Hartcliffe, Bristol, UK Review of Safety and Security in Hartcliffe's Eight High Rise Blocks

Hartcliffe, Bristol, UK Review of safety and security in Hartcliffe's eight high rise blocks

Aerial photo of part of Hartcliffe, showing location of the 8 high rise "study" blocks (identifiable by their "shadows")

Policy context

Despite (or perhaps because of) England's high crime rate, compared with most other European countries, we have one of the more sophisticated policies, partly as a result of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, but also because many local authorities have given priority to community safety for at least the last decade. Although there has been a bias, in England and Wales, towards situational measures, much good work has been done in the area of social development, often for other reasons than pure crime prevention - the Sure Start programme, being a good example of this. Sure Start is (was) a government programme aimed at giving young children and their parents in deprived areas enriched personal, social and health support. Interestingly, Sure Start does not have an explicit crime prevention aim although, as mentioned earlier and evidenced by Farrington(2002) and Homel (2005), such early intervention programmes are at the heart of developmental crime prevention. Hartcliffe has had the benefit of a Sure Start pilot programme, along with many other social and community development initiatives, but the crime prevention intervention focused on here, has had a much more situational bias, as described below.

Hartcliffe lies at the extreme southern fringe of Bristol. It was built in the 1960s as a housing estate for people renting from the municipal council on relatively low incomes. The choice of location was partly as an overflow from inner-city Bristol but was also tied to the construction of a huge tobacco processing factory, constructed at the same time and offering employment to the majority of

1 Hartcliffe's residents. The Factory downsized and finally closed in the 1980s leaving many local residents unemployed, as little, apart from some retail and leisure facilities has come in its place.

The estate has a total population of 11,362 and is a mixture of two storey housing and eight high rise blocks. The original plan was for a low rise estate with extensive community facilities, including a swimming pool. However, under pressure to house more people, the two sites designated for community buildings were subsequently given over to the construction of the eight tower blocks. This, in the view of some commentators was the beginning of Hartcliffe's problems, as it ended up accommodating a much larger than originally anticipated population on a geographically isolated site with very few facilities. Once the main source of employment went, these problems were compounded and Hartcliffe developed a reputation for lawlessness and despair. After initially unsuccessful bids for government regeneration funding, in the 1990s Hartcliffe eventually received substantial resourcing from the "Single Regeneration Budget" which led to the inauguration of the Hartcliffe and Withywood Community Partnership as the main body for channelling regeneration strategies and funding. Numerous other social and physical rehabilitation initiatives have taken place in the area of Hartcliffe over the last ten years (see report in appendix), although this report will concentrate on the effects of improvements (or non-improvements) to the eight high rise residential blocks in Hartcliffe.

Many of the two storey municipal rented houses were sold during the 1980s and 90s under the government's "right to buy" scheme. The eight high rise blocks (accommodating about 500 households between them) were less popular and have remained predominantly under council ownership. They acquired a (justified) reputation for insecurity, crime and drug-dealing. Hartcliffe as a whole is in the highest 10% of British neighbourhoods for multiple deprivation and crime (see

HUwww.bristol-city.gov.uk/statisticsUH ) , with these problems being even more concentrated in the tower blocks. As a result of the varying types of accommodation, Hartcliffe has a very mixed population in terms of age, although, despite the sale of many of the houses, it remains a predominantly "working class" area. It also remains an almost entirely "white" area, with only 2.3% of the population describing themselves as being from a black or minority ethnic (BME) background at the 2001 census. It is likely that this exceptionally low BME population is a result of self selection (BME citizens in Bristol tend to live in the east inner city area), as the city council clearly has no policy of racial segregation. Anecdotal evidence suggests that BME citizens do not feel comfortable living in low income, predominantly white, peripheral estates in Bristol. 13 racist incidents were reported in Hartcliffe in 2005 - a tiny number compared with the total of 2,835 overall incidents of crime and disorder recorded by the authorities, but not so small when considering that only 261 BME residents live on the estate

In the 1990s, the Council undertook a major refurbishment of five of the area's eight tower blocks (Known as the Bishport Fives), whilst two of the remaining blocks were prioritised for older persons' tenancies and one block remained virtually unchanged.

New security fencing around one of the Bishport five tower blocks

3 The work at the Bishport Fives included: new external cladding and internal refurbishment, security fencing around the bases of the blocks, new secure doors to communal areas and individual flats, an access control system for all entrances to the blocks and a CCTV system monitored anonymously from a separate "bunker" block located between the five towers. 45 cameras covering the five blocks are monitored 24 hours a day and seven days a week (along with 51 cameras covering surrounding areas) by a rota of staff employed by a private security company under contract to the Council.

Hartcliffe CCTV control room

When the access control systems and cameras were activated 110 people moved out of the blocks, presumably because they were engaged in activities that they did not want to be observed or restricted. In the five years immediately following the improvements, robbery within the blocks reduced by 48%, burglary by 25% and vehicle crime by 18%. The two "pensioner preferred" blocks maintained consistently lower crime victimisation rates during the same period, whilst the unimproved block maintained consistently higher rates.

Although there have been undoubted benefits from the introduction of CCTV and related security improvements, there remains a question mark about the long-term viability of such "technical fixes". There seems to have been an opportunity missed by not linking the access control and monitoring systems to a friendly concierge system. Instead, residents are observed by anonymous security personnel, hidden away in a windowless bunker.

4 The research area

The area for this study consisted of the eight high rise blocks in Hartcliffe (already referred to). There are 497 flats in these blocks giving an estimated population of 1,240.

Figure 1: Recorded crime figures 2000:

All figures Study Area District of City of England and calculated per Hartcliffe Bristol Wales 1,000 of the population: All crimes 96 204 215 106

Burglaries 15 60 52 8 (residential, not including attempts)

Fig. 2: Recorded crime figures 2005

All figures Study Area District of City of England and calculated per Hartcliffe Bristol Wales 1,000 of the population: All crimes 185 190 175 107

Burglaries 8 30 25 6 (residential, not including attempts)

These figures contain some good news and bad news in relation to the study area. The good news is that burglary in the blocks has almost halved between 2000 and 2005, bringing it down to close to the national average burglary rate. This suggests that the physical security and surveillance measures may have paid off, as they are most likely to be effective in reducing break-ins to flats, rather than other types of crimes such as domestic violence and drug dealing. The bad news is that, overall, crime has doubled in the blocks during that period, contrary to downward overall trends in Hartcliffe and Bristol as a whole and a stable situation in England and Wales on average. However, there are considerable variations between the individual blocks, as shown in the tables below:

Fig. 3:

BURGLARY Ches Red Hay Middle Mill tnut Oak wood Rowan Willow leigh ford mead total 2000 10 1 4 0 3 0 1 0 19 2001 1 2 0 0 3 1 0 4 11 2002 1 0 4 0 0 0 1 6 12 2003 1 2 2 0 3 1 1 1 11 2004 1 0 2 0 2 0 0 5 10 2005 2 1 3 1 0 1 1 2 11

TOT AL 16 6 15 1 11 3 4 18 74

Fig. 4:

TOTAL CRIME ches Middle Mill tnut oak redwood rowan willow hayleigh ford mead total 2000 25 17 13 21 14 5 8 17 120 2001 15 17 13 18 11 2 5 24 105 2002 21 10 19 16 17 7 3 23 116 2003 28 14 24 9 19 8 11 25 138 2004 13 6 5 15 23 5 8 41 116 2005 51 18 56 13 33 15 13 33 232

TOTAL 153 82 130 92 117 42 48 163 827

The significant features to be noted in the charts above are that the first five blocks are the "improved" ones and the last three are the "unimproved" ones. Yet two of the unimproved blocks (Hayleigh and Middleford) generally have fared better than some of the improved blocks. This seems to be more connected with the types of tenants occupying the blocks, than the actual physical state or improvements carried out. One conclusion might be that a significant amount of crime is carried out "in-house" by tenants, their lodgers and friends rather than outsiders to the blocks.

6 Fig. 5: Total recorded crime in blocks

180 160 140 Total 120 Recorded 100 Crime 2000- 2005 80 60

Number ofCrimes 40 20 0

d h ak ow O wan l ead esnut o yleig eford dwoo R Wil a Ch H Millm Re Middl Block name

Household Survey

UVictimisation Rates

497 Self-completion questionnaires were distributed to all households in the eight Hartcliffe blocks, with assisted call-back from a team of volunteers from Bristol South Community Watch. Sixty-five questionnaires were returned, and the response rate for completion of these questionnaires was 13%. This was unexpected as repeated attempts were made by the volunteers from South Bristol Community Watch to obtain completed questionnaires. The volunteers reported that there was a high level of apathy, and that they received high levels of abusive behaviour and language by some of the potential respondents. This indicates that the willingness to engage in processes that could lead to change, and potentially to improvements within the community may be low.

Respondents were asked about their experience of crime during the last 6 years (from 2000). Table 6 reveals the levels of self-reported crime (percentages as a total of the number of total questionnaires are presented in brackets):

7 Fig. 6: Response No Yes in Yes in another Yes in Not applicable / Hartcliffe area of Bristol another did not answer county Car stolen 22 (34%) 5 (8%) 2 (3%) 1 (2%) 35 (53%) Theft from a 17 (26%) 10 (15%) 3 (5%) 0 35 (53%) vehicle Intentional 13 (20%) 15 (23%) 2 (3%) 0 35 (53%) damage to vehicle Burglary / 47 (72%) 11 (17%) 0 0 7 (11%) Attempted burglary Mugging / 54 (83%) 5 (8%) 2 (3%) 0 4 (6%) Attempted mugging Victim of theft 48 (74%) 8 (12%) 4 (6%) 1 (2%) 4 (6%) Sexually molested 55 (85%) 4 (6%) 2 (3%) 0 4 (6%) Attacked / 42 (65%) 16 (25%) 3 (5%) 0 4 (6%) threatened Cheated/defrauded 55 (85%) 5 (8%) 1 (2%) 0 4 (6%)

Table 6 reveals that when respondents indicate that they have been a victim of crime, this crime has usually (almost twice as often in most cases) taken place in Hartcliffe. Respondents reported higher levels (25%) of attacks or threats than of any other crime asked about in the questionnaire. Many respondents did not own a vehicle but of those that did respond to questions concerning crimes and vehicles, there was a high level of theft from and intentional damage to vehicles. Eleven respondents reported that they had experienced a burglary or an attempted burglary in the last five years, this compares well to the reported crime figures on burglary in the dwellings in the last five years, as the average number of reported burglary across all the tower blocks during the 5 year period was 12.3 burglaries (presented in table 3).

UFear of Crime Respondents were asked how safe they felt while they were home alone during the day 5 years ago, and at the present time. The results are shown in table 7:

8 Fig. 7: Fear of Crime

30 25 20 Very Safe Rather Safe 15 Rather Unsafe Very Unsafe 10 Did not answer

number 5 of respondents 0 Feeling of safety 5 Feeling of safety years ago now

Graph 7 indicates that of the respondents that provided an answer, most (over 70% in both cases) felt safe or rather safe when at home alone during the day. This did not change significantly during the five year period.

Graph 8 reveals respondents answers about how safe they felt while they were home alone during the night 5 years ago, and at the present time.

Fig. 8: Fear of Crime at night

20 Very Safe Rather Safe 15 Rather unsafe Very unsafe 10 Did not answer

Number of repondents 5

0 Feeling safe 5 years Feeling safe now ago

9 Graph 8 indicates that of the respondents that provided an answer most (over 70% in both cases) felt safe or rather safe when at home alone during the night. This did not change significantly during the five year period. The overall level of fear of crime while respondents were in their homes was low, and did not significantly alter according to the time of day or during the five year period.

