostitution and human trafficking operations, and others. They often also control access to water and sanitation services for the urban poor, and charge extortionate rates for access to these services (Ahmed, 2007; Banks, 2008). Furthermore, these slumlords use violence and fear to control the slum population and force them into compliance.

For instance, in Dhaka, Bangladesh, slumlords or mastaans, use their networks to control slum land and the population that resides there. In many cases, they have the cooperation of the local police forces. This phenomenon is well-understood by the poor in Dhaka, and they rarely turn to the police for help when they are victimized by crime and violence (Ahmed, 2010). Even when the police act independently of slumlords, police forces in many Asia-Pacific cities lack the funding to effectively patrol, adequate data and analysis expertise to target patrols preventatively (UN-Habitat & UNESCAP, 2009). The problems of insecure tenure and poor urban service provision, for instance, can be linked directly to weak government and institutions.

[[PAGE 1b]]

Insecure tenure

Directly related to the concept of weak government and weak institutions, is the phenomenon of tenure insecurity. In many cities in the Asia-Pacific, poverty is criminalized – that is, to be poor and landless, and to live in informal tenure in a slum, is considered to be illegal. Thus, police services, formal water and sanitation services, and other elements of the city bureaucracy, do not reach into the slums. Furthermore, since the urban authorities do not recognize land tenure, this provides a vacuum for slumlords and organized criminal gangs to impose their own authority on a population. Often, in urban slums, slumlords can even control housing rents and tenure security. Since there is no recognized land tenure, there are few opportunities for urban institutions and police to intervene on behalf of slum dwellers.

The problem of insecure tenure is a massive one, given the sheer number of people living in slums under informal tenure – in Sri Lanka and Pakistan, 30 to 50 percent of urban households live in slums or settlement housing serving the urban poor. In India, 22.6 percent of the urban population (40 million people) live in slums (UN-Habitat & UNESCAP, 2009, p14). In 2001, 47.4 of Vietnamese urban dwellers lived in slums, and the figure was 72.2 percent in Cambodia (UN-Habitat, 2007). Tenure insecurity can lead to many other problems for a household including the potential to be victimized as a result of a lack of protection from formal institutions (as discussed above). Furthermore, if women could obtain secure tenure this could help them escape violence, provide them with more opportunities for a healthy livelihood, as well as offer them greater autonomy and choice.

[[PAGE 1b]]

Poor urban service provision

A lack of urban services for the urban poor is linked to violence. For instance, in slum settlements and other areas that house the urban poor, it is common for toilets to be absent. Public urination and defecation are problematic from a sanitary perspective, and many men and women are made vulnerable by performing these functions in public. In many cities, for instance, it is common to see men defecating in the open during early mornings, but not women and girls (UN-Habitat & UNESCAP, 2009, p17). The logistics of urination and defecation make women and girls more vulnerable to attack than men. Furthermore, social requirements for modesty require women and girls to find more-isolated locations to urinate and defecate. This puts them at heightened risk of attack in the isolated location.

[[PAGE 1b]]

Unemployment

In the media, unemployment is often linked to violence, particularly domestic violence where women are the victims (e.g., The Observers, 2010; Sharma, 2009). Aside from anecdotal evidence, various studies have made a causal link between male unemployment and the incidence of domestic violence against women (see, for example, Macmillan and Kruttschnitt, 2005). However, unemployment should not be considered an excuse for violence. It is important that secure employment for women be a priority as employment can offer an escape for women from violence (as does secure tenure). Unemployment is one area of intervention that is related to the quality of government and governance.

[[PAGE 1b]]

Uncertain education and economic opportunities for the young

Where youth are bored, denied opportunities for education, and face the prospect of widespread unemployment, there is likely to be higher engagement of these youth with criminal gangs and in illegal activity. In cities from Port Moresby to Manila, from Ho Chi Minh City to Dhaka, it is observed that large clusters of young men of working age spend extended time congregated on street corners, in public parks and other public spaces. The increase in the crime rate and the high incidence of drug use by youth in Jakarta can partly be attributed to the large number of unemployed and disenfranchised youth (UN-Habitat & UNESCAP, 2009, p47).

The demographic of the Asia-Pacific region is relatively young. In 2008, the median age in the Pacific Islands region was 21.3 years, compared with Australia’s 36.6 years and New Zealand’s 35.9. Roughly, 20 percent of individuals in the Pacific Islands were between the ages of 15 and 24 in 2008. Those under the age of 25 make up 57 percent of the region’s population (UN-Habitat & UNESCAP, 2009, p52).

Creating education opportunities for young people is essential in creating safer cities, but it is not the only necessary factor. If education is available but post-schooling employment prospects are low, youth can still be drawn into participating in crime and violence. In the Marshall Islands, youth unemployment is estimated at 80 percent, with a school attendance rate of around 50 percent. In Tonga, where access to primary and secondary education is among the highest in the region, a UNICEF/WHO study found that 60 percent of youth were unemployed after finishing their schooling. Around half of school students indicated that they had little hope of finding work after they left school (UN-Habitat & UNESCAP, 2009, p54). Lack of employment is clearly associated with poverty, household violence, and participation in crime for young people (for example, see Jourdan, 2008).

[[PAGE 1b]]

Under-reporting of crime

A symptom of weak and dysfunctional crime-response institutional structures is when urban crime that victimizes the urban poor is not reported to authorities. As a result, crime in poor and informal areas of cities is less likely to show up in official crime statistics. Under-reporting crime is a problem because it skews the provision of urban services dedicated to violence prevention and response. Those crimes that are reported in Asia-Pacific cities are heavily skewed toward property crimes reported by the wealthy, as well as serious assaults and homicide (UN-Habitat & UNESCAP, 2009, p9). A study in Port Moresby concluded that two-thirds of crimes went unreported to the police (National Research Institute, 2006). It is often the case that police forces lack the resources to investigate crimes that have been reported by poor people, leading to additional loss of faith in police and policing.

One crime for which under-reporting is common is domestic violence. Jourdan’s (2008) study in the Solomon Islands found that rape and domestic violence are the least-reported crimes in the country. A World Health Organization study found that 86 percent of Samoan women, who experienced domestic violence, did not report it and regarded physically abusive behaviors being directed at them as normal (WHO, 2005). An Oxfam study found that the incidence of domestic violence in Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, India, and Pakistan were 60 percent, 60 percent, 37 percent, and 80 percent, respectively (UN-Habitat & UNESCAP, 2009, p16). This is probably both a cause and a consequence of there being a lack of social services to support women and children who are victims of home-based violence: on the one hand, if domestic crimes go largely unreported, the formal government and institutional sectors have little chance to respond with social programs to address the problem. On the other hand, without appropriate institutional channels to address domestic victimization, the incident of reporting is likely to remain low. Given the strong link between viewing violence in the home and falling victim to domestic violence or perpetrating it, preventing domestic violence is one strategy with high returns to decreasing overall urban crime and insecurity.

Women taking on the role of police (Tjandradewi, 2010)

[[PAGE 1b]]

Victimization of women and girls

Related to institutional weakness and many of the other governance issues mentioned in this site, the violence perpetrated upon women and girls is often ignored in the institutional and governance frameworks of many countries in the Asia-Pacific. In South Asia (Sri Lanka, India, Bangladesh, and Pakistan), crimes against women such as rape, acid-throwing, bride burnings, forced marriages, forced prostitution and human trafficking, undermine the safety of the city for women and girls. Acid-throwing – an attack in which acid is thrown on the face or body with the intention to disfigure – became such a problem in Bangladesh, with enough outcry from the NGOs and community-based organizations, that the government of Bangladesh passed the Acid Control Act and the Acid Crime Control Act in 2002 (UN-Habitat & UNESCAP, 2009, p28-9). Southeast Asia – including Thailand, The Philippines, Cambodia, and Vietnam – perhaps lead the world in incidence and money transacted in the child sex trade (Yuen & Kong, 2008).

Even when women and girls are not the direct victims of crime, they can be detrimentally affected by cities that are unsafe for them. Higher instances of crime reduce a woman’s mobility. In Port Moresby, for instance, it is rare to see a woman walking even in the city without a trusted male relative, for fear of violence (UN-Habitat & UNESCAP, 2009). Lack of safety in the journey to school is often cited as a reason to keep girls from attending school. A study in Dhaka found that 23 percent of women survey respondents never ventured alone outside their homes (UN-Habitat & UNESCAP, 2009, p17). In another study in Delhi, 80 percent of women survey respondents reported being harassed in public, and most took some mobility-limiting precaution such as avoiding certain areas of the city or not going out at night (Jagori, 2007).

[[PAGE 1a]]

Safe City Approach

Violence prevention requires the elimination of interpersonal violence such as child abuse, intimate partner violence, and community violence, whereas insecurity focuses on the perceptions of safety in public and private spaces (Whitzman, 2008). It is being realised that solutions to violence and insecurity cannot be resolved simply through institutional mechanisms such as the criminal justice system. Instead, alternative mechanisms, which emphasize the important role of local government and community-based organizations, are being developed. The role of governance and urban planning in particular are seen as pivotal components to addressing issues of safety and insecurity. Throughout the region, community-based organizations have developed innovative approaches to tackle urban safety, such as women’s safety audits and to strengthen governance through community-government partnerships.

To strengthen governance partnerships is essential. The creation of a safer city requires involvement of all sectors. Furthermore, safe city initiatives are most effective when they are established and delivered at a local/neighbourhood scale and are based on the needs of those that live in the area, including the most vulnerable. Therefore, governments need to refocus their attention on serving and responding to the individual and collective needs of citizens. This will only occur if governments work in cooperation with community-based organizations and citizens themselves through a system of governance.

Relationship between violence prevention and the built form

Text Box: Municipal Context:
Service delivery governance Text Box: Crime occurrence

Source: CSIR &ISS, 2000; UN-Habitat, 2007, p15

Addressing safety concerns through prevention practices improves city development, bringing together a wide range of community members – residents, business, and government agencies – to define problems, identify solutions, carry out plans, and evaluate results. Urban planning will shape and transform social relations (UN-Habitat & UNESCAP, 2009, p9). Therefore, programmes aimed at building community responsibility and the inclusion of communities in violence prevention strategies is critical to improving the city and welfare in the built environment, protecting the public’s life and health. A general consensus has been achieved suggesting that when the urban environment is planned, designed and managed appropriately, certain types of violence can be reduced (UN-Habitat, 2007, p12).

scan0023

Photograph of H.E Kep Chuk Tema, Governor of Phnom Penh Capital, Presided over the inaugurations ceremony of a newly built park (Kim & Kol, 2010)

[[PAGE 1a]]

PART II - The Urban Safety Toolkit

In this section, the Toolkit is presented as six Modules. Each Module describes a stage involved in developing a safe city initiative, followed by tools that can be used in the development, implementation and ongoing monitoring of the initiative.

The Toolkit is designed acknowledging that local government and community-based organizations across Asia-Pacific are at different stages in delivering safe city initiatives and have experienced different challenges as well as successes. This Toolkit, through the use of case studies, present some of the successes achieved by local governments and community-based organizations across Asia-Pacific in the area of violence prevention and insecurity. The case studies offer demonstrations of some of the tools presented in this Toolkit and how they have been put into action.

This Toolkit is designed to enable local government and community-based organizations, who are at different stages in their thinking about safe cities to access the components of the Toolkit they find most relevant to their place in the journey.

The Toolkit consists of six modules which can be accessed by organizations interested in partnership building, diagnosing safety problems, developing a plan for implementation, disseminating knowledge, monitoring and evaluating the safety initiative and institutionalising a safe city initiative. The modules are:

1. Module 1 - Creating partnerships for safer cities

2. Module 2 - Understanding the safety problems: the local diagnosis

3. Module 3 – Developing the action plan

4. Module 4 – Implementing the initiative

5. Module 5 – Monitoring and evaluating success

6. Module 6 – Institutionalizing safe city initiatives

[[PAGE 1a]]

Module 1 - Creating Partnerships for Safer Cities

One of the key emphases placed on designing, implementing and monitoring safe city initiatives is the importance of partnership building. This module presents information on partnership building and offers tools to assist you in forming these partnerships. Case studies are used to demonstrate how community-based organizations and local governments across Asia-Pacific use partnerships to develop and deliver safe city initiatives.

The following links will help you to navigate the sections of this module.

Why are partnerships important?

Challenges to partnerships

How partnerships get started

The role of Leaders and Champions

Role of the Facilitator

Role of the Coordinator

The size and composition of your partnership

Choosing partners

Identifying common objectives and mutual need

Identifying a common vision

The importance of partnership agreements

Organizing and conducting meetings

Top tips for successful partnerships

Tool – Who is on your team?

Tool – How will your team play together?

Tool – A visioning exercise

Tool – Distributing funding across the partnerships

Tool – Example of Terms of Reference

[[PAGE 1b]]

Why are Partnerships Important?

Few organizations possess all the resources and networks required for the successful implementation of a safe city initiative. Instead partnerships are encouraged to enable information sharing and the sharing of resources and ideas amongst as many potential actors as possible. The potential actors include politicians, administrators, community based organizations, the private sector, the general public and researchers.

Why is each partner important? Politicians bring knowledge of the political system and leadership to the initiative, whereas government bureaucrats bring their knowledge of how decisions are made and then formulated into policy. Bureaucrats also possess knowledge of the administrative and operational constraints and opportunities important when engaging in the early formulation of a safe city initiative. Community based organizations bring their expertise and knowledge on the problem based on their experience within the community. These organizations, which are situated within the community, can assist with moving an initiative forward by using their relationships within the community and with vulnerable groups. The private sector can provide direct funding, or in-kind support, and also help make the links between a safe city and a prosperous city. Private-sector organizations also have expertise in marketing, including social marketing and public education. The police force operating in the community can also be an important entity to partner with as they possess knowledge and skills in conflict resolution that can be adapted to the particular needs of the community. Researchers located in educational institutions can also bring their expertise and techniques to canvass issues in the community and analyse their impact on day-to-day living for vulnerable communities.

Partnerships, in short, result in better ideas and more capacity to implement good ideas. Locally-based partnerships are important as these localized partnerships are usually better positioned to understand the complexity of the challenges, adopt a more place-based approach to addressing challenges and have better access to the vulnerable groups in need.

Tool – Who is on your team?

Pocket parks 4

Photograph of park in Marikina, Philippines (Buenaventura, 2010)

[[PAGE 1b]]

Challenges to Partnerships

There are challenges as well as opportunities to partnerships. The actors involved in the partnership must develop a shared perspective on what is the problem to be addressed. Together they need to discover and develop data sets that will allow some sense of the prevalence of the problem, analysis of the causes of this problem, and decisions to be made upon the most effective actions to maximize the levels of safety available under given conditions. This takes time, trust and patience.

If the partnership focuses on violence prevention and all people’s right to a safe community, they should be capable of recognizing and addressing violence in both public and private space, and respond to the fact that there are significant gender differences in both experiences and perceptions of violence. Coming to such understandings is difficult, and there are often tensions in perspectives and understandings that must be acknowledged and surmounted. Storytelling is one tool that may be used to reveal the different experiences and perceptions held by individuals in a manner that builds common understanding amongst the participants.

Strong partnerships must negotiate tensions in allocating resources and resolve conflicting interests in order to be equitable and just, as well as sustainable over the long term. They should involve as many people as possible in the planning, design, implementation and evaluation of activities designed to affect their safety and well-being under the assumption that these people are ‘experts of experience’. At the same time, if partnerships become too big, they can be difficult to manage.

Groups who are discriminated against, such as visible minorities and indigenous people, and groups who are particularly vulnerable, such as children or low-income communities, may require increased efforts to ensure their involvement in programmes and improve their benefits from these initiatives.

