MARTIN J. POWER CLIONA BARNES DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF LIMERICK Research commissioned by Limerick Regeneration Agencies and Faculty of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Limerick Feeling Safe in Our Community. Research commissioned by Limerick Regeneration Agencies & the Faculty of Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences, University of Limerick. October 2011. Dr Martin J. Power Dr Cliona Barnes Department of Sociology, University of Limerick. The completion of this research would not have been possible without the valuable assistance of many people. We would like to thank Limerick Regeneration Agencies & the Faculty of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences at the University of Limerick for funding this important piece of research. We thank Declan Blackett (Limerick Regeneration Agencies), Caroline Clarke (OLOL), and Jimmy Prior (Southill FRC) for all of the assistance that they gave us throughout the process. Most importantly we want to thank those who agreed to participate as interviewees, as without their generosity and input this research would not have been possible. In particular we wish to acknowledge the input of the residents from both areas. We hope that this report has done justice to your views and experiences. Table of Contents Executive summary ...................................................................................................... i Research Context........................................................................................................ i Research Methods ..................................................................................................... v Key Research Findings............................................................................................ vii Recommendations .................................................................................................... xi Overview……………………………………………………………………………....1 Neighbourhoods, Fear of Crime, and Community Safety: International Evidence .. 1 Crime and Community Safety: The Limerick Context ............................................. 5 The State response to (un)safety in the estates ........................................................ 10 Methodology .............................................................................................................. 16 Qualitative research ................................................................................................. 16 Selection of Participants ......................................................................................... 16 Ethics ....................................................................................................................... 18 Analysis ................................................................................................................... 19 Research Findings ..................................................................................................... 20 Fear / Perceptions of Crime ..................................................................................... 20 Visibility of the Regeneration Process .................................................................... 27 The Physical Environment ...................................................................................... 33 The behaviour of Minors & Poor Parenting ............................................................ 40 Youth & Gender ...................................................................................................... 46 The Stigmatised / Pathologised Identity of the Estates ........................................... 51 (In)visibility ............................................................................................................. 55 Compromised Safety? Responses to Community Safety ........................................ 57 Responsibility for Community Safety ..................................................................... 71 Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 73 Fear of Crime .......................................................................................................... 73 Problem Parenting & Poor Behaviour ..................................................................... 74 Inaudible Voices ...................................................................................................... 75 Stigmatising the estates and creating fear ............................................................... 75 The impact of state responses.................................................................................. 76 Recommendations ..................................................................................................... 80 References .................................................................................................................. 85 Power & Barnes Limerick Regeneration Agencies & FAHSS, UL. Executive summary Research context As modern cities have developed and evolved real concerns have been generated among city dwellers about (in)security; concerns which have often become focused on public spaces, or particular “dangerous neighbourhoods” within the city environs (Aalbers and Rancati 2008, p.2736). Much research shows that residents perceptions / fear of crime and feeling unsafe is not always related to actual levels of crime in their locality. People may perceive that they are unsafe as a consequence of how they “label their mixed experience of unsafety, insecurity and uncertainty” (Aalbers and Rancati 2008, p.2738). Indeed, such perceptions (peoples subjective fear of crime) can be even more pronounced in large housing estates where many inhabitants themselves label their estate as unsafe” (Aalbers and Rancati 2008, pp.2738-2739). Brunton-Smith & Jackson’s (2011) findings from work undertaken in England and Wales demonstrates that people draw on more than their experience of life in the neighbourhood when evaluating their personal risk of crime. Elevated levels of fear of being a victim of crime were found in women and younger residents, those who had previously been a victim of crime, those with lower educational credentials, and those who read tabloid newspapers. Research on the role that neighbourhoods play in their resident’s experience / fear of crime largely falls into two categories. The first school of thought emphasises the “role of social disorganisation in undermining community-level informal social control mechanisms”, in areas which have experienced fairly rapid population change, and which have resulted in an over concentration of residents from lower socio- economic groups living there. In contrast, other residents both internationally (see Aalbers and Rancati 2008; Brunton-Smith & Jackson 2011), and nationally (see Hourigan 2011) express sentiments about insecurity and fear of crime, which appear to be enhanced by visible signs of disorder or deviance. Additionally, “anti-social behaviour - has a strong impact on the level of perceived insecurity” (Zajczyk et al., 2005 cited in Aalbers and Rancati 2008, p.2742). Such signifiers “are considered signs of abandonment by the police and public institutions”, which in turn create fear and insecurity among an estates residents (Aalbers and Rancati 2008, p.2742). Significantly, such visual signs of disorder may have a greater impact on residents’ i Power & Barnes Limerick Regeneration Agencies & FAHSS, UL. fear of crime than the actual crime rates in that locality (Brunton-Smith & Jackson 2011). This body of academic literature has informed a number of policy initiatives, including an emphasis on community policing (Skogan 2003), zero tolerance strategies (Denis 1997), and the use of Community Support Officers to provide a link between communities and the police (Hughes and Rowe 2007, cited in Brunton-Smith & Jackson 2011). An opposing policy path was offered by Ginsburg (1999) who suggested that social regeneration, which strives for “the improved and appropriate delivery of welfare services in poor neighbourhoods and the empowerment of local communities” while it has never been a prominent feature of urban regeneration, is the route we should travel. Internationally, “from an institutional point of view, security seems to be perceived as an autonomous issue” which is disconnected from economic, social and physical policies of urban regeneration. In effect, such a strategy sees security primarily as “a question of order and control (safety), while ignoring the social conditions which produce deviant behaviour” (Aalbers and Rancati 2008, pp.2746-2747). Accordingly, there is a strong argument that in order to be effective in addressing community (un)safety and (in)security, it is important to simultaneously implement policies which tackle unsafety – in “the immediate environment in which the fearful reside” (Brunton-Smith & Jackson 2011) - such as “police control and zero tolerance” - with policies which seek to create and sustain “social cohesion, social networks and employment” (Aalbers and Rancati 2008, p. 2747). Such a strategy can “increase levels of social-economic security”, in turn addressing social inclusion, which ultimately impacts positively on residents’ perceptions of their safety (Aalbers and Rancati 2008, p. 2747). In essence, policies which are aimed at “addressing simultaneously the four pillars of economic, social, physical and safety-related problems” are the best approach to counteract the sense of insecurity, unsafety and uncertainty