Bristol City Council’s quality of life survey includes a measure for the fear of crime. Respondents are asked whether they think that the level of crime has got worse over the last three years. The level of fear of crime reported for the area including the Hartcliffe study area in 2005 was 39.3%; the level for the Bristol area was 35%.

Respondents were asked about their feelings of safety after they had been the victim of a crime. Unsurprisingly, 41% reported that they felt less safe than they did before an incident had occurred; perhaps more surprisingly a high percentage (31.8%) reported that they felt more or less the same as they did before the incident occurred. This may reveal that the residents are somewhat ‘hardened’ to their experiences and expectations of crime.

Respondents were asked to identify areas in Hartcliffe where they felt particularly unsafe. Surprisingly there were very few responses to this question. This may be due to respondents feeling relatively safe in the Hartclliffe area, or it may be due to the lack of ‘choices’ and the pressure for respondents to write their own answer. Graph 9 reveals the suggestions that were made:

Fig.9: Especially unsafe areas

18 16 14 Number of 12 Respondents 10 8 6 4 2 Number of respondents Number 0

e d bs hs u at reen P Non Parks gather /P groun ampus G rd Road er C hs o e g Fulf Lanes Und Symes Avenue olle illenium of Yout C M Anywhere on streets

e Gangs her W Suggestions

The graph above reveals that Symes Avenue is an area where some of the respondents feel especially unsafe. Symes Avenue is the main shopping street in Hartcliffe, although has been virtually abandoned over the last few years as it has awaited (now confirmed) major redevelopment. Symes Avenue was also the site of the "Hartcliffe Riots" some years ago when young people clashed 10 with police after a fatality resulting from a police chase of a stolen motor cycle. Some respondents also feel unsafe in open spaces such as parks, lanes and paths which can often be poorly lit and isolated.

UProblems related to the built environment

Respondents were given a series of potential problems concerning the built environment and were asked to indicate the extent to which they believed them to be a problem in the area. The results are provided in the following graph.

Fig. 10: Extent of problems in the built environment No / slight problem Rather/ very big problem 50

20 Number of responses Number 15

i s t s r s n s s g s s e s n e w i e t m g f h t s e k n e e s e e c o f t t c i c i i s r i n i le n i l i t i c l n i a u m i o l a d o r L e u d a v il a l l d o o r r n i p g l d e c d p i G Y m w D e h f n a d a h n i u o f s f c c c o t g g a i h B H o l f u l g u u a v b k g t r r i o n i d m u i c e n c t L D D k p a h e o c o s l s s a o e i m t in l l e f L o o s o e a c m m r k c n e r e D a a l L H io V Nature of problem

11 Graph 10 reveals that the five most significant issues that respondents indicated were either ‘rather a problem’’ or a ‘big problem’ were; drug addicts (77.1%), lack of police (74.2%), vandalism (73.8%), youths (72.1%)), and drug dealing (70.9%). The three most significant issues that respondents indicated were either ‘no problem’ or a ‘slight problem’ were; homeless people (74.5%), harrasement of women (62.1%), and lighting (62.1%).

The graph below reveals how respondents feel the issues (included in graph 10 above) have changed during the 5 year period.

Fig. 11: Opinions

Better 20 Equal Worse

15 number of respondents of number

i r s t s s n s s g s s e s n e w i e t m g h s e k n e e s e e c o f t t c i i i s i n f t e n i l c t i c r l n i i l i i o l a u m u d a l a d o d r L e v i n a l l g o o r e r i p l d c d p i G Y m D e h n w a d a h f i u n c c t o f s f c i o g g a l h B H o l f u u u v g k t a o b g d r r i m n c i u i e n c k t a L D D p l h e o c o s s s a o e i m t n l l f i e L o o o e s c m m a k r n e r c e D a a l L o H i V nature of problem

12 It is interesting to note when looking at the graph above (Fig 11) that many of the issues are reported to be ‘Worse’ than they were five years ago. Indeed, only lighting, homelessness, and molesting children were reported to be ‘equal’ to the levels of the problem 5 years ago and not a single issue was reported as being ‘better’ than it was 5 years ago. All other problems were reported as being ‘worse’ than they were 5 years ago.

Respondents were asked to provide their own suggestions about what they thought would improve the safety of Hartcliffe. The suggestions are provided in the graph below.

Fig.12: Suggestions for improving safety

35 Number of Responses 30

15 Number of respondents Number 10

e s n s s s ks if on cy on hs l ling ar nse i ting i ent ties ng area d c o ol eet m CCTV loc e p gh cat out b g wil dea uths li y oy nal e n ov esp o du r h oy d r ty fencing e fo pe t ppi r r i for childre mpl e h an em lean str E est e R ste speed bumps c as sho d s a ecur as ver t u move y s e e Security Guardsban motorbikes op ' ar S emolis e are on ug ce / f D D dr li ur play is Devel po le on changes to letting Remove empty buildi n io More Act Suggestions Create a community that care

Of those respondents that offered suggestions for improving the safety of the Hartcliffe area, most (36%) suggested that more police and or a faster police response would be appropriate. About 10% of the responses suggested action around drug use and dealing, and a further 10% suggested changes to the letting policy.

When provided with a selection of ideas for improving the safety of Hartcliffe there was a higher level of responses. Graph 13 reveals the number of respondents that indicated that the suggested improvement would be ‘fairly’, or ‘very appropriate’ in Hartcliffe as a way of improving safety.

Fig 13: Support for Suggested improvements 70

Fairly or 60 very appropriate

Number of Responses of Number 20

g V r s s s ls s s n s s n e s s n in T e e rk m o er nt io p nt io ic ie n io t C w ac a fir tr d a t u e t ol lit e t gh C po l p a si gr en ro m pa p ci itiz a i p / ity p t i v g h ci r a c rm r L ce g ts r n ou m re e is ti o f d o e li in e cu e f m p m n ar m th n nf tt o id re e tiz o f i e o u p u a i e p h t s i x o c c p n o e n B re r r s e C lu n n in er e y ic tio o e e at nf io le w g iz re ol n M ew n iv i t io lo n it o p e f a r e ra V t ro c m n ev le p uc g r st e r c e d te po e p us e in p tw e R r u e im te s b r et n c B tio ra pe oo r c te et B Improvement

There was generally a lot of support for most of the suggested improvements. In all cases the number of respondents stating that the suggested improvement was either ‘fairly’ or ‘very appropriate’, was greater than those indicating that it was not an appropriate suggestion. Citizen participation resulted in the highest level of support (8.5%), although the level of support was relatively equally distributed between the majority of suggested improvements.

Interviews with key personnel

Five "experts" on the study area were interviewed: The local police inspector, the housing department's technical services manager, the head of the local community safety project, the chair of the residents' community watch group and the director of the area regeneration programme. They had all worked in the area for at least 6 years. Transcriptions of their responses to a standard series of questions are contained in appendix 1 (or are available upon request).

They all remarked that reducing both crime and the fear of crime has been a high priority for the 8 tower blocks in Hartcliffe. They felt that the security improvements had made a significant difference, but that there was still much to be done. This would be mostly about social and management interventions, rather than more physical or re-design work. Respondents felt that some, but not all crime, could be "designed out" and that beyond a reasonable level, physical security can become intrusive, oppressive and will not prevent crimes such as domestic violence. (see sections 17-20 in the transcriptions in appendix 1). They all felt that responsibility for security and safety should be a multi-agency one (and involving residents) rather than just a job for the police and security personnel. Generally it was felt that the Municipal Housing Department should take the lead in this multi-agency partnership. A wide range of suggestions were made to further reduce crime in the area (see answers under 10 in the transcriptions in appendix 1). It was felt that a lot of crime in the area was triggered by either the need to buy drugs or through boredom. The respondents thought that improved communication and more "joined-up" working would be the best way ahead. Community involvement is good in Hartcliffe (and it is considered to be very important), but it tends to be the same smallish group of people involved and it is felt that they are not necessarily representative of the community as a whole. A number of respondents thought that some kind of concierge or receptionist system in the blocks would be of considerable benefit.

Overall the respondents felt that, although property crime (and particularly car crime) had gone down in and around the blocks, high rise living in Hartcliffe is still problematic. This is as much to do with wider social, demographic and cultural factors as it is to do with the condition of the blocks. Although some British people are happy to live in stylish high-rise blocks in city centres, housing blocks on peripheral estates in Britain have become "housing of last resort" - a perception that is going to be difficult to change.

15 Summary of overseas visitors' observations

In March 2005, members of the crime prevention carousel research project visited the Hartcliffe study area. The visitors came from Germany, Holland, Hungary and Poland. This is a synthesis of their significant observations about security approaches in the eight tower blocks.

Generally, although they were impressed with the amount of crime prevention work going on in Hartcliffe, there was some concern about the high level of physical security (including CCTV) and the anonymous surveillance of tenants by the private security firm employees operating in an anonymous bunker.

The personal comments from experts from Poland, Holland and Germany are detailed below:

16 Polish expert comments summary

What struck you most in the Situational Social area? (answer anything you want, positive or negative The entire area is nicely located on the • nteresting social aspect of the area remarks, perhaps about the outskirts of the city and seems to offer quite constitutes the fact that it is populated problems, measures taken, good living possibilities; almost exclusively by white population, attitude of people spoken to, • The most interesting aspect of the area and there are practically no etc.) constitute contrasts between high rise representatives of ethnic minorities, who apartment buildings, especially those are (justly or wrongly) usually associated redeveloped, on the one side, and the with problematic neighbourhoods in area around the run down shopping mall Western Europe. and the building of the administrative • There are two contrasting aspects of centre, on the other. As I was told that we certain social indicators regarding will visit a highly problematic area, I have Hartcliffe area. O the one hand for me it expected, the high rise apartments to be was very interesting to visit and to talk to in much worse shape, corresponding to the people involved in the neighbourhood the image of a real slum; after the watch program. This indicated in my redevelopment this is certainly not the opinion existence of the group of case. In purely physical terms two engaged citizens who are ready to be renovated buildings are in quite good involved in solving problems of the shape and conditions; I would say that neighbourhood. The fact that they that seem to be in much better physical constitute some sort of intermediary shape than most of the similar buildings between local population and police and on the comparable living estates in other services is another interesting Poland; this is certainly due to substantial feature. In sum it seems to me that this effort at renovating, as the third building indicates existence of some factors (Milmead House) is certainly in a bad contributing to strengthening of social shape, I would say in worse one, than cohesion in the area. On the other hand most buildings in Poland; it seems that the area still suffers under • What struck me also is clean and orderly the lack thereof. It seems that surroundings of the buildings: parking improvements in physical condition of the lots, sidewalks, railings around buildings area and improvements in security and parking lots. These things seem to situation resulted mainly from substantial be in much better shape than on average financial and organizational resources in Poland; put into redevelopment, combined with • Certainly the most spectacular aspect of surveillance system. This means that the visited area constitute huge and positive changes resulted mainly from elaborate video surveillance system with the various physical measures applied in situation control room. This is certainly the community (situational crime something difficult to imagine in Poland prevention). It is hard to say precisely to because of variety of reasons (financial, what extent these measures influenced organizational, also probably cultural), social conditions and social cohesion of especially on the estate of such type (it the community, i.e. community became would be nothing unusual on the new more orderly and secure because it is estate inhabited by wealthy people). For externally watched and guarded, but not most people in Poland this would remind necessarily because some its internal a little bit the “1984” and “Big Brother”, resources were stimulated and and they may object against this. Yet, revitalised what had lead to changes of this system seems to be quite successful the social substance. In other words and effective, if you consider the fact that change did not resulted from houses remain after redevelopment in community’s internal forces. However, it good shape, there is little damage, and was difficult to judge about eventual crime and other social problems seem to influence of physical improvements ob be significantly down. social substance and social cohesion. For example well functioning neighbourhood watch may resulted from the fact that after redevelopment some inhabitants considered it to be worth effort to take care of certain things.

