Health Impact Assessment on the draft Hastings District Council Graffiti Vandalism Strategy

Transcription

1 Health Impact Assessment on the draft Hastings District Council Graffiti Vandalism Strategy Prepared by: Ana Apatu and Maree Rohleder Hawke s Bay District Health Board In partnership with Hastings District Council With assistance from Quigley and Watts Ltd 1

2 Acknowledgements Maree Rohleder, Health Protection Officer and Ana Apatu, Senior Population Health Advisor (Hawke s Bay District Health Board) would like to acknowledge Emma Walsh and Jacqui Barnes (Hastings District Council) for their willingness to support the health impact assessment process. Their wealth of knowledge on graffiti issues and the commitment to the process has been much appreciated. We would also like to thank the following community members, organisations and other individuals that gave their time for the stakeholder workshops. Without their feedback we would not have been able to undertake the Health Impact Assessment. Safe Hastings Advisory Committee Hastings District Council Youth Council Police Henare O Keefe Hastings District Council (Councillor) Rose Smith Hawke s Bay District Heath Board Dallas Halbert Graffiti Artist Taggers/Graffiti Artists Bert Lincoln Flaxmere Community Patrol The administration support from Audrey Garrett and Lynn McCowan has also assisted us greatly in undertaking this HIA. The Ministry of Health, Health Impact Support Unit Learning by Doing fund, has funded this Health Impact Assessment and we have appreciated the the support given to us from this unit. Finally we would also like to thank Rob Quigley, David Driscole, Louise Signal and Velma McClellan for their assistance and mentoring in undertaking this Health Impact Assessment. Please note: the graffiti art in this document was produced on paper at our request during the appraisal workshops in answer to the question why do you tag? 2

3 Table of Contents What Do These Terms Mean In This Report?... 5 Executive Summary... 6 History of Engagement... 9 Background... 9 Health Impact Assessment HIA Process Used Screening Scoping/setting the priorities of the HIA Appraisal Evaluation Apprasial Findings Literature review Wellbeing And Health Pathways Identified In The HIA Community Profile Other Evidence Discussion Reporting and Recording Removal Prevention Education Enforcement Community Recommendations for the Hastings District Council Appendix One Screening Report Appendix Two - Scoping Report Appendix Three Community Profile Appendix Four Literature Review Appendix Five Safe Hastings Appraisal Committee Workshop Appendix Six Graffiti Vandalism Workshop Notes

4 Appendix Seven Key Stakeholders Workshop Notes Appendix Eight Police Workshop Tables Appendix Nine Youth Workshop Notes Appendix Ten Newspaper Article

5 What Do These Terms Mean In This Report? Graffiti Vandalism Graffiti vandalism is the intentional unlawful defacing of property with writing, markings or graphics without consent of the occupier, owner or other person in lawful control. Tagging Tagging, a form of graffiti vandalism, is the writing of a stylised signature on a wall or other property and is the most common form of graffiti vandalism in New Zealand. Graffiti Vandalism Offenders People who undertake graffiti vandalism. Graffiti Art Legally produced graffiti type graphics/art undertaken with permission of the owner or other person in lawful control. Graffiti Artists People who undertake graffiti type graphics/art legally with permission of the owner or other person in lawful control. Graffers A term often used by Graffiti Vandalism Offenders and Graffiti Artists when referring to themselves. 5

6 Executive Summary Hastings District Council (HDC) recognises that graffiti is an issue for the district and already provides significant resources for its removal. Despite these commitments, the Hastings District Council struggles to make significant progress against graffiti vandalism. The draft Graffiti Vandalism Strategy has been developed to provide a coordinated approach to graffiti reduction and provide support for funding applications. The Strategy builds on existing operations and activities as well as recommending new initiatives and focuses on integrating the following themes: Reporting and Recording Removal Prevention Enforcement Education Community The Hastings District Council (HDC) was invited to engage with the Hawke s Bay District Health Board (HBDHB) to conduct a Health Impact Assessment (HIA) on the graffiti vandalism strategy. Health Impact Assessment is a multidisciplinary approach that investigates the potential public health and wellbeing outcomes of a proposal. Its aim is to deliver evidence based recommendations that inform the decision-making process, to maximise gains in health and wellbeing and to reduce or remove negative impacts or inequalities. HIA uses the broad definition of health used by the World Health Organization: Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity. 6

7 The four stages of a typical HIA have been undertaken, drawing together evidence from the social science literature, community representatives, taggers/graffiti artists, local police, community organisations and the Council. This rigorous approach has led to the following key recommendations to the decision makers: Continue to monitor on a half-yearly basis the Hastings District Council Graffiti Vandalism Strategy to ensure that the ongoing Stop Tagging our Places (STOP) research findings/publications are incorporated into the strategy. Add to the Graffiti Vandalism Strategy: Recommend the development of a crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) policy relevant to graffiti. (Ministry of Justice CPTED guidelines 2008) Add to the Graffiti Vandalism Strategy: CPTED is taken into account when undertaking urban design in the Hastings District. Modify the Graffiti Vandalism Strategy: Develop a graffiti policy statement, including a process and timeframe for painting out. Add to Graffiti Vandalism Strategy: At risk areas for graffiti vandalism will be identified and an action plan for long term solutions will be developed for each area. Add to Graffiti Vandalism Strategy: Community representatives from at risk areas will participate in the decision making process for developing solutions for their areas. Add to Graffiti Vandalism Strategy: The feasibility of community restorative justice programmes will be investigated. Add to Graffiti Vandalism Strategy: Rapid-response to repair damaged murals. Modify Graffiti Vandalism Strategy: Paint murals on public and commercial buildings that are commissioned locally and are reflective of the local community. Paint in a style that reduces the risk of graffiti vandalism. Add to the Graffiti Vandalism Strategy: Work with the Hawke s Bay DHB to ensure the education component adopts the HBDHB health promoting schools model/concept. Add to Graffiti Vandalism Strategy: Use role models such as local graffiti artists to work with graffiti vandalism offenders/youth on the effects of graffiti vandalism. 7

8 Add to Graffiti Vandalism Strategy: Discuss with the police the logistics of getting communities to report to police any NZ websites that promote graffiti. Modify Graffiti Vandalism Strategy: Maintain regular liaison with community constables and the Police Youth Aid section. Modify Graffiti Vandalism Strategy: Develop a programme to educate graffiti vandalism offenders by working collaboratively with other agencies. Adopt frameworks that can support effective interventions that target at risk youth e.g. Tough is not enough Getting Smart about Youth Crime (2000) MYD Hawke s Bay DHB invite HDC staff (particularly those involved in community development) to joint training initiatives regarding community development, health promotion and population wellbeing. Support the Graffiti Vandalism Strategy: Investigate legal tagging walls, especially given the differing opinion of the STOP strategy conflicting with the evidence from local graffiti vandalism offenders. Modify the Graffiti Vandalism Strategy: Trial the promotion of graffiti art initiatives, and determine if there is evidence of a reduction in graffiti or other benefits. Update prevention strategy 3.1 Limit access to graffiti instruments to incorporate recent legislative changes. Add to the Graffiti Vandalism Strategy: Investigate how non-profit organisations who deal with youth involved in graffiti vandalism can be assisted by Council. 8

9 History of Engagement The Hastings District Council (HDC) was invited to engage with the Hawke s Bay District Health Board (HBDHB) to conduct a Health Impact Assessment (HIA) on the Graffiti Vandalism Strategy. The Hawke s Bay District Health Board is currently working with local government bodies to incorporate Health Impact Assessment into their planning processes. This was also supported by a successful application to the Ministry of Health s Health Impact Assessment Learning by Doing fund which supports District Health Board s and council s to adopt the tool by engaging experts in this area to learn the process. The funding has therefore enabled us to use Quigley and Watts consultants to facilitate the process and Otago University to formally evaluate the Health Impact Assessment process. The evaluation report on this HIA will be available separately to this HIA document and can be obtained by contacting the authors of this HIA report. Background The Hastings District Council recognises that graffiti is an issue for this district and already provides significant resources for its removal. Hastings District Council currently employs two painters who, among other tasks, remove graffiti from HDC properties, and an Environment Enhancement Officer who coordinates the Keep Hastings Beautiful (KHB) Trust efforts to manage the removal of graffiti from private properties. Despite these commitments, the Hastings District Council struggles to make significant progress against graffiti vandalism in the district. Graffiti vandalism impacts negatively on both the social and economic environment of communities. Between 1 July and 30 September 2008, 384 incidents of graffiti were removed from Councilowned and private properties. Of these, 59 were new calls recorded through the 0508 NO GRAFFITI hotline. For a council with a large geographic area but small rating base, the economic impact on the Hastings District is quite significant. To date, HDC alone has spent $12,185 this financial year on the removal of graffiti, whilst the KHB Trust has spent another $12,000. Added to this expenditure are the financial, in-kind and voluntary contributions of 9

10 businesses, schools and residents who also remove graffiti with the aim of maintaining an attractive environment. Of these 384 graffiti incidences, 204 were removed by HDC. Hastings District Council s painters also carry out routine maintenance on HDC assets, but are increasingly being redirected to graffiti removal to cope with the incidence. The commitment to painting out of graffiti means that other painting jobs, such as maintenance of Hastings District Council s housing for the elderly could be deferred. This could require additional staff efforts in contracting others to do the work or carry a risk that the flats are left untenanted. The impact of graffiti vandalism on the social environment is equally as great. Vandalism negatively impacts on the public s perception of safety, not only for residents, but also for visitors and tourists. Graffiti vandalism, in particular tagging, presents an unsafe image of a community as it can symbolise criminal activity, low socio-economics and a community that lacks pride in its surroundings. It can also encourage other vandalism and thereby lower property values. It is generally accepted that graffiti vandalism which isn t cleaned up immediately encourages more graffiti vandalism. The Hastings District Council does not have an adopted graffiti vandalism policy and the previous approach was largely reactive and focussed on removal, rather than reducing the incidence. If the current approach to graffiti vandalism is further broadened to include prevention initiatives, it is hoped that the amount of expenditure on graffiti vandalism removal will stabilise or eventually decrease. The purpose of the draft Graffiti Vandalism Strategy is to develop a coordinated approach to the reduction of graffiti vandalism and provide support for funding applications. The primary objective of the Strategy is to reduce the incidence and presence of graffiti in the Hastings District. The Strategy focuses on integrating the following themes: Reporting and Recording 10

11 Removal Prevention Enforcement Education Community The Strategy builds on existing operations and activities as well as recommending new initiatives. Both the Council s Crime Prevention and Central Business Districts Safety Plans acknowledge that reducing graffiti vandalism can not be achieved through removal alone. The Crime Prevention Plan advocates for a multi-faceted graffiti strategy and both provide suggestions for proactive initiatives. These initiatives have been incorporated in the Strategy. The Hastings District Council is not the only council to have experienced this problem. Manukau City Council (MCC) has developed the Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill as part of a multi-pronged approach against graffiti. MCC recognises that for anti-graffiti initiatives to be truly effective and sustainable there must be a combination of removal, prevention, and education and enforcement initiatives. Early this year, the Government publicly conceded that graffiti is a national issue and announced the development of the STOP (Stop Tagging Our Place) Strategy which has now been published. As part of that Strategy some initiatives have been released which include funds to support local communities and councils in implementing graffiti reduction initiatives. With central government support, leading examples from other councils and the broadening of Hastings District Council s (HDC) Environment Enhancement Officer s role, HDC is now in a good position to act holistically in its approach to graffiti. 11

12 It was decided to undertake a Health Impact Assessment on the draft Graffiti Vandalism Strategy with the recommendations being given to the Hastings District Council to assist them in their decision making process. The two key officers involved in writing the draft Strategy have been involved in the HIA process. The recommendations from the evaluation report, which is being undertaken by Louise Signal from the Otago School of Medicine, will be forwarded to the Hawke s Bay District Health Board, Hastings District Council and the Ministry of Health to assist when undertaking Health Impact Assessments in the future. Health Impact Assessment Health Impact Assessment (HIA) is a multidisciplinary approach that investigates the potential public health and wellbeing outcomes of a proposal. Its aim is to deliver evidence based recommendations that inform the decision-making process, to maximise gains in health and wellbeing and to reduce or remove negative impacts or inequalities. HIA uses the broad definition of health used by the World Health Organization: Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity. HIA is an internationally recognised approach that helps to protect and promote community wellbeing and public health. The key reasons to undertake a Health Impact Assessment are: To help policy makers use a sustainable development approach To assist policy makes meet public health requirements of legislation and policy direction such as the Local Government Act (2002) and the Land Transport Management Act (2002) To help policy-makers incorporate evidence into policy-making 12

13 To promote cross-sectoral collaboration To promote a participatory, consultative approach to policy-making To improve health and wellbeing and reduce inequalities in health To help policy-makers consider Treaty of Waitangi implications HIA Process Used The Health Impact Assessment process followed standard methodology as described in the document A Guide to Health Impact Assessment: A policy tool for New Zealand. It is usual within an HIA to compare one proposed option against another, either comparing a proposal with business as usual or comparing various proposed options available. In this instance we compared the status quo with the draft Graffiti Vandalism Strategy developed by the Hastings District Council The four key stages in a Health Impact Assessment process are: Screening Screening is the initial selection process to assess a policy s suitability for health impact assessment. The screening for the Graffiti Vandalism HIA was undertaken by a small team with representatives from Hastings District Council and the Hawke s Bay District Health Board. This process showed that it would be appropriate to undertake a HIA on the Graffiti Vandalism Strategy. See appendix one for the full screening report. Scoping/setting the priorities of the HIA Scoping highlights the key issues that need to be considered and sets out what will be done in the HIA. The scoping meeting was held with a group of key people (listed in the acknowledgements) at the Te Aranga Marae on the 24 th July 2008 and was facilitated by Robert Quigley from Quigley and Watts. A full copy of the scoping report is available in appendix two. 13

14 From the scoping meeting the group made the following recommendations about the HIA and its scope: Aim Apply HIA to the draft Graffiti Vandalism Strategy with a view to improving the wellbeing and health outcomes of people living in the Hastings District. Objectives Enhance partnership working between the Hastings District Council and Hawke s Bay DHB through shared planning and resourcing. Assist the Hastings District Council to build on the positive aspects of the strategy and reduce any unintended negatives impacts and hence develop a well rounded strategy. To build capacity for Hawke s Bay District Health Board and Hastings District Council staff to use HIA in Hawke s Bay. To explicitly consider the equity issues of the strategy for: o Maori o Youth o Males To support the Hasting District Council s consultation process with the community To deliver the findings in a user-friendly manner to both the DHB and the Council To disseminate the HIA findings into the wider policy arena of all relevant agencies. Determinants of Wellbeing and Health It was not considered possible to undertake a Health Impact Assessment on all of the determinants identified due to the limited time and resources available. The group therefore decided to focus on the following determinants: Crime; Social and cultural connectedness, including leadership; Visual amenity value and perception of safety. 14

15 Please Note: Selected examples of the determinants of wellbeing and health are available in appendix 3 of the scoping report. Population Groups of Interest The Scoping Group decided that the population groups that the Health Impact Assessment should focus on were: Community (described as a crime against the community ) Youth (acknowledging youth within a family/whanau context) Appraisal The aim of this stage is to appraise the draft Strategy s potential to affect wellbeing and population health, if the strategy is implemented. This stage also determines what practical changes can be made to the policy to promote and protect wellbeing and health. For this Health Impact Assessment several sources of evidence were used to assist in undertaking the appraisal. These were: Literature review (undertaken by Quigley and Watts) Community profile Interviews with community and key stakeholder groups Scan of relevant policy and strategy documents. Evaluation This assesses how the HIA process was undertaken (process evaluation) and the extent to which the recommendations were taken up by the policy makers (impact evaluation). The evaluation will be undertaken by the HIA Research Unit at the University of Otago. 15