Eventually, social changes must be institutionalized in law and government policy (please refer to Module 6 for more information on institutionalizing safe city initiatives).

Finally, the accountability of these partnerships should be ensured through objective evaluation, the results of which are available in the public domain (Whitzman, 2008, 145).

Tool – Storytelling exercise

Case Study - Vanuatu Kastom Governance Project

[[PAGE 1b]]

How Partnerships Get Started

Safe City initiatives sometimes begin with a top-down impetus, such as national governments legislating mandatory local government community safety strategies, or international agencies or creating a funding stream that provides senior government funding in return for local government strategies that meet particular goals (such as the UN-Habitat Safer Cities Programme). More often, community safety initiatives begin with bottom-up advocacy, which, in turn, often originates in a galvanizing event (Shaw, 2001, p15).

Other than a top-down impetus or a galvanizing event, a third mechanism that can start a Safe City partnership is a small-scale campaign that grows because it is successful in mobilizing people. Jagori, an organization that focuses on women’s rights and violence against women, started in 1984. A small project on safety in public space led to a Safe Delhi Campaign, which is now being supported by the local, national, and international governments (see http://safedelhi.jagori.org/).

Case Study – EKTA

Photos from Thimphu City, Bhutan and natural disasters that have occurred which have galvanize coordinated action to prepare a Natural Disaster Management Framework (TCC, RBP & RENEW, 2010).

[[PAGE 1b]]

The role of Leaders and Champions

A community safety partnership can begin when a political or community organization leader brings an ongoing problem into public discourse. Leaders set the tone and parameters for identification of a problem. Politicians can use the power of their office to convey messages to their community. Both political and organizational leaders play an important role in shaping the process, including using leadership skills to build trust, improve communication and resolve conflicts (Shaw, 2001, p17). It is rare to find a single person who embodies all of these attributes, and often it is best to have one person as leader and another person or people as champions. The leader is the person who has the time and patience to set agendas and to chair long meetings, who has wide connections, and excellent communication and team-building skills. The main problem with political leaders is that if the initiative is overly identified with him or her, the initiative can fail once they are voted out of office. Leaders can be consensus builders or autocrats: generally, if the leader is an autocrat, it is probably better to have a separate consensus-builder doing the everyday work of chairing meetings and follow-up between meetings.

Champions are the people who ensure that the key messages reach community members. Champions do not need to be political leaders; but they do need to be people within organizations respected by a broad cross-section of the community. These may not be organizations with violence prevention as a primary mandate, but might be sporting, religious, health or community service organizations. Champions can also be articulate and respected public figures who are considered to be above partisan politics, such as heads of large foundations, media stars or royalty. Queen Rania Al-Abdullah of Jordan, who has a long history of supporting child abuse prevention initiatives, has been effective as the official patron of the World Health Organization’s (WHO’s) Violence Prevention Office in the Eastern Mediterranean region, which consists of 22 predominantly Arabic-speaking countries in West Asia and North Africa (WHO, 2005). Sometimes when leaders or champions come from the police or justice systems, their prevention message will be listened to more readily since they are considered experts on crime prevention. Similarly, when victims of well-publicized crimes speak out in favour of prevention, they often are listened to more readily as experts of experience.

Both champions and leaders require a minimum amount of experience and organizational skills, most commonly acquired through previous successful campaigns. The problem in low-income communities like slums, or with people who are marginalized in society, like unemployed and out of school young men, or women with few formal rights (eg, the right to land tenure) is that there is a shortage of experienced leaders with successful campaigns behind them. Success breeds success. Successful campaigns, no matter how small, build up community capacity, momentum and optimism. Conversely, many communities begin with negative social capital, developed through a tradition of top-down ineffective campaigns with little participation and community ownership, and often result in further stigmatization of individuals and communities (Rosenbaum, 2002). Perhaps a place to start is allowing low-income communities, in particular at-risk groups to define their own immediate violence prevention priorities though some of the diagnostic strategies described in the next section. These immediate priorities might include the provision of basic physical and social infrastructure, combating social and economic stigmatization, or making streets safe from traffic accidents as a precondition to making them lively. Even a small step forward like creating a childcare centre or lighting a residential street can develop grassroots leadership if the process successfully mobilizes the community.

Photograph of Mr. Roy (left) Police Commissioner in Mumbai one of the champions of the Police Panchayat in Mumbai (Roy, 2010).

[[PAGE 1b]]

The role of the Facilitator

The facilitator is someone who is able to see the big picture as to why the partnership has formed and the different roles and contributions made by the different actors. It is the role of the facilitator to remind actors of what brought them together in the first place and to help the actors in the partnership remain focused.

The role of the facilitator is to also anticipate and identify conflicts and tensions as they arise and institute procedures on how conflicts can be overcome. The Partnership agreements are important here as a mechanism to communicate the rules of engagement. The facilitator must continue to refer back to this agreement to remind actors of the common task they have laid out, and also on the protocol for engagement at meetings. The facilitator can use tools such as Storytelling when the partnership is first formed if conflict or lack of common understanding amongst the actors is anticipated.

Case Study – Urban Poor Consortium

[[PAGE 1b]]

The role of the Coordinators

Whether the lead organization is a government or a non-profit organization, the third element of a successful start-up team, after a leader and/or champion, and facilitator is a coordinator who is devoted to the administrative aspect of the process. The coordinator is the person who arranges meetings, takes minutes and acts as a liaison between people doing work for the partnership and the steering committee. Ideally, there would be a trained community safety officer in charge of this aspect. Realistically, most non-profit organizations and many local authorities cannot afford a full-time staff person devoted to a community safety initiative, unless the funding to hire such a person can be found in a start-up grant. It is also realistic to assume that this officer is fairly junior, lacking in skills and experience in organizational development and equally lacking in knowledge of violence prevention. If this is a national campaign, ongoing training of these officers should be a priority. Even if this is a grassroots partnership, a realistic assessment of the time involved in supporting a partnership (usually at least a half-time commitment for a year) should be made and the managerial support provided for training. The investment in supporting and training administrative support is crucial in order to avoid a revolving door of uncommitted administrators who have no sense of the organizational history or people involved in the initiative, or how to move it forward.

[[PAGE 1b]]

The Size and Composition of Your Partnership

A breadth of organizations and individuals brings a diversity of opinions, which has both positive and negative aspects. There is always a tension about how widely to draw the boundaries around an issue without losing focus. On the one hand, the more that violence prevention issues are explicitly related to one another, the more it is possible to draw the largest possible range of ideas and initiatives to reach a common vision. On the other hand, the time spent on conflicts over vision and prioritizing ideas might doom the initiative if there is too much diversity of opinion and not enough willingness to compromise, particularly if the facilitator does not know how to reach consensus across difference. No matter how consensual the process appears at first, it will always take time and patience to manage inevitable confrontations based on dissimilar working styles and perspectives. Limiting an initiative to a small group of like-minded individuals almost guarantees that it will not be able to achieve a consensus in the community in which it works.

As for the optimum size of a partnership, there needs to be a balance between lean and efficient, and inclusive of a range of perspectives. Quite often, a ‘rule of 12’ applies. While six representatives would be the minimum to get a diversity of perspectives, a dozen people is the maximum number to ensure that every voice is heard in a meeting. That does not mean that only 12 organizations should be involved, but that 12 individuals should be on the steering committee of a partnership. There are many other ways to ensure involvement of other groups, ranging from subcommittees on various issues, to making each organization on the steering committee responsible for reporting back to a set of other organizations, to consultation activities, such as focus groups, surveys, public meetings, and informal phone and email exchanges. An organization may decide to share information on their client base, or attend a public meeting, or review a draft document without committing to being an ongoing member of a steering committee or subcommittee.

It is also possible to have an advisory committee as well as a steering committee. While steering committees might meet every three to six weeks, an advisory committee might meet only three or four times a year to provide high level advice. Advisory committees can review drafts of reports, provide feedback on diagnostic data, and provide high level guidance. Advisory committees are useful to get ideas from high-level and busy partners (eg, mayor, owner of major company, well-known international researcher).

The following hyperlinks are to organizations that have established an advisory committee. Please refer to the following links for a visual representation of the composition of some advisory committees.

[[PAGE 1b]]

Choosing Partners

How then might the initial members of a steering committee be chosen? Ideally, you would want senior, experienced and well-connected people, representing key organizations, from a variety of perspectives but willing and empowered to commit significant time resources to such a committee, energetic and optimistic, and capable of acting as articulate spokespeople. All too often, junior people are assigned to a community safety or violence prevention initiative, either because frontline staff people are felt to be ‘more in touch’ with problems, or because prevention is simply accorded a lower priority than immediate service delivery. With rare exceptions (a junior person who is unusually knowledgeable or respected), it is both fair and strategic to insist on a high-level representative who can make decisions on behalf of the organization at the meeting itself (as opposed to taking it back to the leadership or board of the organization). Making the steering committee smaller rather than larger might encourage competition amongst organizations to be on the steering committee, which, in turn, might improve the quality of the representatives. Each high-level representative can consult with their frontline staff and, possibly, other organizations as well.

At the neighbourhood level, a steering committee might include the head of a religious organization, a political leader, heads of agencies working in the neighbourhood, especially those working with groups who are at risk of being victims and/or offenders, the local chief of police, and at least two or three community leaders. At the local governance level, it might include a mayor; the heads of several major community agencies providing violence prevention services, particularly to vulnerable groups; either the chief of police or the head of the police crime prevention unit; senior officials from the education and health sector; perhaps a well-respected judge; and perhaps the head of a business association. At the national level, it would be helpful to have a senior minister or well-respected champion as leader, along with the heads of several national-level violence prevention organizations, one or two other ministry heads (drawn from health, education, justice or social services), and perhaps the head of a research institute or a major charity. At any scale, a gender balance of members would be crucial to providing a range of perspectives, as would a critical mass of people and organizations from minority cultures and representing children and youth, as well as adults (i.e. not just a token woman, visible minority person or young person). If the initiative is to focus on private and public violence, a balance between organizational mandates must be sought as well.

If a key organization is opposed to joining a partnership, it is still possible to keep the communication lines open. If the partnership is successful, the organization may come around. While it is important to make initial alliances with partners who are supportive, rather than resistant, it is also important to create entry points to convince the unconvinced if part of the initiative’s goal is transforming individuals, organizations and societies to a violence prevention standpoint.

Case Study – Yumi Lukautim Mosbi Projekt

Tool – Who is on your team?

Tool – How will your team play together?

[[PAGE 1b]]

Identifying Common Objectives and Mutual Need

Whether the process starts with a senior government providing conditional funding or some form of organizational leadership starting a campaign, a problem is usually defined at the onset. The problem may be subject to modification as the process continues and it certainly will be subject to elaboration, depending upon what happens during the search for partners and allies. A first step to learn what matters and what is perceived as important might be to gather a small group of individuals together to form a coalition. A meeting could be called to discuss the problem from several perspectives, remembering to ensure that a full diversity are invited: women and men, people with disabilities, local authorities and community leaders, and people from different ethnic, linguistic and religious groups. Each organization might be invited to give a 5-10 minute presentation around a set of questions, which might ask:

· What are the critical issues?

· Who is affected?

· How are they affected?

· What other knowledge to we need to bring to the table?

· What are the potential opportunities for addressing the issue?

What brings the group together in the early partnerships building stage is mutual concern around a safety and insecurity problem. This group could identify the events that have raised awareness of the problem within the city, and each individual could present the information, data or sources that they possess related to the problem.

Another factor influencing the search for partners and allies is how the problem has been identified and to what extent the partners can influence the defining of the problem. For instance, a women’s organization might not think it is eligible for a youth violence prevention fund even if it works with girls. A police-led initiative on community safety might reach out to a neighbourhood watch organization but not to a social service organization working with young offenders. A health service-led initiative on the prevention of gender-based violence might contact a rape crisis centre, but not an ethno-specific organization or one working with people with disabilities. Politicians might be approached to join an initiative based on their membership in a particular political party, or certain media outlets may be approached for publicity, but not others. While it is sometimes difficult to reach consensus across political lines, it is important to engage as wide a range of political perspectives as possible in order to ensure sustainability in case of a shift in the political parties in power. Similarly, it is important to scope out as broad a range of interest groups as possible to ensure that the most vulnerable and/or hard-to-reach individuals are being touched by an initiative.

Case Study – Slum Police Panchayat

[[PAGE 1b]]

Identifying a Common Vision

At the same time as identifying current problems to be diagnosed, it is important to focus on a common vision of a better future. The vision process identifies key principles or values that are fundamental to everyone, takes into account the interests of all partners, and outlines the purpose and objectives of the collaboration. A vision statement can provide a consensus foundation of what the group wants to achieve. It is useful to refer to the vision statement at every meeting, to keep people focused on the same agenda. The vision statement can guide partners through the planning and decision making process (WICI, 2007, p13).

A vision statement usually is a few sentences that outline the mission of the initiative. It describes the ideal end state: what the partnership is working towards. It remains in place until it is achieved or until needs change significantly. The language is inspirational (we will return to vision statements again in Module 3).

How do you develop a vision statement? One possible tool is a visioning exercise.

Tool – A visioning exercise

[[PAGE 1b]]

The Importance of Partnership Agreements

The clearer the lead organization is about the rules of engagement, the more likely it is that the initiative will attract and retain a diversity of partners, and make decisions in a fair and democratic manner. The lead organization needs to be able to answer a number of questions when approaching potential partners. Developing a draft terms of reference will assist. The terms of reference will include the purpose of the partnership; the stages of the process and approximately how long they will each last; the proposed structure and management, including who will chair the partnership; the resource commitments of the lead organization; resources and responsibilities required from the organizations you are approaching; what level of partner organizational representative is being requested (a senior staff member or a frontline staff member); how often (and possibly when) meetings will take place; and whether a representative or delegate must be there at every meeting or arrange for an alternative representative.

There should be some form of timeline and work plan, and a sense of whether there will be subcommittees, as well as a steering committee; how communication between partners and to the general public will take place (including rules for spokespeople); and what are the key decision points. The form and structure of meetings are important, including the rules used for decision-making and resolving conflicts. Setting up a meeting schedule at the outset, either a regular monthly or bi-monthly meeting (e.g. the first Monday), or a set of key dates and times, is important for people with busy schedules.

At the first meeting, it is important to set out a code of conduct. The code will include clauses such as the following:

· Criticism of ideas is allowed; but criticism of people is not.

· Be willing to share information.

· Be willing to compromise.

It is also important to be clear about the degree of collaboration expected. Are groups getting together to share information on their clients, and, if so, is the information they share going to remain confidential? Is there any chance that organizations will be asked to merge services or create new joint services? What benefits will accrue to the organization through involvement? Will it potentially lead to better services for their clients or their community? Will there be training, co-funding or other development opportunities as part of the partnership process? It may make sense to invite organizations to be the member of a partnership to develop a work plan, a commitment of between six months and a year, and then revisit the question of membership once the work plan is developed.

It is perhaps most important to be clear about what the product of this initiative will be. Although this may seem like a very long laundry list before the partnership begins to meet, the literature on partnerships suggests that the higher the degree of formalization, the more likely it is that a partnership succeeds. In fact, a signed memorandum of understanding (MOU) or partnership agreement might be developed for each partner in order to signal the seriousness of the commitment on both sides (WICI, 2007, p31–32). The partnership agreement would include matters already discussed in relation to the terms of reference, but might also comprise financial arrangements if necessary (i.e. a research-based organization may commit to undertaking the diagnostic in return for a fee), the amount of work required between meetings, the information that will be requested from organizations, the decision-making processes and, possibly, the arrangements should an organization withdraw from the partnership.