17 What lessons can your country • In my opinion Hartcliffe provides • It seems that the main advantage of high learn from the visited project? ambiguous lessons for Poland. On the rise living estates in Central and Eastern one hand, CCTV surveillance system is Europe constitutes the fact that in social impressive and well run. There is terms they still contain a very mixed enormous effort put in its maintenance, population (in terms of social and what is itself of importance or the economic stratification). Many people in community. Moreover, I think that this that part of Europe are not necessarily system is quite successful. On the other very satisfied with this. But such situation hand the very fact that this system, prevented earlier, and still prevents such reminding of the “Big Brother”, was estates from becoming source of even necessary indicates how bad things were more serious problems. Concentration of before. I would say that the man lesson low income, low social status people in from this may be, to prevent much earlier one area – like it is the case in Hartcliffe situation from becoming as bas as it – means usually concentration of social became in Hartcliffe. Earlier intervention problems which are difficult to deal with. – in various forms – may be sometimes Because of this I think that it may be very not quite easy, but maybe cheaper (?), important for Central and Eastern Europe and what most important, may prevent to prevent old socialist living estates from such radical measures as omnipresent becoming “social dump areas”. This CCTV from becoming necessary. I would means attempts to prevent higher say this means more effort put at the educated people with higher income, earlier stage in community work and from leaving areas, because this will stimulating social cohesion (something prevent their social degradation. Here, it difficult), than physical measures at the is necessary to stress, that physical later stage. redevelopment, which makes such areas more attractive may play important role. Maintaining and improving living conditions may contribute significantly to maintaining and strengthening of social cohesion in such areas. What advise would you give to • I think generally that more effort should • What I missed among information the visited project? (as specific be put into reinforcing integration of the received during the visit to Hartcliffe were as you can, e.g. to which person local community, as a supplementary any programs, ideas, initiatives directed or organisation your advise is actions to situational crime prevention, specifically at young people. It seems to relevant) target hardening etc. be a rather neglected problem. Maybe it would be worth to think a little bit more about this, and to try to create and support some initiatives in this area? Can you give references (good • • or bad examples) of projects in your own country?

Dutch expert comments summary

For the Uentire area

Situational Social What struck you most in the • Big contrast at the Symes House: very • Well organised CCTV control room. area? (answer anything you defensive design with pieces of art Communication with a rather aggressive want, positive or negative (gargouilles) on the building. leaflet in the neighbourhood cafe (military remarks, perhaps about the • CCTV in public space: quite shocking, running into the crack house). problems, measures taken, but very well organised. attitude of people spoken to, etc.) • The attractiveness of gardens: people store rubbish in their front garden. This makes that passing people don't feel good about the atmosphere. • Degenerated shops on main street. Where there is food/non food stored in the public space it looks much friendlier than when everything is stalled inside.

18 What lessons can your country • The police have good relation with the learn from the visited project? media: they tip the media and have press meetings where they meet in a low profile way. In Holland the media often are powerful. • A far reaching measure as CCTV in public space must be introduced after consulting the residents. • The Neighbourhood watch is very important as a link between the neighbourhood, municipality and police. What advise would you give tot • Fences around private gardens differ a • Stimulate residents to keep their gardens the visited project? (as specific lot. Make a uniform friendly fence f.i. by clean: e.g. awards for garden design or as you can, e.g. to which person hedges with flourishing loafs or nice penalties if people don't get rid of litter in or organisation your advise is berries. your garden. relevant) • Give the Symes House an appearance • Unarmed police in the streets might be as positive as possible. more reserved surveilling: more difficult • Just the spatial measures of the to show to potential offenders who's the development of Morrissons supermarket boss. Advice: armed police with big cars won't be enough to reduce all problems. can make a strong statement. On the Social measures are necessary as well. other hand: police on mountain bikes are • All the green in the (new) project is more easily to address. related to traffic and parking. So no • Let residents participate in the new quality of public space (and life) appearance of the Symes House. generated from the developers money. • It's not enough just to arrest the dealers Advice: attractive landscape design with in crack houses. The customers should threes, shrubs and flowers, so people be focused on as well. If customers experience changing of seasons. Follow buying drugs are coming by car and park the CPTED principles (social eyes, long in a wrong way, they must be sightlines, attractiveness, accessibility, prosecuted. Give a signal to the zoning, etc.). inhabitants of the neighbourhood that it's • In the existing area there are no places to not only a matter of dealers. stunt for youngsters. In the new project there's just a children's playground in the middle of nothing. Advice: choose the place and design of youngster areas together with kids/youngsters. • In the new plan for Morrissons parking is concentrated in a large area. This might attract thieves. Social eyes to the entire area and to the parking lot are necessary. • Make sure the new project is well integrated in his context and make one good and integrated design for the public area. • Stress the positive aspects of cameras as well, f.i. art-project on beautiful spots spotted in Heartcliff by web cams. • Millmead has hidden doorways, which are attractive for drugs-users/dealers. The door lays back and through the glass you can only see shapes, but no faces/intentions. Advice: Make doorways in one line, without setback. Make windows in semi-public space really transparent. Can you give references (good • This vision is f.i. performed by Transcity – • The American way (or closer by the or bad examples) of projects in office in Amsterdam (by Lenneke Belgium way) : police really showing that your own country? Overmaat) they are there, so driving in robust cars • Kids & Space Project Amsterdam: kids (Cherokeechiefs, like in Rotterdam in the together with designers define their own nineties) and wearing robust uniforms environment and are telling and selling • In Amsterdam neighbourhood-fathers their plans to the municipality from Islamic background keep an eye on • COPS-project AGIS "Does design work?" hotspots in Amsterdam West. (by Paul van Soomeren, DSP-groep) • In Amsterdam police surveillance on mountain-bikes (easily to address). • In Amsterdam students buying stolen bikes from junkies are prosecuted.

For the Uspecific areaU: Bishport Fives

Situational Social What struck you most on the • Many camera's around and in the • Strong aspect is the public laundrette in site? (answer anything you want, buildings. Hopefully we can learn out of the cellar: a lot of space to sit, to talk positive or negative remarks, the questionnaire whether this makes together and this might improve cohesion perhaps about the problems, residents feel safer, or (the opposite) between residents. measures taken, attitude of make them less aware of social cohesion • In the entrance hall there is a sign which people spoken to, etc.) ("I'm being watched so there is no need should give the name of the caretaker in for me to watch others"). duty and the moment's he/ she is • Between the park and one of the present. This sign is not filled in. buildings the territoriality of the fenced park is weird: is it a private park or not? • The central heating is situated in the cellar of one flat. Because there is just a simple window out of sight, this might be a risk to arson (room full of fuel can be turned into a burning bomb. • The park around the buildings is attractive, but the litter and rubbish in the little river in the meadows is a pitty. • The parkinglot is attractive, but a car without any wheels, painted pink gives a bad example and has bad influence on the feeling of residents. • Within the building there are signs of graffiti and vandalism. What lessons can your country • Social eyes in residential areas are very • A semi-private space in a building (e.g. learn from the visited project? important: low rise blocks should have the laundrette in the cellar) can give social eyes on flats and surroundings. cohesion to residents. • The firestairs are only (meant to be) accessible from the floors to the stairs and not from the stairs to the floors. This should prevent people moving through the entire building using the stairs, which are not monitored with cameras. • The fresh and clean appearance in the buildings which are taken care of already makes residents/visitors more reluctant to damage it. What advise would you give to • Secure the window in the cellar, near the • Let a landlord have his /her office in the the visited project? (as specific central heating. flat (good examples in the Bijlmerarea, as you can, e.g. to which person • Make all space outside the buildings Amsterdam or organisation your advise is explicitly public or (semi) private • Keep the public space (park), the parking relevant) (referring to the fenced park). lot and the buildings themselves clean. • Colours in the flat are good, but all floors Check for litter every day to prevent have the same colours. Using different erosion by vandalism colours for each floor can improve • Fill in the form with name(s) and other orientation. information in the entrance hall: make • The doors between the fire stairs and the sure residents or visitors know who to floors are not closing well: people can call in case something is wrong. use the stairs and won't be seen by the cameras. Advice: the landlord should check these doors regularly (every day) and make sure they close properly. Can you give references (good • Fenced luxurious artwork on KNSM- • Nice art-project was the coloured doors or bad examples) of projects in island Amsterdam. This fence is project in Amsterdam East where an your own country? attractive and gives the space some kind artist coloured doors and let the people of private atmosphere choose their own colours (a basic was set).

German Expert Comments Summary

I.) What struck you most in the area?

Situational Social The entire area is nicely embedded The Neighbourhood Watch looks to into a green surrounding but very me as a promising approach to bring distant to the inner city - particularly people together as well as to control with regard to insufficient public the area – aside from CCTV cameras transport connections: only buses. – in an informal way.

The entire area is under The Community Partnership seems to disproportional CCTV-control: Nearly be a valuable platform to integrate 100 cameras in the houses and the residents and local institutions. It looks environment. At least it seems to be like a useful way to supervise the very well organised. regeneration process from the residents’ point of view. If I got it right this looks like the English equivalent of what we call in Germany “Bewohnerbeirat”.

Redeveloped houses contrast heavily to unredeveloped Houses. I don’t know any large housing estate in Germany where houses are as run- down as in Hartcliffe. I think in this country we don’t let the situation become that worse.

Well designed laundry and common room with seating-accommodations in the redeveloped houses. But it affirms the overall impression that it’s partly already destroyed again.

Very run-down arcade with predominantly closed shops. Given the huge number of inhabitants in the area it’s astonishing that the shops couldn’t survive.

The administration building looks – at least from the outside – like a prison or a castle Î uninviting and deterrent

Lots of rubbish in the courtyards and in the surroundings

II.) What lessons can your country learn from the visited project?

Situational Social My impression of Hartcliffe was ambiguous: On the Neighbourhood Watch Programs in Germany are one hand the CCTV-control of the area is still in their infancy. I could imagine that setting up apparently very successful (i.e. Robbery: 48% such programs could be a promising way to reduction, burglary: 25% reduction), on the other strengthen social cohesion as well as to give back hand I couldn’t get rid of awkward feelings given the social control to the residents. total control of people (keyword: “big brother”). Given the fact that the residents demanded for CCTV (even though they were put up the rent by £4 per week) actually was more thought-provoking than calming. Surely, in Germany as well as in other countries, many people demand for more safety and CCTV, but how bad must a situation be when extensive control like in Hartcliffe seems to be the adequate solution? So, what do we learn from this example? Hopefully nothing - except for the fact that it’s better to intervene before problems arise to such an extent! I hope we’ll never come to a point where we live under conditions like this. If this is the future of housing … good night!

III.) What advice would you give to the visited project?

Situational Social I assume that a partial deconstruction of the CCTV- Strengthen the efforts in the social sector: system in public space doesn’t lead to a high rise of Structural regeneration should be embedded into crime but strengthens the life quality in the area. ‘social regeneration’. Progress in the structural regeneration: There are Make the area more attractive for others than low- several houses (especially the shopping arcade and income inhabitants (i.e. low rents exclusively for the Millmead House) which still have to be students could lead to partial turnover as well as to rehabilitated. a well-balanced mixture in the population). Revitalisation and revaluation of the shopping arcade seems to me more promising than building a new shopping centre in the surroundings.