16 Apprasial Findings Literature review The full literature review is available in appendix four. A summary of the literature review is as follows: Tagging and graffiti vandalism is widely recognised by non-graffiti vandals (the wider community) as a negative aspect within neighbourhoods. The wider community relate graffiti vandalism to crime, disorder and neighbourhood deterioration, (among other negative perceptions). Those who tag have a different view and use graffiti vandalism as a form of expression, a way to become part of environments in which they feel excluded, and a form of contributing to a particular community they identify with. These opposing views between graffiti vandal offenders and the wider community are developed and maintained by both parties. The wider community are often unable to understand or empathise with graffiti culture, and graffiti vandal offenders maintain their identity through a behaviour which is viewed by the majority of the non-tagging community as antisocial. This perception of antisocial behaviour is in itself one of the core reasons for the act of tagging itself, rebellion. Almost all of the literature published which investigates the relationship between graffiti vandalism and a selection of issues combines graffiti vandalism with other elements of neighbourhood deterioration (such as litter, broken windows, signs of crime and violence). The majority of the literature published is also mainly derived from observational studies, cross sectional studies, or from perspectives of either graffiti vandal offenders or those involved in the prevention and reduction of tagging. The value of this evidence needs to be respected as such. Finally, much of the research that has been published around tagging is prepared by those who view graffiti vandalism in a negative light, rather than an unbiased approach of two competing parts of society. 16

17 Despite these challenges, this review has identified a range of associations between tagging / graffiti vandalism and; social connectedness, fear, crime, health and wellbeing. In addition, a range of strategies to prevent and address tagging (as a perceived negative aspect of society). This review attempts to provide useful information for the further development of the Hastings District Council Graffiti Vandalism Strategy. It appears the most successful approaches involve: A coordinated prevention and treatment approach Rapid removal of graffiti vandalism (less than 24hours since it was placed) The use of professional murals to deter tagging Incorporating graffiti resistant urban design features and surfaces into public spaces The least effective strategies included: Additional surveillance (may act as an additional challenge for graffiti vandal offenders) Additional police enforcement (tagging is comparatively a low priority for the police, is difficult to capture and prosecute individuals, and has very low consequences for individuals) 17

18 Wellbeing And Health Pathways Identified In The HIA GRAFFITI STRATEGY POSITIVE OUTCOMES PREVENTION EDUCATION REMOVAL COMMUNITY REPORTING & RECORDING ENFORCEMENT Provide alternative concepts & ways to express rather than graffiti vandalism More public artworks & murals Promote & implement education programmes Provide community with graffiti vandalism prevention & removal advice Rapid/effective paint art Less graffiti vandalism Intervention programme for youth/graffiti vandalism offenders Encourage community members to take ownership of their local area Greater involvement of community in reporting, patrol and protection Encourage members of community report graffiti vandalism Maintain liaison with Council & Police (& Patrols etc) Encourage targeted police operations Educating & enforcing appropriate legislation eg spray cans Less spray cans available for under 18 year olds Create environments that don t support graffiti vandalism Better understanding of graffiti art & respect as an art form Increased feeling of acceptance in community for youth who enjoy graffiti art Other social activities for young people Increase opportunities to sell art works for income Legal opportunities to develop graffiti skills More council funds accessible Solution where youth & family feel part of the community Greater sense of civil pride Greater reporting of graffiti vandalism More people caught Path through social & justice system Graffiti vandalism offender reform & change of lifestyle Encourage appropriate & effective retribution for graffiti vandalism offenders Less graffiti vandalism Less graffiti vandalism Better collective efficacy INCREASED SOCIAL CONNECTEDNESS, DECREASED CRIME, INCREASED VISUAL AMENITY & SAFETY Diagram 1 18

19 GRAFFITI STRATEGY NEGATIVE OUTCOMES PREVENTION EDUCATION REMOVAL REPORTING ENFORCEMENT COMMUNITY Kids (schools) Community media Paint out less effective Ineffective reporting Effective reporting Targeted police operations for graffiti vandalism Absence/ ineffective strategy Less effective murals Increase awareness of graffiti vandalism offenders Negative Perception outlook Encourage graffiti vandalism offenders Poor use of money Loss of confidence in council strategy Overwhelmed by reporting Poor use of Police resource Increase in graffiti vandalism offenders caught More graffiti vandalism Budget blow out Criminal caught Path through social justice system Poor urban space Murals tagged Focus on enforcement only Money from other projects Cycle of crime/ graffiti not avoided Decrease collectiveness of community Narrow focus Urban design Regeneration Youth feel victimised Maintaining increases criminal lifestyle Take law into own hands Not considering urban design, community involvement, litter, shop fronts, surfaces, greenery Diagram 2 DECREASED SOCIAL CONNECTIVENESS, INCREASED CRIME, DECREASED VISUAL AMENITY & SAFETY 19

20 Community Profile The community profile has been obtained from the Hawke s Bay District Health Board, Hastings District Council and the Police database and is attached in appendix three. Other Evidence As part of the evidence that needed to be gathered for this HIA we also looked at the Stop Tagging Our Place (STOP) strategy which was published by the Ministry of Justice in The current legislative changes have also been considered as part of the evidence gathered. Discussion The relationship between graffiti vandalism and a range of social, health and wellbeing outcomes has been well publicised. Graffiti vandalism as part of other aspects of deteriorating neighbourhoods (such as litter, evidence of crime, neglected buildings and antisocial behaviour) has been linked with decreased physical activity levels increased perception of fear, increased levels of mortality rates, increased smoking and decreased sense of community amongst those that do not tag. Graffiti vandalism is often the end product of underlying social issues. In Aotearoa/New Zealand and internationally there is increasing recognition of the role that various social, economic, environmental, and political factors play in determining the health experiences and outcomes for individuals and social groups. These factors include such determinants as income, employment status, housing, education, social position, and social exclusion. They can have both direct and indirect impacts on health as well as having interrelated and cumulative effects over lifetimes. There is clear evidence of the differential distribution of the above determinants of health for Maori and non-maori and they are the known cause of higher rates of death and disability for Maori. 20

21 It is therefore important to concentrate on upstream measures and interventions that impact on these determinants of wellbeing. Interventions such as this initiative have the potential to address the needs of rangatahi, particularly those at risk, by shifting resource allocation to prevent graffiti vandalism leading to a string of negative consequences for the rangatahi and the wider community. The intent of the overall strategy is to prevent these negative impacts which then in turn will have a significant effect on the social and physical wellbeing of young people within Hawke s Bay and the wider community. The evidence that was gathered for this HIA report is now described under the themes of the draft Graffiti Vandalism Strategy. Reporting and Recording The Graffiti Vandalism Strategy has three main goals in relation to reporting and recording which are: To develop an internal procedure for the recording of graffiti and the delegation of removal o Create a list of all assets on council land showing which ones are privately owned, which ones are council owned and what colour they are painted o Role responsibilities between the Keep Hastings Beautiful trust and the Council are clearly defined and communicated to the customer support staff o Ensure adequate information is logged into their database Encourage members of the community to report graffiti o Promote the 0508 phone number and the website o Encourage the community to report the specific graffiti vandalism o Ensure council officers record/photograph graffiti vandalism before removing it o Encourage Community Patrols to report new incidences of graffiti vandalism o Encourage HDC Security Patrols to report new incidences of graffiti vandalism 21

22 Maintain a graffiti vandalism database o Develop a graffiti vandalism mapping system o Develop a cohesive graffiti vandalism database The positive and negative health outcome pathways (diagrams 1 & 2) shows there are five potential wellbeing impacts from this part of the strategy. The first wellbeing impact is supported by evidence from both the literature review, STOP strategy and the appraisal workshops which confirm that rapid reporting if linked to rapid paint out has shown to be effective in reducing graffiti vandalism. The 0508 NO- GRAFFITI hotline and website for reporting graffiti vandalism is one method the council uses for reporting purposes. This pathway shows a positive effective on the wellbeing of the community with the result of less crime and increased visual amenity and safety. There is a potential for a negative outcome for wellbeing for reporting as shown by the second and third impact from the pathways. If reporting is ineffective, resulting in less effective paint out, there could be a loss of confidence in the Hastings District Council Graffiti Vandalism Strategy. This would have a negative impact on the determinants (i.e. decreased social connectives, increased crime and decreased visual amenity and safety). The pathway also shows that if there was an increased amount of reporting of graffiti vandalism which overwhelmed the paint out teams that this could potentially have a negative impact due to the community not seeing a rapid response to its reporting. Without effective rapid paint out, more graffiti vandalism might occur which subsequently would have a negative effect on wellbeing. Both of these potential negative pathways highlight the importance of the current draft Graffiti Vandalism Strategy s focus on clear internal procedures for the reporting of graffiti vandalism and the delegation of removal; and the rapid removal of graffiti vandalism. If these components of the Strategy are implemented well, they have the potential to prevent these potential negative pathways from occurring and protect health and wellbeing. 22

23 Encouraging community participation in graffiti vandalism reporting as shown by another of the pathways will also lead to more effective reporting and hence this will have a flow on effect of less graffiti vandalism and more community ownership of the graffiti vandalism issue. This is supported by evidence from the STOP strategy and the appraisal workshops. The STOP strategy also highlights that: The most effective crime prevention strategies involve communities working together As part of its approach to graffiti vandalism the Hastings District Council will photograph graffiti vandalism and link these to known graffiti vandalism offenders in the region. This data is routinely shared with police and the police will also provide the statistics to the HDC. Hastings District Council staff were very knowledgeable about where the graffiti was occurring, what graffiti vandalism was being seen, and who the graffiti vandalism belonged to. The fifth pathway which was confirmed by the police appraisal workshop showed there is a willingness to strengthen relationships between the two organisations and to continue sharing data to help identify the graffiti vandalism offenders and hence reduce the incidence of graffiti vandalism. The police in the appraisal workshop indicated that they do act on this information in their enforcement role. In contrast, the literature review indicated that due to resource implications police in other jurisdictions have not always been able to investigate graffiti vandalism and this will be further discussed in the enforcement section. The goal of maintaining a graffiti vandalism database is supported by the STOP strategy. The advent of the internet has removed the geographical boundaries for graffiti vandalism offenders who can now be part of an online virtual crew incorporating other elements of their life into their graffiti vandalism. It is recommended by the STOP strategy that any New Zealand based website promoting graffiti vandalism offences should be reported to the police. This could be incorporated into any advice that the Hastings District Council provides about graffiti vandalism. 23

24 In summary, the evidence shows it is important to continue promoting the 0508 hotline number and website to encourage rapid reporting. Effective reporting has been found to be a key requirement for identifying areas which have been vandalised so rapid paint out can be undertaken. The Hastings District Council needs to ensure that it has strategies to undertake rapid paint out removal after notification otherwise the benefit of rapid reporting of graffiti vandalism would be lost and negative outcomes may arise. Removal The Graffiti Vandalism Strategy has 4 main goals under its objective to decrease the presence of graffiti vandalism. These are: Ensure rapid removal of graffiti vandalism from Council properties o Develop a policy statement o Encourage rapid removal of graffiti vandalism from private properties Investigate creation of a bylaw or legislation changes to allow council to enter private property to remove graffiti vandalism o Ensure owner approval forms are accessible o Continue to support the use of Department of Corrections workers for graffiti vandalism removal Promote community responsibility towards graffiti vandalism o Provide the community with clean-up kits o Encourage adopt - a- spot for willing community groups o Recommend public building owners remove graffiti vandalism immediately, particularly off historical buildings Investigate additional resources for graffiti removal o Investigate new graffiti vandalism removal products o Investigate the purchase of another van complete with tools/materials o Investigate the utilisation of work and income schemes for employees The positive and negative outcomes have highlighted there are three pathways for removal which can affect wellbeing. 24

25 The first pathway relates to rapid removal of graffiti. The literature review, STOP strategy and appraisal workshops have all shown there is strong evidence that rapid removal of graffiti is effective in reducing the incidence of graffiti vandalism. During the literature review Wallace and Whitehead (1989) emphasised that: If new graffiti is not removed quickly more graffiti is likely to be added The STOP strategy further explains why the rapid removal of graffiti vandalism is important: Removing graffiti vandalism quickly reduces the likelihood of the offender receiving the respect from their peers This reduction in graffiti vandalism will therefore assist in increasing the positive outcomes relating to the determinants that we have identified in the scoping exercise. It will also have an economic positive benefit for the community as the funds that would have been used on removal of the graffiti vandalism can be diverted into other council projects e.g. painting elderly flats etc. If the removal of graffiti vandalism is less effective it will lead to the second and third pathways occurring which have a negative effective on wellbeing. These pathways show that ineffective removal can cause more graffiti vandalism which can lead to loss of confidence in the strategy and the perceived poor use of Hastings District Council finances by the community. The literature review and the STOP strategy indicate it is necessary for eradication programmes to have an agreed timeframe for responding to reports. The literature review revealed that some council's are committed to undertaking removal of graffiti within 24 hours of it occurring as opposed to removal after 24 hours of notification. During some of our interviews it was revealed that paint out after 24 hours of the graffiti vandalism occurring could be an issue for this council. The draft Strategy does not have any agreed timeframes in it for responding to reports. 25

26 The draft Strategy also includes the provision of paint out kits and usage instructions to members of the community/businesses to assist in ensuring rapid paint out. This links into greater participation/ownership by the community. This pathway and the associated effects on wellbeing will be discussed further in the community section. Please see the enforcement section for additional comments on the effectiveness, or otherwise, of rapid paint out. Prevention The most effective crime prevention/reduction campaigns involve partnerships between local councils, community organisations, community members such as businesses, sports clubs, schools, and private individuals-all with a focus with community engagement ownership and action. Graffiti vandalism offenders in Hawke s Bay are known to be predominantly Maori youth and it is therefore important to concentrate on upstream measures and interventions to reduce the high rate of criminal conviction and imprisonment in Maori. The experience of graffiti vandalism for the victims can cause negative outcomes for the determinants which will lead to the health of the community being adversely affected. The prevention theme therefore has a key objective to prevent the incidence of graffiti vandalism and hence prevent these negative impacts from occurring. There are four goals and associated actions under the Prevention theme: Limit access to graffiti vandalism implements o Support Central Governments legislative changes Promote and support positive and challenging activities for young people o Investigate legal graffiti walls o Promote activities that engage and challenge young people o Promote graffiti art initiatives 26

27 o Create art/mural competitions Utilise Urban Design protocols and Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles o Support the development of a CPTED Policy o Continue to provide close circuit television (CCTV) coverage, regular monitoring of footage, three-yearly reviews and upgrades of CCTV cameras and coverage as required o Provide property owners with CPTED advice ( see Education) o Conduct regular CPTED audits on known graffiti vandalism hotspots o Promote regular lighting audits Reduce the amount of suitable surfaces for graffiti vandalism o Paint murals of public and commercial buildings o Advise building owners of paint colours that do not encourage graffiti vandalism o Encourage plantings against hotspot walls i.e. creepers or prickly bushes o Investigate other graffiti vandalism prevention inventions o Lobby for power boxes to be cleaned regularly or for murals to be painted on them o Encourage businesses to paint their logo/advertising on hotspot walls Under the prevention strand there are four pathways which will affect wellbeing. The first three pathways relate to alternative concepts and ways for graffiti vandalism offenders to express themselves other than graffiti vandalism. This could be through more public artworks, murals, legal tagging walls, creating art for income etc. The pathway indicates that by having these legal alternatives it will give a greater understanding of graffiti art which will flow onto a better acceptance by the community of youth who enjoy graffiti art. This is in turn will cause a positive wellbeing outcome for the graffiti vandalism offenders and the community. We found that there was conflicting evidence around this issue. The literature review revealed that graffiti vandalism by definition needs to be done illegally to be seen as true. In the graffiti vandalism appraisal workshop we met someone who has made the transition from being a graffiti vandalism offender to a recognised artist whose paint spraying artistic skills are now legally and profitably providing him and his family 27

28 with a regular income. The participants of the workshop also suggested that outlets be provided for graffers to sell their art. It was also noted by some of the partipcants of the workshop that boredom has been a contributing factor to them starting graffiti vandalism and this would fit in with them having other social activities which is part of the positive prevention pathway. This could be explored more with other youth agencies and this is discussed further under the community theme. The literature review and the appraisal workshops also highlighted that graffiti vandalism rarely deface murals, often out of respect for the artists (Cities Project 2004). The STOP strategy also commented that Using urban murals to replace graffiti-vandalism walls works well when the murals are reflective of the local community The literature review discussed that graffiti vandalism offenders also prefer a blank surface which will contrast with their paint to ensure their graffiti stands out. It also noted that the variety and contrasting colours of murals makes it difficult for their graffiti to stand out thus unattractive for abuse. The use of legal graffiti walls also had conflicting opinion. The STOP strategy stated: There is little evidence that legal graffiti walls contribute to a reduction in graffiti vandalism and the concept doesn t fit well with the Governments legislative stance on the sale and possession of spray-paint cans to minors. (STOP strategy). When discussing legal graffiti walls at the graffiti vandalism appraisal workshops they mentioned that: 28