Tool – Distributing funding across the partnership

Tool – Example of Terms of Reference

[[PAGE 1b]]

Organizing and Conducting Meetings

Two-hour meetings are ideal, and it is important to set realistic agendas and to ensure that meetings start and end on time. There is no perfect time for meetings, and much depends upon the balance of professionals and volunteers involved. An initial canvass of good times for meetings is an essential step when setting up a partnership. Agendas and background materials should be sent out at least a week in advance of the meeting to encourage preparation and effective use of meeting time, as well as to ensure that additional items can be added by partners. Meetings should include a short period at the end for sharing information that is useful to members, but non-essential to the process. All items on the agenda should result in clear decisions unless they are for information only.

It is important to state here that it is important to find the right balance of too many meetings and not enough meetings. The frequency of meetings, whether they will occur on a need-by-need basis, monthly, or bi-monthly, needs to be determined at the initial stages of the partnership.

Photograph of the working style of the police panchayat in Mumbai (Roy, 2010)

[[PAGE 1b]]

Top tips

· A broad range of resources and knowledge, possessed by the different partners, can be used to successful deliver a safe city initiative

· When challenges arise within the partnership, acknowledge these tensions and look to reveal differences through storytelling

· Partnerships may begin when a political or community organization leaders brings an ongoing problem into public discourse

· It is important that each partner articulates their interest in being part of the partnership

· Common goals, objectives and a vision for the partnership must be established as part of the partnership forming process

· A partnership will have someone who is a facilitator and who understands the broader issues associated with the problem and who can help maintain the common vision first established when the partnership formed

· A partnership agreement should be created that stipulates the “rules of engagement” and expectations of the different partners and indeed the partners’ expectations of the partnership

[[PAGE 1b]]

Tool - Who is on Your Team? (based on Whitzman, 2008)

This is an exercise in forming partnerships. It takes approximately 45 minutes:

First part, 30 minutes of brainstorming: Try to name a person or organization in each of these categories to approach about your Safe City initiative:

Government/public sector:

· Politicians: individual leaders (e.g. mayors) and associations of local government.

· Education: individual schools, school boards, tertiary education (colleges, vocational institutes and universities), departments and ministries of education, adult education and vocational services.

· Social services: childcare centres and other services for children, such as pre-schools, family services, women’s services, men’s services, youth services, and community and recreational centres; government services for people with disabilities, indigenous people, new migrants, visible minorities and sexual minorities; welfare and emergency income support, emergency and public housing services, and departments and ministries of social services or social development.

· Health: hospitals, health centres and clinics, public health nurses, including child and maternal health nurses, individual doctors, medical organizations, health promotion organizations, departments or ministries of health.

· Policing: individual police–community relations officers or domestic violence liaison officers, police divisions, police forces, and state and national police, including civil defence and disaster management, and ministries of police.

· Public information and communications offices: information kiosks in shopping areas and tourist areas, libraries and community information centres.

· Planning and public space management: social and health service planners, land-use and transportation planners, economic planners, including those working with commercial areas and business development, urban designers, parks designers and managers, and public works departments or ministries.

· Researchers: strategic planners and local government research offices, individual universities or research centres, research consortiums and statistics bureaus.

· Inspectors, regulators and law-makers: health, fire and building inspectors, other by-law enforcement officers, taxi and liquor licensing offices, and ministries that develop and enforce legislation.

· Justice: neighbourhood justice or conflict resolution centres (if they exist), individual judges, public prosecutors, probation officers, legal aid clinics, and ministries of justice.

Non-governmental organizations and agencies:

· Educational, health and social service organizations and agencies not directly managed by government, especially those dealing with children, youth, women, men, older people, people with disabilities, new migrants, visible minorities, and sexual minorities.

· Non-profit housing and other social service providers.

· Sports and recreation organizations: from professional sporting clubs to neighbourhood recreation providers.

· Advocacy and service organizations that work in particular communities, with particular at-risk or marginalized groups (including visible minorities, sexual minorities, indigenous people, homeless people, low-income people and slum-dwellers, drug users, prostitutes and alcoholics).

· Service organizations such as Rotary International and other business organizations; youth service groups.

· Religious organizations: religious leaders, particular houses of worship or congregations, religious charities such as the Salvation Army (particularly those who work with at-risk groups), and national religious bodies.

· Neighbourhood-based groups, both directly involved with crime and violence prevention (e.g. neighbourhood watch) and indirectly involved in grassroots advocacy or service.

Private sector:

· Individual business leaders, individual businesses or corporations, commercial district or shopping centre managers, local or national business organizations.

· Trade unions and professional associations.

· Private charities and individual donors.

· The media, ranging from neighbourhood and ethno-specific to national sources of information, and encompassing newspapers, magazines, radio, television and the internet.

Second part, 15 minutes of reflection: Which groups/individuals were easiest to identify? Which groups/ individuals were hardest to identify? Who else might you need on your partnership to identify the people/ organizations about whom you know little?

[[PAGE 1b]]

Tool - How Will Your Team Play Together?

For each individual or organization that you identified in exercise 1, ask yourselves (or them) the following questions:

· What kind of diagnostic data might they have?

· Will they be involved in advising, delivering programs, and/or other capacities?

· Who are the potential leaders and champions?

· What are the barriers to them participating, and how can these barriers be overcome?

· What kind of role will they play/ do they want to play (on steering committee, advisory committee, occasional consultation)

[[PAGE 1b]]

Tool - A visioning exercise (based on Doerge & Burke, 2005)

This exercise is suitable to a large group: we have seen it done successfully with 120 people in two hours. It will take between 2-3 hours, depending on the size of the group and the way it is facilitated.

This is NOT an exercise to develop an action plan. This is a preliminary exercise to achieve some different perspectives on problems, progress, enablers, barriers, and visions of a safer city.

The preparation includes one large ‘poster ’ – at least 2 metres by 2 metres - in the front of the room (can be made by several pieces of paper attached together – it can be as big as one wall of a room – the important thing is that all participants can see it and read what is on it), up to 50 ‘stones’ (circular pieces of paper that can be attached to the poster – as big as a spread out hand) and 50 ‘waterdrops’ (tear drop pieces of paper – can be different colour – as big as a spread out hand). There will also be up to 20 ‘boats’ (boat-shaped pieces of paper the same size – can be a different colour) and 20 ‘sharp rocks’ (triangles, can have serrated edges – can be different colour). You will need at least 10 markers. Make sure you have extra pieces of paper for mistakes.

The poster will have four categories on top: people, families, communities, and workplaces.

The poster will have three categories in the top-middle: economic, social and political.

The poster will have some wavy lines at the bottom representing a river, with a rainbow at the left side of the paper.

You will need a facilitator and a note-taker.

Photographs courtesy of Carolyn Whitzman taken at the World Urban Forum 2006

In advance:

Tell everyone to bring in an object that suggests to then their relationship to the community. Let them know that they will be telling a story about that connection.

Instructions

PART ONE: Exploring the objects (10 minutes)

1. If the group numbers more than ten participants, split up into small groups of 4-5. If possible, sit around tables-for-four or five.

2. Place the objects in the center of the table. Look at them, but don't discuss them.

3. Each person takes six sticky notes. Write down a word or phrase on each note in response to the array of objects. (6 notes, 6 words or phrases) What do they tell you about the town/community? What do they reveal that's special to this town, that makes it unique?

4. As a small group, stick the notes to a nearby wall or sheet of paper given to you, and look for patterns, for distinctions. Arrange them according to patterns you discover, and discuss the similarities and/or differences between responses.

PART TWO: Telling the stories (30 minutes)

5. The workshop leader will time a minute. Participants listen to the contours of a minute. She will time a second minute. Participants think about how in this timeframe they will tell the story relating this object to their sense of the community. What is offered by this time constraint? How does it feel to know you are about to share your story with a group, aloud?

6. The workshop leader will be the timer. One by one, with no discussion between tellers, participants will tell their stories to their small groups.

7. Once all the stories have been shared, discuss

a. striking moments. What do you remember most vividly? Why? What do you notice about these stories?

b. what you notice about yourself as a storyteller, as a listener. What is the effect of being in a story circle?

c. how you might "catch" one of these stories--choose one of the stories that seems to have potential to bring "news" to the community about itself or one that gets right to the heart of an important point related to the Heart & Soul Planning Initiative. What would you add or revise to the storyline in order to extract more meaning? What kinds of media would you choose for the telling? How might it be shared?

8. As a full group, discuss results from #7 and what you have gleaned from this exercise--from the act of telling stories to a group to listening to them, to discussing them.

* If you have more time, add the following steps between #7 & 8: (30 minutes)

---Tell the story again, this time taking 2 minutes.

Think about how this story could be useful to the community. Focus the story. Take 5 minutes to prepare by jotting down the important message of the story-why do you want to tell this story-- and five critical details to include. Sketch out the beginning line, the middle line and the final line.

---As a group, map the stories literally, on a map of the town and figuratively--how they relate to one another, talk to one another, and talk to and for the community.

[[PAGE 1b]]

Tool – Distributing funding across the partnerships (WICI, 2007, p30)

		Amount
Budget Item	Total Budget ($)	Partner 1	Partner 2
Personnel
Management
Supervisors
Staff salaries & benefits
Expenses associated with volunteers
Total personnel
Expenses
Staff/volunteer training & development
Travel
Management committee meetings
Space rental
Furnishings, equipment
Supplies
Upkeep & maintenance
Management administration fee
Other
Total expenses
PROJECT TOTAL

[[PAGE 1b]]

Tool – Example of Terms of Reference

The aim of the partnership is to…
Our objective is to…
Membership (structure and governance):
Meeting frequency:	Once a fortnight / Once a month / Every two months, etc…
Timeframe:	Achieve this benchmark by this date
Roles and Responsibilities: · Facilitator · Coordinator · Leader · Champion · Treasurer · etc
Other
Other
Other

[[PAGE 1a]]

Module 2 - Understanding the Safety Problems: the Local Diagnosis

This module will guide you in how to diagnose a safety problem in your neighbourhood, local council area and/or national government area. Module 2 will provide you will information on why local diagnosis is important, how to go about diagnosing a problem and some tools to help guide you through this process. In the same fashion as Module 1, case studies are used to demonstrate different methods of diagnosis, and tools are provided to assist in diagnosing the problem.

What is a local diagnosis and why is it important?

Key features of the local diagnosis

Step 1. Establish the Diagnostic Team

Step 2. Design the Diagnosis

Step 3A. Finding Existing Data: Local Authorities, Other Government Sources

Step 3B. Other key sources of data: Police, community-based organizations, researchers

Step 3C. Secondary sources of data: Analysing policies and programs

Step 3D. Secondary sources of data: Potential community resources

Step 4A. Collecting primary sources of data: Local victimization surveys

Step 4B. Primary sources of data: Focus groups

Step 4C. Primary sources of data: Women’s Safety Audits

Step 5. Analysis and report writing

Top tips

Tool – How to conduct a focus group

Tool – Sample of a women’s safety audit

Tool – Survey module on crime, violence and physical activity

Tool – Example of a Safety Diagnosis Report

[[PAGE 1b]]

What is a Local Diagnosis and why is it Important?

The term diagnosis means the process of developing a reliable information base to inform the development of a safe city strategy, and to measure the impacts of this strategy. It is a term that is borrowed from the health sector, which means that the diagnosis goes beyond listing the symptoms of the problem and seeks to establish some of the causes of the problem (UN-Habitat, 2007).

The diagnostic stage includes not only a sense of needs and priorities emerging from the data, but ideally a sense of potential community resources to meet these needs. If well managed, the diagnostic stage can also contribute towards community mobilization, improved skills and interest in combating violence, as well as enhanced partnerships.

[[PAGE 1b]]

Key Features of the Local Diagnosis

The key features of the local diagnosis include the following:

· The data must be reliable: it should be based on trends, not only individual incidents

· It should be triangulated (from a variety of independent sources): not only police data, but figures from health agencies and community based organizations, and if possible, from victimization surveys. This is because many crimes and acts of violence are not reported to the police.

· It should be from a variety of methods, including existing databases, focus groups, interviews with key stakeholders, media report, victimization surveys, Women’s Safety Audits, etc.

· It should include data on fear of victimization and ‘sub-criminal’ acts such as harassment on the streets. This is because fear of violence as well as the act of violence itself results in negative individual and social consequences.

[[PAGE 1b]]

Step 1: Establish the Diagnostic Team

Not everyone in a partnership will be equally involved in diagnosis. It is often a good idea to have a team of researchers working separately on the diagnosis, including police, universities, the local authority, and also key community based organizations. This group can report back to the partnership.

Step 2: Design the Diagnosis

The design of the diagnosis must take into account the timeframe and the budget to establish the scope and the focus of the work.

Tool – Example of a safety diagnosis report

[[PAGE 1b]]

Step 3A: Finding Existing Data: Local Authorities, Other Government Sources

This diagnostic step begins with a collation of any previous reports on crime, violence and insecurity, as well as reports that touch upon related issues, such as employment, housing conditions, education, and maternal and child health. If a place has many well-resourced organizations and there have been previous community safety initiatives, there may be a plethora of useful information. Much more commonly, there is very little helpful data on hand, and limited resources to gather data.

Even if there are few studies on violence and crime, some of the data for the geographic area being served may already lie in the hands of government statisticians, researchers or community organizations. For instance, basic demographic data is necessary: the population, age structure and composition of households. Socio-economic data is equally necessary, such as housing costs and affordability; rate of employment and government or charitable income dependency (welfare); and average income and proportion living below a nationally or internationally determined poverty line. Education levels, along with income and employment, help to determine potential problems and resources. Data on access to the internet, if available, is not only an indicator of human capital but, if rates are high enough, may determine the form of surveys and public information. Health indicators, both physical and mental, and including diseases such as depression, alcohol and drug abuse, or HIV infection that may be related to violence, and may be available from public health departments are also important. Indicators of the quality of the physical and social environments, such as boarded up buildings, housing code violations or school drop-out rates, will also be useful.

The data should be broken down by gender whenever possible, and if there is data on particular at-risk groups, such as youth, visible minorities or indigenous people, this should be collated as well. If there are longitudinal sources of data, such as a census, this will help to determine trends over time. The data should also be broken down by sub-area, if possible, and it should be compared to the average for the city or the nation. The purpose of this background data is to inform the discussion of risk and resilience factors for violence and insecurity.

[[PAGE 1b]]

Step 3B. Other Key Sources of Data: Police, Community Based Organizations, Researchers

Police data often records only a limited amount of crime and violence in the community. There may be categorization issues as well, such as no differentiation between public assaults and domestic assaults, or no data on the gender of victims or alleged offenders. There may be sensitive issues around releasing details about the demographics of offenders. There may or may not be data as to the exact location of reported crimes and details of the site and situation (e.g. behind a dumpster, in a poorly lit part of a car park or at an address where there had been 12 previous complaints of domestic assault).

Time of day, week and year are important to know. The actual crime categories vary widely from nation to nation, and sometimes can vary by city. Crime rates can also be affected by crackdowns on particular offences, such as illegal possession of handguns; it is important to ensure that the police provide this background data. If the partnership focuses on violence, then it will pay particular attention to crimes such as murder, attempted murder, various categories of assault, rape or sexual assault, robbery and kidnapping. Thefts, break-ins and other property crimes may be of interest, as well. The data should include a sense of trends over time. Police clearance rates (i.e. the number of reported crimes where arrests take place), the amount of time it takes a case to reach the courts, and the percentage of arrests that lead to convictions are other important sources of data.