Conclusions 22

Overall it appears that the design and physical security changes to the five "improved" blocks have been effective in reducing property crime (as one would expect). However, the improvements have failed to stem an overall increase in crime in some of the blocks, against the overall trend in the wider area of Hartcliffe and the country as a whole. One should also note that, despite considerable investment, the Hartcliffe blocks still experience much higher crime victimisation rates than similar blocks in other European countries.

A provisional conclusion is therefore that physical improvements alone are not likely to guarantee low crime and fear of crime levels in high rise residential blocks. The Hartcliffe blocks have had more investment in direct security measures than any of the other study areas in Europe. (Marzahn and Gropius Stadt have had more investment overall, but most of this has been on general physical and environmental improvements, rather than on security technology). Furthermore, as some of the blocks in Hartcliffe have been improved more than others, we can compare the crime rates and find that crime levels are not necessarily lowest in all the improved blocks. Although Millmead (unimproved) experienced the highest crime rate between 2000-2005, the other two blocks that have only been minimally improved (Hayleigh and Middleford) experienced lower crime rates than the five heavily improved blocks. It is also significant that Hayleigh and Middleford are not subject to the intensive CCTV scrutiny received by the five improved blocks, yet, despite this, experience less crime. It would appear that the type of population in these two "low crime" blocks (stable and generally older tenants) along with a basic but functioning entry control system have been crucial influences on their relative security. One could conclude, from the comparison of the Bristol blocks and comparing them with the high rise blocks in the other study areas, that social factors (including demographics) are probably more important than physical factors (such as physical and electronic security) in creating or maintaining safety and security on high rise estates.

Henry Shaftoe, Cities Research Centre, University of the West of England, Bristol. March 2007

23 Appendix 1: Transcription of interviews with key personnel

Based on a standard checklist of questions asked (listed in bold type before the responses), annotated transcriptions of the interviews are given below. Each interviewee's response is presented in a different font/type-face to facilitate comparisons and commonalities.

Name of interviewee: Richard McKerrnan – Sector Police Inspector covering the study area Conducted at Bishopsworth Police Station: 11th May 2006

Interviewee: John Long, Technical Investment Manager, Bristol City Council Housing department Conducted at Withywood Housing Office – 11th May 06

Name of interviewee: Mark Parry, Community Safety Officer for Hartcliffe and Withywood Nov 9th 2006

Name of Interviewee: Brian Banwell – Chair Bristol South Community Watch

Name of Interviewee: Stephen Hewitt – Chief Executive of Hartcliffe & Withywood Community Partnership (HWCP)

How long have you been working in this area? 4 ½ years in this position. In the area for 9 years.

Since 1990

8 yrs

11 years

6 years

1. What are the crime and security problems in the area? Most of the tower-blocks based in open space. Most complaints about nuisance: joy-riding, burn-out cars, litter, drinking.

Within the flats, domestic issues crop up: noise, assaults.

Vandalism, mugging, burglary, dumping, rubbish, theft and damage to vehicles.

Criminal Damage, Drug dealing in the blocks, anti-social behaviour, sub-letting

Drug related, burglary and car crime down

Car crime, drugs, burglary down Youth anti-social behaviour, particularly around Symes Avenue

2. In terms of the priorities for making the neighbourhood a better place to live, how high does reducing crime and improving security come on the list?

24 Fear of crime is a big priority. Perception of crime higher than the reality. New Management with a community safety element working on this.

Very high. Refurbishment of the tower blocks scheme started in 1994. A main problem was lack of defensible space. Only green open space.

It is the main priority of my organisation, but a co-ordinated approach is required. Things should start to improve because of the new transforming housing agenda which will have housing officers going out and meeting people who live in this community. There still exists a lack of communication between agencies and other agencies and agencies and residents.

Top of the list

Top 2 or 3, along with educational achievement, things for young people to do and drugs work

3. What has already been done to reduce crime and improve security? Renovations recently have meant old doors replaces with ‘security doors.’ CCTV around the flats and in lifts. Good working relationship with those that operate the CCTV.

Previously, residents in the blocks used to have to empty their cars of everything and leave their windows and doors open so as to show people that there was nothing to steal. Poppet, now Chestnut estate, used to have a huge problem with drugs. A high security steel door put in place costing £10,000. Lots of anti-vandalism measures. Had CCTV but this only lasted 1 night! Learnt that if CCTVis used, it needs to be monitored.

Defensible space designs Tenants participation groups Locks and bolts CCTV and concierge system Door entry systems Secured car parking

Relationships between community, police and council Introduction of Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs) 3a. what has been the effect of the security improvements to the Bishport 5 Tower blocks? Not a lot- e.g. communal doors left open in fact one of the unimproved blocks (Middleford) is better than one of the improved blocks (Rowan).

Target hardening (police sponsored joiners who improve locks and other types of physical security to vulnerable homes) CCTV Community Safety team "WISH" support team group for Domestic Violence victims Youth Diversion Work "Hawks" (support and counseling organization) etc for drug misuses "CLEO" Offender rehabilitation organisation Police Community Support Officers

3a. what has been the effect of the security improvements to the Bishport 5 Tower blocks? Means that housing is not a major problem - Absence of problems

25 4. What still needs to be done? Increasingly, acting ‘more like social services, than crime enforcement.’ Neighbourly disputes are difficult issues. Problem with drug dealing. Police got an exemption from the data protection act and could therefore identify potential ‘drug dealers’ who planned to move into Millmead house. Prevented them moving in.

More landscaping (prickly hedges). Fencing. Crack (cocaine) house protocol has worked very well. Need to worked closely with other agencies. Provide support for victims and gathering evidence.

Lots still needs to be done. Tenant management of the blocks would be ideal – but this will never happen under Bristol City Council. Some may say to knock the blocks down and start again. Create a sense of ownership in the community. The letting’s policy needs to be reviewed and changed. The high rise blocks could be turned into older people’s accommodation. The blocks need to be intensively managed. Provision of on-site services. The blocks could be converted to sheltered housing.

Stabilise council staff. Sensible allocations policy evicts illegal tenants. Regular inspections by Housing Dept

Concierges/receptionists in blocks would help

5. Who should have the responsibility for making the area a safer place? Everyone! Police take the lead but sometimes hamstrung by staffing issues. Not enough officers available. There is a community safety team based in the police station. Partnership working has increased.

Joint responsibility involving police, housing and community safety. Makes a difference when other people are on board. No use people working in isolation.

A combination of Local Residents and agencies.

Council (i.e. landlord)

Collective responsibility of agencies working with the community.

6. Who should take the lead in co-ordinating improved security measures? Crime reduction officers, but there are budgetary constraints. Housing can also help, as can the Community Safety team.

It depends on the scheme. The police took the lead on anti-burglary initiative. CCTV was covered by housing, community safety took on alley-gating.

Housing provider

Local Authority

Landlord (Housing Dept)

7. What kind of influence and contribution can your organisation make, to ensure that the area becomes safer and more secure? Visible patrols, effective targeting – intelligence led, analysis of crime patterns.

Have done a lot. In the BS13 area, the Council owns about 4,000 properties so have a big say. Influence comes from the Area Housing Committees who hold the ‘environment and security budget.’ So, if residents want, for example, a fence put up, they’d approach this committee.

Working to SBD (secured by design) principles. Mobilising residents Community Development work around safety issues. Aid residents to become a management association and access more grants to improve their area.

Big influence

1. Funding for initiatives 2. Improving co-ordination of services 3. Engagement with local residents 4. Communications (e.g. newsletter)

8. Is your organisation actively involved in making the area safer? Yes!

Yes.

Yes – it’s the main reason that this post exists.

Yes

This is one of the HWCP’s aims

9. (If yes) in what ways? Responding to calls for assistance.

Promotion of schemes, such as Hartcliffe Environmental Action Group and Area Housing Committee, and helped them bid for funding. Use of voluntary groups which keeps costs down. Used probation service. Helped improve access to schools so pupils weren’t walking along the back of houses, some causing criminal damage on their way in.

The organisation will not do anything that the residents are not involved in. They exist to ensure that community safety and crime prevention projects are run.

Good links with police and other agencies

No answer

10. What do you think are the best ways to reduce crime in the area? A visible presence to help combat peoples’ fear of crime. Monitoring and targeting known offenders. Tackling root cause of these problems.

Focussing on the crime and coming up with a suitable response. Have a close relationship with the police. Engaging schools.

Advertise and share the ‘good news’ stories. Crime levels are low at about 1 burglary per week – although anti-social behaviour is very high. Build confidence in the community Make the area and the housing secure, but with sensitive designs Agencies deal with problems more quickly and efficiently and not get blocked with policy decisions. Prioritising policies over less important ones can sometimes mean that problems continue for ages. We should exceed the 10% aim to narrow the gap and include more areas in the focus for improvement. 27

More polie and support staff (6 PCSOs) PCSOs have better relationships with public

A holistic approach that: supports victims, reduces opportunities, work with the offenders and potential offenders and broader approach using training and employment.

11. Are these approaches being used? Yes!

Yes

Some are

A lot of crime starts in the schools, so that's where crime prevention needs to commence

Yes

12. (If yes) please describe. (If no), why not, do you think? Most common reasons for crime: funding a drug habit or boredom. Employed ‘play rangers.’ Gives them something to do.

Knowing who the problems are caused by and then can act upon this (depending on the tenure of a particular organisation).

UYes Section 17 (of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998) is being championed by SaferBristol at the moment at high levels – but this is not being felt on the ground. Local residents are at the centre of my work but this is not the case for some of the other agencies working in the area. Issues of sustainable change are not considered.

UNo Agencies don’t communicate enough Priorities are in conflict Not clear about who should be leading what – clashes with housing and other agencies.

No answer

Target hardening programme in the area is ok. Still work to be done in education, training and

employment tackling Uunderlying Ucauses.

13. What do you think are the major barriers to making the area a safer place? Drugs – the availability of. Cheaper. Heroin which used to be £10 a bag is now £5. Historically, the area has a bad name because of the Hartcliffe riots. Some of the young people thrive of their tough reputation. Competition between estates.

Fear of crime. Fear of reprisals – lack of people coming forward with information. But, more and more residents are now involved with resident associations and pass on information to each other.

Lack of joined up thinking Short term approach Short term funding Good projects can’t get going Lack of mainstreaming of good pilot projects

28 Community feel someone else should be responsible – they pay their tax and so they shouldn’t have to get involved with sorting out any issues in the community.

Public services staff turnover – loss of local knowledge and trusting relationship

Lack of employment structures—too many low paid, low skilled jobs. Low aspirations, poor role models and expectations.

14. To what extent are local residents involved in crime prevention in their neighbourhood or block? Hugely. Helped by large funding in the area. Harcliffe and Withywood Community Partnership theme groups, safe and health groups. Bristol South neighbourhood watch scheme. Become a large pressure group. Lots of initiatives: no street drinking, speedwatch, parking, ‘reclaiming’ the parks, CCTV.

Involved in lots of groups (community task group). Part of Safe and Health group. Heavily involved in the two area and housing committees.

Always the same few that get involved even though there are structures that exist.

South Bristol Community Watch is a shining example of community involvement. (Has won a number of national awards)

Relatively more involved – but not fully representative.

15. (If they are involved) In what ways are they involved? See previous answer.

Feedback to committees. Chair of S & H group. Provide communication and information via neighbourhood renewal and neighbourhood management.