29 Providing legal walls for graffing gives young graffers the opportunities to legally demonstrate differences between tagging and graffing opens up positive doors. In the graffiti appraisal workshops it was also commented that graffiti vandalism provides an adrenalin rush i.e. when running to escape police/detection and in the literature review one author (Marsh 2004) noted that graffiti vandalism by definition has to be done illegally to be seen as true. The use of legal walls is therefore an issue which does need to be considered further by the Hastings District Council especially given the STOP strategy s stance on this matter. The fourth pathway looks at well designed public spaces which can significantly reduce the crime and antisocial behaviour that takes place there. This links into the positive outcomes pathway and will have a positive effect on increasing social connectedness, reducing crime and increasing visual amenity and safety. The STOP strategy encourages the thoughtful use of crime prevention though environmental design (CPTED) techniques to reduce the prevalence of graffiti vandalism- including considering the redevelopment of areas already targeted by graffiti vandalism offenders. CPTED is described in the Hastings District Council draft Graffiti Vandalism Strategy but given the evidence for its effectiveness it could be further strengthened in the strategy. It should be noted that since the draft strategy was written, central government legislation has now been amended to include several graffiti vandalism-related offences. The key statues are: the Summary of Offences Act 1981 as amended in 2008 the Crimes Act 1961, which also contains a graffiti-related offence Education The education theme of the Hasting District Council s draft graffiti vandalism strategy has three main goals. 29

30 It aims to develop education programmes for young people, graffiti vandalism offenders themselves, and to work with media and the wider community. a) Promote and implement education programmes Develop an education programme utilising the pilot KHB programme as a basis Encourage school children to adopt a spot Develop a programme to educate graffiti vandalism offenders b) Work with media Develop a media strategy Promote the No-Graffiti hotline and website-posters/pamphlets/ newsletters/magnets Encourage media not to print photos of specific tags Establish regular columns in existing newsletters (i.e. Outlook, neighbourhood safety, Hastings City Marketing, business associations) for graffiti prevention advice Promote the Environmental Enhancement Office as an advisory contact Include information pamphlet in clean-up pack We found four wellbeing and health pathways (positive and negative outcomes diagram 1 & 2) which relate to education. The first relates to community having information on graffiti prevention and removal advice. The STOP strategy identifies the ability to foster a sense of community pride and respect in children and young people with flow on effects in reduced graffiti vandalism. This is also demonstrated by the pathway where graffiti prevention and removal advice can help to create environments that do not support graffiti and so reduce the risk of graffiti vandalism, further leading to positive health and wellbeing outcomes. However the negative outcome pathway (diagram 2) describes that by increasing the awareness of graffiti vandalism, this may then lead to an unintended consequence of more 30

31 graffiti vandalism. The pathway also highlights that if media continues to create a negative perception of young people within a particular community setting, this may then have a detrimental effect i.e. feeling victimised, and therefore decreased social and cultural connectedness for the young people and the community. Another pathway indicates that media showing images of graffit vandalism could encourage graffiti vandalism to occur and hence cause negative outcomes for the determinants. This has occurred in Hastings in the past with the Hastings District Council Environment Enhancement Officer noticing increased rates of graffiti vandalism after media coverage of it. The STOP strategy also states that: Including unaltered images of graffiti vandalism only serves to give the graffiti vandalism offender s wider public recognition The Graffiti Vandalism Strategy has included this within the draft Strategy. Working with the media about how they portray images and messages is an important part of the draft Strategy to prevent negative health and wellbeing outcomes. The literature review did not highlight any evidence for or against the proposed education programmes. To support further understandings of the impact of wellbeing on communities the Hawke s Bay District Health Board invited Hastings District Council staff (particularly those involved in community development) to joint training initiatives regarding community development, health promotion and population wellbeing. The Health Promoting Schools Programme which is facilitated by the Hawke s Bay District Health Board can also be an avenue for working with schools regarding graffiti vandalism issues. Enforcement The Graffiti Vandalism Strategy has three main components to address enforcement, and these will have differing impacts on health and wellbeing: 31

32 a) Maintain liaison between Council and Police Share weekly reports of problem areas and prolific Graffiti Vandalism Maintain regular liaison with Community Constables Support the Police s Youth Diversion Scheme b) Encourage targeted police operations Plan specific operations to target areas of concern Utilise mobile cameras Increase community patrols or police presence in the area c) Encourage appropriate and effective retribution for graffiti vandalism offenders Support the Government s proposed new legislation for tougher penalties Investigate the accreditation process to become an approved organisation for facilitating community service for convicted graffiti vandalism offenders Attend Family Group and Restorative Justice Conferences Provide Police with evidence i.e. photos of graffiti vandalism, disposed spray cans Although Maori youth are arrested on average for less severe offences, they are more frequently referred by the police to the Youth Court for minor offences, rather than directly for family group conference. This results in more serious outcomes for young Maori and impacts on other lifelong outcomes such as employment. Graffiti vandalism offenders in Hawke s Bay are known to be predominantly Maori youth. The Crimes Act states that graffiti vandalism is a criminal offence, which can carry a penalty of up to three months in jail and the first known case of imprisonment for graffiti vandalism occurred within the Hawke s Bay region (see appendix eleven). Maori imprisonment rates adjusted for population size and age structure are more than five and seven times the rates of non-maori for males and females respectively. 32

33 As can be seen in Diagrams 1 and 2, there are four potential wellbeing impacts from this part of the strategy. Firstly, the literature review and the workshop with the Police describe that catching offenders is highly resource intensive as offenders must be caught in the act, so the ability of this to prevent the problem is minimised. Resourcing targeted-graffitioperations is an opportunity cost for the police that cannot be overlooked. Secondly, offenders who are caught are sent into the social (and or criminal) justice systems and unless effective strategies within these systems are employed, the social, health and wellbeing outcomes could be more negative than the original crime of graffiti vandalism. If the path through the social and criminal justice systems is appropriate, then reform for the graffiti vandalism offendersand good community wellbeing outcomes are achievable (supported by the literature review and information from the Graffiti Vandalism Workshop). For example, within the Graffiti Vandalism Workshop, one of the offenders described his experience of being sent to jail for his significant repeat graffiti offences, and on the face of his comments it appeared to be effective Tagging no way. My girlfriend doesn t want me to go back to jail again. The STOP Strategy clearly outlines that a range of processes (for example, a tiered approach to punishment) for dealing with child and youth offenders is required, and mentions several times that, Graffiti enforcement action should not unnecessarily bring children and young people into the formal criminal justice system. The STOP Strategy describes that 80% of the graffiti vandalism is believed to be carried out by 20% of offenders, and so it recommends concentrating resources on hardcore offenders to reduce overall graffiti vandalism. Therefore a significant focus of the Graffiti Vandalism Strategy is required within the social and criminal justice systems, as it appears critical for ensuring the best outcomes for the offender and community are achieved. Finally, comments from the Graffiti Vandalism Workshop reflect that detention-based sentences 33

34 such as jail and juvenile centres also provided an opportunity for the graffiti vandalism offendersto practice his art 24/7. Clearly there is not a single ideal solution. Thirdly, supporting the Governments STOP Strategy via enforcement of appropriate legislation such as the sale of Spray Cans was reported by most Workshop groups to be likely to lead to less graffiti vandalism. This outcome would in turn lead to improved wellbeing for the members of the community. The current Hastings District Council draft Graffiti Vandalism Strategy does not explicitly link to sale of spray cans and this should be added to the strategy. Finally, in the workshop with Police, maintaining liaison between police and council was believed to heighten reporting of graffiti vandalism and this in turn would probably lead to greater reporting and increased likelihood of a rapid paint out (and possibly to greater apprehension of offenders). The STOP Strategy and the literature review both support rapid paint out as an effective tool for reducing overall graffiti levels, however care is required. For example, Manukau City Council now spends up to $1 million dollars on seven paint-out vans and staff, and the STOP Strategy goes on to list the square meterage and tags per month paint-outed out by the Council. They are not declining. The workshop with the graffiti vandalism offenders also presented a different view from the STOP Strategy and the Manukau City Council, where graffiti vandalism offenders described that painting out increased the competitiveness to tag more, faster and higher and provided new canvases. Therefore paint out should not be seen as the major plank of the Graffiti Strategy and more permanent solutions for each site should be considered via CPTED and other location specific solutions. We uncovered no evidence either for or against the use of mobile cameras or increasing community patrols/police presence in the area with respect to wellbeing. 34

35 Community The Graffiti Vandalism Strategy has two goals to encourage community responsibility and pride. This component will impact on wellbeing, particularly with respect to creating a greater sense of social and cultural connectedness, and fostering leadership. a) Build capacity with the community Maintain advice on the KHB and Hastings District Council website Encourage home owners and retailers to remove graffiti themselves immediately b) Encourage community members to take ownership of their local area Encourage community groups to report graffiti vandalism Encourage community clean-up days Investigate a tidiest street competition Promote an adopt a street campaign Support Keep New Zealand Beautiful week Promote the establishment of Neighbourhood safety groups One of the positive outcome pathways highlighted the ability for communities to take ownership of their local area. Becoming more involved with reporting graffiti vandalism, more eyes on the street and involvement in generating solutions for their community were seen as concrete actions for uniting communities and encouraging social interaction. An example of this came from one of the appraisal workshops, when a graffiti vandalism offender had been identified at a local facility by community members. As a consequence the graffiti vandalism offenders s whole family became involved in patrolling the area to prevent graffiti vandalism occurring in this area again. By following this pathway, it would lead to less graffiti vandalism, a decrease in crime, and increased perception of safety. It would also have the added benefit of potentially taking the pressure off policing for graffiti related vanadalism and free up resources for dealing with other aspects of police work. The positive outcome pathways also describe that if more people from the community become 35

36 involved with identification, removal and patrol of high risk areas, this may lead to a greater sense of civic pride and positive outcomes on the determinants of health and wellbeing. The STOP Strategy also emphasises the importance of community engagement. If a community has a problem with graffiti vandalism it is important that everyone in the community works together to address it. Another of the pathways describes the interventions for youth/graffiti vandalism offenders and a holistic wrap around approach which would lead to less graffiti vandalism and therefore positive outcomes for the determinants. The STOP Strategy also clearly outlines the importance of interventions for youth to build strengths by teaching new skills, targeting the causes of offending, strengthening families, and providing comprehensive treatment that addresses all issues leading to offending. This was also described by the Police and youth aid workshop participants, who highlighted the importance of a wrap around approach when dealing with youth at risk and working in a holistic manner with other agencies and community leaders. As also discussed under the prevention theme, youth who are bored can start vandalising. The police workshop highlighted that when they encounter youth who are truant from school, boredom can cause them to undertake illegal activities e.g. graffiti vandalism. A modification which would strength the strategy in this area would be to educate graffiti vandalism offenders/youth by working collaboratively with other agencies and looking at adopting frameworks that can support effective interventions that target at risk youth e.g. Tough is not enough Getting Smart about youth crime (2000) MYD The appraisal workshops also highlighted the importance of role models in the community as a potential catalyst to positive health and wellbeing outcomes. We were fortunate in the Graffiti Vandalism Workshop to have a reformed graffiti vandalism offender who is now a 36

37 graffiti artist and using his skills to generate a legal income. He has been working with graffiti vandalism offenders to redirect them onto other legal actives (e.g. graffiti art). The approach of using a role model to work with at risk youth could be pursued by the Hastings District Council to further support the potential positive health and wellbeing outcomes from this pathway. The pathway for community members to take ownership of their local areas and hence less graffiti vandalism etc can also be facilitated by the identification of at risk areas through the reporting phase. Currently the strategy does not clearly outline how community leaders would be involved, but it was apparent from the workshops and participants feedback just how important these community leaders are in creating solutions, not just to address graffiti vandalism but wider implications of supporting healthy and vibrant communities. Working with community leaders/representatives in these at risk areas to develop solutions for their areas would enable the community to help take ownership of the issue. The addition to the strategy that community leaders, in particular Māori leader from at risk areas will participate in the decision making process for developing action plans for their areas will strengthen this positive outcome pathway. It was also discussed at the appraisal workshops that there are some non-profit organisations/people who are working with at risk youth which include graffiti vandalism offenders. Some of these organisations/people would appreciate assistance for their work with youth and it could be useful to explore how the council might be able to provide assistance/support to these programmes. This also links into the positive outcomes pathway by encouraging the community to take ownership of their local area. 37

38 Recommendations for the Hastings District Council Recommendation Continue to monitor on a half-yearly basis the Hastings District Council Graffiti Vandalism strategy to ensure that the ongoing STOP research findings/publications are incorporated into the strategy. Reporting and Recording Themes Removal Prevention Enforcement Education Community Add to the Graffiti Vandalism Strategy: Recommend the development of a crime prevention through environmental design ( CPTED) policy relevant to graffiti. (Ministry of Justice CPTED guidelines 2008) Add to the Graffiti Vandalism Strategy: CPTED is taken into account when undertaking urban design in the Hastings District. Modify the Graffiti Vandalism Strategy: Develop a graffiti policy statement, including a process and timeframe for painting out. Goal 2.1 Goal 3.3 Goal 3.3 Add to Graffiti Vandalism Strategy: At risk areas for graffiti vandalism will be identified and long term solutions will be developed for each area. Goal

39 Recommendation Add to Graffiti Vandalism Strategy: Community representatives from at risk areas will participate in the decision making process for developing solutions for their areas. Add to Graffiti Vandalism Strategy: The feasibility of community restorative justice programmes will be investigated. Add to Graffiti Vandalism Strategy: A rapid-response to repair damaged murals. Modify Graffiti Vandalism Strategy: Paint murals on public and commercial buildings that are commissioned locally and are reflective of the local community. Paint in a style that reduces the risk of graffiti vandalism. Add to the Graffiti Vandalism Strategy: Work with the Hawke s Bay DHB to ensure the education component adopts the HBDHB health promoting schools model/concept. Add to Graffiti Vandalism Strategy: Use role models such as local graffiti artists to work with graffiti vandalism offenders/youth on the effects of graffiti vandalism. Reporting and Recording Goal 2.3 Themes Removal Prevention Enforcement Education Community Goal 2.4 Goal 3.4 Goal 3.4 Goal 3.2 Goal 4.4 Goal 6.2 Add to Graffiti Vandalism Strategy: 39

40 Recommendation Discuss with the police the logistics of getting communities to report to police any NZ websites that promote graffiti. Modify Graffiti Vandalism Strategy: Maintain regular liaison with community constables and the Police Youth Aid section. Modify Graffiti Vandalism Strategy: Develop a programme to educate graffiti vandalism offenders by working collaboratively with other agencies. Adopt frameworks that can support effective interventions that target at risk youth e.g. Tough is not enough Getting Smart about Youth Crime (2000) MYD Hawke s Bay DHB invite HDC staff (particularly those involved in community development) to joint training initiatives regarding community development, health promotion and population wellbeing. Support the Graffiti Vandalism Strategy: Investigate legal tagging walls, especially given the differing opinion of Reporting and Recording Themes Removal Prevention Enforcement Education Community Goal 1.2 Goal 4.4 Goal 5.2 Goal 3.2 Goal 4.1 Goal 5.1 Goal

41 Recommendation the STOP strategy conflicting with the evidence from local graffiti vandalism offenders. Reporting and Recording Themes Removal Prevention Enforcement Education Community Modify the Graffiti Vandalism Strategy: Trial the promotion of graffiti art initiatives, and determine if there is evidence of a reduction in graffiti or other benefits. Update prevention strategy 3.1 Limit access to graffiti instruments to incorporate recent legislative changes. Add to the Graffiti Vandalism Strategy: Investigate how non-profit organisations who deal with youth involved in graffiti vandalism can be supported by Council. Goal 3.2 Goal 3.1 Goal 3.2 Goal 4.4 Goal 6.1 Goal