The second source of information on prevalence would be data collected by agencies, community based organizations and authorities other than the police. Sources would include child welfare organizations, hospitals and health clinics, services for assaulted women, legal clinics, services assisting people who have been in conflict with the law, business associations and private security companies in the case of property crimes, and services for particular at-risk groups (homeless people, prostitutes, people with disabilities, sexual minorities and visible minorities, including religious minorities and new migrants).

This data may not be systemically collected, and it is very unusual for most agencies dealing with victims of violence (not only physical health and victim services, but housing, legal, income support and mental health services) to have intake forms that explicitly screen for violence. Indeed, developing these protocols may be an important part of any community safety strategy. Agency and service organization data can also be used to determine the physical and mental health impacts and costs of violence, as well as to get a sense of what services are being used to escape from violent situations, and how the links between services currently work (which services refer to others). Other qualitative and anecdotal information might include particular times when violence is worst or trigger circumstances (e.g. weekends, when there is most use of alcohol or after particular sporting events), as well as locations of offences.

The third source of information may come from researchers. University and other research institutes have often undertaken studies. These sources can also help with researching new data.

Case Study – INTACH and Jagori

Case Study – Partners for Urban Knowledge, Action and Research (PUKAR)

[[PAGE 1b]]

Step 3C. Secondary Sources of Data: analysing Policies and Programs

It is important, as part of the diagnosis, to identify at least two to three key policies or programs that have an impact, or could have an impact, on your Safe City initiative. Usually, these are local authority policies or programs, but sometimes they are national or international policies or programs that can be implemented locally. See exercise 1 for more information.

A policy is a plan of action, usually developed by a government, to tackle a problem that has been identified as a priority (eg., Crime Prevention Strategy 2006-2009). It is usually long term and includes a range of strategies. A program is a specific time limited activity under taken by governments, police, NGO’s and the private sector, often deriving from a policy (eg., gender training of police force). They are often short or medium term and tend to be focused on specific groups or areas and with specific objectives.

[[PAGE 1b]]

Step 3D. Secondary Sources of Data: Potential Community Resources

It is important in any diagnosis, but especially ones in communities that are associated with high levels of crime and violence and low levels of social and human capital, to identify potential resources, as well as needs and problems. John Kretzmann and John McKnight, two US community development experts, have written about how viewing communities as a nearly endless list of problems and needs leads directly to the fragmentation of efforts; directs funding not to residents but to service providers, such as health and social workers; and works against potential community leaders who are forced to denigrate their own communities to obtain needs-based funding. In contrast, focusing on developing the assets of individuals, organizations and places in communities can build local capacities and leadership (Kretzmann & McKnight, 1993).

Kretzmann and McKnight (1993) suggest developing resource inventories at the individual, associational and institutional level. Individual resources at the neighbourhood scale might include experiences and abilities in caring for the physically and mentally ill, people with disabilities, children or the elderly; office and administrative skills; construction, repair, equipment operation and maintenance skills; hairdressing and jewellery making; cooking and tailoring skills; access to transportation; sales experience and abilities; supervision experience; and music, art or dance capacities or interest. These individuals can further develop such skills into enterprises, use them in furthering a community development initiative (e.g. building a community centre) and teach them to others. Young people, in particular, often have time, ideas and creativity, and enthusiasm and energy, which can be tapped, while older people have experience, knowledge of the community and time as well. People with intellectual or physical disabilities are often overlooked as potential assets; but they, too, can often have valuable skills, experience and time, and can offer inspiration to others. Local lawyers, accountants, police officers, librarians, school teachers and nurses can all assist in particular tasks or events.

Similarly, a map of organizations at any scale will usually discover artistic, business, religious, seniors, ethnic or linguistically based, health, media, women’s, men’s youth, neighbourhood, self-help, political, school-based, veterans, environmental and sports/recreation groups who are either doing work related to violence prevention, or whose assets could potentially be utilized. In high-income countries, directories, newspapers, and libraries can be good places to find out about groups. In all cities, a ‘snowball’ survey – asking one well-connected person or groups whom they know, and then asking each group what groups they know of – can provide a workable inventory.

Although Kretzmann and McKnight (1993) talk about institutions, I would rephrase this as specific place-based assets. Schools, parks, businesses, local banks or credit institutions, hospitals, community colleges or universities, libraries, and unused buildings or land can all be mobilized as assets. Even waste can be utilized as a resource: food waste can be composted for community gardens, and recycling or waste collection in informal communities without formal collection services can become a lucrative business.

The resources of the partnership itself require another inventory. Each organization should be willing to disclose financial, human and equipment resources, as well as be honest about its needs. Another aspect of developing a resource inventory is scoping potential funding sources for the initiative itself and for specific potential programmes. Governments, charities, the private sector and individuals are all potential sources of money and in-kind donations (e.g. a dedicated project officer or a community space). Although available grant streams may fit into priorities as they are emerging, initiatives should be cautious about completely changing their priorities for the sake of a pot of money.

A simple survey at the city scale, used in Toronto in 1990, asked a large variety of organizations what they were currently doing to prevent violence, what they would like to do and what kind of resources they would need to accomplish these activities.

A third aspect of developing a resource inventory is an ongoing search for what has worked in similar communities. This report attempts to provide a sense of the range of potential interventions; but, fortunately, the number and scope of community safety initiatives have been constantly expanding, as have the excellent sources of information. National, regional and international crime prevention websites and conferences are good sources of current information, as are any networking opportunities with similar initiatives. Finding out and learning from success stories are good tasks for steering committee members to take on at this stage.

[[PAGE 1b]]

Step 4A. Collecting Primary Sources of Data: Local Victimization Surveys

Victimization surveys not only capture some of ‘the base of the iceberg’ (the crimes and acts of violence that are not reported to police and agencies), but are also useful in understanding perceptions of crime and justice. Victimization surveys can also be used to obtain information on victims and offenders, keeping in mind that many people are both. Developing a victimization survey can provide a baseline measurement to compare with later surveys. It can also provide a way of informing the larger community about the initiative, train people in problem-solving and analytic skills, and allow people to think about violence issues in new ways. Victimization surveys can also be used to provide micro-locational data as to where crime and violence take place and which places are particularly feared (not necessarily the same thing). While in rich cities, surveys are often done via telephone or online, in poorer cities, surveys are usually administered door to door or on the street. The knowledge obtained from these surveys can be used to help prioritize areas for improvement. Port Moresby’s Safe Cities Programme provides an example of a successful diagnosis that built partnerships.

Case Study - Safer Port Moresby Initiative

Here are two examples of victimization surveys. Garrett and Ahmed (2004) describe a crime survey that was administered to a random sample of 610 households in a set of slum communities of 16,000 in the mid-sized city of Dinajpur (270,000 residents). Twelve enumerators underwent one week’s training to prepare them for the door-to-door survey.

Tool – Survey module on crime, violence and physical activity

The advantage of this survey is that it is simple and easy to administer and track, because it is on one page. There are several disadvantages of this survey. First, the survey asked questions of everyone in the household, which tended to minimize the number of family assaults reported because individuals would not generally disclose violence if the perpetrators were listening to the conversation. More importantly, the survey was not part of a Safe City campaign, and the results did not inform an action plan.

The survey found that 16 per cent of households had been affected by some form of crime in the 12 months prior to the survey. The most common forms of crime were thefts and severe beatings, mostly committed by neighbours or other people known to the victims (family violence was not described in the article). There was one neighbourhood in particular that had a high level of self-reported crime, which might have become an intervention site. Overall, crimes were reported to ‘nobody’ in 41 per cent of cases, a community leader or ward commissioner in 40 per cent of cases, and a police officer in only 8 per cent of cases. The police took action against the perpetrators in only 7 per cent of cases, and the community or individuals took vigilante action in 14 per cent of cases. The medical costs of the crimes alone took up 64 per cent of an average household’s monthly expenses.

The second survey was recently used in four cities on four different continents, including Delhi in India. In Delhi, close to 1000 women were interviewed on the street in several sites that were targeted for intervention, including slum communities. The survey focuses on women’s safety in public space (WICI & Jagori, 2010).

Tool – Sample of Women’s Safety Audits

Both of these surveys take no more than 10-15 minutes to administer. Household and street surveys should take place in areas targeted for intervention. They may focus on a particular population group, such as young people in Port Moresby, or women in Delhi, or they may cover entire households, as the survey in Dinajpur. Literature on the Safe City initiative should be given to participants, along with thanks and some information about where and when the results of the survey will be published.

[[PAGE 1b]]

Step 4B. Primary Sources of Data: Focus Groups (WICI & Jagori, 2010)

A focus group is a moderated conversation/discussion held to increase understanding of a particular issue and explore ideas about how a problem might be addressed and helps to include the voices of people that are not always heard so they can share their stories. It involves sharing specific experiences, presenting opinions and exploring ideas. The group needs to be large enough to include different points of view and to generate discussion, but not so large that some participants are unable to participate. Generally, focus groups have 8 to 12 people. Focus groups are more likely to work well when participants have similar backgrounds or experiences, so it is recommended to conduct several focus groups on a particular theme to gather different perspectives. For instance, depending on the priority groups for intervention, you may want to hold focus groups with children, young men, young women, people with disabilities, older people, people from a particular ethnic minority, ex-criminals etc.

Participants are generally drawn from existing organizations and are specifically invited. If there is a public invitation, sometimes too many people show up (this could then be a public meeting) or the wrong people (not sharing a particular interest or identity) show up.

Participants should be reimbursed for travel expenses incurred and can be paid a small amount or can be given a small gift as appropriate. Literature on the Safe City initiative should be given to participants. See exercise 2 for more information.

Tool – How to conduct a focus group

[[PAGE 1b]]

Step 4C. Primary Sources of Data: Women’s Safety Audits

A Women’s Safety Audit is a participatory tool for collecting and assessing information about perceptions of urban safety in public spaces. It consists of a simple checklist of questions that can be used as a group walks through an area to identify places that feel safe and unsafe, and to suggest ways that the unsafe places can be improved. The Women’s Safety Audit tool was developed in Toronto in 1989 by the Metropolitan Action Committee on Public Violence Against Women and Children (METRAC) and has since been used in hundreds of cities and rural areas around the world (Whitzman et al, 2009, p205).

Women’s Safety Audits have been used by mixed groups of adult women and men, as well as by children. However, the term ‘Women’s Safety Audit’ (WSA) reflects the fact that around the world, women are more likely to restrict their use of public space because of sexual assault and harassment.

A WSA is conducted by a group of women who are familiar with an area, and who feel especially concerned about safety. Given that women will vary in the extent to which they feel vulnerable, it is vital to involve women from diverse groups in the community, in terms of class, age, disability, cultural or ethnic background and status etc.

Safety audits can be conducted in all kinds of spaces. In a given area it would include streets, areas around housing, parks, market spaces, other gathering areas, bus stops and other public transport points. The area may include educational institutions, hospitals, community centers etc. Generally, an area of 500-800 metres square is most appropriate for one audit.

WSAs are both a diagnostic tool and an intervention. A few WSAs are useful as part of the diagnosis phase, while a larger program of WSAs (with funds set aside for follow-up) can be part of the intervention.

Case Study – The Municipality of Phnom Penh

Tool – Sample of Women’s Safety Audit

[[PAGE 1b]]

Step 5. Analysis and Report Writing

Analysis is simple to explain: present the data, link it together, and draw conclusions and recommendations. It is hard to do, of course.

The analysis of information should not only support the partnership’s vision and objectives, but should assist in the identification of the most urgent and relevant priorities for action. While most of this information is in the next section, it is important to stress two aspects. First, it is possible that your diagnosis will lead to different sets of emphases than you had planned. It is important to report back to all partners if this occurs, and perhaps add (or drop) new partners based on the information received.

Second, the diagnosis itself is a result. The report is an opportunity to highlight need amongst policy-makers and the general public. It should be written in an accessible style and launched by ‘champions’ as part of a media campaign.

Photograph of women distributing material for the women’s safety audit in Delhi (Viswanath, 2010)

[[PAGE 1b]]

Top Tips

· Don’t feel you have to use every diagnostic tool in this chapter. Your diagnosis depends on your time and budget

· This is the point where partnerships with research institutions are particularly important.

· Try to focus on particular groups and particular areas where the needs are greatest, and also where the opportunities are greatest (for instance, an area suggested for slum upgrading)

· Don’t forget to focus on the positive resources and policy/program opportunities as well as the problem

[[PAGE 1b]]

Tool – Sample of Safety Diagnosis Report

Summary of Key Findings (one page for public distribution)

Introduction:

· Safe City Partnership’s vision and objectives

· Research focus and objectives

· Research methods and team

Description of the Area

· Population and Socio-economic demographics

· Availability of services

Community Safety Profile

· Statistics (from police, hospitals and health services, other sources)

· Results of Surveys (if undertaken), Focus Groups (if undertaken), Interviews, Public meetings, Safety Audits

Maps

Particular places that are identified as unsafe and why (arising from Safety Audits and other consultations)

Review of Existing Policies

Relevant laws and regulations
Relevant current policies and programs
Existing safety resources

Recommendations

Priorities for action based on the above evidence
Key partners, potential resources and capabilities

Next Steps (including development of an action plan)

[[PAGE 1b]]

Tool - Conducting Focus Groups

Focus groups usually last 1½ to 2 ½ hours. It is good idea to provide some refreshments and to have the focus group in a place that is convenient and familiar to participants, like a neighbourhood centre. It is important that people be able to sit in a circle or around a table, not a classroom format. There should be a sign-up sheet or key contact person designated so that the information gathered from the focus groups can be passed on.

There are two key roles in a focus group: a facilitator and a note taker. The facilitator should be knowledgeable on the issue, good at encouraging participation (and also at ensuring that one or two people do not dominate the conversation), careful not to impose their own views or to express negative opinions about comments or views, and good at summarizing what has just been said. The note taker should ideally write people’s ideas and comments as they come up, summarizing as necessary, in clear writing and/or pictures. Once again, poster paper and markers are the most useful tools. You can also audio or video-tape the conversation or have someone else taking notes, but be sure that participants consent to this.

Introductions (10-15 minutes): Thank people for coming. Go around the room/table and introduce yourselves (first names only are fine). Explain the Safe City initiative. Explain that the purpose of the focus group is to collect experiences, hear views and exchange ideas. The aim is to hear everyone’s opinion not reach a consensus or conclusion. Explain how information will be used. If you are either audio or video recording it, please inform the participants and get their permission. Explain to them clearly what the recording will be used for and who will or will not see or hear it. Agree on ‘ground rules’: respect each participant, no right or wrong answers, everyone will be given a chance to speak, privacy of the discussion. Assure people that unless they wish otherwise, all comments will be anonymous (“one participant said”).

Discussion (1 -2 hours ): It is a good idea to have a large‐scale map of the city for the discussion. The map can be used to add a visual dimension to the discussions. You can use pins, post‐its or markers on the maps to illustrate issues of safety. If you are focusing on a community where Women’s Safety Audits or other interventions are planned, the questions can relate directly to the area itself. For others, the questions can be more general.

Focus group questions are generally open-ended, and there are generally 3-6 questions that take between 1-2 hours for everyone to answer. There will be discussion as one person’s intervention sparks another. Here are some common types of questions:

1. Do you think that the city/community is safe for everyone to move about freely? Are there some people who are particularly unsafe and who are they? What has influenced you views – your own experiences, other experiences, media reports?

2. Are there any places where you feel particularly safe or unsafe? What is it about these places that make you feel that way?

3. Do you take any precautions when you go out? For example, do you carry something for protection, or avoid certain areas etc.?

4. Have you ever asked for help with an unsafe or dangerous situation? Did you go to the police? Did you approach anyone else for help? Did you feel the response met your needs? Why or why not? If you haven’t actually done this, who are you most likely to ask for help?

