Neighbourhood Profile (Wijkprofiel) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Transcription

1 Neighbourhood Profile (Wijkprofiel) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Type of tool Integral monitor composed of three elements: Safety Index, Social Index and Physical Index. The Safety Index specifically combines official police records with survey data. Territory The whole city of Rotterdam, i.e. 14 districts and 71 neighbourhoods Country: The Netherlands Duration/time line The neighbourhood profile is published bi-annually. The survey is conducted in the spring (4 months) and fall (3 months). The latest results of the neighbourhood profile are published in the winter. Keywords Index, Monitor, Flagging tool, Integral Background Safety is an important prerequisite for promoting an attractive city in which residents and visitors can feel welcome, at home and secure. The municipality of Rotterdam works with its partners, residents and businesses to maintain a general level of safety and increase it where necessary. In order to identify which neighbourhoods need increased level of safety, it is necessary to use a monitor. At the national level, the degree of safety is measured by a large-scale survey distributed per each police region and city. These results are used for benchmarking, which in turn provides useful insight into how Rotterdam scores in comparison to other similar cities. To monitor safety at the local level, the municipality of Rotterdam uses a large-scale safety survey distributed to residents (15,000 respondents online and by phone). The results are processed into the Safety Index. Used as a separate tool for many years, the Safety Index became part of the newly developed integral tool, Wijkprofiel (neighbourhood profile), in 2014.

2 Purpose Between 2002 and 2014, the municipality of Rotterdam monitored its neighbourhoods and overall safety situation using the Safety Index, which was the only one of its kind back in Previously, data from different sources registration and survey data had never been collated into a single statistic for each neighbourhood. The single figure, gave a snapshot, or barometer, of the security situation. The Safety Index included data from police records, reported neighbourhood concerns and victimisation, as well as neighbourhood characteristics such as property value and the number of people moving house. The Safety Index could also be used to compare neighbourhoods over time. The introduction and use of the Safety Index was simple but it also had disadvantages. An index score between 1 and 10 was given to the neighbourhoods, districts, and to Rotterdam as a whole. In addition to this overall score, specific scores were also calculated per topic, e.g. burglary or violence. The scores were therefore able to both identify the neighbourhoods with problems and pinpoint the biggest issue(s) posed in these areas. Each score was also assigned a colour based on the traffic light model (from dark green to dark red). A combination of figures and colours clearly showed which neighbourhoods were considered safe (dark green) or unsafe (dark red). Although using the traffic light colours is a simple method, it can be considered stigmatising, which it is to some extent. For example, the neighbourhoods labelled as unsafe with dark red were negatively portrayed as the least safe ones. A bad reputation in terms of safety can, among other things, result in concerns and a lower level of satisfaction among residents about their living environment. However, the lowest scoring neighbourhoods benefited from additional attention and financial resources, meaning that residents often did not mind being given a poor score because it resulted in additional resources for their neighbourhood. A safe neighbourhood implies that there are no pressing issues to deal with, resulting in less attention paid to them. As the traffic light model could be perceived as stigmatising, it was decided to use a more 'moderate' version in the neighbourhood profile. The colours used now range from dark yellow to dark green, which maintains the flagging effect but reduces the stigmatisation aspect (see illustration below). Additionally, the neighbourhood profile will not use a scoring system between 1 and 10, but rather give a score below or above the Rotterdam average (average = 100). A score between 1 and 10 was often wrongly interpreted, resulting in the mislabelling of neighbourhoods as safe or inadequate. The new index score system in the neighbourhood profile decreases the chance of this happening. Over the years, the importance of an integral approach of safety issues and with it an integral monitor has become increasingly clear. It is not possible to resolve security issues by just focusing on safety, and it is important to also take into account the social and physical aspects. This is why the new integral tool neighbourhood profile was developed and introduced in 2014.