42 Appendix One Screening Report HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT SCREENING FOR THE GRAFFITI STRAGETY 11 TH JULY 2008 Background The Hastings District Council recognises that graffiti is an issue for this district and already provides significant resources for its removal. Council currently employs two painters who, among other tasks, remove graffiti from Council properties, and an Environment Enhancement Officer who coordinates the Keep Hastings Beautiful (KHB) Trust efforts to manage the removal of graffiti from private properties. Despite these commitments, the Hastings District Council struggles to make significant headway against graffiti vandalism in the district. The Hastings District Council does not have an adopted graffiti policy and the current approach is largely reactive and focussed on removal, rather than reducing the incidence. The Hastings District Council has therefore developed a draft graffiti strategy which will also include prevention initiatives. The purpose of the draft Graffiti Vandalism Strategy is to develop a coordinated approach to graffiti reduction and provide support for funding applications. The primary objective of the Strategy is to reduce the incidence and presence of graffiti in the Hastings District. The Strategy focuses on integrating the following themes: Reporting and Recording Removal Prevention Enforcement Education Community This Strategy builds on existing operations and activities as well as recommending new initiatives. The Health Impact Assessment screening was undertaken on this draft graffiti strategy with the following people undertaking the screening: Emma Walsh Jacqui Barnes Maree Rohleder Ana Apatu Hastings District Council Hastings District Council Hawke s Bay District Health Board Hawke s Bay District Health Board 42

43 Screening Questions Is there potential for positive or negative health impacts from the proposed change? Consider social, cultural and economic impacts on the health and independence of Maori and their whanau. The proposed graffiti strategy has many potential impacts on health and wellbeing. These include: Taggers in Hawke s Bay are known to be predominantly Maori youth. The intent of the initiative is to prevent offending. Maori imprisonment rates adjusted for population size and age structure are more than five and seven times the rates of non-maori for males and females respectively. It is therefore important to concentrate on upstream measures and interventions to reduce the high rate of criminal conviction and imprisonment in Maori. Interventions such as this initiative has the potential to address the needs of rangatahi, particularly those at risk by shifting resource allocation to prevent these events occurring. Tagging can also lead onto harder crime and vandalism. It has been noted that there is an increase in car break-ins associated with an increase in graffiti. The intent of the overall strategy is to prevent these negative impacts which then in turn will have a significant effect on the social and physical wellbeing of young people within Hawke s Bay. Tagging can become addictive and anecdotal evidence indicates it increases after the taggers have been drinking. Boredom is also a factor in causing people to become taggers. This strategy looks at developing youth art programmes and having public murals etc which have been done by taggers in known hot spots for tagging. The impact of graffiti on the social environment is equally as great. Vandalism negatively impacts on the public s perception of safety, not only for residents, but also for visitors and tourists. Some members of the community feel threatened by the taggers e.g. elderly. Graffiti, in particular tagging, presents an unsafe, unsavoury image of a community as it can symbolise gang and criminal activity, low socio-economics and a community that lacks pride in its surroundings. It can also encourage other vandalism and thereby lower property values. It is generally accepted that graffiti which isn t cleaned up immediately encourages more graffiti. Graffiti vandalism impacts negatively on the social and economic environment of communities. Between 1 January and 18 April 2008, 601 incidences of graffiti were removed from Council-owned and private properties. Of these, 121 were new calls recorded through the 0508 NO GRAFFITI hotline. For a council with a large geographic area but small rating base, the economic impact on the Hastings District is quite significant. To date, Council alone has spent $55,312 this 43

44 financial year on the removal of graffiti, whilst the KHB Trust has spent another $12,000. Added to this expenditure are the financial, in-kind and voluntary contributions of businesses, schools and residents who also remove graffiti with the aim of maintaining an attractive environment. Of these 601 graffiti incidences, 351 were removed by Council. Council s painters also carry out routine maintenance on Council assets, but are increasingly being redirected to graffiti removal to cope with the high levels of incidences. The commitment to the painting out of graffiti means that other painting jobs, such as maintenance of Council s housing for the elderly, could be deferred. This could require additional staff efforts in contracting others to do the work or carry a risk that the flats are left untenanted. Is there potential for the proposed policy to increase or decrease existing health inequalities between Maori and non-maori or other groups? The strategy if implemented well has the potential to reduce inequalities as taggers in Hawke s Bay are predominately Maori youth. Is there support from policy maker s involved or political support with the organisation to carry out the HIA? The senior executives of the Hastings District Council fully support the HIA being undertaken and Hastings District Council councillors are involved in the scoping process. Decision Proceed with the HIA 44

45 Appendix Two - Scoping Report Scoping Report for the Graffiti Vandalism Strategy Health Impact Assessment July 2008 Prepared by: Hawke s Bay District Health Board Hastings District Council With Assistance from: Quigley and Watts Ltd HIA Research Unit at the University of Otago 45

46 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION WHAT IS HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT? WHAT UNDERPINS HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT? OTHER INFORMATION ON HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT PROJECT CONTEXT SCOPE OF THE HIA SCOPING MEETING OVERVIEW OF THE GRAFFITI VANDALISM STRATEGY AIMS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT Aim: Objectives: DETERMINANTS OF HEALTH POPULATIONS AFFECTED POTENTIAL STAKEHOLDERS POTENTIAL SOURCES OF EVIDENCE Literature review Discussions with the community Stakeholder list Community profile Environmental Policy PROPOSED METHODOLOGY Reporting Evaluation WHO WILL THE RECOMMENDATIONS BE FOR? TIMEFRAME APPENDIX APPENDIX 1 - AGENDA APPENDIX 2- EVALUATION APPENDIX 3 -SELECTED EXAMPLES OF THE DETERMINANTS OF HEALTH AND WELLBEING 46

47 INTRODUCTION The Hastings District Health Board and Hastings District Council are undertaking a Health Impact Assessment (HIA) on the Graffiti Vandalism Strategy which is being undertaken by the Hastings District Council. The funding for this Health Impact Assessment has been obtained from the Ministry of Health. The purpose of this scoping report is to introduce the concept of HIA and to scope the methodology for the proposed HIA. This will ensure all stakeholders are in agreement with the assessment methodologies. WHAT IS HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT? HIA is a multidisciplinary approach that investigates the potential public health and wellbeing outcomes of a proposal. Its aim is to deliver evidence based recommendations that inform the decision-making process, to maximise gains in health and wellbeing and to reduce or remove negative impacts or inequalities. HIA uses the broad definition of health used by the World Health Organization: Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity. It does not just consider the absence of disease, which is a very narrow definition of health. Flexible methodologies are used to ensure that the approach best fits with the proposal in question, the resources available, and the local populations affected. HIA is an internationally recognised approach that helps to protect and promote public health and community wellbeing. WHAT UNDERPINS HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT? Public health and wellbeing are not solely determined by the health sector as assumed by many people. The health sector spends the majority of its budget on treating people when they are unwell (making a significant contribution to population wellbeing), but only a very small amount (approximately 2-5% in direct funding channels) is spent on trying to prevent illness. This is mentioned only to illustrate that protecting the health and wellbeing of the population cannot rest with the health sector alone, as the health sector is largely focused on treatment rather than prevention. For this reason HIA largely focuses on the proposals across many sectors and not just health sector proposals. Another reason is that public health and wellbeing are determined by the interplay between individual lifestyle factors, the environment in which we live and the services that we have access to, as well as broad social and economic factors. For example, public health and wellbeing are not determined solely by individual lifestyle factors like smoking, fruit and vegetable intake and/or obesity. There is no doubt that these factors contribute to population health and wellbeing by influencing the risk of developing many diseases, but they are not recognised as the sole determinants of health and wellbeing. The community in which people live, work, play and study is where our illnesses and injuries develop and occur so for example, homes that are dry and warm, workplaces that are safe, and streets that promote walking and cycling are some of the places where 47

48 community health and wellbeing are largely determined. These are also critical determinants of health and wellbeing. Overarching the individual and community factors are broader social and economic environments that contribute to wellbeing. For example, these include sound and reliable governance, unemployment rates, general economic conditions, and social support structures. Imagine countries where these things are not in place, and it is easy to see how these factors impact on population health and wellbeing. All of the factors mentioned above are important and are often intertwined. A list of a wide range of determinants of health is attached as Appendix 3. When these determinants of health are affected by a proposal, then health and wellbeing will also be affected, either directly or indirectly. HIA helps to assess how the broader determinants of health are affected by a proposal. OTHER INFORMATION ON HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT Health Impact Assessment can be carried out as an individual study, but is sometimes addressed as part of an integrated assessment with either environmental and/or social assessments. An HIA is best undertaken before a plan is implemented so that measures which will help increase the positive aspects of the project and minimise or avoid any negative impacts can be recommended. Evidence gathered is both quantitative and qualitative and may include literature, expert advice and community participation. Unlike environmental assessments that do not typically identify positive effects of a strategy, health impact assessment includes a focus on identifying and enhancing positive implications. This is particularly helpful when trying to justify the adoption of strategies, or to seek funding. HIA is widely used in many countries throughout the world (particularly in Europe and Canada) and is an established methodology encouraged by the World Health Organization and the European Union. However, Health Impact Assessment is still in its infancy in New Zealand. This is changing rapidly as the Ministry of Heath and the Public Health Advisory Committee have released guidance on carrying out policy-level HIA within New Zealand, the draft Public Health Bill promotes HIA as a tool to improve health within the NZ setting, and the NZ Health Strategy promotes the consideration of health in non-health sector decision making. The Human Rights Commission recommends its use at the strategic level, and government legislation is placing public health higher on the agenda within the transport and local government settings. PROJECT CONTEXT The Hastings District Council recognises that graffiti is an issue for this district and already provides significant resources for its removal. Council currently employs two painters who, among other tasks, remove graffiti from Council properties, and an Environment Enhancement Officer who coordinates the Keep Hastings Beautiful (KHB) Trust efforts to manage the removal of graffiti from private properties. 48

49 Despite these commitments, the Hastings District Council struggles to make significant headway against graffiti vandalism in the district. Graffiti vandalism impacts negatively on the social and economic environment of communities. Between 1 January and 18 April 2008, 601 incidents of graffiti were removed from Council-owned and private properties. Of these, 121 were new calls recorded through the 0508 NO GRAFFITI hotline. For a council with a large geographic area but small rating base, the economic impact on the Hastings District is quite significant. To date, Council alone has spent $55,312 this financial year on the removal of graffiti, whilst the KHB Trust has spent another $12,000. Added to this expenditure are the financial, inkind and voluntary contributions of businesses, schools and residents who also remove graffiti with the aim of maintaining an attractive environment. Of these 601 graffiti incidences, 351 were removed by Council. Council s painters also carry out routine maintenance on Council assets, but are increasingly being redirected to graffiti removal to cope with the incidence. The commitment to painting out of graffiti means that other painting jobs, such as maintenance of Council s housing for the elderly, could be deferred. This could require additional staff efforts in contracting others to do the work or carry a risk that the flats are left untenanted. The impact of graffiti on the social environment is equally as great. Vandalism negatively impacts on the public s perception of safety, not only for residents, but also for visitors and tourists. Graffiti, in particular tagging, presents an unsafe, unsavoury image of a community as it can symbolise gang and criminal activity, low socio-economics and a community that lacks pride in its surroundings. It can also encourage other vandalism and thereby lower property values. It is generally accepted that graffiti which isn t cleaned up immediately encourages more graffiti. The Hastings District Council is not the only council to have this experienced this problem. Manukau City Council (MCC) has developed the Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti) Bill as part of a multi-pronged approach against graffiti. MCC recognises that for anti-graffiti initiatives to be truly effective and sustainable there must be a combination of removal, prevention, education and enforcement initiatives. Early this year, the Government publicly conceded that graffiti is a national issue and announced the development of the STOP (Stop Tagging Our Place) Strategy. Although the STOP Strategy is yet to be completed, some initiatives have already been released. These include a proposed amendment to the Summary Offences Bill and funds to support local communities and councils in implementing graffiti reduction initiatives. Despite the Hastings District Council s significant contribution to graffiti reduction, levels remain high. The Hastings District Council does not have an adopted graffiti policy and the current approach is largely reactive and focussed on removal, rather than reducing the incidence. If the approach to graffiti is broadened to include prevention initiatives, it is hoped that the amount of expenditure on graffiti removal will eventually decrease. 49

50 SCOPE OF THE HIA The scope of the HIA clarifies key requirements including: Timeframes Aims and objectives of the HIA Budgets and other resources available The determinants of health on which to focus The populations affected on which to focus SCOPING MEETING The people who attended the scoping meeting are listed below: Emma Walsh Jacqui Barnes Henare O Keefe Louise Signal Maree Rohleder Rose Smith Ana Apatu Robert Quigley Dallas Halbert Bert Lincoln Len Huia Dean Clifford Tom Romans Jennifer-Roase Tankersley Hastings District Council Hastings District Council Hastings District Council (Councillor) Otago School of Medicine Hawke s Bay District Health Board Hawke s Bay District Heath Board Hawke s Bay District Health Board Quigley and Watts Graffiti Artist Flaxmere Community Patrol Police Police Police Graffiti Artist Support Person The people who were invited but unable to attend the scoping meeting are as follows: Roberta Karangaroa Riverslea Community Trust Joanne Lawerence Ministry of Social Development Marama Laurenson Hastings District Council Previous to the scoping meeting the participants were sent an agenda and background information on Health Impact Assessment. The scoping meeting was held at the Te Aranga Marae on the 24 th July 2008 between 10:00am to 2pm. The agenda for the meeting is attached in Appendix 1 and was facilitated by Robert Quigley from Quigley and Watts. The meeting opened with a welcome led by kaumatua Henare O Keefe and was followed by a round of introductions. Robert then proceeded to give an overview of the day including what is HIA and the process. Following this Jacqui Barnes and Emma Walsh from the Hastings District Council gave a presentation outlining the draft Graffiti Vandalism Strategy. The group then proceeded to discuss which determinants of health were most affected by the proposal and which population groups were most likely to be 50

51 affected and therefore should be the focus of the HIA. Discussion was then held around what organisations etc we could contact to obtain further information and who were the key players that should be involved in the appraisal stage of the HIA. During the scoping meeting Louise Signal from the HIA Research Unit at Otago University was observing and collecting data as part of her role in evaluating the HIA process. Her report of the scoping meeting is attached as Appendix 2. OVERVIEW OF THE GRAFFITI VANDALISM STRATEGY. The purpose of the draft Graffiti Vandalism Strategy is to develop a coordinated approach to graffiti reduction and provide support for funding applications. The primary objective of the Strategy is to reduce the incidence and presence of graffiti in the Hastings District. The Strategy focuses on integrating the following themes: Reporting and Recording Removal Prevention Enforcement Education Community This Strategy builds on existing operations and activities as well as recommending new initiatives. Both Council s Crime Prevention and Central Business Districts Safety Plans acknowledge that reducing graffiti can not be achieved through removal alone. The Crime Prevention Plan advocates for a multi-faceted graffiti strategy and both provide suggestions for proactive initiatives. These initiatives have been incorporated in the Strategy. With central government support, leading examples from other councils and the broadening of Council s Environment Enhancement Officer s role, Council is now in a good position to act holistically in its approach to graffiti. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT Aim: Apply HIA to the draft Graffiti Vandalism Strategy with a view to improving the health and wellbeing outcomes of people living in the Hastings District. Objectives: Enhance partnership working between the Hastings District Council and Hawke s Bay DHB through shared planning and resourcing. 51

52 Assist the Hastings District Council to build on the positive aspects of the strategy and reduce any unintended negatives impacts and hence develop a well rounded strategy. To build capacity for Hawke s Bay District Health Board and Hastings District Council staff to use HIA in Hawke s Bay. To explicitly consider the equity issues of the strategy for: o Maori o Youth o Males To support the Hasting District Council s consultation process with the community To deliver the findings in a user-friendly manner to both the DHB and the Council To disseminate the HIA findings into the wider policy arena of all relevant agencies. DETERMINANTS OF HEALTH Prior to the session commencing a presentation was given by a Graffiti Artist and ex tagger on why do people tag? This presentation was valuable in setting the scene for the following sessions. Members of the scoping group were given three post notes each and asked to put down three determinants of health which they believed were important for the Graffiti Vandalism Strategy. These were then grouped together on a white board and after a short discussion the following determinants of were identified as being potentially affected by the draft Strategy: Crime Social connectiveness Visual amenity value & perception of safety Economic Deferred maintenance on Council Assets Personal Behaviours Leadership and Ownership. It was not considered possible to undertake a Health Impact Assessment on all of the above determinants due to limited time and resources available, therefore the group needed to decide which determinants they wanted included in this Health Impact Assessment. The group then discussed which determinants to focus on, and decided on: Crime; Social and cultural connectedness including leadership; Visual amenity value and perception of safety. POPULATIONS AFFECTED The same process was used to determine the population groups affected as was used for the Determinants of Health. The screening had identified the following groups, within the community, which could be potentially affected: Maori youth 52