5. What do you think are the three most important safety issues in the city/this area? Why? (probe if there is any information such as reports or incidents)

6. How could safety and feelings of safety be improved? This could be by changes of policy, changes in design, changes in services, changes in behavior, etc. Encourage concrete suggestions.

Closing the focus group (10-15 minutes): Thank people again for their participation. Explain next steps. Make sure that people have information on the Safe City initiative.

Source: Health and Safety Executive, n.d.

See also http://www.hse.gov.uk/stress/standards/pdfs/focusgroups.pdf for in-depth information on how to conduct focus groups. The following are the top tips involved in conducting a focus group as outlined in the document “How to Organise and Run Focus Groups” by Health and Safety Executive. (Please note that this guide was developed to be used in the work place, but the steps are transferable to community-based organizations, local government and inter-disciplinary groups working on safe city initiatives).

When organizing a focus group, it is important to consider the following:

· Develop a question set, this include introductory questions, linking questions and key questions.

· Develop a method to record the data

· Choose the group on the basis of who will feel comfortable together

· The number of participants in the focus group should remain small so that everyone has a chance to speak, but large enough to canvas a range of different viewpoints

· Make sure that you clearly explain the purpose of the focus group

· Make sure that a facilitator leads the discussion

· The focus group should not last longer that 1.5-2 hours

· Location of the focus group should be a place with minimal distractions, where the acoustics are good, everyone is comfortable and is within close proximity for people to access with relative ease.

To run the focus group, the materials that you will need include:

· Notepads and pens or pencils

· Flipchart (Butchers paper) and markers

· Name tags

· Clock

· Focus group questions

· Refreshments

[[PAGE 1b]]

Tool - A Sample Women’s Safety Audit (WSA)

The WSA itself may only take 2-3 hours, but it takes considerable preparation to do well, and also requires several meetings to follow up.

Usually, it requires one local leader and several local participants who observe, take notes and photographs, and discuss. WSA teams often have between 4 and 6 participants and cover an area between 500 metres and a kilometre in radius. Sometimes, there are several WSAs occurring at the same time, with a common start and end point.

Preparation includes:

· Defining and delineating the area and the route for the safety walk. Get maps of the area to be audited. These should be studied in detail before the safety walk. Explain why you are selecting this area.

· Identification of key stakeholders and policy makers, and informing them that a walk will be taking place and will probably lead to recommendations (these include city officials, police, and possibly key private sector owners of land or buildings). Sometimes they attend the walk, but the majority should be local residents, preferably women. Sometimes a media person attends, but again, the same rule applies: the majority of participants in any given audit group are local women.

· Meeting with local community and community groups to share the process of safety audits. Try to involve many different sets of people including, for example, youth groups, so that their concerns can be understood.

· Training of the group who are going to conduct the safety audit walk

· Reading over and getting familiar with the checklist

· Plan the role of different members of the safety audit team. For instance, one person might be in charge of taking photos, another might take notes and a third ask questions on the checklist.

· Getting ready material that will be used prior to and during the audit – maps, paper, pens, chart paper, torch light, camera etc.

· Ensure safety and transport of audit team

During the audit (2 to 3 hours):

· Carry paper and pen to take notes. Note down everything. Do not leave it to memory.

· Carry a camera and take photographs.

· Use the checklist as a guide throughout the walk.

· Use the map to guide and to note down issues.

· You will need to do more than one safety walk in each area at different times of the day, to get a full understanding of usage of space and issues that concern women. At least one safety walk should be done after dark, as there are specific issues of lighting and safety at night.

· Speak to people in the area (including vendors, shop keepers, a range of people using the street) to get their understanding and perceptions of safety.

· Ask women using the area about their experiences if they are willing to share them. Ask them to point out specific areas where they feel safe or less safe. Note down incidents, stories etc. Note down which areas have more women users and probe the reasons.

A suggested checklist (can be amended):

Immediately after the walk (1/2 to 1 hour)

· The team or teams should spend time discussing the walk and making notes. Make sure that all the points in the checklist have been looked into.

· Maps should be used to record the information about safety issues based on the checklist and reactions during the walk. Make sure that all the points from the checklist are noted down on the map also.

· It is important to note down not only places that are identified as unsafe and the reasons, but also areas that are seen as relatively safer and used comfortably by women.

Post-WSA meeting (ideally within a week, 2-3 hours)

· After the walk, ideally within a few days, the audit team should meet again to discuss the findings from the walk, and formulate appropriate recommendations.

· A set of short and long-term recommendations needs to be drawn up based on the views, perceptions and experiences of the people who conducted the walk. These should be discussed further with the local community – perhaps in a public meeting - to make sure that the process is inclusive and to get more people involved.

Recommendations can be related to

1. Design and planning - about the design of the built environment such as changing lighting and pathways, regulating traffic or improving surveillance or patrolling,

2. Usage of space - such as developing play areas to encourage more families to use an area, or policies regulating things such as closure of parks, and stall and vending areas etc.

3. Governance issues - which kinds of policies need to be addressed in order to bring about relevant change.

4. Crime prevention - such as providing resources for young people, or working to assist drug abusers, location of police, training etc.

5. Community based initiatives – interventions and changes undertaken and monitored by the community or community based groups, such as community events, informal mechanisms etc.

Organize and target the recommendations for different sets of stakeholders. For example, a recommendation about bus shelters or transport should be addressed to transport authorities, the need for more police presence directed to the police, other urban planning and design interventions can be addressed to relevant civic bodies. Overall, however, it is important to present the recommendations as a whole to the local authority.

In the longer term:

· Set up meetings with the relevant authorities to present your recommendations and encourage action.

· Keep in mind existing policies and programs that can be used to support the recommendations.

· Ensure communities are informed, involved and support the recommendations.

· The WSA is the first step in the process. It does not end with the delivery of the recommendations to the relevant authorities. It will also entail regular community involvement, and ways to monitor and keep track of where recommendations have been addressed and acted upon.

· Have meetings with community and community-based groups to keep the process active and ensure their continued interest and involvement.

· Use media to advocate for changes, and to highlight positive changes when they occur.

Example of a public space examined as part of the women’s safety audit in Delhi (Viswanath, 2010)

[[PAGE 1b]]

Tool – Survey Module on Crime, Violence and Physical Activity (Garrett & Ahmed, 2004, p143)

In the past 12 months, has anyone in the household been a victim of any of the following?
Type	Code	Did it occur in the household in the past 12 months? Yes (1) No (2)	Who was the victim? Member ID. If the Person was a member but is not now, put 55. If the whole household was a victim, put 66	Who did it? (Code –1)		To whom was it reported? (Code-2)	What actions were taken against the perpetrator? (Code-3)	After it happened, did the victim receive medical treatment? Yes (1) No (2)		Who paid for the medical treatment? (Code-4)	How much did the treatment cost? Taka		Other than medical, what was the cost of the loss? Taka	What measures did the household take to prevent future incidents? (Code-5)
1	2	3	4	5		6	7	8		9	10		11	12
Severe beating	01
Acid thrown on the body	02
Theft	03
Mugging/robbery	04
Rape/attempted rape	05
Murder	06
Attempted murder	07
Kidnapping/abduction	08
Arson	09
Other 1 (specify)	10
Other 2 (specify)	11
Code-1: Who did it? Household member: USE MEMBER CODE Neighbour (21) Mastaan, same community (22) Mastaan, outside community (23) Employer (24) Police /chowkidar (25) Other/specify (26)		Code-2: Reported to whom? Nobody (1) Police (2) Ward commissioner (3) Community leader (4) Community Mastaan (5) Imam/purohit (6) Other/specify (7)			Code-3: Actions against perpetrator No action (1) Reported to police/filed police case/GD (2) Beat perpetrator (3) Community action (4) Threatened perpetrator (5) Other (specify) (6)				Code-4: Who paid? Household member (1) Neighbour/community (2) NGO (3) Government (4) Perpetrator (5) Other (specify) (6)			Code-5: Preventive measures No measure taken (1) Informed police 92) Informed ward commissioner (3) Engaged community leader for protection (4) Engaged community Mastaan for protection (5) Other (specify) (6)
13. How safe do you feel in terms of your physical security (crime, violence) in this community? Not safe at all (1); Not safe (2); Safe (4); Very safe (5)

[[PAGE 1a]]

Module 3 - Developing the Action Plan

To quickly recount, module one focused on partnership building, while the second module focused on diagnosing the problem. At this point you will have forged a number of important partnerships that will assist with the delivery of a safe city initiative. The safety issues that you identify arise from the diagnosis you have undertaken.

In this section, you will learn how to move from diagnosis to designing a safe city initiative. There are a few things you need to consider at this stage. It is important that careful consideration be taken to design the safe city initiative. Identifying the right initiative is not an easy task, nor is it easy simply to build upon existing initiatives that you may have developed in the past. To identify an initiative or build upon an existing one, a large amount of discussion (brainstorming) must occur at this stage in the process. You might want to consult vulnerable groups at this stage. It is encouraged that the following steps be undertaken in a collaborative manner. However, because of the time required to establish well considered priorities and goals, for instance, it is likely that a small sub group will work on establishing these key points, writing them down (e.g. in a draft action plan) and then sending them to the partners for feedback (or using this as an opportunity to establish a time to meet for face-to-face feedback). You need to set enough time to receive feedback from your partners and other stakeholders you would like to consult (including vulnerable groups). You will also need to make sure that you don’t take too long otherwise the people who want to see action will become frustrated over the level of inaction.

There are a number of key components to designing a safe cities initiative. These components include: identifying priorities and realistic goals, identifying resources (e.g. funding, time constraints of volunteers, etc) available to deliver the initiative, identifying roles and responsibilities of people you have partnered with and making a decision about moving forward. The following steps will help guide you through this process.

Determining priority issues

Developing a vision

Developing objectives

Developing good indicators and targets using SMART

Designing the draft Action Plan

Top Tips

Tool – Identify resource availability

Tool – Logic model example

Tool – Action Plan organization sheet

Tool – Writing the Action Plan

Tool – Policy/Program Review Framework

Tool – Five steps of Budgeting

[[PAGE 1b]]

Determining priority issues

The first step in designing a safe city initiative is determining priority issues. These priority issues will respond to the problems you identified in the diagnosis. The process of setting clear priorities includes identifying the short, medium and long-term actions to reduce and prevent violence and enhance the feeling of safety among community members (UN-Habitat, 2007, p52). You must remember that many of the sources of violence and insecurity are large and require a large amount of effort (and resources) to address. It is therefore important that you identify priorities that should be achieved in the short-term.

At this stage in the process, the partners should identify the most relevant and appropriate priorities based on the information collected during the diagnosis stage. There are a number of important questions to consider when identifying priorities. These questions include: Are the priorities relevant in terms of the information generated in the diagnosis? Are your priorities mutually supportive and reinforcing (do your priorities form a balanced set in terms of focus (thematic and process), timing (short, medium and long-term), partner involvement (sector and level of operation), and in light of the main problems identified during the diagnosis phase, do your priorities suggest good value for money? (UN-Habitat, 2007, p54)

It is important to remember that your priorities should reflect the resources that you have access too. It is often the case that partnership dynamics and funding will influence what your priorities might be (Whitzman, 2008, p182). For instance, if business is interested in collaborating on a way of protecting women by providing safe houses, it would make sense to include the establishment of safe houses as a priority. Partners will only get frustrated if the priorities that you set are unrealistic and do not get met.

It might be helpful at this stage to review existing initiatives if they are in place so that you can build on their success and find ways to manage similar challenge in the Action Plan you are about to write.

Case Study - EKTA

Case Study – Participatory Development Action Program (PDAP)

Tool – Policy/Program Review Framework

Photograph of a Local-to-Local Dialogue in Dhaka (PDAP, 2009, p20)

[[PAGE 1b]]

Develop a vision (Whitzman, 2008)

During the partnership building module a visioning exercise was used as a way of forging partnerships. This was an important step to ensure that all partners were entering into the partnership with an opportunity to influence and agree upon a shared vision as well as determine the goals of this partnership. It was at that time that the partnership worked on developing a shared vision of a safer city/area. In this module you will draw upon the visioning exercise as a way of identifying goals and reaching an agreement on the direction of the safe city initiative.

A logic-based model allows the partners to determine the purpose of the safe city initiate, establish its goals and to agree on the direction they would like to take the initiative. Goals might include minimizing the occurrence of harassment against women in public squares to starting a football league for boys from urban slums, or providing awareness training to school aged children about gender differences. The questions that you would need to start considering at this step is: who would you need to talk with to start developing this goal locally? What specific actions would need to be taken? How would you know if positive change has occurred?

Community-based organizations “need to be realistic about what they can actually achieve using the resources that they can obtain.” (UNIFEM, 2009a). At this point in the process, some important decisions need to be made regarding the direction and feasibility of the initiative. Part of determining what is feasible is clearly understanding the resource constraints that your initiative will operate within. Therefore, it is important to remember to not launch initiatives that will be too difficult to finish and will only achieve minimal success. Some of the barriers that you need to consider include running out of financial resources, staff and/or volunteers moving on, etc. It is important that manageable expectations are placed on the initiative to ensure that you and the community at large do not get disappointed by the lack of action or change (UNIFEM, 2009a).

It is important that the resources that available be identified. There are human-based resources, technical and expert-based resources, as well as financial and in-kind support:

Human resources – Human resources include volunteers from the community as well as the partnerships that you have forged in the earlier stages of this process. Human resources can emerge from the vulnerable group you are working with, people from local government, and other grassroots organizations. It might be possible that people from the private sector want to volunteer their time, or people that work at the local university want to be involved. If people are passionate about the problem you are trying to address this is an opportunity to enrol volunteers that are able to give some time to the cause.

Technical and expert resources – These resources you have access to are a product of the partnerships that you have made. Information and knowledge can be exchanged to assist with understanding the problem and developing an initiative that can be effective at achieving your objectives. Managing technical and expert resources can be done by way of an advisory committee where advice and guidance can be shared at certain points along the life cycle of the initiative (see Module 2). Volunteers who hold specific skills or knowledge such as accounting, web design, or facilitation can also provide the technical and expertise needed to strengthen the effectiveness of your initiative.

Financial resources – Financial resources can come by way of donations and grants. If your organization is registered as a charity it is likely that you are already receiving donations to your organization that you can allocate to this violence prevention initiative. If your organization is not yet registered as a charity or if you are a local government, funding opportunities through grants that are offered by governments and sometimes the private sector can be drawn upon. If you have a partnership with a local government or a university they are two great resources to help you with funding applications for grants.

In-kind support – In kind support is the non-monetary contributions that other organizations can make to your cause. In-kind contributions may include access to office space to hold meetings and other rooms to hold conferences or workshops. You might be able to use local media houses or radio stations who can assist with press conferences and advertisements; universities can establish internship programmes for students to exchange their time for useful work experience or research on an initiative; and local businesses can donate services, from photocopying to the expertise of advertising companies for prevention campaigns (UNIFEM, 2009a).

It is important that you be resourceful and to really get to know the skills of your volunteers. In addition, it is important that you communicate the objectives of your initiative to the wider public as a way to attract interest and resources. The following section offers guidance on launching the initiative and communicating the initiative to the wider community.

Case Study – The Centre for Studies and Applied Sciences (CSAGA)

Tool – Identifying resources availability

[[PAGE 1b]]

Developing objectives

Once the goals and a clear vision have been established, it is time to develop the objectives and recommendations. These are the specific actions that would help you to achieve the goals you have identified

There should be two levels of objectives specified:

Over-arching objectives

These are the high-level objectives for the program. We can think of these as the umbrella under which more-detailed objectives will fit.