Tenant participation meetings – may have been involved in some of the recent improvements to the blocks but not sure. Area Housing Committees – have an environmental security budget. Local Action Groups There is some resistance when the agenda is wider than their block or the immediate environment. Overall there is not that much involvement. Development of street representatives should help Police Community Support Officers - there was a steering group but this has now disbanded.

No answer

Community Safety Task Group and voluntary organisations e.g. "Hawks" , Neighbourhood Watches

16. How important do you think it is that local residents are involved? Very. Residents moan about agencies not involving or consulting with them about things they do. People from outside claiming to know what’s best for people actually living in these areas. Residents want ‘ownership.’ Example: the only park benches not ‘attacked’ were ones children decorated themselves.

Very important – without them, no information. Local solutions can be the most useful.

Very important. Sustainable change and ownership are the key issues.

Very important. Doesn’t work without local residents

Essential

29 17. To what extent do you think it is possible to ‘design out’ crime? Possible to reduce it but not eradicate crime this way.

Much easier with new properties. More difficult with existing ones. But doesn’t tackle the root causes of the crime.

Stops freedom of movement Gives the message that people shouldn’t be in the area. Certain ones are good e.g. double glazing, window locks. Needs to be backed up with ownership and maintenance. CCTV is very popular with residents but not always used in the intended way i.e: used to increase revenue from parking fines. Increases the attitude of surrendering responsibility to someone or something else– lack of knowledge and informing people of their rights / responsibilities.

Does work to an extent e.g:. Gating of alleys running behind buildings

Some truth in it, but there is a limit. Reasonably significant—depends on crime type

18. In your opinion, what proportion of all crime in the neighbourhood could be ‘designed out?’ Can’t really ‘design out’ domestic violence. Action plan out recently for Willmot park, one of the most abused parks in the area. Drug-related crime very hard to ‘design out.’

A large percentage, for example burglary and car crime, is easier than most. Human factor is important in helping cutting crime. For example, not parking cars out of CCTV range

Certain crimes i.e. Burglary / Secured Car Parks – probably about 50% Secured By Design – defensible planting, street lighting and improved street scene are all useful measures.

- Burglary and vehicle crime -problem of displacement Depends on response time. E.g. with CCTV, the impact maybe significant at first, but can reduce over time

19. What are your views on increasing the security of buildings and their surroundings (eg: with locking systems, more barriers, access control, lighting, CCTV)? CCTV is excellent if it’s good quality and monitored. Controlled access works well. Keys don’t work. Spate of burglaries on double-glazed properties where people were removing the beading on the outside.

Good example, Symes house. Designed to be as robust as possible as spent previous years spending thousands clearing up vandalism. Locality can make a difference to security. Multi-stories have their own problems.

Keep residents safe in their blocks Stabilise situations before you improve them; at the moment there is a transient population There are a cluster of issues that contribute that this would not cover Reduce ghettoisation

Not sure – no contact between CCTV team and South Bristol Community Watch

Danger that they increase UfearU of crime e.g. shuttering

20. Can you think of any problems associated with such increases in physical security? Difficult for police to get warrants. Fire brigade access can prove tricky too.

Most applicable to the elderly and disabled. More security (doors, locks) can make it harder for vulnerable people trying to access their properties.

Means of escape (fire) Plaster on the situation People could lock police out People can circumvent the system Difficult for people to get in and out – police response times could be longer People can disguise themselves from CCTV cameras – break them / throw coats over them.

No answer

Stigmatisaton, fear

21. What kind of alternatives, can you think of, to just increasing the fortification of buildings? Could have a concierge system like the one in the US for tower-blocks. Someone on the desk who knows all the residents.

Awareness. Campaigns – part of letting property packs, produced a ‘do’s and don’t’s video. Included UltraViolet pens. South Bristol Community Watch – residents will talk to them, not always officers.

Ownership / Responsibility Improved management of the blocks Police Community Support Officers could make regular patrols Sensitive and more efficient letting policy that is better informed and doesn’t have as many loop holes Quicker evictions Encouraging positive engagement Get rid of the blocks and start again

Receptionists in blocks; caretakers on site

Concierges in blocks – “friendly face of authority”

22. Do you feel well informed about the various approaches that could be used to prevent crime and increase security in the area? What I do know I know well.

Yes. Get information from IFSEC (HUwww.ifsec.co.ukUH ) and their seminars. Showcase the latest security products.

Reasonably but always keen to know more Police hoping to deliver SBD and crime reduction training Personal safety training

Yes

Reasonably well informed - picks up from other professionals.

23. (If not) What would you like to know? All the things I don’t know!

No answer

As above

No answer

Alternative dispute resolution—since decline of church and other community mediating networks, effects of mediation, reparation etc. 31

24. Do you have any other comments you would like to make about security and safety? Housing has done an awful lot over the years. The stairwells are a pain. Not covered by CCTV.

The estate has changed a lot. A lot of the old problems have disappeared or been displaced. Domestic violence has become more of a problem now. When Symes Ave is redeveloped there will be a big lift to the area. New supermarket will open creating 300-400 jobs and bringing some prosperity back into the area. Will have an effect on house prices too.

Bad name of the area comes from the few. Area once described as a ‘green dessert.’ Harder for crime control. Now, have fencing and defensible space. Must always think about the consequences of any action you take.

Social trends and the way that people live are constantly changing but the tower blocks don’t change. Maybe buildings could be built that have lifestyles of only 50 yrs

More people wanting to live in high rise blocks (like the fancy developments near the river) but these are nice and attract quite well-off tenants.

The most vulnerable people are being housed in the blocks without any support – it is a sinking ground.

It seems so different to the trend in Europe – it's as if the selfish individualistic attitude has just gone too far here.

Without cooperation of police and council we have nothing else

“Hartcliffe’s getting better”.

25. Do you think crime in Hartcliffe (the tower-blocks) has changed since the improvements have been made to them (tower blocks)? Burglaries have gone down. But, 2005 stats are ‘significantly higher.’ But, this may be down to changes in recording and reporting methods. ‘Ethical Crime Recording.’ Morrisons supermarket are coming in and taking over Symes Avenue which will reduce the amount of open space. Derelict shops will no longer exist.

Vast improvements. Cars much safer. People less worried. CCTV. Good links with the police. Communication between the concierge (from CCTV) to police is good. When started out, put a protocol into place with the police. They give resources if we identify a need.

Not really. Crime is relatively low; it's anti-social behaviour, dis-respect and living conditions that are and continue to deteriorate.

No answer

32 Appendix 2: 2003 report on crime and prevention for Hartcliffe

0BHartcliffe and Withywood Community Partnership:

1BAn audit and business plan for the Community Safety Project

2B(January 2003)

3BSymes Avenue, Hartcliffe

4BIntroduction This document is intended to assist in the development of a community safety and crime prevention business plan for the Hartcliffe and Withywood Community Safety Project (subsequently referred to as the CSP). Staff from the Crime Prevention and Community Safety programme at the Cities Research Centre at the University of the West of England have been commissioned by the CSP to produce this plan.

The structure of the report is as follows: 1. brief description of the area, together with a short account of the SRB5 funding arrangements in Hartcliffe and Withywood, and proposals for neighbourhood renewal. The last two are provided because of their importance in determining the delivery of crime prevention/community safety initiatives in the area. 2. identification of the crime and disorder problems in the Hartcliffe area from secondary sources 3. description of the role of the CSP, together with an account of the structure influencing the development of crime prevention and community safety interventions in Hartcliffe (principally the Hartcliffe and Withywood Community Partnership’s Safe and Health theme group). 4. identification of key areas for intervention by the CSP, together with an account of the other initiatives currently running in the area likely to impact upon the CSP’s activities.

33 5. An explanation of the envisaged co-ordinating role for the CSP, and its role in ensuring the sustainability of community safety efforts in Hartcliffe.

The report has been produced with reference to the following sources: • Information obtained from interviews with members of the Community Safety Project, Hartcliffe and Withywood Community Partnership, and a limited number of key stakeholders. • Information from Bristol’s Crime and Disorder Audits and Strategies produced by the Safer Bristol Partnership in 1999 and 2002. • Minutes of the Health and Safe Theme Group, Hartcliffe and Withywood Community Partnership. • Existing reports on the Hartcliffe and Withywood areas; • Hartcliffe and Withywood City Challenge document, • Hartcliffe and Withywood Community Partnership Newsletter, • South Bristol Reducing Violence Against Women Initiative bid, • Report into the needs of drug users and carers, and current provision in Hartcliffe and Withywood 2000. • Hartcliffe and Withywood SRB5 Baseline Survey, 2000. • Hartcliffe (North and South) burglary reduction initiative bid. • Draft framework for Hartcliffe and Withywood neighbourhood action plan. • Hartcliffe, Withywood and Highridge Community Safety Final Report, 1992 • National and international research into crime prevention and community safety that may cast some light on how to create a safer Hartcliffe.

1. Description of Hartcliffe and Withywood

Hartcliffe and Withywood are two post war estates on the southern edge of Bristol, mainly built in the 1950’s and 1960’s. The area now has a combined population of 20,000 (8,000 households). When designed the estates were intended to be self contained and fully serviced, however, many of the planned facilities did not materialize (HWCP 2002). To compound matters, extra high rise housing was built on sites that were originally designated for sports and leisure .

The Wills factory employed about 5,000 people from Hartcliffe, Withywood and Knowle areas. Combined with the economic recession of the late 1980’s, closure of the Wills factory precipitated the loss of another 20,000 jobs in associated industries, mainly across South Bristol. Public transport links to jobs elsewhere in the city were also poor and people suffered the added burden of ‘postcode’ discrimination. (HWCP 2002)

Despite the size of the area it is poorly resourced in terms of facilities. The SRB5 baseline survey found that people surveyed in Hartcliffe and Withywood were highly critical of local provision of facilities for teenagers/young adults, school age children after school and during the holidays, facilities for elderly and disabled people, sports facilities, hospitals and banks/cashpoints (SRB baseline survey). The area has an ageing population with mobility problems, as well as a high percentage of lone parents who need local shopping and other resources. Low levels of local jobs has resulted in a higher than average dependency on private cars. At 39%, the level of council provided properties is above the Bristol average but despite this 56% of all properties are owner occupied (Bristol Community Safety Partnership 2002).

There is a high percentage of lone parent families and households with no earner in the ward. However, unemployment is lower than the Bristol average. Although the call on social services is 34 relatively low there are a number of disturbing health indicators. Hartcliffe has the highest percentage of infant deaths and families with high health needs in Bristol. Early deaths from heart disease are significantly high (Bristol Community Safety Partnership 2002).

To address these problems of infrastructure, employment and perceptions, the area was put forward for City Challenge funding in 1991. The failure of a second City Challenge bid in 1992 coincided with riots which left Symes Avenue, the commercial heart of the area, ransacked and in a state from which it has yet to recover, although plans for its development are close to completion.

Symes Avenue

SRB5 and Hartcliffe and Withywood Community Partnership In the summer of 1999 the government announced that it was giving £12.1 million towards the regeneration of Hartcliffe and Withywood under the Single Regeneration Budget Round 5 (SRB5). Hartcliffe and Withywood Community Partnership (HWCP) had been established in 1998 to lead the regeneration of the area. The partnership co-ordinates the “Working Together for Change” (SRB5) scheme. HWCP is ‘controlled by local residents, led by local needs and focuses on locally led solutions’ (HWCP website). The money has been given for a seven year period from July 1999 to March 2006. SRB5 money is to create ‘a safe, healthy, learning, working, balanced, inclusive and locally owned community’ (HWCP website). Currently a range of local projects and initiatives are being funded under SRB5.