53 Pacific youth Pakeha youth Businesses Whanau/families Police Community Victims After discussion, the Scoping Group refined this list to those most likely to be affected by the draft Strategy. The population groups that the Health Impact Assessment should focus on were: Community (described as a crime against the community Youth in families/whanau POTENTIAL STAKEHOLDERS The scoping group brainstormed which stakeholders they would recommend are involved in the HIA process. They included: Youth agencies Ministry of Justice ( for the STOP strategy) Other areas where graffiti prevention activities occur e.g. Porirua City, Manukau Ministry of Education alternative education courses Hawke s Bay Youth Workers Collective Community Groups Patrol Groups for the Community Schools Police including the Specialised Youth Aid Division Neighbourhood Support Groups Neighbourhood Safety Officer at the Hastings District Council Planning Committee s e.g. Flaxmere, Camberley, Whakatu Truancy Officers Te Ora Hau Nationwide youth support agency POTENTIAL SOURCES OF EVIDENCE Several sources were identified where evidence could be gathered for the Health Impact Assessment. Literature review This will look at the determinants of health linkage (i.e. crime, social and cultural connectedness including leadership, visual amenity value and perception of safety) in relation to the Graffiti Vandalism Strategy. New Zealand data and also communities overseas which have similar policies, and the outcomes from the implementation of those policies, will be reviewed. It will be undertaken by Quigley and Watts Ltd with assistance from the Hawke s Bay District Health Board and Hastings District Council staff. Discussions with the community 53

54 It is envisaged that discussions will be undertaken with specific groups identified in the scoping. This will be undertaken by the Hawke s Bay District Health Board and Hastings District Council staff, with assistance from Quigley and Watts. Potential groups which would be involved in the group discussions would be Taggers; Families/Whanau; and members of the Community Patrol Stakeholder list From the stakeholder list, developed at the workshop, organisations/people will be approached for a half day appraisal workshop. This workshop will explore further how the determinants of health and populations groupings (as identified by the scoping group) might be potentially affected by the draft Graffiti Vandalism Strategy, the evidence for any potential effects, and any recommendations for altering the draft Strategy. It is important that this workshop has a clear purpose and does not repeat what has already been done. This will be undertaken by the Hawke s Bay District Health Board and Hastings District Council staff, with Quigley and Watts facilitating. Community profile Data from various sources needs to be obtained to support the Health Impact Assessment with a focus on the two population groups of interest to create a community profile. Some of this information will also feed into the literature review. Some sources of information identified from the group are Statistics from the police including age and ethnicity of offenders. It was noted that the police boundaries are slightly different from the Hastings District Council but it was not considered to be a significant issue Hastings District Health Board Healthy Populations group. This profile will be collated by the Hawke s Bay District Health Board and Hastings District Council staff, with assistance from Quigley and Watts Environmental Policy This will look at how legislation fits in with the Hastings District Council draft Graffiti Vandalism Strategy and how this strategy supports other Hastings District Council policy e.g. the LTCCP. Some sources of information identified from the group were: New legislation and national policy STOP strategy LGNZ submission on new policy. This will be undertaken by the Hawke s Bay District Health Board and Hastings District Council staff, with assistance from Quigley and Watts PROPOSED METHODOLOGY It is usual within an HIA to compare one proposed option against another, either comparing a proposal with business as usual or comparing various proposed options 54

55 available. In this instance we will be comparing the status quo compared with draft Graffiti Vandalism Strategy developed by the Hastings District Council. The screening and scoping stage for the Graffiti Vandalism Strategy HIA are now complete and the next phase is the appraisal stage. Within this stage we will gather the potential sources of evidence as discussed above which include: Literature review Consultation. Stakeholder list for the appraisal workshops Community profile Environmental Policy. The allocation of tasks for the potential sources of evidence has already been noted in the previous section. REPORTING Once the HIA appraisal stage has been completed a report will be produced outlining the process, methods, findings and recommendations of the HIA. This will then be given to the Hastings District Council to assist them in their decision making process. EVALUATION The evaluation will be undertaken by the HIA Research Unit at the University of Otago. Data for a process evaluation will be kept at each stage of the project and includes: Minutes and notes from meetings. Working documents that inform decisions Methods used for collecting information, e.g. search strategies for literature reviews; interview questionnaires; analysis notes. Rationale for decisions People invited and people who actually participated Contracts, disbursements, venue hire and other associated financial costs Time record of hours spent on the project by all personnel A copy of the evaluation undertaken during the scoping meeting is attached in Appendix 3 WHO WILL THE RECOMMENDATIONS BE FOR? The Health Impact Assessment report with recommendations relating to the draft Graffiti Vandalism Strategy will be given to the Hastings District Council to assist them in their decision making process. The two key officers involved in writing the draft Strategy are involved in the HIA approach. The recommendations from the evaluation report, which is being undertaken by Louise Signal from the Otago School of Medicine, will be forwarded to the Hawke s Bay District Health Board, Hastings District Council and the Ministry of Health to assist when undertaking Health Impact Assessments in the future. 55

56 TIMEFRAME STAGE Screening 11 th July 2008 Scoping 31 st July 2008 Literature review and obtaining other 5 th September evidence Appraisal workshops 5 th September Analysis of evidence and fieldwork and 30 th September report written up. ANTICIPATED COMPLETION DATE 56

57 APPENDIX APPENDIX 1 - AGENDA Agenda Graffiti Vandalism Strategy Health Impact Assessment Scoping am 2.00 pm 22 July, 2008 Time Activity Person responsible Welcome, rationale of HBDHB and HBDHB and/or HDC HDC for this work/hia, and introductions (name, position and who they represent) Purpose of this meeting (to scope the HIA); Introduce the concept of HIA, where we are up to for this HIA; next steps for today and later. Robert Quigley presentation plus questions Presentation of Graffiti proposal + timeframes, plus 10 minutes for questions about the proposal Which determinants of health are most affected by this proposal and should be the focus of the HIA? Which population groups are most likely to be affected by the proposal and should be the focus of the HIA? Lunch Particular aspects of the Graffiti vandalism options that the HIA should focus on; Also, data sources; people and skills to draw on. HDC presentation plus questions Robert Quigley introduce group session (RQ lead) Robert Quigley introduce group session (RQ lead) Robert Quigley group discussion 2.00 Evaluate and close Maree Rohleder 57

58 APPENDIX 2- EVALUATION Graffiti HIA Scoping Meeting 24 July 2008 Te Aranga Marae Flaxmere 1. Powhiri: The meeting opened with a welcome led by kaumatua Henare Keefe. This was followed by a round of introductions. 2. Overview presentation by Rob Quigley introduction to HIA Rob Quigley presented an overview presentation on HIA. He began by clarifying the purpose of the meeting. This was a valuable presentation to get people on the same page. HIA was presented as a process guided by the participants in the scoping meeting. An example of an HIA on gaming machines in Nelson was outlined to demonstrate how HIA can inform the policy making process. This provided a valuable example of the progress that could be anticipated with the current HIA. Rob stressed that HIA provides the opportunity to strengthen the positive health and well-being effects as well as mitigate the negative effects. Learning: Note it is important to clarify the purpose of the meeting and the process of the HIA at this stage. An overview presentation explaining HIA is likely to be necessary in all contexts to set the scene. It should be noted that as more HIAs are undertaken in Hawke s Bay there will be an increasing number of people who have this core knowledge. 3. Graffiti proposal presented This session provided a valuable overview of the key issues in a well presented powerpoint presentation by Council staff (Emma and Jacqui). Presentation by Dallas a graffiti artist and ex-tagger: Why do people tag? Tagging was cool. One person begins tagging and then it is follow the leader. Releasing the tension of some of the stuff that is happening at home. Get a growling take our anger out on the tagging. It was cool to tag. We had a competition about who could get it in the highest places, number of tags, do it in the dark and in the day. For me it is the home, taking their frustrations out. Where do taggers tag? The young ones will more hide. What snapped me out of it? I grew up. I was an artist. I wanted to teach art. I got caught tagging and went to court for it. Went to workshops where inspired graffiti artists taught. I want to get paid for what I love doing. Learning: A presentation of the proposal will always be necessary. This was supported by a presentation by Dallas who provided a valuable insight to the issue. 58

59 4. Choosing determinants of wellbeing potentially affected by the Strategy Five determinants were identified in the screening which were presented by Rob Quigley to the participants at the scoping meeting: Crime Social connectedness Visual amenity value & perception of safety Economic Deferred maintenance on Council assets Participants were asked to chose up to three priorities from the list or identify others. They wrote their choices on post-it notes that were grouped on the whiteboard. Others suggested were Personal behaviours Leadership and ownership There was a useful discussion about what were the key determinants to focus on in which many of the participants spoke. The discussion explored some of the detail underpinning the determinants under discussion. Jacqui: Discussed that tagging is a social problem and asked what can be done on these fundamental issues. Rob: Suggested we focus on leadership with the social connectedness arena. Ana: Suggested we include social and cultural connectedness. Henare: Supported this with a story of the importance of cultural connectedness. Ana: Asked that we be clear about what we mean about crime. Dean: Said crime is about the impact on individual victims, perception of safety is about the other impact of crime. Ana: Spoke of the impact of crime on the offender. Rob: Asked should we focus on specific aspects of crime. Louise: Identified three aspects of crime the perpetrators, the victims, the wider community. Dean: Need to focus on that aspect of being apprehended. It is not a zero tolerance approach. Determinants agreed to focus on: Crime Social and cultural connectedness, including leadership Visual amenity value & perception of safety 5. Population groups potentially affected by the strategy Priority groups were identified in the screening as follows: Māori youth Pacific youth Pakeha youth 59

60 Businesses Whanau/families Police Community Victims. Participants were asked to identify two priority groups. Following an exercise where people identified two priority groups on post it notes and a group discussion, the group agreed to focus on the following: Priority groups to focus on: Community Youth in families/whanau. 6. What data is out there that we need? Questions Rob asked: What data is there? Who should we speak to? What resources are there? Are there any other groups we should focus on? Feedback from the group: The Graffiti Strategy Statistics from Police age, ethnicity. Police boundaries are slightly different from the TLA boundaries (can break it down according to Emma) New National Policy/New Legislation penalties and boundaries on access. It is now an offence to be in possession of spray paint cans. STOP Strategy The court decisions the message is being sent out. Dallas has a lot of friends who would love to be an inspirational speaker to a workshop that is running Youth agencies what has worked and what has not in other areas Upper Hutt has tagging billboards. Tokeroa - billboards LGNZ submission on new policy Emma/Jacqui may be able to get a copy of this Ministry of Education alternative education courses Hawke s Bay youth workers collective Jacqui s contacts Planning committees Flaxmere e.g. Ken Kimblewhite, Camberley, Clive, Whakatu Te Ora Hau nationalwide youth support agency (Dallas) Examples in other areas: Manukau catalyst for the national legislation Porirua Waitakere Beautiful Trust suggested may have lessons we could learn as good on clean up but not so on prevention Youth Aid 60

61 Bluelight (associated with Police) disruptive.com (Dallas) (this maybe more graffiti art than tagging) International literature may help Next steps Rob then outlined the next steps. That a literature review would be undertaken and evidence gathered. Then an appraisal meeting would be held. People took the opportunity to make closing comments and complete an evaluation form. Verbal feedback concluded that the day had been productive and that those present were pleased that the HIA was being undertaken. Overall learning: Learning: It is important to be size the HIA to the strategy. To limit what you focus on and to be clear about what is in and what is out of the HIA and what can be picked up in other processes? The venue is an important aspect of ensuring a successful process at the key meetings. Te Aranga is comfortable, relaxed, is very welcoming and has wonderful catering. Participants spoke of the value of having such a supportive environment in which to meet. Good facilitation is crucial. It is important to make sure people are able to speak, that they are heard and that consensus is reached where possible. It is also important to keep the conversation moving on and to be decisive at the key decision making points. Emma: Post-it notes good way of drawing people out Facilitator: It is important that the facilitator is seen to be objective and listening to the conversation and reflecting back what is said. Is it possible for the DHB or the Council staff to facilitate the appraisal or other HIA meetings. This would build the skills in the region for this aspects of the HIA. Perhaps it could be facilitated by Hawke s Bay people with support from outside experts such as Rob in the first instance. Context Issues that emerged This is a draft Council Strategy out for consultation. There is good support from key agencies such as Police, Hastings District Council, DHB, Dallas (an ex tagger) 61

62 Appendix 3 -Selected examples of the determinants of health and wellbeing Categories of determinants of health Social and cultural factors Economic factors Environmental factors (including living and Working conditions) Population-based services Access to, and quality of: Individual/behavioural factors Examples of specific health determinants Social support, social connectedness Equity Social isolation Participation in community and public affairs Family connections Cultural and spiritual participation Expression of cultural values and practices Links with marae or other cultural resources Racism Discrimination Attitudes to disability Fear of prejudice Relationship with the land and water Level and fear of crime Reputation of community/area Perceptions of safety Creation and distribution of wealth Income level Affordability of adequate housing Availability and quality of employment/education/training Skills development opportunities Housing conditions and location Working conditions Quality of air, water and soil Waste disposal Energy Land use Biodiversity Sites of cultural significance (e.g., sacred or historic sites) A change in the emissions of greenhouse gases Public transport and communication networks Noise Exposure to pathogens employment and education opportunities, workplaces, housing, public transport, health care, disability services, social services, childcare, leisure services, basic amenities, and policing Personal behaviours (e.g., diet, physical activity, smoking, alcohol intake) Life skills Personal safety People s belief in the future and sense of control over their 62

63 Biological factors own lives Employment status Educational attainment Level of income and disposable income Stress levels Self-esteem and confidence Biological age, gender. 63

64 Appendix Three Community Profile Demographic Data The Hastings District is made up of three main centres - Hastings, Flaxmere and Havelock North. These main centres are surrounded by 38 rural settlements including Clive and Bridge Pa. The parts of the district with the largest populations are central Hastings urban, Havelock North and Flaxmere. The whole of the Hastings District covers an area of 5229 square kilometres (2018 square miles) with a population of 70,842 people; the Hastings District has 1.8% of the population of New Zealand and ranks 14 th in size out of the 74 territorial authorities This district has a diverse cultural make up with 23.8% belonging to the Maori ethnic group compared to the national figure of 14.6%. During certain periods of the year it has a very transient population with people coming into the region for fruit picking, grape harvesting etc. Ethnic Groups in Hastings District, 2006 Census Male (%) Female (%) European Maori Pacific peoples Asian Middle Eastern/Latin American/African Other ethnicity New Zealander Other ethnicity other Total Other Statistics of Interest The age-group accounts for just over a quarter of the districts population The under 25 years age-group accounts for 54% of the total district Maori population, compared to 37% for the whole district population. Whilst the median annual personal income level of the district s working-age population increased faster than at the national level over , nevertheless, as with Hawke s Bay, it is still below the New Zealand-wide figure. 64

65 Within the district, median annual income ranges from a low of $16,200 in Camberley to $35,700 in the Havelock Hills area (2005/06) The Hastings District is home to more than 55 hectares of sports fields, 185 hectares of reserves, 160 hectares of domains, 10 hectares of gardens and shrub beds and some 8000 trees. The annual number of graffiti locations attended to by Council has steadily increased over the last 3 years as demonstrated in Table 1 Table 1 Year No. of Locations** Average Per Month to 30 th April **This figure reflects the number of locations visited not the number of individual graffiti incidences. At direct odds with these figures are the Wilful Damage Statistics from New Zealand Police Easter District which would indicate a decrease in offending. It is only since 2007 that Graffiti Wilful Damage has been recorded as separate figures. Table 2 Willful Damage (Statistics New Zealand) Year Recorded Resolved Table 3 Graffiti Willful Damage (included in the figures above) Year Recorded Resolved The latest figures available from Hastings Police show that from 1 st January to 30 th April offenders have been apprehended 21 were male 78% Maori, 9% Polynesian and 13% Caucasian 69% are aged years. A comparison of the 2007 incidences of graffiti removed (table 1) and incidences reported to Police (table 3) would indicate a growing complacency in the community around reporting graffiti vandalism to Police 65

66 Appendix Four Literature Review Graffiti vandalism literature review to support the development of the Draft Hastings District Council Graffiti Vandalism Strategy October 2008 Kate Marsh & David Driscole Quigley & Watts 66