3 Methods and Tools for a Strategic Approachh to Urban Security Tool description The neighbourhood profile is composedd of three aspects: Social, Physical and Safety. Each aspect encompasses different themes consisting of objective and subjective counterparts: 1 Social aspect: Capabilities, Livingg environment, Participation and Connection Physical aspect: Property, Public space, Facilities and Environmentt 2 Safety aspect: Theft, Violence, Burglary, Vandalism and Nuisance 3 Each theme also includes a general concept, whichh for example in the Safety aspect of the profile is named perceived safety 4. The Objective Index consists of all the objective aspects of each theme, and the Subjective Indexx is comprised of all the t subjective aspects of each theme. This is a major difference compared with the previous version of the Safety Index, which differentiated between objective and subjective scores only o at an indicator level. This meant there was less insightt into changes in the subjective perception n and discrepancies between objective and subjective safety. The new neighbourh ood profile clearly defines the distinction between objective and subjective 5. Illustration: Neighbourhood profile Themes translated to Dutch: Capaciteiten, Leefomgeving, Meedoen, Binding 2 Themes translated to Dutch: Vastgoed, Openbare Ruimte, Voorzieningen, Milieu 3 Themes translated to Dutch: Diefstal, Geweld, Inbraak, Vandalisme, Overlast 4 Perceived safety is defined in the neighbourhood profile as: avoidance behaviour, thee perceived likellihood of yourself or someone else within the household beingg a victim, and satisfaction with your own neighbourhood 5 The illustration on page 3 shows this discrepancy with respect to the theme t Nuisancee (Overlast) within the Safety aspect. The dark yellow colour shows that residents in this neighbourhood experience a much higher than averagee level of nuisance (compared with the rest of Rotterdam). However, the light green colour indicates that the number of recorded incidents in this neighbourhood is lower than average; yet the reverse also occurs, as seen in the theme Vandalism. The number of recorded incidents in the neighbourhood may be higher h than average, but the residents do not experience e it as such. The illustration also shows that the general perceived safety among residents of this neighbourhood is far worse w than the average for Rotterdam, although this is not clearly expressed in the t subjective Safety ring. Of the 5 subjective aspects, 3 are even green. Efus All rights reserved

4 Methods and Tools for a Strategic Approachh to Urban Security Tool description Target group The neighbourhood profile is designed too give businesses and residents an insight into their own neighbourhoods, to help policy-makers design knowledge-based policies, and to give city officials insights into accountability and steering. Implementation/activities The neighbourhood profile is a key tool for implementing a knowledge-based approach. Similarly to the Safety Index, it i is a flagging tool. If compared too a thermometer, we could say it indicates which neighbourhood has a fever, but it does not give the cause of the fever or the right medicinee to solve it. The symptoms need further study s and clarification: at the neighbourhood level, the scores are discussed with partners, residents and entrepreneurs. All the information gathered is then used to prioritise and determine the type of action needed. To improve the security levels in neighbourhoods, the municipality of Rotterdam uses several tools: for example, the Steering Committee in the neighbourhood or the allocation of a 'stadsmarinier (city marines) to problematic neighbourhoods. The Steering Committee (mayor, chief of police, chief public prosecutorr and a number of aldermen) is specifically assigned to address the neighbourh oods that score poorly in the Safety Index. The Steering Committee meets with the residents and professionals in the neighbourhood to discuss the problems and stagnating processes, with the objective of resolving them. If implementation comes to a halt and resultss fail to be achieved, residents and professionalss can bring this to the committee's attention in order to address responsibilities and form new agreements. It also narrows the gap between city officials and the neighbourhood. Residents know how to contact city officials and get an immediate response to their problem. They feel heard and they see that problems p are being addressed. In addition, the city officials car get first-hand information on what is going on in the neighbourhood they get direct access too the storiess behind thee figures. Stadsmariniers are city officials taskedd (by mandate of the municipal government) with increasing safety in neighbourhoods. To achieve their goal, stadsmariniers can overcome bureaucratic barriers; they have their own budget and can use every tool at their disposal, working of course closely with their partners. If they fail to increase their neighbourhood s security, they are held accountable by the Council. This is because the neighbourhoods are granted additional attention by the administration. Specific targets are also added, and any Efus All rights reserved