Specific objectives

For each high-level objective, a set of specific objectives should be developed. These specific objectives help us to operationalize our over-arching objectives – i.e., to translate our high-level goals to smaller goals that are individually measurable.

Defining the program objectives (and possibly hypotheses) will help in a number of ways. First, having a clear set of objectives will give the program clear elements to evaluate. To state it very simply, if we know what we want to achieve, then it is much easier to evaluate whether we have achieved it. If the objectives are unclear, on the other hand, it is difficult to measure whether they have been met.

In developing program objectives, it is important that they should be outcome-based. That is, they should focus on the end products of the implementation. For instance, for the Blue Dragon Foundation, the over-arching objective of the program is to improve the lives of street children in Hanoi. Underneath this umbrella objective, the Foundation defines specific objectives, which include: enabling the poorest children to go to school by providing a school fee relief program and standing up for the rights of children by engaging in child rights advocacy work (www.streetkidsinvietnam.com). It is those specific objectives around which the Foundation can design different programs to implement – i.e., counselling services, shelters, and educational programs.

It is important to distinguish between outcome-based and process-based objectives. For instance, an outcome-based specific objective would be, To reduce the incidence of street children falling victim to human trafficking. Notice, this objective focuses on the end result of the program. In contrast, a process-based objective could be, for example, To provide counselling services to street children. This is a noble goal, but the provision of counselling services is a means to an end, not an end in itself. In the end, we want to know if our program has been effective. It is easy to measure whether a counselling service was provided, and even how many children were served by it. However, simply assessing whether a service was provided tells us nothing about whether that service was successful. We need an outcome-based objective to do this.

A good outcome-based objective might be, To increase the high-school graduation rates for participant children, or, To prevent client children from falling victim to prostitution. These objectives focus on the end result of the program, rather than the means by which the program is implemented.

Even though developing outcome-based objectives is essential, some process-based objectives can also be useful for monitoring purposes. For instance, one objective of The Society for the Promotion of Area Resource Centers (SPARC), which is based in India, is to reduce the number of slum dwellers without toilet access (as per the “Zero Open Defecation” initiative). An outcome-based objective, then, would be to reduce the number of people in slums without access to toilet facilities. For their program, though, some process-based objectives would also be useful when it is time to do monitoring activities. For instance, one process-based objective could be, To install 50 toilets in a given slum. Just the presence of 50 toilets tells us nothing about whether people are using the toilets. It is quite possible that they could fall into disrepair, be managed by corrupt slum warlords who charge to use the services, or other implementation failures. However, if one of the means to the outcome-based objective is to install 50 toilets, then this could be a useful objective for the process of internal review (i.e., monitoring).

Identifying your objectives within the constraints of your budget will help you to establish achievable input and outcome-based objectives. It is important here to also consider timing. If you have received funding from a government partner or another organization that funds projects, it is wise to consider what timeframes were set out for when and where the money should be spent. It might be possible to apply for future funding from the current funding agency or from another funding agency. It is important to factor this into the objective setting stage.

Case Study – Masculinity, Mental Health and Violence Project (MMVP)

Case Study – DAMPA

[[PAGE 1b]]

Developing good indicators and targets using SMART

Once we have identified our objectives, we want to develop a set of indicators that will allow us to evaluate whether or not our program has achieved its objectives. An indicator, then, is a measurable item that tells us something about the impact of our program.

One way of conceptualizing these objectives is to formulate them while considering the SMART criteria (Whitzman, 2008; UNIFEM, 2009a, p8):

Specific – indicators are clear

Measurable – indicators can measure the intended areas to be measured

Attainable – indicators can be measured using available resources and with realistic targets

Realistic – indicators are linked to inputs, outputs and outcomes

Timely – indicators are defined within a specific timeframe that fits with the timeframe set out for the initiative

Furthermore a good indicator is:

· Relevant. That is, it measures the phenomena we want to understand. Thus, a good indicator follows directly from the objectives that we developed as part of the M&E design.

· Outcome-based, rather than process-based

· Available. No matter how good an indicator is, theoretically, it cannot tell us anything if it is not available. We must be able to gather or observe the data to construct out indicators.

· Uncomplicated. Notice we do not say a good indicator is “simple.” This is not necessarily true. But a good indicator is no more complicated than it needs to be to tell us what we want to know.

· Measured at the appropriate time. It is possible that it will take time for the program to mature to a point where the outcomes are measurable by the indicators specified. This is particularly true for outcome-based indicators. It is important, then, to identify at which stage of program implementation the outcome-based indicators should be viable measurements of program impacts.

· Targets differ from indicators in that they attach a quantitative goal to an indicator. A target provides a measurable goal that the organization is trying to achieve through its program.

· Achievable. Set targets that your organization can realistically reach. Over-ambitious targets reduce morale and may give a false impression that the organization is ineffective.

[[PAGE 1b]]

Designing the draft Action Plan (Whitzman, 2008)

Once the priorities, visioning, goals and objectives have been identified, the next step is to design a draft Action Plan. The draft Action Plan includes a summary of the diagnosis of the problem you would like to address, with one or two illustrative statistics; a vision of a safer community (e.g. what you want your community to be like in three years, and in the next generation); a sense of specific and measurable goals over the time period of the initiative; the strategies, programmes and policies that will be undertaken to achieve these goals (some of which will be new and some of which may already exist and be ‘re-branded’ as part of a community safety strategy); links to other ongoing initiatives; outcome targets or indicators that will be used to measure progress towards the goals (discussed in greater detail in Module 4); timeframes; and resources. It will also include mechanisms for community comment, such as telephone numbers, a website or email address, and times and locations for meetings (Whitzman, 2008, p185). The Action Plan is organized following the Logic Model which includes the following components:

Logic Model Components

} Input – Resources used in a program (e.g., money, staff, curricula, and materials)

} Process – Program activities conducted to accomplish its objectives (e.g., outreach, advocacy, training, BCC, etc.)

} Output – Direct results of program activities (e.g., people trained, materials distributed, couples counseled, etc.)

} Outcome – Program results at population level (e.g., knowledge, attitudes, behavior, coverage)

} Impact – Long-term change in morbidity, mortality, and fertility

Source: Module II M&E GBV Prevention and Mitigation Programs, June 2009 in UNIFEM 2010

The Logic Model Example offers a schematic representation of how the individual components of the logic model fit together.

The draft Action Plan should be kept short, perhaps ten pages at most, and as little as three pages, in order to ensure that as many of your partners as possible will read it. It might be summarized in a poster or a single page on a website. There should be at least three weeks, and preferably at least one public meeting, before the draft plan is amended (Whitzman, 2008, p185).

The draft Action Plan should be sent to the people you want to influence and potentially work with, including the general public. This could include politicians in senior and junior governments, community organizations, charities and businesses, and the target groups with whom you will work (Whitzman, 2008, p185).

Every partner (agency or organization) named as a lead on a particular action item must sign off on their agreement before the draft action plan goes on to be adopted. The steering committee/advisory committee (if there is one in place) may have the authority to sign off on a final work plan (Whitzman, 2008, p185).

Case Study – Police Reform Programme and Community Policing

Tool – Logic Model Example

[[PAGE 1b]]

Top Tips

· The most relevant, appropriate and feasible priority issues should be identified based on your diagnosis and the resources you have available

· Review existing initiatives to see if you can build on their success

· Adopt a logic model approach to determine the direction you would like your initiative to go, and to establish the goals of the initiative

· Objectives should be over-arching so that more specific objectives can fall beneath. Specific objectives operationalize the broader more over-arching objectives

· Indicators should be Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic and Timely

· Design a draft Action Plan so that it includes a summary of the diagnosis, a vision, goals, strategies, outcome targets, timeframes and resources.

[[PAGE 1b]]

Tool – Action Plan Organization Sheet

This table provides a template to help you with structuring the draft action plan.

Action Item	Dates	Who is responsible	Role	Budget
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)

[[PAGE 1b]]

Tool – writing the Action Plan

The following areas can be discussed in a workshop with your partners. The workshop should break the partners up into groups of three or four to consider the following areas and the questions attached:

Setting clear objectives: In Module 1, the partners would have agreed on the objectives of the initiative. Return to these initiatives and in break our group discussions discuss whether these objectives have changed. It is important that some kind of consensus on the objectives be achieved. Objectives should be specific, clear, realistic, measurable and set within a time frame (WICI, 2007, p22). Objectives that are well defined will enable partners to evaluate the adequacy, the progress and the impact of the action plan (see Module 5) (WICI, 2007, p22).

(1) What are the objectives that we have set already?

(2) Are the objectives still relevant?

(3) In addition to these objectives, what other objectives should be considered?

(4) What opportunities do these objectives present?

(5) What barriers exist that might prevent us from achieving our objectives?

(6) How can these barriers be overcome?

Intended outcomes: Outcomes are the anticipated results or effects produced by the initiative. They are targeted changes in knowledge, attitudes, behaviours or community conditions that can be attributed to the implementation of the violence prevention initiative (WICI, 2007, p23).

(1) What would you like this initiative to achieve?

(2) Is this a realistic goal?

(3) Would there be any foreseen negative consequences of implementing the initiative?

(4) What opportunities would this outcome present?

Establishing a timeframe: Develop a time schedule outlining the activities to be carried out and taking into consideration the sequence, the dependent factors and the duration of activities. A schedule will ensure that proposed activities are coordinated in time. If needed, the timeframe of the partnership may also be considered, as in when it will begin, how long it will last, what milestones will be used to indicate progress, time needed for the development process, when to report, as well as when to review, re-confirm, renegotiate, or abandon the partnership (Wild Rose Foundation and Alberta Community Development 2001 in WICI, 2007, p23).

(1) On a piece of butchers paper and with some coloured markers, map out the course of delivery for this initiative (start date, end date, when evaluation will take place, points when the partners will meet, etc)

Roles and responsibilities: The responsibility for the activities and outcomes should be shared among partners who may be responsible for very different functions or may work together to carry out certain activities. Funding proposals should identify clearly who will be accountable for each required action and document the roles and responsibilities so that there is common understanding within the partnership of what is expected (WICI, 2007, p23). Roles and responsibilities have been discussed in the “partnership building” module. It is important at this stage to revisit these roles and responsibilities to note any changes.

(1) Do you already have a clear role or responsibility?

(2) What can you contribute to the successful delivery of this initiative? (skills? Funding? In-kind support?)

(3) What is your availability? (are you available for future workshops, conferences, meetings?)

Monitoring and Evaluation: see the Module 5.

[[PAGE 1b]]

Tool – Identifying resource availability (WICI, 2007, p18)

Resources Needed
Type	Available (by whom)	Lacking (action required to gain)
Financial:
Expertise:
Staff:
Equipment:
Technology:

[[PAGE 1b]]

Tool - Policy/Program Review Framework (based on WICI & Jagori, 2010)

The purpose of the tool is to assess:

• What key policies/programs are currently in place which promote women’s safety and gender inclusion in cities - government and non government initiatives

• How far these policies and programs have been implemented

• How far they appear to be effective in achieving their goals

• What makes them effective or not

• Whether there are any major gaps

• What opportunities they present to enable them to be used or revised to promote women’s safety concerns more effectively

• What new policies or programs should be established to help promote a safer city

Keep in mind the following points while choosing a policy/program:

1. A good policy/program comes from a vision of a safer (or at least, a better) city and community.

2. A good policy/program should be given a high priority (a long timeline, adequate funding and staff resources, is included in the city’s overall strategic plan)

3. A good policy/program should present opportunities to promote the safety and inclusion or both women and men.

4. A good policy/program should promote community partnerships

5. A good policy/program should have a clear evidence base, and regular monitoring and evaluation mechanisms.

You can focus on either a new initiative, or one that has been in place for some time. The initiative might be ongoing, or it might be time limited. It might be led by local government or by national government or an international agency.

Questions to Answer:

What is the policy/program to be reviewed? Provide a short description
Why have you chosen this policy/program to review? Is it a priority /well resourced, directly relevant, clearly community based, providing an opportunity to build upon previous successes, or any other reason?
Background

Which level of government has initiated this policy/program (or if NGO/Other please state)
When did it ‘begin’? Was there a particular context (or particular event) that triggered it?
Were there any public debates, for example in the media, when it was introduced or since?
Were there any public consultations? If so, did they consult with women?
Does it build upon any earlier policy/program?
Is there an end date?

Vision

What is the stated vision/ priorities?
What problems or needs does it address?
How does it address women’s safety or building inclusive cities?
Is there any reference to international or regional conventions or initiatives?

Strategies, priorities, resources

Main strategies – short, medium and long term?
How are these going to be delivered?
Is there integration/synergy with existing initiatives and with the city’s overall strategy – if so, what is the seeming priority?
Who is putting in the resources? How much money has been allocated, and for how many years?
Is long term sustainability addressed?
How does the policy take into account the diverse needs and perspectives of women and ensure their voices are heard?

Beneficiaries

Who are the main beneficiaries?
Any there any secondary or unintended beneficiaries?
How do beneficiaries perceive the policy or program initiative? Do they know about it? Have they benefited from it?

Main stakeholders

Who are the main stakeholders in delivering these strategies?
Is there dedicated staff for this initiative?
Has there been any training/capacity building for them?
Who are partners – government and civil society?
What are their roles?
Are there financial partnerships?

Monitoring and Evaluation

What are the expected outcomes of the policy?
Is there an evaluation plan? If so, what are the expected results?
Are there intermediate goals/ monitoring built in? If so what are the indicators? Are there baseline indicators provided?
Who will be involved in monitoring - for example, are civil society groups included?
How will the learning be shared and disseminated?

Successes

Have there been any successes in implementation so far? On

people’s lives and livelihoods
community safety and inclusion
awareness/media reportage
resource mobilization
Any unintended or unexpected results or successes?
Any ‘spillover’ effects?
What are the key lessons learned from the development and implementation of the policy?

Unintended consequences

Have there been any unexpected benefits?
Have there been any unforeseen adverse consequences?

Challenges/gaps in planning and implementation

What challenges/gaps have there been in the following areas?

Financial
Implementation
Sustainability
Partnership building
Human resources
Evaluation

How do you intend to work with this policy/program?

[[PAGE 1b]]

Tool - Five steps of Budgeting (Adapted from Mehrotra, 2007). As part of the policy/programme review, it is also important to evaluate the successes and failures of previous plans relative to the funding you were allocated. The evaluation will help you to better position the new initiative in a manner where it can be successful and feasible given the funds available.

(i) An analysis of the situation for women and men and girls and boys (and the different sub- groups) in a given sector.

(ii) An assessment of the extent to which the sector’s policy addresses the safety issues and gaps described in the first step. This step should include an assessment of the relevant legislation, policies, programmes and schemes. It includes an analysis of both the written policy as well as the implicit policy reflected in government activities. It should examine the extent to which the above meet the socio-economic and other rights of vulnerable groups.

(iii) An assessment of the adequacy of budget allocations to implement the safe city policies and programmes identified in step 2 above.

(iv) Monitoring whether the money was spent as planned, what was delivered and to whom? This involves checking both financially and the physical deliverables (disaggregated by sex)

(v) An assessment of the impact of the policy / programme / scheme and the extent to which the situation described in step 1 has been changed, in the direction specified in the aim of the programme.

[[PAGE 1a]]

Module 4 - Implementing the initiative

The most difficult stage in this process is putting the initiative into practice. What makes this stage challenging is losing sight of the objectives set out earlier in the process and losing the momentum initially gained when the partnership and the notion to address violence and issues of insecurity first arose. Module 4 focuses on the implementation of the safer cities initiative. This module includes the development of a communication and information exchange strategy so that you can communicate the progress of your safe city initiative to your partners and to the other stakeholders including vulnerable groups.