67 Executive summary Tagging and graffiti vandalism is widely recognised by non-graffiti vandals (the wider community) as a negative aspect within neighbourhoods. The wider community relate graffiti vandalism to crime, disorder and neighbourhood deterioration, (among other negative perceptions). Those who tag have a different view and use graffiti vandalism as a form of expression, a way to become part of environments in which they feel excluded, and a form of contributing to a particular community they identify with. These opposing views between graffiti vandal offenders and the wider community are developed and maintained by both parties. The wider community are often unable to understand or empathise with graffiti culture, and graffiti vandal offenders maintain their identity through a behaviour which is viewed by the majority of the non-tagging community as antisocial. This perception of antisocial behaviour is in itself one of the core reasons for the act of tagging itself, rebellion. Almost all of the literature published which investigates the relationship between graffiti vandalism and a selection of issues combines graffiti vandalism with other elements of neighbourhood deterioration (such as litter, broken windows, signs of crime and violence). The majority of the literature published is also mainly derived from observational studies, cross sectional studies, or from perspectives of either graffiti vandal offenders or those involved in the prevention and reduction of tagging. The value of this evidence needs to be respected as such. Finally, much of the research that has been published around tagging is prepared by those who view graffiti vandalism in a negative light, rather than an unbiased approach of two competing parts of society. Despite these challenges, this review has identified a range of associations between tagging / graffiti vandalism and; social connectedness, fear, crime, health and wellbeing. In addition, a range of strategies to prevent and address tagging (as a perceived negative aspect of society). This review attempts to provide useful information for the further development of the Hastings District Council Graffiti Vandalism Strategy. It appears the most successful approaches involve: A coordinated prevention and treatment approach Rapid removal of graffiti vandalism (less than 24hours since it was placed) The use of professional murals to deter tagging Incorporating graffiti resistant urban design features and surfaces into public spaces The least effective strategies included: Additional surveillance (may act as an additional challenge for graffiti vandal offenders) Additional police enforcement (tagging is comparatively a low priority for the police, is difficult to capture and prosecute individuals, and has very low consequences for individuals) 67

68 One final consideration for those embarking on changing patterns of tagging and the prevalence of graffiti vandalism, is the potential alternative behaviours or actions of those who tag. Careful contemplation should be offered to the old adage; Better the devil you know, than the devil you don t. 68

69 Table of contents Executive summary Table of Contents Background The issue The determinants Research method Research limitations Evidence to support the Graffiti Vandalism Strategy Additional strategies not included in the current strategy Environmental design Youth or juvenile curfews Point of tagging notices Questions for the literature review: Question 1: What are the links between graffiti and health and wellbeing? Neighbourhood characteristics and physical activity Premature mortality Gonorrhoea Smoking Disorderly behaviours Question 2: Does graffiti impact negatively or positively on health and wellbeing? Physical activity Social interactions Mistrust Health effects suffered by graffiti removers Health effects suffered by taggers Treatment of inter-tagging fight injuries Question 3: Does graffiti affect crime? Graffiti related crime (theft, trespassing) Non-graffiti related crime (drugs, violence) Is there hope for professional graffiti artists? 69

70 Question 4: Does the incidence of graffiti impact on social and cultural connectedness? Social and cultural connectedness of non-taggers (or the community ) Understanding the structure of the graffiti community Social and cultural connectedness of graffiti vandalism offenders Question 5: Does the presence of graffiti affect people s perceptions of how safe they are and how safe the area/neighbourhood/community/suburb is? Elderly people Women Young people Fear of personal harm vs. fear of personal property loss or damage Question 6: Evidence for casual pathway links The solutions - graffiti vandalism prevention and reduction What initiatives have been successful in reducing incidence of graffiti vandalism? The use of murals as a preventative measure Participation in voluntary organizations and clubs (including sport) Zero tolerance and graffiti vandalism clearing Environmental design The use of surveillance Youth or juvenile curfews Point of tagging notices Maintain tidy neighbourhoods through bylaws What has not worked? References Appendix 1: Concept table for graffiti literature review 70

71 Background The relationship between graffiti vandalism and a range of social, health and wellbeing outcomes has been well published. Graffiti vandalism as part of other aspects of deteriorated neighbourhoods (such as litter, evidence of crime, neglected buildings and antisocial behaviour) has been linked with decreased physical activity levels, increased perceptions of fear, increased early mortality rates, increases in smoking and decreases in sense of community among those who do not tag. Other research also identifies some of the indirect costs associated with graffiti vandalism. These include factors such as higher insurance rates, increased government taxes to fund graffiti vandalism removal, lower property values, a decrease in customers use of businesses because of a perceived threat to their personal safety, and the costs associated with developing and implementing graffiti prevention methods. Graffiti vandalism removal in Auckland, New Zealand, is estimated to cost $2 million a year ( Auckland Authorities Spend, 1997). In New South Wales Australia, it has been estimated that $3 million is spent each year on graffiti vandalism removal and repairing of vandalism to rail transportation alone (Callinan, 2002). The issue: Hastings has consistently high levels of graffiti vandalism. The Hastings District Council has developed a Draft Graffiti Vandalism Strategy designed to reduce the incidence and presence of graffiti vandalism in the Hastings District. They recognise that graffiti vandalism is a community issue and must be addressed as that. As such, they are undertaking a Health Impact Assessment (HIA) to ascertain whether graffiti vandalism affects health and wellbeing, either positively or negatively. A scoping meeting was held with various members of the community and they identified that the determinants and key groups below would be the focus of this HIA. The determinants: Three determinants of health have been identified for further review as part of this HIA: Crime Social connectedness Perceptions of safety in relation to visual amenity (or the negative impact of the prevalence of graffiti vandalism) Questions around each of these determinants have been developed to form the basis of this literature review. Those questions are: What are the links between graffiti vandalism and health and wellbeing? Does graffiti vandalism impact negatively or positively on health and wellbeing? Does graffiti vandalism affect crime? Does the incidence of graffiti vandalism impact on social and cultural connectedness? 71

72 Does the presence of graffiti vandalism affect people s perceptions of how safe they are and how safe the area/neighbourhood/community/suburb is? In addition, a model illustrating causal pathways has been developed as part of this HIA. Three areas have been identified within this causal pathway to be investigated to determine if there is evidence which supports these assumptions. These additional questions include: Is there evidence that suggests the justice system influences changes in tagging? Is there evidence to support the concept that community education can change attitudes towards graffiti art or graffiti vandalism? Is there evidence that early removal of graffiti vandalism is an effective strategy to reduce tagging long term? These have also been addressed as part of this review. Special attention has also been paid to two key groups during the review process; youth within families/whanau and the wider community. Research method One member of Quigley and Watts undertook the initial search design, database search and sourcing of literature. Search terms and a search concept table were developed in association with the Wellington School of Medicine. This can be found as Appendix one in this report. Proquest, Web of Science, Google Scholar and Academic Search Complete were selected as databases to be used to identify literature. Another member of Quigley and Watts reviewed each article to answer the questions developed. Where possible, further papers were sourced and reviewed where appropriate. Research limitations One of the most difficult challenges with researching real world interactions is to be able to attribute a formal causation between these associations. Much of the research referenced in this review of literature is based primarily on cross sectional studies, interviews with individuals, or observational studies. Cross-sectional data cannot address the directionality of the association between the social and physical environments and mortality. On the one hand, it is possible that poorly kept neighbourhoods lead to poor collective behaviour, but it is also plausible that people with no interest in the common good are the cause of neighbourhood deterioration. Second, many of the risk factors for premature mortality are cumulative and may have occurred when people lived elsewhere only half of the sample reported living in the same household over the past 5 years. Third, this analysis is ecological and therefore unable to control for individual level factors such as health risk behaviours, particularly smoking, alcohol use or exercise (Cohen, Farley & Mason, 2003). In addition, most of the available research is published by authors who do not empathise with graffiti vandal offenders or support the value of graffiti vandalism from the 72

73 perspective of the individuals who tag. Comments are often seen: Ugly scrawls deface the walls and structures of our cities and towns, they can be found on roads, bridges and signs throughout the country and in some places they have even appeared on rocks and cliff faces (Cities Project, 2004). To some degree, graffiti vandal offenders contribute to this view with their own views, Marsh (2004) reports Writers get satisfaction out of being an elite subculture that is for graffiti writers by graffiti writers. This creates an us versus them dichotomy where writers tend to think they are more switched on to everyday life than the general public. Unfortunately, graffiti vandal offenders often lack the academic credibility and desire for publishing research that would contribute to vigorous debate. Furthermore, graffiti vandalism is rarely investigated in itself as an influencing factor of various outcomes. Graffiti vandalism is often grouped together with; litter, deteriorate buildings, lack of greenery and other examples of crime. To this end, graffiti vandalism becomes part of a collective effect of a deteriorated neighbourhood which contributes to these outcomes. This in itself illustrates that the desire to overcome graffiti vandalism needs to be set within a wider approach to develop and maintain neighbourhoods and environments to a high standard. 73

74 Evidence to support the Graffiti Vandalism Strategy The table below provides a summary of the research which supports or contradicts proposed elements within the Graffiti Vandalism Strategy. The tables below have been re-ordered from the original six strategies in the policy. They are ordered in a manner which attempts to reflect the continuum from prevention through to justice of the tagging cycle. It has been reported in this manner as this is how it was used within the HIA workshop, and does not necessarily reflect suggested changes to the structure of the current policy document. Stage Graffiti Strategy Evidence to support Evidence against Prevention 1. Limit access to graffiti paint etc Prevention 2. Set up legal tagging walls Tagging by definition has to be done illegally to be seen as true (Marsh, 2004). This approach may have limited success. Prevention 3. Undertake activities that engage and challenge young people (Cohen, Farley & Mason 2003) the development and support of a variety of local civic organizations and clubs may provide opportunities for more positive social interactions and social support among neighbours. However, for those young people who are attracted to graffiti vandalism primarily because of its subversive and unlawful nature, programmes aimed at social or cultural inclusion may not be effective (King & Setter 2003). Prevention Prevention 4. Promote graffiti art initiatives Tagging by definition has to be done illegally to be seen as true (Marsh, 2004). This approach may have limited success. 74

75 Stage Graffiti Strategy Evidence to support Evidence against Prevention 5. Create art/mural competitions Prevention 6. Use CCTV, lighting, plantings, murals, logos, etc Education1. School children can adopt-aspot Education 2. Educate graffiti vandal offenders Education 3. Encourage media not to print photos of graffiti vandalism Education 4. Inform the community about what they can do to prevent and remove graffiti vandalism Community 5. Establish Neighbourhood Safety groups Graffiti vandal offenders rarely deface murals, often out of respect for the artists who produced them (Cities Project 2004). Graffiti vandal offenders also prefer a blank surface which will contrast with their paint to ensure their graffiti vandalism stands out. The variety and contrasting colours of murals makes it difficult for their graffiti vandalism to stand out and thus unattractive for abuse. Newman (1972) suggested that offense rates are higher in areas that do not appear to belong to anyone and which are not under constant surveillance. Wallace and Whitehead (1989) found that if new graffiti is not removed quickly, more graffiti is likely to be added Newman (1972) suggested that offense rates are higher in areas that do not appear to belong to anyone and which are not under constant surveillance. Nonetheless, the Report on Stock- Take of Anti-Tagging Activities in Selected Territorial Authorities (2007) reported that graffiti art used in murals was only successful in reducing the incidence of graffiti vandalism in isolated cases. Ferrell (1995) proposes that attempts to control vandalism through more surveillance may act as a challenge to the ingenuity of the graffiti vandal. Ferrell (1995) proposes that attempts to control vandalism through more surveillance may act as a challenge to the ingenuity of the graffiti vandal. 75

76 Stage Graffiti Strategy Evidence to support Evidence against Clean up Removal 1. Remove graffiti vandalism rapidly from Council property Removal 2. New bylaw to allow council to remove Graffiti vandalism from private property Removal 3. Give the community clean up kits and get them to adopt-a-spot Removal 4. Continue to use Corrections people to remove graffiti vandalism and investigate use of WINZ people too Removal 5. Purchase another removal van Wallace and Whitehead (1989) found that if new graffiti vandalism is not removed quickly, more graffiti vandalism is likely to be added Cohen, Farley & Mason (2003) suggest the role local government can have in enforcing attractive neighbourhoods. Cities can make special efforts to keep streets clear and clean, and to swiftly adjudicate abandoned properties. No evidence was provided to support this recommendation. Cautionary notes about the health and safety of using specific chemicals to remove graffiti vandalism. Especially (dichloromethane and methylene chloride) Spooner (2003) reports that fast removal strategies are effective in the short term but are not necessarily effective in the long term. Spooner (2003) reports that fast removal strategies are effective in the short term but are not necessarily effective in the long term. 76

77 Stage Graffiti Strategy Evidence to support Evidence against Education 5. No-graffiti hotline and website Community 1. Home owners and retailers to remove graffiti vandalism themselves immediately Community 2. Community groups to report graffiti vandalism Community 3. Have community cleanup days Community 4. Adopt a street campaign and tidy-street competitions The authors of Cities Project (2004) believe the campaigns should be trying to remove all graffiti vandalism within 24 hours of it actually being written. To achieve this councils need more comprehensive programmes to identify and report all graffiti vandalism as soon as possible after it appears. Education 5. Supports this theory. Wallace and Whitehead (1989) found that if new graffiti is not removed quickly, more graffiti is likely to be added Moore & Shepherd (2007) Propose that collective efficacy (the willingness of a community to work together for a greater good) of a community can help support and maintain neighbourhoods and environments. Moore & Shepherd (2007) also indicate the reverse effect of neighbourhood deterioration decreasing collective efficacy. The causal direction is not necessarily clear. 77

78 Stage Graffiti Strategy Evidence to support Evidence against Apprehend Enforcement 1. Council and Police work closely together Enforcement 2. Plan specific operations to target hotspots Enforcement 3. More patrols Unfortunately the Police have usually regarded graffiti vandalism crimes as a low priority. Primarily because it has always been difficult to catch graffiti vandal offenders in the act and previously the only reliable tactic was to commit sizable resources to extended surveillance of potential sites. Unfortunately once an offender was caught and successfully prosecuted, the sentence was usually little more than a small fine. So the final results were a poor return for the resources use (Cities Project 2004). Newman (1972) suggested that offense rates are higher in areas that do not appear to belong to anyone and which are not under constant surveillance. Ferrell (1995) proposes that attempts to control vandalism through more surveillance may act as a challenge to the ingenuity of the graffiti vandal. Justice Enforcement 4. Have tougher penalties, e.g. jail Enforcement 5. Use family group and restorative justice conferences. 78

79 Additional strategies not included in the current strategy: The following indicate additional ideas which could help support the prevention and/or reduction in graffiti vandalism. Environmental design Wallace and Whitehead (1989) suggested that some surfaces are more susceptible to graffiti vandalism than others. Light-coloured surfaces attract more graffiti vandalism than dark-coloured surfaces do, and plain surfaces attract more graffiti vandalism than patterned surfaces do, because the marks are more easily visible. Applying a textured surface has been effective in reducing graffiti vandalism attacks on walls. This could be built into council policy on building development and design. Youth or juvenile curfews Curfews are currently used in the United States, however there are a range of unresolved issues relating to juvenile curfews, which in the New Zealand setting may prevent curfews from becoming practical. Point of tagging notices One study demonstrated that appealing point of tagging notices can effectively remove the incidence of tagging for up to three months post intervention. Appropriate design needs to be taken into consideration, and this may not be scalable beyond school based interventions. 79

80 Questions for the literature review: Research into the following five questions will support the development of the Hawke s Bay Graffiti Vandalism Strategy. In some instances, there is a large degree of overlap in the research findings. In an effort to make this report as succinct as possible, findings are reported in the most suitable section; however some findings do overlap and may apply to other sections. Question 1: What are the links between graffiti vandalism and health and wellbeing? This first section highlights some of the main relationships between graffiti vandalism and health and wellbeing. Summary of findings: Graffiti vandalism influences parents perception of neighbourhood disorder and in turn influences the encouragement they offer their children to participate in outdoor recreation, including the use of playgrounds. Some research indicates that it affects adult perceptions of neighbourhood disorder and influences physical activity levels, especially in women. Deteriorated neighbourhoods (which include graffiti vandalism) are an independent predictor of gonorrhoea rates. It is unclear if deteriorated neighbourhoods influence smoking rates independent of personal risk factors (unemployed, divorced, low education levels), however there is a strong association, especially in men. Disorderly behaviour is associated with disorderly environments (Not limited strictly to the prevalence of graffiti vandalism). Neighbourhood characteristics and physical activity Physical activity behaviour is influenced by a wide range of personal, institutional, social factors and environmental factors (Sullivan et al, 2006). Several studies have reviewed the links between environments which contain levels of graffiti vandalism and attitudes to physical activity. Parents perceptions of neighbourhood environments and perceived safety strongly influence their readiness to encourage children to use local playgrounds (Miles, 2008). In addition, Miles found that parents are less likely to encourage their children to participate in outdoor activities, instead encouraging them to remain indoors, possibly increasing the exposure to sedentary activities (television, computers or electronic gaming). With regard to adults, there were mixed results between neighbourhood disorder (including graffiti vandalism), perceptions of safety and physical activity levels. In Belgium, De Bourdeaudhuij et al (2003) found no association between fear of crime and walking or other moderate physical activities. However, research undertaken in both England (Foster et al, 2004) and the United States (MMWR, 1999) suggested that people 80