The partnership is overseen by a Board of Directors, a majority of whom (ten) are locally elected. There are also representatives from local and city-wide organisations on the board. Underneath the Board there are a number of theme groups (discussed in greater detail in section three of this report). The Theme Groups decide what needs to be done in the area and how to undertake this work.

35 28BNeighbourhood Renewal In January 2001, the government published “A New Commitment to Neighbourhood Renewal; National Strategy Action Plan”. It identified Bristol as one of 88 local authorities eligible for Neighbourhood Renewal Funds and made an indicative allocation of £7.9 million to Bristol for 2001/04. Hartcliffe and Withywood is one of ten priority neighbourhoods in Bristol and has been allocated £550,000 over the two years to March 2004 in Bristol’s Neighbourhood Renewal Strategy (HWCP 2002).

Since April 2002, HWCP have become responsible for how Neighbourhood Renewal Funding is spent in Hartcliffe and Withywood. HWCP is currently in the middle of producing a Neighbourhood Action Plan for Hartcliffe and Withywood (due to be produced by March 2003):

5B2. Crime and Community Safety in Hartcliffe: an overview

On the basis of a combination of crime rates and public concern, the 1999 Crime and Disorder Audit identified Hartcliffe/Whitchurch Park as a priority area for 1999/2002.The second Audit of Crime and Disorder in Bristol (published in 2002) reviews progress made since 1999 and informs the Community Safety Strategy for 2002-2005. The following areas were identified as priority areas for the south of the city;

1 • Filwood/Knowle, (Broadbury Local Action GroupF F) • Hartcliffe, Bishopsworth, Whitchurch Park, Southville and Bedminster (Bishopsworth LAG) • Brislington E & W, (Brislington LAG)

However, while some areas (Filwood and Knowle, for example) are identified as ‘hotspots’, other areas are described as ‘transitional’, including Hartcliffe and Withywood. These means that while they were identified as hot spots in the 1999 Audit, they now record lower crime rates.

2002 Crime and Disorder Audit Crime analysis undertaken for the 2002 Bristol Crime and Disorder Audit identified the priority crimes for Hartcliffe and Withywood as domestic burglary, and theft of motor vehicles (Bristol Community Safety Partnership 2002). Using police incident data and community consultation the Audit identified the following as being the main issues for the area:

• racial harassment, • domestic incidents, • drug abuse, • recovered motor vehicles, • neighbour disputes / noise complaints, • young people and crime, • drunkenness, • poor educational achievement and truancy, and • personal safety (Bristol Community Safety Partnership 2002).

The Audit also contained comments from police beat officers about the area they policed. Fair Furlong beat (BR109) reported increases in burglary and noise nuisance, and problems with gatherings of young people. Comments for the Hartcliffe North beat (BR109) mentioned young

1 Local Action Groups (LAGs) are the means by which Bristol Community Safety Partnership has agreed to deliver its strategic priorities across the city. 36 people gathering in large numbers at the junction of Fulford Road and Gatcombe Road, Fulford and Pavey Road and young people riding motorcycles in Wilmotte park off Stillingfleet Road. There was also reference to motorcycle nuisance problems at Hartcliffe Community Campus. Symes Avenue was also identified as a location where young people gathered and engaged in shoplifting (Bristol Community Safety Partnership 2002).

SRB5 Baseline Survey The 2002 Crime and Disorder Audit builds on, and confirms, the findings of the Hartcliffe and Withywood SRB5 baseline survey. Face-to-face interviews were conducted with 515 residents during September and October 2000. Residents were asked questions about a variety of subjects: their accommodation, health, education and learning, employment, transport, local services and facilities, attitudes to the local area, exclusion and poverty, as well as crime. Those interviewed were also given a self-completion survey covering ‘more sensitive issues’ (ie income, benefits, drugs and mental 2 healthF F (SRB5 Baseline Survey)).

When asked, unprompted, to identify negative aspects of the area, crime, taken to include vandalism and not feeling safe, and drugs were the most frequently mentioned factors (by 48% and 38% of those 3 interviewed respectivelyF F). In addition, when asked to identify their three ‘priorities for improvement’ for the area from a list of the HWCP’s aims, ‘tackle crime/improve community safety’ came top (58%), followed by ‘better provision for young people’ (56%), and ‘tackle drug abuse (50%). No other aim was selected by more than 20% of respondents.

Forty-seven percent of residents interviewed said that they had been a victim of crime during the previous year. Most of these crimes related to theft; • 18% had had their car broken into (23% of those with a car), • 16% had had property damaged, • 15% had been burgled, and • 13% reported being affected by anti-social/nuisance behaviour.

In addition, two-thirds (65%) of residents said that they had either experienced or witnessed crime in the previous year. For most types of crime, residents were more likely to say they had experienced the crime than to have witnessed it, the main exception being drug dealing/misuse (where 3% said they had experienced the crime and 22% that they had witnessed it). Younger residents were more likely to say that they had experienced most types of crime (fifty-five percent of those aged under 45 said they had experienced at least one type of crime, compared with 39% of those aged 45 and over (SRB5 baseline survey)).

In terms of fear of crime 89% of the residents surveyed for the SRB baseline survey said they worried about at least one type of crime. Fear of crime far outstripped actual experience, particularly for burglary and drugs. The table below shows the level of fear for individual offences.

6BType of crime % of respondents feeling at risk Burglary 62 Drug dealing and misuse 52

2Ninety-nine of these questionnaires were returned. Interestingly, if perhaps unsurprisingly, while 48% of the respondents to the self-completion questionnaire said they had smoked tobacco, only 1% admitted to having smoked cannabis, and none admitted to having taken other drugs. 3 Followed by; poor shopping facilities (24%), the lack of/poor quality of leisure facilities (20%), lack of/poor quality of play areas for children (19%), and poor services/facilities for young people (16%). 37 Damage to property 47 4 Robbery 46F F ASB 42 Theft of/from motor-vehicle 42 (TO/FMV in households where there was a car) (58)

Those living in flats were more likely than those living in houses to worry about drugs, damage to property, robbery/mugging, and assault. Lone parents were more likely to worry about all types of crime. Those who had experienced a particular type of crime were more likely than those who had not to say they worried about it. This was particularly true for domestic violence and assault (SRB baseline survey).

It is interesting to note, in terms of burglary, that the patterns of crime (ie the relative vulnerability of flats, and the modus operandi used to gain entry to the various property types) identified in the SRB baseline survey and in documentation supporting the area’s Burglary Reduction Initiative application were similar to the patterns identified in the 1992 Safe Neighbourhoods Unit report. Indeed the general picture of crime for Hartcliffe and Withywood described by the 1992 report remains worryingly similar to the picture that emerged ten years later, suggesting that these problems are either intractable or have not been amenable to attempted ameliorative interventions.

Silcox Road and Hayleigh House

3. Hartcliffe & Withywood Community Safety Project

Hartcliffe & Withywood Community Safety Project works with local residents to reduce crime and the fear of crime in the area. The project benefits all of Hartcliffe and Withywood; however, there are ‘hotspots’ of crime which receive particular attention. The project employs a Community Safety

4 Robbery/mugging had only been experienced by 5% of respondents. 38 worker to liaise with the agencies responsible for the security and safety of the area. The project has a small grants fund for local safety initiatives.

The following have been identified as core themes: · Drugs and other addictions · Domestic Abuse: · Diversionary activities for young people · Harassment: prevention and support for victims.

The project has funded a young people’s music project in Withywood and also supported and funded Randolph Close Residents’ Association. Personal Safety Training courses are being set up to increase people’s confidence when they’re out and about in the area.

18BThe CSP’s operational environment What follows, distilled from the various pieces of research and consultation, is the core of a strategy for the CSP in Hartcliffe. However, in discussing the future role of the CSP it is important to recognize the existence of other organizations and bodies working in the area who also perform crime prevention and/or community safety roles, not least the large number of SRB funded projects.

A number of current or pending interventions are likely to support or reinforce one or more of the objectives identified for the CSP. In some cases, CSP will have direct involvement in their implementation and management; in other cases it will act more as an encourager, partner, catalyst or facilitator.

24BSRB5 – theme groups

25BThere are three theme groups operating under the Hartcliffe and Withywood Community Partnership umbrella: Working and Learning, Local Ownership, Balanced and Inclusive (LOBI), and Safe and Health. The Hartcliffe and Withywood Community Safety Project is funded under the last of these, which, clearly, for the purposes of this report is the most relevant theme group.

26BHowever, there are a number of projects funded through the other theme groups that are relevant to the operation of the CSP. For example, the LOBI theme group funds the Older Person’s Gardening Project, one of the aims of which is to prevent crime against the elderly that has occurred as the result of offenders targeting homes on the basis of their untended gardens. LOBI also funds the ‘Warm Safe and Secure Homes’, the ‘School Grounds’, race equality and the ‘Kickin’ Space’ projects, all of which are likely to be relevant to the work of the CSP. Similarly, the ‘Working and Learning’ theme funds the Cater Business Park project, discussed in more detail below, but which has a strong situational crime prevention element.

The list of projects sponsored by the Safe and Health theme group is provided below. Due to the remit of the group, not all are linked to crime and community safety. However, the majority are, implicitly or explicitly:

• Community Links for Ex-Offenders (CLEO) • Community Safety • Community Sports • Complementary Therapies • Hartcliffe and Withywood Kick Start (HAWKS) • Plot to Plate • Safe Victim • Safer Symes 39 • Support for Carers • Teenage Parents Peer Education • Traffic Calming and Pedestrian Safety

4. Main areas of activity for the Community Safety Project

27BThe next part of the report deals with the four elements that have already been identified as providing the core of the CSP’s work; drugs and other addictions, domestic abuse, diversionary activities for young people, and the prevention of harassment and support for victims. Suggestions for CSP activities are placed in the context of other initiatives running in Hartcliffe likely to have an impact upon the subject area.

A. Drugs and other addictions Drug misuse and drug dealing have been identified as one of the major problems in Hartcliffe, and as one of the major causes of crime in the area (SNU 1992, KWADS 2000, Bristol Community Safety Partnership 2002).

In 2000 Hartcliffe and Withywood Safe Theme Group commissioned research from KWADS into the needs of drug users and carers, and current provision in Hartcliffe and Withywood (KWADS, 2000). Findings from the research included: • the mean starting age for drugs misuse in BS13/14 was 16 (South West Regional Drugs Database). • 42% of residents surveyed were unaware of any local services for drugs misusers. • 53% of young people surveyed did not know where to get help if they had problems with drugs (40% of young people obtained information about drugs from friends) • 40% of young people obtain information about drugs from their friends.

The report suggested the following in response to the identified situation: • the services drug users indicated they would most use were counseling and needle exchanges • the need for a local ‘drop-in street agency’, as the focus for information, counseling and referral. • continued support for families/carers. • the need to develop ‘tailor made’ services for children and young people.

Serious drug misuse is usually symptomatic of deeper personal and social problems amongst the addicted population. As well as treating the symptoms through drug control enforcement and harm reduction, it will be necessary to do something about the reasons why some people start abusing themselves through excessive drug consumption in the first place. This makes it apparent that reducing and preventing the drugs problem in Hartcliffe requires a multi-faceted approach; one that will require much sustained effort but will have much broader pay-offs in terms of less crime and better health for residents. In particular there is a close connection between the commencement of problematic drug use and the experiences of children and young people in terms of parenting experiences, peer pressure, education and legitimate opportunities. Drugs prevention strategies should be linked to other strategies aimed at improving the quality of young people’s development (see subsequent paragraphs).