5 progress within the neighbourhood profile must be reported before the end of the mayoral term. However, this also raises concerns regarding the intention of the tool. Although conceived as a flagging tool, it is often used in practice as a management tool and as a means of accountability. But using it this way can have perverse effects: improving the score becomes the aim, rather than improving the situation in the neighbourhoods. Governance/management The municipality of Rotterdam is the owner and promoter of the tool. The different departments are responsible for the implementation: for instance, the Department of Public Safety is responsible for the implementation of the Safety Index. The Chief of Police, the Chief Public Prosecutor, residents and businesses are also involved. How is the partnership organised? The mayor, chief of police and the chief public prosecutor are part of the safety triangle, which is an official authority that takes decisions on local safety matters. To interpret the results of the neighbourhood profile, it is important to talk to residents and businesses in the neighbourhoods. This can be done by qualitative research but also by having policy-makers going to on site to meet residents. Resources To create a Safety Index or a Neighbourhood Profile the following elements are necessary: a budget, to conduct the survey resources, to conduct the survey (or commission a research company) statistical knowledge to calculate an index IT knowledge to create an online publication commitment from local administrators and partners Expected outcome/results The Safety Index and the neighbourhood profile are part of a knowledge-based policy and the results are incorporated into the policy advisors' daily work. They have used the Safety Index for over a decade. The monitor is used at a strategic level as well. The various topics in the neighbourhood profile are granted a great deal of administrative and political attention. In recent years, it has become apparent that although Rotterdam is objectively becoming increasingly safer, this is not always reflected in the attitudes of residents. The explicit distinction between objective and subjective in the neighbourhood profile makes this discrepancy even more evident. To gain insight into this phenomenon and how perceived safety can be boosted, the Council authorised a proposal to launch a broad consultation, involving other large cities if possible, and to report on this in a number of specific recommendations. Awareness of the

6 importance of perceived safety has been raised and is incorporated into the daily activities of policy-makers and administrators. Evaluation The Rotterdam Safety Index was created in 2002 and has since been the subject of numerous studies. Recently, the Erasmus University Rotterdam carried out quantitative analyses of data from the neighbourhood profile, with the aim of identifying which factors (themes) from the neighbourhood profile are related to feelings of insecurity. This increased the understanding of the tool (how the different themes are related to one another) and of the phenomenon of discrepancies between objective and subjective safety. Strengths and weaknesses An effective safety policy requires an integral approach. An integral flagging tool such as the neighbourhood profile helps to give the policy direction and a solid basis, as well as allowing integral analyses. The tool is able to explicitly distinguish between the objective and subjective scores, giving insight into how these scores have been developed and thus shedding light on their discrepancies. Perspectives/comments Perceived safety does not necessarily coincide with the actual situation that has been recorded. Statistical analyses by the Erasmus University Rotterdam show that perceived safety is influenced by a number of factors, not just as regards safety but also in terms of the social and physical situation. Focusing the approach purely on a safety perspective is restrictive. Moreover, full commitment to a social or physical element without taking into account the safety aspect may equally have a negative effect on the perception of safety. A quantitative monitor shows only a limited side to the story. In order to interpret the results, it is important to talk to residents. This gives the story behind the figures, thus clarifying the issue and its context. By examining quantitative and qualitative data, you can get the most complete picture possible. This facilitates better coordination of the policy and of its potential positive and negative consequences. Focusing purely on reducing the number of incidents can inadvertently worsen perceptions of safety. The analyses also explain that feeling unsafe is only partially explained by the statistical data, and that much of it cannot in fact be explained by the available data. To get to the story behind the figures, and to gain better insight into the unexplained aspects, qualitative research has been conducted. It notably revealed that feeling unsafe is influenced not so much by negative experiences as by the image portrayed by the media and what is being said in the neighbourhoods. Not only does this create a negative reputation of certain parts of the city, it also increases the risk of specific types of incidents such as high impact crimes (burglary, robbery and mugging) what you see on TV 'could happen to me. The risk of people actually being victim of such crime is relatively low, but because it is exaggerated in

7 Methods and Tools for a Strategic Approachh to Urban Security Tool description the media and neighbourhoods, the riskk is magnified. Our own actions can have a negative effect on perceived safety as well: addressing high impact crimee may be a priority in a certain neighbourhoods, but you need to makee insightful choices ass to how too address this. t For example, it is not advisable to t place signs along the road to bring b people s attention to the issue such as: 'Be careful, close your windows and doors, burglars operating. While this may reduce the number of burglaries (though the effectivenes ss of this is still disputed, and certainly in the long term, more could be done to achieve an internalised change in behaviour), the potential negative effect is that people in fact feel more insecure. Policy, and the communication of this policy, cann have unintentional negative consequences. It is important to always take into account thee perception of safety when w implementing a policy. Further information/referencee document REFERENCE DOCUMENT(S)/ /PUBLICATION(S) WEBSITES: The online tool is available at THIS PRACTICE SHEET WAS UPDATEDD IN: 2016Organisation Efus All rights reserved