Designing a communication and information exchange strategy

Internal communications

External communications

Top Tips

Tool – Communications Strategy Template

[[PAGE 1b]]

Designing a communication and information exchange strategy

In order to maintain the working relationship with the actors you are in partnership with, it is important that a communication and information exchange strategy is created. This strategy can later become part of the Action Plan, which you developed in Module 3.

A communication and information exchange strategy is a plan that shares the successes and setbacks that your initiative faces over the course of its implementation to the partners and the other stakeholders. The communication and information exchange strategy is yet another way to keep dialogue open and to keep all partners up to date on activities, progress and performance (UN-Habitat, 2007, p67). The strategy is to keep partners abreast of developments and changes affecting the partnership, the ongoing violence prevention activities and to facilitate timely and appropriate trouble shooting (UN-Habitat, 2007, p67).

An important aspect of the communication and information exchange strategy is the clear articulation of your initiative’s objectives and why this initiative is important to the broader community (UNIFEM, 2009a).

According to the Department of Human Services, Government of Victoria (n.d.), the six steps to developing a communication strategy are:

1. What is the issue?

2. Who is the key target audience?

3. What do they currently think?

4. What do we want them to think?

5. Say what we need to say

6. Monitor and review

The people responsible for communication and information exchange is the coordinator. The management team could be the Director of the community-based organization or the Manager of the safer city initiative in a local government. This could be a team of individuals or a single person depending on how large the organization and the program is (please see Module 1 for discussion on leadership and champions).

When designing the communication and information exchange strategy it is important to ask the partners what should be communicated when and by whom? Focal points in the partner agencies should assist the coordinator in the coordination and management of information flows and the maintenance and updating of information databases and knowledge bases.

Tool – Communications Strategy Template

[[PAGE 1b]]

Internal Communications

Tools for internal communication could include: newsletters (electronic and hardcopies); websites and intranet; emails; regular meetings; ongoing monitoring and regular evaluations with specific recommendations for action; telephone (calls and text messaging); and notice boards. Information needs to be shared on a variety of levels, from operational (front line and street staff), to managerial, to the senior staff at the strategic level (UN-Habitat, 2007, p67-8).

[[PAGE 1b]]

External Communications

External communication is just as important as an internal community strategy. External communication should occur with the partners, the vulnerable groups and other stakeholders, both nationally and locally. Information may pass across target groups, such as youth groups, to inform and motivate; it may be addressed at the local level, to inform and mobilise support and involvement, and also at a higher strategic level – to generate political support and appeal for resources (UN-Habitat, 2007, p68).

In order to have maximum impact, messages about your safe city initiative should be targeted at specific audiences. Key messages form the basis of your external communications strategy and all communications from the partnerships and stakeholders should be consistent with these key messages (UN-Habitat, 2007, p68).

When identifying key audiences and messages, the following are helpful tips:

(1) be clear about who your audience is and how you will be varying your messages to reach out to the different audiences

(2) the better you understand the audience, the better you will be able to communicate with them. Community consultations can help in this process

(3) identify which audiences trust which role players. Messages to specific audiences should seem to be coming from the partnership as a whole with reference to or mention of the partner organizations that the target audience trusts. This will improve the reception of your message by the target audience

(4) your audit and action plans will have identified your main target audiences

(5) community groups, residents associations and neighbourhood committees can be consulted to suggest the most effective way of reaching your key audiences

Source: UN-Habitat, 2007, p68-9

Context affects how people hear messages. This adds another challenge to your external communication strategy – you have to make sure the initiative is presented in such a manner that people will truly hear and understand the message. The most common channels for external communications are: local media (both print and broadcast); direct marketing materials (posters, leaflets, pens, stickers, banners, etc); notice boards; newsletters; websites; telephone (calls and text messaging); presentations at community events, concerts, etc; word of mouth: a very powerful marketing tool. To make the most of this tool it is important to harness community contacts and networks; specific workshops and meetings with strategic and political championship (UN-Habitat, 2007, p69).

NOTE: It is not enough to simply create a poster or a pamphlet about your initiative. You should focus on communicating you message effectively. An effective message is seen or heard by its intended audience; easy to understand; meaningful to the person who is receiving it; and memorable (UNIFEM, 2009a).

It is important to remember that each of your key audiences will respond differently to different channels. It is important to find a good match between the two. Use a variety of channels and ensure that messages via each channel are designed to reinforce each other. One way to do that is to use someone in the community that can be considered an “agent of change” – someone a specific audience in the community trusts and will listen to. Involve this person in the partnership, particularly in information and communication actions (UN-Habitat, 2007, p69).

Tool – Communications strategy template

Case Study – Cambodia Women’s Development Agency (CWDA)

Case Study – JAGORI

Case Study – Yumi Lukautim Mosbi Projek (YLM)

Photograph of some of the efforts during the women’s safety audit in Delhi (Viswanath, 2010)

[[PAGE 1b]]

Top Tips

· A communication and information exchange strategy is a plan that shares the successes and setbacks that your initiative faces over the course of its implementation to the partners and other stakeholders

· In your communication and information strategy you need to consider what should be communicated and to whom

· Tools for internal communication may include newsletters, website, regular meetings, notice boards, etc

· When you communicate to your external stakeholders you must consider how the context affects how people hear the message. Channels for communication include local media, direct marketing materials, notice boards, newsletters, community events, etc

[[PAGE 1b]]

Tool – Communications strategy template (IDRC & SDC, 2008)

1. Review: How have we been communicating in the past?

2. Objectives: What do we want our communications to achieve? Are our objectives SMART?

3. Audience: Who is our audience? What information do they need to act upon our work?

4. Message: What is our message? Do we have a message for multiple audiences or multiple messages for multiple audiences?

5. Basket: what kinds of communications “products” will best capture and deliver our messages?

6. Channels: How will we promote and disseminate our products? What channels will we use?

7. Resources: What kind of budget do we have for this? Will this change in the future? What communications hardware and skills do we have?

8. Timing: What is our timeline? Would a staged strategy be the most appropriate? What special events or opportunities might arise? Does the work of like-minded organizations present possible opportunities?

9. Brand: Are all the communications products “on brand”? How can we ensure that we are broadcasting the right message?

10. Feedback: Did our communications influence our audience? How can we assess whether we used the right tools were on budget and one time and had any influence?

[[PAGE 1a]]

Module 5 - Monitoring and evaluating success

The ultimate goal of any local crime-prevention program is to make a positive impact on some aspect of the urban experience – to make the city safer for people to work, travel, recreate, shop, and socialize. We all want our programs to be successful at their objectives – whether those objectives are to empower women, eliminate human trafficking, improve the lives of street children, mobilize the urban poor to participate in politics and governance, or provide shelters to victims of domestic violence. The question is, how do we know that the work we are doing day-to-day is achieving the objectives we set out to achieve? And as a corollary, how do we know whether we could be using our resources more effectively?

Often, when a community group or local government implements a program, the benefits of a program are apparent to those working on its day-to-day implementation. A caseworker at the Blue Dragon Foundation in Hanoi, for example, may be qualitatively aware that their program improves the well-being of street children. Likewise, a community organizer with the Cambodian Women’s Development Agency may have a thorough knowledge of the agency’s activities, and therefore an anecdotal understanding of the foundation’s effectiveness in providing vocational training for disadvantaged young women. However, as many people working in even small organizations observe, it is often difficult to understand the impacts an organization has if one does not make a concerted effort to step back and take an objective look at the program outcomes. But in order to effectively use program resources to maximize benefits to the affected population, it is critical that we understand whether our program is succeeding or failing, and where we can take measures to improve service delivery.

This is where monitoring and evaluation (M&E) is useful. The following sections define M&E, describe the process of monitoring and evaluating, and provide useful tools to agencies that are trying to integrate M&E into their programs.

[[PAGE 1b]]

Understanding M&E

Let’s start with evaluation, as it is the simpler of the two concepts to understand. Evaluation is the process by which we analyse whether our program has been effective. For programs of finite duration, evaluation is typically a one-time process that happens at the completion of the program’s activities. For programs that run in perpetuity (over the long term), evaluation should happen far enough along in the implementation that the impacts of the program can be measured. An evaluation examines the program’s outputs, impacts, and success at meeting its objectives. The audience for evaluations is broad, and include policy makers, academics, and program leadership. Evaluations are useful in designing and modifying policy, developing follow-on programs, and tailoring public services to meet community needs.

In contrast to evaluation, monitoring is a process of evaluation that should occur over the duration of the program implementation. Monitoring, then, is really a set of intermediate evaluations designed to provide ongoing feedback about the program’s successes, failures, and needs. As discussed above, if our main goal is to use our resources optimally to achieve the most services, a successful monitoring program can help us to realize that goal by illuminating places where there is a need for improvement.

In many organizations, monitoring activities are conducted by agency staff, and the outputs (reports, presentations, etc.) are intended for internal use. Sometimes the monitoring may be conducted by individuals outside the partnership which may include research assistants that provide the benefit of an outside examination. This is in contrast to evaluations, whose benefit it is to share the program’s lessons with the policy community at large.

Together, the activities surrounding monitoring and evaluation make up an M&E program.

[[PAGE 1b]]

Why is M&E important

If I am already fairly sure that my organization is doing good work, why do I need to go to the trouble of committing time and human resources to evaluating my program? The fact of the matter is that, no matter how well-intentioned, all organizations are run by people. It is possible that individuals in an organization can lose sight of the program’s original aims as they get more involved in their daily activities. That is, implementation failure – or, the failure of a program to achieve its purpose – can easily happen in an organization, no matter how diligent and well-meaning the project staff are.

Evaluation, then, assists us in understanding whether our program has had the desired effect, and if not, to identify the reason why the program did not meet expectations. If the findings from an evaluation are circulated among actors in the partnership, they can also be useful for expanding the type of service delivery that our organization has begun. Disseminating the findings from an evaluation study can help other organizations to model their programs after successful cases, or to avoid the pitfalls that have befallen other implementations.

In contrast to evaluation, which gives an assessment of the success of a program after it is completed, monitoring tells us during program implementation whether the program is staying on-track to meet its objectives. Some of the benefits of monitoring are:

· Monitoring can help us to identify implementation failures early, so we can learn from our mistakes

· Conversely, monitoring can help us to identify the effective aspects of the program, so that those aspects can be built upon

· Monitoring gives us continuous feedback about whether the program implementations are aligned with the overall program goals.

· Mitigate the counterproductive effects of unforeseen impacts

· Identifying the successes and failures of the implementation can help us to succeed at our ultimate objective, which is to effectively target program resources and improve service delivery.

Governments and funders must often justify the existence of their program. Providing measured indications of our program’s success can help us to convince funding agencies that the program is worthy of continued funding. If we plan M&E activities from the beginning of the program, then our evaluations are likely to be better-designed, and thus the findings are more likely to reflect the benefits and successes of the program. Conversely, identifying implementation failures related to resources, for example, could convince funders to expand support for the program.

Monitoring and evaluation is important for the beneficiaries of the initiative as it communicates to vulnerable groups the changes, efforts and indeed the improvements made towards a particular problem.

Photograph of a park in Phnom Penh – the improvement of public spaces in Phnom Penh has engaged youth in extra-curriculum activities (Kim & Kol, 2010).

[[PAGE 1b]]

Why isn’t M&E done?

Despite the various justifications for implementing an M&E program, most community organizations, NGOs, and local governments do not do program monitoring and evaluation. Some of the common reasons why M&E is not undertaken as part of a program implementation include the experience, M & E can be difficult, or you may not link the findings emerging from the evaluation.

M&E is expensive. M&E costs staff resources and time. Often, for an organization just starting out and trying to implement a program with limited staffing and resources, evaluation of the program is low on the list of priorities. Often, the leadership in these groups feel that the work they are doing is too important, and they do not wish to detract from their core purpose by spending time and money on M&E. Hopefully, however, we have demonstrated in the previous section why M&E is useful and beneficial to the core mission of a program. Community organizations and local governments that originate programs to assist with crime prevention will ultimately find that their operations are improved, and that their service delivery is better, when M&E is part of the program.

M&E is difficult. Often, developing M&E programs require specialized knowledge on data collection and analysis. The organization may not have this expertise on-site, and may have to seek that expertise elsewhere. Often, universities are good partner institutions. They can help a small grassroots organization access grant funding to fund its M&E, and particularly for the evaluation component. They can provide the necessary expertise, often from highly-qualified staff, at low-to-no cost. Try to make contact with relevant university researchers and academic staff early in the process of designing an M&E strategy. University staff also have established methods for disseminating research findings, so they can help us to share the findings from the evaluations with the broader crime-prevention community.

We may not like the findings. It may be the case that an organization is not happy with the findings of M&E activities As discussed above, there may be unintended consequences of the program, or the program may not have achieved its goals. It is true that monitoring and evaluation could reveal some failures and need for improvement. However, this is why monitoring is critical: so that any implementation failures can be addressed before the program is completed. If we do not know we are failing, there is no way to correct course. With a good M&E program, we can correct failures early. This will help the organization to achieve its core mission: improved community crime-prevention and better service delivery.

[[PAGE 1b]]

Develop a Timeline of M&E Deliverables

There are several commonly-used deliverables for monitoring and evaluation. Timing and contents for each of the following components should be developed at the beginning of the program implementation:

Annual reports. An annual report is a yearly update on the progress of the program, and looks specifically at whether the program is achieving its objectives (inasmuch as this can be analysed at the time of the annual report). The annual report should contain sections that:

A. Report on process-based indicators

B. Identify implementation failures by examining process indicators

C. Propose strategies for dealing with process-related implementation failures

D. Gather data to construct outcome-based indicators

E. Construct and analyze outcome-based indicators

F. Report on whether the program is meeting its objectives

G. Identify implementation failures based on outcome-based objectives

H. Propose strategies for improving outcomes

I. Track budget used so far and additional budget remaining.

It must be noted that in cases where external funding is provided by a donor organization it is likely that a template is provided for the annual report.

Mid-term report. The mid-term report is similar to the annual report, but is typically delivered at the halfway point of program implementation.

Final evaluation. For finite-term programs (those lasting a short and fixed duration), the final evaluation can happen at the end of the program. For programs of a longer and indefinite duration, evaluations can be ongoing during the implementation. Whatever the program duration, it is important to time the final evaluation such that reasonable time has been allowed for the outcomes of the program to mature, i.e., sufficient time has passed such that the effectiveness of the program can be accurately measured.

[[PAGE 1b]]

Committing Staff and Resources

Committing to a process of M&E will require staff time and program resources to be dedicated to monitoring and evaluation activities. Staff time and sufficient budget should be scheduled for the following activities:

1) Collecting appropriate data to evaluate indicators

2) Preparing required reports

3) Make plans to modify program activities in response to problems identified by monitoring activities

4) Coordinate with university partners for data collection and evaluation

In addition to allowing sufficient time, a division of labor should be outlined in the planning phases. If university partners or other outside assistance will be engaged for the final evaluation, this should be specified and partnerships developed early so that data can be gathered throughout the program implementation.

For the monitoring components, the responsibilities of internal staff should be explicitly noted. In particular, M&E planning should provide a framework to address the following questions:

How will implementation failures be identified? In general, implementation failures can be identified by comparing achievements to targets using the pre-specified indicators. If there is a mismatch between the target objectives and actual achievements, then it is possible that there has been an implementation failure.

If there are unintended consequences (whether positive or negative) these might be the result of spill over effects on other areas either directly or indirectly linked to the under examination.

Who will decide what action is needed? Once implementation failures have been identified, the organization should respond appropriately. Hopefully, this will mean minor adjustments to the current program implementation. Whether the changes are foundational or minor, however, the organization should have a strategy for determining a course of action for this contingency. Generally, a committee would be convened that recommends alternative courses of action and then chooses the best of these options.