Hartcliffe is already host to a number of interventions that either directly or indirectly relate to the drugs problem. These include:

40 • CLEO (Community Links for Ex-Offenders) (CLEO). This project aims to give offenders and ex-offenders from the BS13 & BS4 postcode areas an opportunity to contribute to the community in a positive manner. The project provides advice, guidance and support, as appropriate, on health and housing issues, employment aims, addiction support, learning new skills, training opportunities and help and support for family members (HWCP website). • (HAWKS) Hartcliffe and Withywood Kick Start is a counselling service for drug users and their families and partners, based at the Hartcliffe site of the City of Bristol College. Counselling services are provided in a variety of venues across Hartcliffe and Withywood, complemented by an advice and information service for clients. HAWKS also works closely with other organisations, CLEO, for example, to provide services for those who have recently come out of prison. HAWKS has also worked with Sure Start for the benefit of drug-using parents with very young children, undertakes drug awareness education work, particularly with schools and through the youth service (HWCP website).

The CSP could play a key role in promoting or co-ordinating a holistic approach to drugs reduction and prevention in the area; one that tackles both supply and demand and that has something to offer at every stage in an individual’s lifeline – from early educational input to rehabilitation and re- integration schemes. Most of the services for direct work with addicts and those at risk of becoming addicts are already being provided, but the CSP is in a good position to have an indirect impact. As a good practice template, the range of work (multi-agency collaboration on enforcement, management and prevention) aimed at reducing the drugs problem in Southmead (North Bristol) would be worth studying.(“Southmead – Is it getting Better?2002)

19BB. Reducing and preventing domestic violence Existing studies have suggested that domestic violence is a substantial problem in Hartcliffe (SNU 1992, Avon and Somerset Constabulary 2000, Safer Bristol Partnership 2002). The CSP is already playing a substantial part in tackling issues of domestic violence, working with Next Link to establish the Survivors Advisory Group which will pass information to the Citywide Domestic Abuse Forum and vice versa. The project is also working with Victim Support and Sure Start family workers to undertake training in identifying domestic abuse in families as well as also building self help support groups from victims and survivors to meet and discuss future plans and provisions for local services in Hartcliffe and Withywood (Safer Bristol Partnership, 2002).

Other projects working in the area include the Safe Victim project that provides protection, support and reassurance to vulnerable victims of domestic violence and racial abuse in Hartcliffe and Withywood. Victims are provided with a variety of measures to assist them; personal attack alarms, mobile phones with a 999 only facility, target hardening, burglar alarms, a secure room in the home, and surveillance equipment. A Domestic Violence Liaison Officer from Avon and Somerset Constabulary works with the victim to decide the most suitable method to prevent crime.

In addition a local action team has been set up to help to publicise domestic violence to all local agencies and professionals working with families, women and men, local people and survivors of domestic violence and abuse.

Domestic violence has been identified as a priority in Hartcliffe and Withywood. It will remain an area that the CSP is heavily involved in. Future work is likely to centre around liaison with a Domestic Violence Worker in the development of strategies and actions plans for services in the area. As with drugs misuse, the long term prevention of domestic violence hinges on breaking the cycle of learnt behaviour which starts with early childhood experiences. Therefore, although not explicitly targeting the prevention of domestic violence, the work of local health visitors, Sure Start and the

41 Fulford Road Family Centre, as well as other projects where local parents support each other,could all have a valuable role to play in a comprehensive plan to reduce domestic violence in Hartcliffe.

20BC. Work with youth The link between crime, anti-social behaviour and youth is irrefutable in Hartcliffe, as it is on many other similar estates (highlighted in the 2002 Audit). It is important to remember, however, that young people are one of the highest risk groups for being victims of crime and anti-social behaviour, as well as being over-represented as offenders (as evidenced by the SRB5 baseline survey).

The 2002 Audit referred to the following areas as being associated with anti-social behaviour. In some locations interventions to try and tackle these problems have been introduced:

Withywood School - groups of up to 100 local young people gathering in the school grounds at weekends. (In response, the school and police set up a local action team to deal with the problems. A perimeter fence has been installed around the school grounds and the major perpetrators have been issued with ABC’s by the local housing office). Queens Road - up to 60 young people meeting here at night, intimidating local residents. (A multi activity court was developed in an attempt to lead the young people away from Queens Road). Concerns on the part of local people about motorbike riding through the park and other nuisance issues remain. Fulford Road – range of antisocial behaviour, from racial harassment to criminal damage to the two shops, at the Gatcombe Road end of Fulford Road. (A Local Action Team has been established to tackle these problems). Willmotte Park - vandalism and dumping of household as well as industrial waste. (The park is part of a community project called Whose Land is it Anyway?) Hartwood Acres – nuisance issues including car burning, young people setting fires on the land and riding of motorbikes. Symes Avenue - major nuisance problems with young people hanging around at night, vandalism and abuse (Bristol Community Safety Partnership 2002).

It is unlikely that the CSP will become directly involved in youth services and provision – as with drugs above, there are many statutory and voluntary agencies already doing this in the area. However the CSP would be abjuring from one of its principal aims if it failed to address the problems of youth crime and victimisation; after all young people make up a very significant proportion of the residents of Hartcliffe.

The understandable pressure on the authorities to move on and exclude difficult young people from public and communal spaces (by using the police, Acceptable Behaviour Contracts and Anti-social Behaviour Orders) provides only a temporary hold or abeyance of problems. “Hanging out” in public spaces is an inevitable part of growing up and, if this desire is repressed, the danger is that it will just be displaced or manifest in more alarming ways. The challenge (which the CSP may be able to help with) is to provide opportunities for young people to gather without causing victimisation and distress to others. There are many examples of good practice in other places (such as youth shelters, cafés and detached youth work) – the CSP could act as a conduit for replicating this good practice in Hartcliffe.

Some of the best people to identify youth problems, and find and deliver solutions, are young people themselves. Experience elsewhere has shown that all too often attempts to deal with ‘problems with youths’, and to provide facilities to address these problems, without actually engaging the young people concerned in the design and implementation of these facilities fail. The CSP could play a key

42 role in involving young people and finding resources to help deliver the imaginative ideas they will inevitably come up with.

Again it will be important that the CSP actively links to and builds on the valuable youth work that is already going on in the area. There is also a major role for the CSP in working closely with the Local Action Teams that have been established in the various asb ‘hotspots’ identified to provide them with guidance about what might, and what might not, be effective in dealing with these problems.

Youth crime prevention involves much more than just offering diversionary activities to relieve boredom – universal provision (such as sports activities and a youth café) should be balanced with targeted interventions aimed at high-risk youths. Again, Southmead has achieved considerable progress with such a dual approach and may offer a good model. Other schemes that could offer useful lessons for Hartcliffe are the SSP scheme in Denmark and the CASPAR project in Northampton. In both cases the various public service agencies operating in the neighbourhood nominate particular children and young people who they think could benefit from extra support and help. This ensures that resources are targeted and services co-ordinated, as often the same youngsters are known to different agencies for different reasons.

21BIt is important to recognise that this work is likely to be of a long term nature, and will involve detailed discussions with youth services, police, social services and education. It will also be valuable to link with and build on the existing services to young people being provided through the YOUR (Youth Owning Urban Regeneration), and CONNEXIONS.

14BTruancy reduction The link between truancy, school exclusions and high levels of crime and anti-social behaviour is irrefutable. It is in the CSP’s interest to work with local schools, education welfare and social services to minimise the number of children who are playing truant or who have been excluded from school without any alternative provision being offered to them that covers at least the time they would otherwise be attending classes. Schools under pressure (as are Hartcliffe’s) will be understandably reluctant to maximise the attendance of disruptive students, so truancy can sometimes be experienced by staff as a blessed relief. However in the broader community safety scheme of things, children absent from mainstream education are a high risk and costly group. Schools therefore need extra help and resources (possibly using extra classroom assistants or mentoring schemes) to achieve full personal and social inclusion.

Personal counseling for pupils and more accent on the Personal and Social Education strand of the curriculum can make valuable long-term contributions to core themes A, C and D of this report, particularly when there is good communication and liaison with parents and the wider community. Schools can also be engaged in community safety projects, often but not inevitably, in conjunction with the police.

29BMediation and reparation

9BIt is felt that there may be scope to involve the community more closely in mediation, justice and reparation. For example, it might be possible for those given community disposals to undertake work in the area itself. In order to establish these sort of links there is a need for greater contact between those organisations working with ex-offenders in Hartcliffe (CLEO and HAWKS for example) and the courts and Probation Service. The CSP could take a lead in contacting criminal justice personnel to establish the feasibility of this idea, and in co-ordinating activities in this arena.

43 22BD. Reducing and preventing victimisation The description of the crime problems faced by Hartcliffe and Withywood in section 2 of this report illustrates the extent of crime problems facing the area, and the longevity of these problems. What it also suggests is the need for interventions to address both situational and social aspects of crime, in order to prevent and reduce victimisation.

Targeted building security improvements, based on careful assessment of vulnerability and risk, are an essential component of community safety. However, while the Burglary Reduction Initiative has had some success in the area, it is evident that target hardening measures are likely only to have an impact on burglary, and only for those premises that have been upgraded. This is not to say that situational (eg: lock-fitting schemes) and criminal justice (eg: targeted policing) methods of reducing crime should be rejected; merely that they need to be applied in conjunction with attention to longer term personal, social and health interventions.

The tower block security/reception improvements in Hartcliffe are a good example of balancing heightened security with improved management and assistance for residents.

The best that situational crime prevention measures can do is strengthen the precarious barrier between victim and offender. There is even a risk that, until the underlying problems of drug addiction, dysfunctional families and disaffected youth are lessened, crime may be displaced towards more vicious types of offence, such as muggings and assaults. If a drug addict cannot break into a house or steal from a car, he may resort to street robbery to get the money for his next fix.

There is a risk, therefore, of displacement, not only to other less protected properties, but to other types of crime. Residents can be vulnerable in the streets and in their own homes (from abuse and violence). After the comparative success of its target hardening initiatives, the CSP could perhaps put more emphasis over the next few years on street safety and personal safety within the home, something it has already begun. If target hardening is the major strategy for reducing victimisation, there is a risk that Hartcliffe will become aggressively fortified (reinforced doors, metal shutters, CCTV, clearance of landscape planting and harsh lighting) resulting in a degradation of the neighbourhood’s image (see later section for a discussion of neighbourhood image).

Main entrance to Hartcliffe Community College Again, there are a number of projects running in Hartcliffe likely to have an impact upon the operation of the CSP. Of those that might be described as having a situational focus, the Warm, Safe and Secure Homes project carries out repairs, adaptations and security work for those living in poor, unsafe or insecure housing. It is for people on low income, older and/or disabled homeowners. Amongst other activities, the scheme carries out free security work such as replacing locks, external doors etc. for those who have been burgled or are vulnerable. The Older Person's Gardening project undertakes work free of charge to residents of Hartcliffe and Withywood, aiming to reduce victimisation by removing ‘environmental cues’ (ie an untended garden) that may be used by offenders to target elderly victims. The project is free to residents in Hartcliffe and Withywood, whether they live in rented accommodation or own their home. In addition there are a number of projects running which might be described as addressing social aspects of victimization, principally those described in the domestic violence section above.

Likely role for the CSP in this area:

• 30BCo-ordinating role with the various social and situational schemes aimed at reducing victimisation running in Hartcliffe and Withywood.

• 31BContinued role providing advice/guidance to public on aspects of street safety.