81 who feel that their neighbourhood is not safe from crime are less likely to be physically active, especially women. Premature mortality One study (Cohen, Farley & Mason, 2003) estimated that living in the most deteriorated neighbourhoods (including a high level of graffiti vandalism) the odds of dying prematurely was increased nearly 7-fold. However, this could be linked to any number of health inequalities, not just the effect of deteriorated neighbourhoods. Gonorrhoea Cohen et al (2000) found that after controlling for income, race, unemployment and education, deteriorated neighbourhoods, (defined by litter, graffiti vandalism, abandoned cars and blighted housing), was an independent predictor of gonorrhoea rates. Smoking One study (Miles, 2006) suggested the odds of smoking are 64% higher for those living in an area rated high on neighbourhood disorder (litter, graffiti vandalism, and no voluntary displays of greenery) compared to low levels of disorder. This effect was substantially greater for men than for women. Men living in neighbourhoods with high disorder demonstrated twice the smoking rate than those living in neighbourhoods with low disorder. Men who did not feel safe returning home at night were also disproportionately more likely to smoke daily compared to women who do not feel safe (36% of men compared to 19% of women) (Miles, 2006). Miles also agreed that individual factors also influence smoking. Unemployment increases the odds more than 2-fold. Divorced or separated adults have significantly higher odds of smoking than those who are married or cohabiting (26% higher), as do those with lower levels of educational achievement compared to those with a postsecondary education (41%, 78%, and 57%). Overall, the relationship is not clear. It may be the environment which influences smoking, or the individual characteristics (unemployed, divorced, low education levels) of the type or person that would live in these neighbourhoods. It may also be a combination of both. Disorderly behaviours Skogan (1990) identified several forms of physical disorder that were closely related to disorderly behaviours such as public drinking and lounging drunks, loitering youths, and corner gangs, drug use, and noisy neighbours. Physical disorder was defined as environments that include graffiti vandalism, damage to public spaces, accumulations of rubbish and refuse, and dilapidated and vacant buildings. As with other research, it is difficult to determine the casual direction of the relationship between physical disorder and disorderly behaviour. 81

82 Question 2: Does graffiti vandalism impact negatively or positively on health and wellbeing? As mentioned in the previous question, determining causal links between graffiti vandalism and health and wellbeing outcomes is difficult. The following highlights some of the relationships between the prevalence of graffiti vandalism and various health outcomes, including the health of the community, graffiti removal industry and graffiti vandal offenders themselves. Summary of findings: Deteriorated neighbourhoods are likely to be associated with decreased physical activity levels, potentially influencing a further range of non-communicable diseases (cardiovascular disease, diabetes, cancer etc). Women are more at risk of being influenced by the quality of neighbourhood when it comes to physical activity behaviour. Attractive outdoor environments influence physical activity, in turn influencing the opportunities for social connections within the community and between neighbours. Individuals who lived in deteriorated neighbourhoods were more mistrusting. The graffiti removal industry is at risk of exposure to harmful graffiti removal chemicals, however this risk can be mitigated through a range of precautionary measures. Graffiti vandal offenders are at risk of further complications when injuries resulting from inter-graffiti crew violence are dealt with privately, rather than seeking professional medical care. Physical activity Cohen, Farley & Mason (2003) reported that deteriorated neighbourhoods are likely to be associated with decreased physical activity (especially in women), which is an important contributor to a range of heath outcomes including cardiovascular mortality. Brownson et al (2000) and King et al (2000) suggested attractive, aesthetically pleasing settings are more conducive to physical activity than areas that are unattractive and possibly dangerous. Cohen, Farley & Mason (2003) support this claim, indicating that where the neighbourhood environment is pleasant (few broken windows, litter and graffiti vandalism), people may be more likely to spend time outdoors. For women especially, living in an attractive neighbourhood was associated with a significant increase in the amount of sports or exercise (Miles, 2008). Social interactions Being active outdoors also increases the likelihood of individuals having positive social interactions with their neighbours and wider community (Cohen, Farley & Mason, 2003). 82

83 Mistrust One paper suggested people who report living in neighbourhoods with high levels of crime, vandalism, graffiti vandalism, danger, noise, and drugs are more mistrusting (Ross et al 2001). Health effects suffered by graffiti removers A study undertaken by Langworth et al, (2001) provided evidence on the health effects of graffiti removers. Based in the Stockholm underground system (Sweden), a range of full time graffiti removers were interviewed and underwent clinical examination before and after their work. Overall, analysis indicated that exposure to graffiti removing chemicals didn't exceed Swedish guidelines, except for those who worked in poorly ventilated spaces (e.g. elevators). While lung function, blood and urine analyses showed normal values, graffiti removers reported higher prevalence of tiredness and upper airway symptoms compared to a control group. In addition, some workers experience in a decrease of peak expiratory flow over an eight hour shift. The authors suggest that because it is a relatively new occupation, long term health effects have not been monitored. Langworth et al, (2001) provide recommendations to prevent adverse health effects. These are to; inform the workers about health risks, restrict the use of hazardous chemicals (dichloromethane and methylene chloride) in graffiti removal. develop good working practices and encourage the use of personal protective equipment. While this research provides some useful insights into the potential health hazards of this occupation (and possible unintended outcomes of potential reform strategies), the Swedish context is different from New Zealand. In Sweden, there are 3500 full time graffiti removers who work predominantly in the underground transport system. The number of full time graffiti removers in New Zealand and the environments in which they work are likely to be quite different. Health effects suffered by graffiti vandal offenders No research was found to suggest that there are any negative health effects of graffiti vandal offenders and their exposure to aerosol paints or other graffiti instruments. Treatment of inter-tagging fight injuries 83

84 Due to the unlawful and violent nature of inter-graffiti crew conflict, participants in a research project undertaken by Halsey & Young (2006) were unanimous in saying everyone nursed their own injuries (both physical contact and stab wounds). It seems an unwritten rule of graffiti culture (or, at least, of crew culture) is that wounds or injuries are dealt with in private. 84

85 Question 3: Does graffiti vandalism affect crime? Cohen (1973) notes that society appears inconsistent in its attitude toward vandalistic acts such as graffiti vandalism. Often it is regarded with tolerance and amusement, despite the fact it is legally prohibited. This may vary in the New Zealand context. Based on research by (Halsey & Young 2006), the most that can be said on the basis of responses given by their interviewees is that those involved in illegal writing are more likely to be exposed to, and possibly learn the techniques for doing, other types of crime, than those who have nothing to do with illicit forms of writing. It is however widely accepted by all authors that graffiti vandalism in itself is a crime; An ideological marker of graffiti is its illegal nature as many writers only deem graffiti graffiti if it is done illegally (Marsh, 2004). This implies that all those who tag also participate in crime. In addition, while graffiti vandalism is considered a relatively minor act of vandalism by some, it was suggested that it does contribute to an atmosphere of neglect, which often acts as a stimulus for more costly acts of vandalism (Wallace & Whitehead, 1989). Summary of findings: Graffiti vandalism by definition is an illegal act, therefore a crime. Those who tag are more likely to be exposed to other types of crime. Tagging in itself does not necessarily lead graffiti vandal offenders to participate in other crimes. Graffiti vandalism related crime includes theft of paints, criminal trespass and damage to property. Research into non-graffiti related crime by graffiti vandal offenders includes the use of drugs and inter-crew violence. Professional graffiti artists may still engage in illegal tagging to keep true to the concept of graffiti vandalism. Halsey & Young (2006) propose there is a differentiation between crimes committed in order to write illegally, versus other crimes committed by those who happen to write illegally. Graffiti vandalism related crime (theft, trespassing) Obvious examples of graffiti vandalism related crime are the stealing paint or pens, criminal trespass and damage to property (Halsey & Young 2006). At least one of these offences will always be committed where writing occurs illegally (although it should be noted that not all writers steal paint or commit criminal trespass). Non-graffiti vandalism related crime (drugs, violence) Halsey & Young (2006) found that their interview respondents reported illicit drug use was limited mainly to marijuana with the use of speed and acid occurring much more sporadically. Of the small number of participants, most seemed taken aback by questions 85

86 which inquired after these harder drugs. Many (especially those who complete legal art for a living) commented that the consumption of harder drugs adversely affected the quality of their work. The authors commented given that major pieces require sustained concentration and skill over several hours. In the same research by Halsey & Young (2006), the level of interpersonal violence reported by interviewees was reasonably high. The most common type of violence linked to tagging was in response to the lining of one crew member s work by another. This paper suggested the result of this type of territorial attack could result in one crew attacking either the individual who defaced the original graffiti vandalism, or the entire crew that individual belonged to. One participant commented, People get full on smashed for that. Is there hope for professional graffiti artists? Marsh (2004) provides insightful commentary on interviews with three taggers ; a trend seems to be that as they have progressed through the levels of graffiti and began to focus more on artistic pieces, tagging became less important. They seem to have reached a stage where they do not need to prove themselves through tagging anymore. As a result, they do not tag with the same intensity as they did when they first started. Nevertheless, Marsh also notes that within the graffiti culture, it is believed that a writer is not being a true writer if they do not still tag. As a result, much of the writer s identity (initially, at least) revolves around the illegality of graffiti vandalism. 86

87 Question 4: Does the incidence of graffiti vandalism impact on social and cultural connectedness? Social and cultural connectedness can be viewed from two different perspectives, from those who participate in graffiti vandalism and those who don t (often referred to as the community or public ) (Marsh, 2004). Summary of findings: Neighbourhood physical disorder affects resident s perception of the value of their area. Neighbourhoods with high physical disorder decrease individuals motivation to be physically active, further decreasing the opportunity for developing and maintaining social connections. People who live in neighbourhoods with graffiti vandalism are more distrusting. Neighbourhood physical disorder decreases a community s desire to work together towards a common cause. The graffiti vandalism community is made up of a collection of complex layers, with Hip Hop often the largest group, breaking down into a collection of individuals into crews. Early research suggests tagging was a way for individuals to reclaim their space from an environment in which they feel excluded. Tagging is also an opportunity to share an experience with friends, as well as gain recognition and status from within the tagging community. Social and cultural connectedness of non-graffiti vandals (or the community ) Miles (2006) reports neighbourhood physical disorder (including graffiti vandalism) is significantly inversely associated both with residents perception of their area as evaluated by others and with the measure of household socio economic status. As mentioned earlier in this review, neighbourhoods with high physical disorder influence individuals desire to be physically active, removing an opportunity for them to develop and maintain social connections with neighbours and their wider community (Cohen, Farley & Mason, 2003). In addition, Ross et al, (2001) suggested people who report living in neighbourhoods with high levels of crime, vandalism, graffiti vandalism, danger, noise, and drugs are more mistrusting. Cohen, Farley & Mason (2003) also report a relationship between neighbourhood physical disorder and collective efficacy, or the willingness of the community to contribute to a greater good. Conversely, In neighbourhoods with low broken windows scores, collective efficacy appeared to be protective for premature mortality. 87

88 Understanding the structure of the graffiti vandalism community The graffiti community is a complex connection of multiple layers (Marsh, 2004). The graffiti community is part of the wider hip hop community (which also includes the artists, promoters, supporters, connoisseurs and business organisations). Within the graffiti vandalism community, there are sub groups of individuals who relate themselves as taggers, bombers and graffiti artists. Members also define themselves differently from one another depending on the stage or level they are at within each of these sub groups. Collectively, individuals who identify themselves as taggers, bombers and graffiti artists, often have an affiliation to a crew. Graffiti vandal offenders represent themselves (and often their crews) through their tag and by writing their crew name near their tag. In addition, graffiti vandal offenders may also represent their area or neighbourhood using area numbers/postal codes or the first few digits of their phone numbers within their tags. Likewise, they represent their country using abbreviations, such as NZ. In this way, identity is located within a specific area or country. The advent of the internet has removed geographical boundaries for graffiti vandal offenders who can now be part of an online virtual crew, incorporating elements of this relationship into their graffiti vandalism. Within each layer of this graffiti vandalism community there is a large amount of respect. Inter crew relationships are both competitive and built on respect. Within crews, there is a strong sense of community and members will expel writers who are only out for themselves. Social and cultural connectedness of graffiti vandal offenders Ferrell s (1995) study of graffiti vandal offenders in the United States found that graffiti vandalism occurs in urban environments where atmospheres of segregation and control of social space exist. He suggests writers seek to disrupt the order of authority and to reclaim the public space from which they feel excluded. Sommer (1974) earlier claimed that graffiti vandalism allows people to call a place their own and humanises otherwise sterile areas. Ferrell (1995) suggests They don t bomb individual cars or houses but only large businesses, public buildings, and other urban symbols of the system from which they feel excluded. Among the reasons individuals tag, Halsey & Young (2006) suggest pride, pleasure, the enjoyment derived from sharing of an activity with friends, as well as the recognition obtained from the writing community. Interventions aimed at addressing graffiti vandalism may be strengthened when they address these needs. 88

89 Question 5: Does the presence of graffiti vandalism affect people s perceptions of how safe they are and how safe the area/neighbourhood/ community/suburb is? Neighbourhood physical disorder (including graffiti vandalism) has been found to be associated with lower perceptions of safety among residents, calling for precautionary or avoidance behaviour (Miles, 2008; Ferraro, 1995). Moore & Shepherd (2007) also found significant associations between fear of crime and self-rated health, household income, environmental litter, graffiti vandalism and property damage, run-down housing, gender and previous victimization. As with other research, these are only associations and the exact gradient of causation is difficult to attribute. Ross and Jang s (2000) undertook a telephone survey of Illinois residents. They found respondents living in areas with high levels of visible social disorder (such as vandalism, graffiti vandalism, and rundown buildings) rated higher on questions dealing with their levels of fear and mistrust than residents who lived in areas where there were fewer of these markers. Summary of findings: Neighbourhood physical disorder has been found to be associated with; lower perceptions of safety, fear of crime (both personal harm and to property), and higher levels of mistrust. Graffiti vandalism has a bigger influence on fear of personal harm compared to fear of personal property loss or damage. Women s perceived personal safety is influenced by graffiti vandalism, among other environmental factors. Young people (peaking at age 23 years) had the highest rates of fear of crime, compared to other age groups. Elderly people Until recently, elderly people have been regarded as most fearful and young people as less fearful (Moore & Shepherd, 2007; Tulloch, 2000). However, some researchers, consistent with official crime statistics indicating that elderly people are least likely to be victimised (e.g. Kershaw et al. 2001), report the opposite - that young people are more fearful than elderly people (Ferraro and LaGrange 1992; Ditton et al. 1999; Chadee and Ditton 2003). Women Alvi et al (2001) found that for women, fear of crime was related to vandalism, teenagers and gangs hanging about, graffiti vandalism, garbage and noise. Young people 89

90 For young people, Aneshensel & Sucoff (1996) identified that youth in low socioeconomic (SES) neighbourhoods perceive greater ambient hazards such as crime, violence, drug use, and graffiti vandalism than those in high SES neighbourhoods. These perceptions of dangerous neighbourhoods influence the mental health of adolescents. The higher perceived threat of the neighbourhood, the more common the symptoms of depression, anxiety, oppositional defiant disorder, and conduct disorder. Moore and Shepherd report the (2007) fear of personal harm was highest between years (peaking at 23 years) and then decreased with age (decreases also accelerate with age). Fear of personal harm vs. fear of personal property loss or damage Of the two elements of fear of crime that Moore and Shepherd (2007) investigated, fear of personal harm was more highly related to incidents of environmental graffiti vandalism than fear of personal property loss or damage. This relationship was stronger for women than men. 90