Case Study – The Society for the Promotion of Area Resource Centre (SPARC)

[[PAGE 1b]]

Top Tips

· Evaluation is the process by which we analyse whether our program has been effective

· An evaluation examines the program’s outputs, impacts and success at meeting its objective

· Monitoring is a process of evaluation that should occur over the duration of the program implementation, providing a set of intermediate evaluations designed to provide ongoing feedback about the program’s success, failures and needs through annual reports

· Design monitoring and evaluation activities into the project from the beginning of the program

[[PAGE 1b]]

Tool - Results Framework

Source: UNIFEM RBM Curriculum: Module 3a & 3b: The Results Chain in UNIFEM, 2010

[[Page 1b]]

Tool - Impact Levels , Strategic Results

Sources: UNIFEM, 2009b, p15

Strategic Results

Outcome

Output

[[PAGE 1a]]

Module 6 - Institutionalizing Safe City Initiatives

Sometimes after establishing the partnership, diagnosing the problem, writing the Action plan and monitoring and evaluating the progress of your safe city initiative, the difficult task is then to institutionalize the program. Module 6 discusses what it means to institutionalize a safe city initiative, how to tell when institutionalization ahs occurred.

Defining institutionalization

How to tell when institutionalization has occurred

Why Institutionalization Occurred

Top Tips

[[PAGE 1b]]

Defining Institutionalization

Safe City initiatives may be successful if they last only a year or two, leaving behind a legacy of improved community capacity, innovative programmes, entrenched protocols and policies, and a sense of hope. In most cases, however, it takes several iterations or cycles of Safe City processes to get it right.

Ultimately, all of the efforts put into partnership building, diagnosis, strategy development, implementation and monitoring/evaluation needs to lead to ongoing and sustainable changes. This sustainability can only be achieved if changes are institutionalized.

Institutionalization means integrating the Safe City initiative into the policies, programs, and core functions of the local authority. It means that crime and violence prevention are an ongoing part of policy-making, planning, budgeting, and monitoring. A product of that institutionalization is mainstreaming: where ideas, attitudes and behaviours that take crime and violence prevention into account are everyday practices for both local authorities and other partners.

[[PAGE 1b]]

How to Tell when Institutionalization Has Occurred

There are a number of ways to measure institutionalization:

· The overall local authority strategy prioritizes a Safe City, with clear frameworks for action and monitoring measures

· Policies and practices reflect recommendations of the Safe City initiative: eg., all new developments are reviewed for safety concerns; any new slum improvement program utilizes Women’s Safety Audits in decisions on infrastructure improvements

· Budget priorities reflect preventing crime and violence. These may not be efforts directly labelled as ‘crime and violence prevention’, but maternal and child health, support for young men and women to stay in school and/or find employment, good physical and social infrastructure in low-income communities, policies to support women’s financial independence and leadership, and good health and social support agencies would all be signs of institutionalization of Safe City principles

· Your strategy does not change when the Mayor or majority political party changes: most successful political candidates champion Safe City initiatives

· There is an increasing public understanding of Safe City initiatives

· Violence and crime is being reduced

· Other cities are citing you as a best practice!

Case Study – Thimphu City Council

Case Study - COMultiversity

[[PAGE 1b]]

Why Institutionalization Occurs

A sense by the organizations involved that their voices are being heard and that the needs of ‘their’ communities are met can maintain commitment. Building capacities of organizations, individuals and the initiative itself is important as the mandate grows and evolves. Having a solid structure to the initiative, a history of good meetings and minute-taking, good communications channels and trust that is built up over the long term are all essential to long-term sustainability.

While more extensive forms of evaluation are important to the sustainability of an initiative, the most essential form of evaluation is learning what works, what does not and what is promising within the unique circumstances of any place. Annual reports, or at least a regular overview of the progress of recommendations, are important chances to build on strategies that are working, and examine why some strategies are stalling. It is useful to have a regular ‘stop and assess’ process (every three years) that allows changes in the strategy as new problems and opportunities develop.

Sustainability of initiatives involves learning – from one another, from what has worked and what has not; but it also involves ‘unlearning’. Traditional approaches based in oppositional and competitive relations between organizations and governments, top-down hierarchies and needs-based thinking are all approaches that stand in the way of creative solutions (Landry, 2000). More than time and more than money, the process of community safety requires a commitment to openness: to including new organizations, new ideas and new ways of thinking to solve the entrenched problems of violence and insecurity.

[[PAGE 1b]]

Top Tips

· Institutionalization requires strong partnerships, so that it ultimately becomes politically disastrous if the Safe City initiative fails

· Political support from more than one party or faction, with champions drawn from a number of sectors and political stances

· Constant use of media to publicize the initiative and its successes

Additional Tools

City of Ottawa & CAWI 2010, Equity and Inclusion Lens: A User’s Guide, City for All Women Initiative, Ottawa, access 17 August 2010 <http://www.cawi-ivtf.org/pdf/EI-Lens/E_I_Lens_User_Guide-E.pdf>

City of Ottawa & CAWI 2008, Gender Equity Lens: Promoting Equality and Inclusion for the full diversity of women in the City of Ottawa, City for All Women Initiative, Ottawa, assess 17 August 2010 <http://www.cawi-ivtf.org/pdf/GenderEqualityLensGuide-08-en.pdf>

Gage, A Dunn, M 2010, Module II – Monitoring and Evaluating Gender-based Violence Prevention and Mitigation Programs: A Facilitator’s Training Guide, U.S. Agency for International Development (UNSAID) and Interagency Gender Working Group

PB Works n.d., Heart and Soul Storytelling Workshop, accessed 20 July 2010 <http://heartandsoulstories.pbworks.com/Exercise-One%3A--Object-Stories> AND <http://heartandsoulstories.pbworks.com/Biddeford%2C-Maine-Storytelling-Overview-Workshop>

UN-Habitat 2008, Gender in Local Government: A Sourcebook for Trainers, United Nations Human Settlements Programme

UN-Habitat & Huairou Commission 2004, Local to Local Dialogue: A Grassroots Women’s Perspective on Good Governance, United Nations Human Settlements Programme

References

Ahmed, KI 2007, Urban Poor Housing in Bangladesh and Potential Role of ACHR (policy paper), Asian Coalition of Housing Rights (ACHR), Bangkok

Ahmed, KI 2010, Urban Safety for the Poor: The Case of Dhaka, Bangladesh, Global Cities Research Institute Report, Melbourne

Asian Development Bank (ADB) 1998, Governance in Asia: From Crisis to Opportunity. From the keynote address of Anand Panyarachun, former Prime Minister of Thailand, at the United Nations Development Programme Regional Workshop on Integrity in Governance in Asia, Bangkok, June 1998.

Banks, N 2008, “A Tale of Two Wards: Political Participation and the Urban Poor in Dhaka City”, Environment and Urbanization, vol. 20, no. 2

Buenaventura, G 2010, Urban Poor Safety: The Marikina Experience, presentation at “CITYNET: Putting Safety First for the Urban Poor on the Local Agenda, Workshop 15-17 June 2010, Marikina, Philippines

Blue Dragon Foundation 2009, Blue Dragon Children’s Foundation, access June 8 2010, <www.streetkidsinvietnam.com>

CSIR & ISS 2000, Making South Africa Safe: A Manual for Community based Crime Prevention, SCIR

Department of Human Services n.d., Designing an Effective Communications Strategy (Presentation), Government of Victoria

Doerge, S Burke, B 2005, Starting with Women’s Lives Changing Today’s Economy: A facilitator’s guide to a visual workshop methodology (second edition), Canadian Labour Congress, Ottawa

Garrett, J & Ahmed, A 2004, “Incorporating crime in household surveys: A research note”, Environment and Urbanization, vol. 16, no. 1, pp139-152

Golub, AD 2003, Welfare Analysis of Informal Transit Services in Brazil and the Effects of Regulation. Civil and Environmental Engineering. Berkeley, University of California, Berkeley. PhD.

Health and Safety Executive n.d., How to Organise and Run Focus Groups, access 23 July 2010, <http://www.hse.gov.uk/stress/standards/pdfs/focusgroups.pdf>

Holtmann, B & CSIR 2010, A Toolkit for the Future: Building Sustainable Capacity for a Safe South Africa at Local Level, May 2010, accessed 28 July 2010, <http://www.csir.co.za/publications/pdfs/Safe_communities.pdf>

IDRC 2008, “Chapter 6: Designing a Communications Strategy in the RM”, in The Knowledge Translation Toolkit: A Resource for Researchers, Research Matters, International Development Research Centre, Ottawa

Jagori 2007, Is this my City? Women’s Safety in Public Spaces in Delhi, Jagori, Delhi

Jourdan, C 2008, Youth and Mental Health in Soloman Islands: A Situational Analysis. Foundation of the South Pacific International: Suva.

Kim, S Kol, L 2010, Improving Public Spaces in Phnom Penh, presentation at “CITYNET: Putting Safety First for the Urban Poor on the Local Agenda, Workshop 15-17 June 2010, Marikina, Philippines

Kretzmann, J & McKnight J 1993, Building Communities from the Bottom Up: A path towards finding and mobilizing a community’s resources, ACTA Publications, Chicago

Krug, EG, Dahlberg, LL, Mercy, JA, Zwi, AB & Lozano, R (Eds) 2002, World Report on Violence and Health, World Health Organization, Geneva

Landry, C 2000, The Creativ City: A Toolkit for Urban Innovators, Earthscan, London

Macmillan, R & Kruttschnitt, C 2005, Patterns of Violence Against Women: Risk Factors and Consequences. National Institute of Justice Grant # 2002-IJ-CX-0011.

Mehrotra, Firoza 2007, Tools for Gender Budgeting, UNIFEM, 31 May Presentation

National Research Institute 2006, Port Moresby Community Crime Survey, 2005. Special publication no. 40. National Research Institute and Justice Advisory Group: Port Moresby.

The Observers 2010, “Violence in Italy: “Unemployment to Blame, Not racism”, viewed 05 June 2010 <http://observers.france24.com/en/content/20100111-rosarno-clashes-unemployment-blame-not-racism>

PDAP 2009, Annual Report, Participatory Development Action Program, Dhaka

Putnam, RD 1994, Making Democracy Work, Princeton University Press, Princeton

Rosenbaum, D (2002), “Evaluating multi-agency crime partnerships: Theory, design and measurement issues”, Crime Prevention Studies, vol. 14, pp171-225

Roy, AN 2010, Slum Police Panchayat: An Innovative Concept of Community Policing in Slums, presentation at “CITYNET: Putting Safety First for the Urban Poor on the Local Agenda, Workshop 15-17 June 2010, Marikina, Philippines

Sharma, M 2009, “Recession-Related Domestic Violence on the Rise”, Global Envision, viewed 05 June 2010, <http://www.globalenvision.org/2009/03/26/recession-related-violence-rise>

Shaw, M 2001, The Role of Local Government in Community Safety, International Centre for the Prevention of Crime, Montreal

Sherman, L, Gottfredson, D, MacKenzie, D, Eck, J, Reuter, P & Bushway, S 1997, Preventing Crime: what works, what doesn’t, what is promising. Washington: report to the United States Congress prepared by the National Institute of Justice.

Storey, D 2010, Urban Safety and Poverty in Asia and the Pacific: Key findings from the study on urban safety and poverty in Asia and the Pacific, presentation at “CITYNET: Putting Safety First for the Urban Poor on the Local Agenda, Workshop 15-17 June 2010, Marikina, Philippines

TCC, RBP & RENEW 2010, Bhutan, presentation at “CITYNET: Putting Safety First for the Urban Poor on the Local Agenda, Workshop 15-17 June 2010, Marikina, Philippines

Tjandradewi, BI 2010, Workshop Overview, presentation at “CITYNET: Putting Safety First for the Urban Poor on the Local Agenda, Workshop 15-17 June 2010, Marikina, Philippines

UNIFEM 2009a, Guidance Note #1-Designing a Safe City Free of Violence Against Women and Girls for Impact Evaluation Assessment, UNIFEM Evaluation Unit, May 2009, p15

UNIFEM 2009b, Virtual Knowledge Centre to End Violence Against Women and Girls, accessed 24 May 2010, <http://www.endvawnow.org/>

UNIFEM 2010, UNIFEM Global Program Safe Cities Free of Violence against Women and Girls, Curriculum Component on Monitoring and Evaluation, UNIFEM Presentation May 2010

UN-Habitat 2007, Making Cities Safer from Crime – A Toolkit, United Nations Human Settlements Programme, Kenya

UN-Habitat & UNESCAP 2009, Urban Safety and Poverty in Asia and the Pacific: Key findings from sub-Asia, South East Asia and the Pacific, UN-Habitat & UNESCAP, Kenya

Viswanath, K 2010, Findings from Women’s Safety Audits in Delhi, presentation at “CITYNET: Putting Safety First for the Urban Poor on the Local Agenda, Workshop 15-17 June 2010, Marikina, Philippines

WICI 2007, Building Community-based Partnerships for Local Action on Women’s Safety, Women in Cities International, Montreal

WICI & JAGORI 2010, Policy/Program Review Framework, Women in Cities International and Jagori, Montreal

Whitzman, C & Hayes, P 2006, “The GLOVE Project: Gender, Violence Prevention, and Local Governance in Victoria, Australia”, Sixth Annual Colloquium on Crime Prevention ‘Communities in Action for Crime Prevention’ International Centre for the Prevention of Crime/ Australian Institute of Criminology September 15, 2006.

Whitzman, C 2008, The Handbook of Community Safety, Gender and Violence Prevention: Practical Planning Tools, Earthscan, London

Whitzman, C, Shaw, M, Andrew, C & Travers, K 2009, “The Effectiveness of Women’s Safety Audits”, Security Journal, vol. 22, pp205-218

World Bank 2007, Dhaka: Improving Living Conditions for the Urban Poor, World Bank office, Dhaka

WHO 2004, Handbook for the documentation of interpersonal violence prevention programs, World Health Organization, Geneva

WHO 2005, WHO Multi-country Study on Women’s Health and Domestic Violence Against Women, World Health Organization, Geneva

Yuen, B & Kong, L 2008, “Urban Safety for the Poor in South-east Asia: Sub-regional Report.” (Draft) Regional Study prepared for UN-HABITAT and UN-ESCAP Study on Urban Safety for the Poor in Asia and the Pacific.

Intervention	Evaluation of programme from outset?	Design of evaluation	Process measures	Outcome measures	Major findings	Time period of evaluation	Cost-effectiveness (give details)
e.g. night time lighting in city square	Yes	2 indicators (increased use of space, perception of safety)- short and medium term benchmarks	Safety audit was undertaken, and focus groups with women who work in the adjacent industry	5 new night lamps have been installed	Increase use by women transiting home after work – increased perception of safety	6 months	Safety audit cost - (??) Focus group – (no cost) Light fixtures – (??)

Background to the Urban Safety Toolkit

PART I - Violence and insecurity in the Asia-Pacific

Violence and insecurity in cities

What factors lead to violence?

What factors lead to victimization?

What factors lead to feelings of insecurity?

How does governance affect violence and insecurity?

Governance challenges in the Asia-Pacific Region

Safe City Approach

PART II - The Urban Safety Toolkit

Module 1 - Creating Partnerships for Safer Cities

Module 2 - Understanding the Safety Problems: the Local Diagnosis

Module 3 - Developing the Action Plan

Module 4 - Implementing the initiative

Module 5 - Monitoring and evaluating success

Module 6 - Institutionalizing Safe City Initiatives

Additional Tools

References