• 32BRole as ‘champion’ of re-victimisation (RV) prevention.(Victims of certain crimes, most notably burglary, domestic violence and hate crimes are much more likely than the average to be victimised again). Although the concept of revictimisation has received a fair amount of publicity during the past decade its usefulness as a means of targeting resources for crime prevention purposes has not been fully exploited, particularly for crimes other than burglary. The CSP could usefully stress the importance of RV in the development of a community safety strategy across offence types

• 33B.Continuation of work begun by the Burglary Reduction Initiative following the ‘alleygating’of a number of properties on the estate. Recent (unpublished) research (Armstrong 2002) has shown that the effectiveness of alleygating is determined by the operation of the gates once they have been introduced. All too often their effectiveness is diminished because of the absence of funds to repair damaged or broken gates, or because residents do not use the gates as had been intended (because it is inconvenient, because they 45 lose their keys, as new tenants/householders move in etc etc). There is certainly scope for the CSP to become involved in ensuring that the alleygating project is adequately resourced (beyond the initial installation costs), and continues to be effectively implemented.

23BOther activities for the CSP beyond its core business

34BPublicity/Roadshows

10BIn the past the CSP has been involved in activities to provide community safety and crime prevention advice to members of the public in Hartcliffe, through school visits for example. Clearly this is an important role for the CSP, and we feel it should continue, and if possible, be extended. The use of ‘roadshows’ seemed particularly valuable. If nothing else this sort of activity would have the effect of bringing the CSP into contact with greater numbers of members of the public. Similarly, we would support the proposal that the CSP hold local ‘community safety surgeries’ in Hartcliffe.

It is suggested that the publicity activities could be extended beyond the provision of simple crime prevention advice into other areas, for example, publicity aimed at reducing the market for stolen goods (an initiative similar to West Mercia Police’s ‘We don’t buy Crime’), undertaken in conjunction with the police locally. There should also be more publicity for the expanding range of community safety related services available to residents of Hartcliffe. The CSP could also be the provider to the wider media of “good publicity” about Hartcliffe, by issuing press releases for any kind of success and inviting television reporters down to see some of the progress being made in the area. Such "positive spins" are essential to turn around the image of the area that is reinforced by the media’s concentration on bad news.

Involvement of the community

7BThe SRB5 baseline survey produced some interesting results in terms of residents’ awareness of the Hartcliffe and Withywood Community Partnership. Thirty-eight percent of respondents said that they had heard of the partnership, but of those who had heard of it, ‘few know much about its activities’. While just over half (54%) of those surveyed knew that the area had been granted funding for development and improvement, only 28% of under-30s knew this (SRB baseline survey). It would seem that there remain problems in terms of the involvement of members of the public in community safety activities. This is particularly the case with young people.

Increased publicity around issues of community safety and crime prevention should have the effect of increasing public knowledge about the on-going work in Hartcliffe, and we recognize that the production of the ‘Community Safety Newsletter’ will help with this. However, we feel that there is a need to get a better picture of the views of, particularly young, people in Hartcliffe about issues of crime and community safety. Bearing in mind the number of other community safety and crime prevention projects running in the area that would be ‘consumers’ of this information, we feel that the CSP is ideally placed to become the body that directs and co-ordinates activities designed to monitor the impact of community safety initiatives in Hartcliffe, and the extent to which these initiatives are meeting local requirements.

Environmental design, neighbourhood image and state of repair

Fulford Road shops

47 Currently, parts of Hartcliffe present a depressing visual impression, with litter and graffiti in abundance. It should be possible to provide a co-ordinated clean-up and “beautification” programme, using a combination of: the local contracted street cleaning team, community caretakers and offenders doing reparation on Community Service Orders. It should also be possible for local schools or youth projects to undertake community art projects which could redecorate shuttered buildings and other graffiti strewn areas with pleasant and colourful images of local relevance. (Community art schemes based on this principle have worked successfully in Basingstoke, Hackney and Plymouth, for example.) The important point is that clean- ups and graffiti removal should occur quickly and repeatedly, in order to minimise environmental abuse and degradation.

The principle of using a dedicated holistic environmental maintenance team who work exclusively in Hartcliffe (along the lines of the successful “Pathfinder” scheme in Barton Hill) seems to be the best way ahead. Such a programme of regular cleaning, maintenance and beautification could not only provide training and employment possibilities, but could offer “press release” opportunities for the media to give a more positive image of the area. In addition, if residents (both adults and young people) were involved in the clean-ups and artworks, then this would encourage local ownership and control of the improved environment The opportunity exists to undertake other ‘greening’ projects in conjunction with other agencies working in the area (eg: the “Plot to Pot” scheme).

For many years Hartcliffe has had a problem with stolen cars being abandoned and torched, as well as dumping of unwanted cars. It will be important to monitor whether Bristol’s new policy on dealing with this nuisance is having a successful impact in Hartcliffe.

Existing schemes There are a number of schemes running in Hartcliffe that aim to improve aspects of environmental design of the area and to prevent crime. The School Grounds Project has an indirect crime prevention function, bearing in mind the anti-social behaviour problems associated with these premises, while the crime prevention role of the Traffic Calming Scheme is more obvious. The Safer Symes Project has overseen the introduction of CCTV cameras on Symes Avenue.

In all cases there is a need for continuing liaison between the CSP and these bodies.

Also funded under SRB5, ‘Cater Road: Securing the Future’ aims to address the problems of increasing crime levels, the degraded physical environment and the lack of business confidence felt by traders on the Cater Road Industrial Estate, by implementing security and environmental improvements. These plans include improving lighting and security surveillance to reduce crime and the fear of crime, and improving the landscaping and signs into and around the estate. Estate management is being introduced to improve the image and efficiency of the estate (HWCP website).

The CSP should be able to provide advice and guidance in terms of environmental improvements to the Cater Road project. In addition there may be scope to provide advice, training, and crime prevention information to security staff on the estate.

35BRe-development of Symes Avenue

Bristol Council’s neighbourhood services “citadel” at the end of Symes Avenue

“The redevelopment of Symes Avenue will send out a strong and very positive message about the future of Hartcliffe and Withywood" (HWCP website). The redevelopment proposal for Symes Avenue involves the complete demolition of all existing buildings except the Neighbourhood Services Office. (Hopefully this latter building will be refurbished externally to provide more discrete security than the current razor wire and steel grilles, which must give a very negative signal about the relationship between the council and residents). As the proposal stands, there would be a new superstore and in-store café, a petrol filling station, a row of smaller shops, a new library and community facilities. The opinions of local residents will be sought on issues like the views across the site, operating hours, the amount of car parking, open space and landscaping, quality of design and access -particularly for pedestrians and cyclists from Bishport Avenue -before the deal is complete and planning permission given (HWCP website).

49 Role for the CSP We feel the redevelopment of Symes Avenues could provide a major role for the CSP. On one hand there is scope for the project to provide guidance from a crime prevention and community safety standpoint on aspects of environmental design for the new development; not least to provide an element of ‘environmental scanning’ to anticipate crime problems that may arise. This could extend across a variety of areas; facilities for young people, forecourt design of petrol station, use of CCTV etc. Equally, bearing in mind what we have already referred to above, we feel that the CSP would be well suited to undertake elements of the public consultation required for the project that were concerned with aspects of community safety.

5. Hartcliffe and Withywood Community Partnership Community Safety Project – a co-ordinating role.

Perhaps the biggest challenge in Hartcliffe is to achieve synergy between the multitude of interventions and services that are attempting to improve the quality of life for residents. Presently there appears to be a very complex picture of various agencies and projects “doing their own thing” in order to meet the various criteria imposed on them by funding, contracts and legislation. A successful CSP would be able to bring people and agencies together around a common agenda of community safety, even if these people also have to deliver other outcomes for their sponsors. For example, just because a health visitor has to ensure optimum clinical health for her “patients”, it doesn’t’ mean that, in achieving this she can’t also be promoting the future prevention of criminality; and crime prevention is not incompatible with good universal youth work, even if this is not explicitly written into the worker’s job description. Merely pumping in more resources and starting up more “projects” in Hartcliffe is not going to make the place safer, unless better co- ordination, community empowerment and synergy can be achieved. An effective CSP will therefore need to catalyse, enable, liaise, co-ordinate, sometimes “bang heads together” and “convert hearts and minds”, as much as actually delivering safety directly to Hartcliffe. Achieving joined up delivery of a range of interventions and ensuring that these become integrated into mainstream public services (rather than “projects”) are the most likely ways that Hartcliffe will become a sustainably safer place, especially if local people can become major stakeholders in Hartcliffe’s fortunes. Such an aim will become all the more important as SRB5 funding comes to an end.

50 15BIn conclusion,therefore, it would seem clear that the major role the CSP will be undertaking in the future is a co-ordinating and facilitating role in relation to the wide range of community safety and crime prevention initiatives and projects running in Hartcliffe and Withywood. It is unlikely that the direct management responsibilities of the CSP will increase in the future, but it is needed to act as an organisation to channel and co-ordinate the efforts of the various agencies working on the estate - agencies with often conflicting methods of working and belief systems. More specifically, as this report has demonstrated, there is a need to provide co- ordination across the plethora of SRB funded projects which impact upon crime and community safety to varying degrees.

16BAs a final point, we doubt whether this role is feasible given the existing staffing levels of the project, and would support moves to increase the number of staff working for the CSP, and to provide staff with administrative support.

8BSuccess criteria, measurement, evaluation and review This plan is intended to be flexible and dynamic rather than a fixed set of instructions. The nature of community safety means that strategies cannot be fixed for too long. New types of crime waves or “fashions” emerge, key disruptive individuals/groups move away or are locked up and some interventions make significant progress. It is therefore important that the CSP’s work and indeed the broader set of interventions that affect the quality of life in Hartcliffe are monitored, measured, reviewed and evaluated regularly. It is important that “success” is not just measured in the short term and that targets are not just measured in output terms (eg: the number of locks fitted or arrests made). If the core activities described earlier are used as the basis for CSPs strategy over the next three to five years, different measurement and evaluation criteria may be needed for each category (although they could all use the same standard template of: baseline, intervention, change and outcome). Ultimately though, success can best be measured as an increased sense of safety amongst all the residents (including young people).

(Tim Read and Henry Shaftoe, Cities Research Centre, UWE, January 2003)

51 References

11BArmstrong, Y. ‘Evaluation of an alleygating scheme’. Masters dissertation; UWE. Unpublished 2002.

12BAvon and Somerset Constabulary ‘South Bristol Reducing Violence Against Women Initiative’

Avon and Somerset Constabulary ‘Hartcliffe (North and South) burglary reduction initiative’.

Bristol City Council. ‘Hartcliffe and Withywood Partnership; City Challenge document’. 1991.

Hartcliffe and Withywood Community Partnership. ‘Draft framework for Hartcliffe and Withywood neighbourhood action plan’, October 2002.

Hartcliffe and Withywood Community Partnership. Minutes of the Safe and Health Theme Group.

Hartcliffe and Withywood Community Partnership Newsletter

KWADS. ‘Report into the needs of drug users and carers, and current provision in Hartcliffe and Withywood’, 2000.

RBA Research ‘Hartcliffe and Withywood SRB5 Baseline Survey’, 2001.

Safer Bristol Partnership, Crime and Disorder Audit and Strategy 1999.

Safer Bristol Partnership. Crime and Disorder Audit and Strategy, 2002.

Safe Neighbourhoods Unit. ‘Hartcliffe, Withywood and Highridge Community Safety Final Report’, 1992.

“Southmead – Is it getting Better?” Evaluation Report for Bristol Community Safety Partnership. UWE Cities Research Centre 2002.

17BWebsites

13BHartcliffe and Withywood Community Partnership: www.hwcp.org.uk