91 Question 6: Evidence for causal pathway links A suggested causal pathway has been developed as a result of a health impact assessment workshop undertaken in Hawke s Bay. Several causal steps were identified in the process of preventing or reducing the incidence of graffiti vandalism. However several questions arose regarding the evidence for the assumptions used in the pathway. Firstly, is there evidence that the justice system influences changes in tagging? Of the literature reviewed for the five main questions, none provided answers to the effect of the justice system on tagging. Some evidence suggested community education influences attitudes towards graffiti art or graffiti vandalism. Marsh (2004) comments; Responses to graffiti seem to be more positive when the public know that a piece has been commissioned by a company or an institution - when a piece is legitimate or legal. However, no other publications reviewed investigated the concept of educating the community about graffiti vandalism. There was strong evidence (as well as substantial examples) to support the early removal of graffiti vandalism as a strategy to reduce tagging. This is explored further in the next section. 91

92 The solutions - graffiti vandalism prevention and reduction As with identifying casual relationships between graffiti vandalism and a range of health and wellbeing factors, research into effective interventions to prevent and reduce graffiti vandalism lack the scientific rigour to provide compelling guidance. Of the literature reviewed, only two papers undertook interventions with experimental design. Most of the research is cross sectional studies, surveys and recommendations from experts within the field. Nevertheless, there are some useful findings which can contribute to the further development of the Graffiti Vandalism Strategy. What initiatives have been successful in reducing incidence of graffiti vandalism? For the policies to have maximum impact they need to be as comprehensive as possible (Ministry of Justice, 2006; Cities Project 2004). Evidence indicates that solutions to reducing graffiti vandalism should be long lasting and include elements of prevention (Craw et al 2006). Research also suggests that improving the environment (for example removing litter and graffiti vandalism) should reduce fear and the potential for further tagging (Moore & Shepherd 2007). Spooner (2003) highlights the importance of community responsibility which she says is imperative to the success of initiatives within local neighbourhoods (p.9). Furthermore, King & Setter (2003) state: A balanced approach [to reducing graffiti vandalism] seeks to understand some of the socio-economic, cultural and behavioural factors which determine graffiti vandalism production whilst at the same time remaining responsive to community expectations (p.2). Summary of findings: Generally, murals have been shown to help reduce the rates of graffiti vandalism, as well as being a more cost effective preventative measure than graffiti clean up. Providing alternative social and recreational opportunities have been proposed as an alternative for individuals to reduce tagging behaviour. Quick removal of graffiti vandalism acts as a deterrent for further tagging and is effective at least in the short term. Environmental design (especially the choice of surfaces in civic spaces) has been proposed as a possible preventative measure. The use of surveillance has provided mixed success results, potentially increasing the challenge and attraction for tagging. 92

93 Youth curfews are used in the US, however the true effectiveness has not been researched and there are a number ethical considerations which prevent it from being a viable option. The use of signs has been shown to have significant effects on tagging; however this is limited to small scale interventions and may not be transferable to a larger scale. Bylaws have been suggested as methods to control the clean up of graffiti vandalism in both private and public property. Policing and enforcement has been the least effective strategy for reducing the rates of graffiti vandalism, due to the lack of police resourcing and the comparative importance of graffiti vandalism as a crime. Multi-faced programmes with a partnership approach seem to be effective at reducing the incidence of graffiti vandalism. Involving young people in decision making around the use of the areas they inhabit could be a means of managing graffiti vandalism, however this does need more research. It is important to note there are many papers that outline programmes and initiatives designed to reduce the incidence of graffiti vandalism. However, many of the authors state that the programme or initiative has been effective at reducing graffiti vandalism without evidence to substantiate their claim. Few of the initiatives or programmes had baseline measures taken at the beginning and few have been evaluated. The use of murals or community art as a preventative measure There are mixed reports about the use of murals or community art as a preventative measure, however, many of those reports/projects seem to be positive stating that graffiti vandal offenders rarely deface murals, often out of respect for the artists who produced them (Cities Project 2004). Graffiti vandal offenders also prefer a blank surface which will contrast with their paint to ensure their graffiti vandalism stands out. The variety and contrasting colours of murals makes it difficult for their graffiti vandalism to stand out and thus unattractive for abuse. Spooner (2003) comments that involvement in community art can increase a young persons sense of place and belonging. They [murals/community art] can be instrumental in demonstrating a commitment and validation of young people s stake on community property (Spooner, 2003:4). In New Zealand, Craw et al (2006) undertook an experiment to determine the influence of murals to prevent graffiti vandalism. Baseline measures were carried out by counting the number of graffiti vandalism incidences on alleyway walls to determine daily additions. These walls were then painted over, with one section covered in a mural. Results demonstrated that the mural gained no additional graffiti marks, while the surrounding walls began to be tagged. Over a further three months, there were half the amount of additional daily tagging compared to an adjacent wall (Mural = 8, control = 15). The authors provided estimated cost analysis calculations suggesting that to clear a 93

94 wall costs $2.14 per piece of graffiti vandalism, compared to $0.45 of 'touching-up' of murals over the space of a year. Nonetheless, the Report on Stock-Take of Anti-Tagging Activities in Selected Territorial Authorities (2007) reported that graffiti art used in murals was only successful in reducing the incidence of graffiti vandalism in isolated cases. The report states: The prevailing opinion among Territorial Authorities appeared to be that encouraging graffiti art by providing sanctioned areas and programmes tends to increase graffiti vandalism (p.5). A limitation of this finding was that it was based on anecdotal evidence and details of that were not provided in the report. Participation in voluntary organizations and clubs (including sport) As illustrated earlier, the reasons for tagging are varied. Brehm & Rahn (1997) suggest the act of tagging may be a means to develop trust and better social relationships. If this is true, they suggest the development and support of a variety of local civic organisations and clubs may provide alternative opportunities for more positive social interactions and social support. However, for those young people who are attracted to graffiti vandalism primarily because of its subversive and unlawful nature, programmes aimed at social or cultural inclusion may not be effective (King & Setter 2003). Zero tolerance and graffiti vandalism clearing Wallace and Whitehead (1989) found that if new graffiti is not removed quickly, more graffiti is likely to be added. Conversely, people carrying out graffiti vandalism tend to move elsewhere if the graffiti vandalism is quickly and repeatedly cleaned off. The Report on Stock-Take of Anti-Tagging Activities in Selected Territorial Authorities (2007) was in favour of zero tolerance approaches to graffiti vandalism but said such approaches need to be supported by key groups within a community in order for them to be effective. The Report (2007) states: The Authorities surveyed expressed the view that graffiti vandal offenders can reign free in areas where a zero tolerance policy is not in force (p.4). At the moment, most New Zealand councils are committed to removing graffiti vandalism within 24 hours of notification (Cities Project 2004). The authors of Cities Project believe the campaigns should instead be trying to remove all graffiti vandalism within 24 hours of it actually being written. To achieve this councils need more comprehensive programmes to identify and report all graffiti vandalism as soon as possible after it appears. The Christchurch City Council implemented a graffiti eradication campaign ( Council Leads Fight, 2000). Graffiti vandalism was painted over immediately after it had been sighted. The city council believed that writers would stop writing because the life of their work would be too short to justify doing it. The repainting scheme was coupled with the introduction of a free telephone hotline (0800 TAGGED) for the general public to report fresh graffiti vandalism and offer information that could lead to the arrest of graffiti vandal offenders. 94

95 Queenstown has also been faced with a graffiti vandalism explosion that has seen the Lakes District Council commit tens of thousands of dollars to a new cleanup policy. Working on the principle that tagging breeds tagging, the district council committed itself to remove all graffiti vandalism within 24 hr of its occurring (Fea, 2001). Spooner (2003) reports that fast removal strategies are effective in the short term but are not necessarily effective in the long term. Long term evaluation and accountability has indicated that this is an expensive and counter productive process (p.2). Environmental design Wallace and Whitehead (1989) suggested some surfaces are more susceptible to graffiti vandalism than others. Light-coloured surfaces attract more graffiti vandalism than darkcoloured surfaces, and plain surfaces attract more graffiti vandalism than patterned surfaces, because the marks are more easily visible. Applying a textured surface has been effective in reducing graffiti vandalism attacks on walls. Modifications of the environment that reduce accessibility include the fencing off of the structure or the placement of large boulders or thorn-bearing shrubbery in front of walls. However, these are not as effective at reducing graffiti vandalism as changing the texture of the surface of the structure (Wallace and Whitehead, 1989). In New Zealand, the Ministry of Justice published guidelines in 2005 entitled, Crime prevention through environmental design. In this document, the Ministry recommends developing Quality environments: Well-designed, managed and maintained environments. With regard to graffiti vandalism, this includes: Cleaning and maintenance initiatives should include regular grass cutting, ground maintenance, and litter and graffiti vandalism removal. Graffiti-resistant paints and finishes are desirable for easier maintenance and should be used where appropriate. Highly vulnerable materials (or potential graffiti targets) should be avoided. In South Taranaki, the council painted a number of its buildings clover green because writers had previously avoided walls this colour, probably because of the fact that graffiti vandalism showed up poorly against the green (McClinchy, 1998). The use of surveillance Research provided mixed reviews around the effectiveness of surveillance as a deterrent for tagging. Newman (1972) suggested rates of offending are higher in areas that do not appear to belong to anyone and which are not under constant surveillance. However Ferrell (1995) proposes that attempts to control vandalism through more surveillance may act as a challenge to the ingenuity of the graffiti vandal. Youth or juvenile curfews 95

96 In the United States, juvenile curfews are used in various ways across a range of states (Banniste, Carte & Schafe 2001). Banniste, Carte & Schafes surveyed a large number of US police officers on how often they used curfews (67.7% of respondents did) and for their views on curfews. The vast majority of respondents felt that curfew was an effective tool to control vandalism, graffiti vandalism, night time burglary, and auto theft. Unfortunately, the survey didn t cross check with actual hard data on rates of crime change before and after the introduction of curfews, so remains to a large degree a collection of perspectives from law enforcement officers. The logic for implementing curfews in the United States is two fold. First, police officials believed that curfews would help keep kids off the streets', by personal decision or parental support. As a result, this would decrease the likelihood of their involvement in disorder and minor criminal offenses, such as destruction of property or thefts. Second, it was believed that curfews could be used as a tool to lawfully investigate young people who may be involved in more serious criminality such as gangs or crime rings. Thus, the curfew could essentially become the lawful excuse to stop, detain, and question young people on a wider range of offenses. Banniste, Carte & Schafes (2001) propose a number of unresolved issues relating to juvenile curfews, which in the New Zealand setting may prevent curfews from becoming practical: Do curfews really work to reduce delinquent behaviour? Is enforcement of a curfew appropriate expenditure of police resources? Is the imposition of a curfew an individual matter between a parent and a child, or is it a legitimate concern of the state? Even if curfews are enacted in part to protect youth from victimisation, is this reason compelling enough to justify the loss of liberty? Is it appropriate to punish a large segment of the population because of their status (under a certain age); is not the intent of criminal law to punish people because of their behaviour? Will curfews actually prevent crime or will they simply displace it to other times and locales? Point of tagging notices One very successful approach to decreasing the amount of graffiti vandalism in a university male bathroom block has been reported from the United States (Watson, 1996). This study assessed the effectiveness of posting signs for reducing graffiti vandalism in three men's restrooms. Following baseline data collection and repainting of the bathrooms, a note was posted: 96

97 A local licensed doctor has agreed to donate a set amount of money to the local chapter of the United Way for each day this wall remains free of any writing, drawing, or other markings. Your assistance is greatly appreciated in helping to support your United Way. In this research, the doctor was also the author of the study, a licensed psychologist. The amount of money donated was 5 cents per day per bathroom, which was contributed at the end of the study. Follow-up observations were conducted in each of the bathrooms at 1, 2, and 3 months after the signs had been removed. Baseline graffiti vandalism counts ranged from 46 to 125 units per bathroom. After the sign was put in place, no marking occurred on any of the walls and they remained free of graffiti vandalism at 3-month follow-up. A possible explanation proposed by Watson was that the signs specified an altruistic contingency amongst college students. Maintain tidy neighbourhoods through bylaws Cohen, Farley & Mason (2003) suggest the role local government can have in enforcing attractive neighbourhoods. [Neighbourhoods] in a state of disrepair are potentially remediable through enforcement of existing zoning and housing codes. All localities have agencies that govern the maintenance of public and private poverty. Cities can make special efforts to keep streets clear and clean, and to swiftly adjudicate abandoned properties. No evidence was provided to support this recommendation. Multi-faceted programmes with a partnership approach In his paper titled Graffiti Management: A Partnership Approach, Holland (2003) explains how a multi-faceted partnership approach initiated by the Campbelltown City Council has successfully reduced the incidence of graffiti vandalism in Cambelltown. Campbelltown City Council is one of the largest councils in the Sydney and the outlying metropolis areas and, in 2001, the council implemented a number of initiatives designed to reduce the levels of graffiti vandalism in the area. They began with a Work for the Dole Scheme where people who were on the dole cleaned the graffiti vandalism off the buildings. They then implemented an anti-graffiti strategy, started the Tell on a Tagger campaign, organised community clean up days and tree planting days (designed to beautify the city centre and deter graffiti vandal offenders), and got a Graffiti Taskforce together comprised of various members of the community. Holland (2003) says that evidence of the programmes success is seen in the council s statistics; in July 2002, 1406m2 of graffiti vandalism were cleaned off council buildings whereas, 12 months later in June 2003, 832m2 of graffiti vandalism were cleaned off (p.9). This was a reduction of 41%. A limitation of these figures is that they do not show which initiative within the programme had the most success at reducing graffiti vandalism. Holland (2003) cites a major reason for the programmes success was engaging the community so that graffiti vandalism reduction was seen as a collective issue. 97

98 Young people participating in decision making Spooner (2003) suggested that getting young people involved in decision making around the use of the areas they inhabit could increase their sense of ownership/attachment to the space potentially reducing negative or destructive behaviours. Spooner states: There is a strong argument to suggest that nobody should have greater claim to a voice in the management of public space than young people as they walk, ride, skate, and catch transport around in it. A study undertaken in New York City by Francis, Cashdan and Paxson identified that direct participation by persons involved in decision making and site development enhanced attachment towards the site (Spooner, 2003:4). Spooner (2003) concludes that empowering young people as decision makers in matters affecting them particularly those relating to public space may be one way of managing graffiti vandalism. However, this area does need more research. What has not worked? Of all the reported literature, policing and enforcement of tagging behaviour seems to be the least effective. The authors of Cities Project (2004) offer these comments: Unfortunately the Police have usually regarded graffiti vandalism crimes as a low priority. Primarily because it has always been difficult to catch graffiti vandal offenders in the act and previously the only reliable tactic was to commit sizable resources to extended surveillance of potential sites. Unfortunately once an offender was caught and successfully prosecuted, the sentence was usually little more than a small fine. So the final results were a poor return for the resources use. Clearly a large commitment needs to be made by council and law enforcement agencies if this approach is taken, otherwise there is a potential for the ineffective use of resources. Spooner (2003) concludes that in Australia; Legislative initiatives to combat the problem have appeared ineffective and although these are an important part of government approaches, it is now apparent that community based prevention strategies could produce more successful outcomes (p.9). 98

99 References Altman, I. and Zube, E. (1989) Public Places and Spaces. Plenum Press: New York. Cited in: Marsh, K. (2004). Style Wars: Interpreting Authenticity in Graffiti and Graffiti Art. Unpublished honours dissertation, Canterbury University, Christchurch. Alvi, S., Schwartz, M. D.,DeKeeserdy,W. S., Maume, M. O. (2001).Women s fear of crime in Canadian public housing. Violence Against Women, 7, Aneshensel, C.S., Sucoff, C.A. (1996). The Neighborhood Context of Adolescent Mental Health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, Vol. 37, No. 4, pp Auckland authorities spend $2,000,000 on graffiti per year. (1997, February 26). New Zealand Herald, p. 1. Cited in: Craw, P.J., Leland, L.S., Bussell, M.G., Munday, S.J., Walsh, K. (2006). The Mural as Graffiti Deterrence. Environment and Behavior 38; 422 Banniste, A.J., Carte, D.L., Schafe, J. (2001). A national police survey on the use of juvenile curfews. Journal of Criminal Justice 29; Brehm, J., & Rahn, W. (1997). Individual-level evidence for the causes and consequences of social capital. American Journal of Political Science, 41, Cited in: Cohen, D.A., Farley, T.A., Mason, K. (2003). Why is poverty unhealthy? Social and physical mediators. Social Sciences & Medicine 57, pg Brownson, R. C., Eyler, A. A., King, A. C., Brown, D. R., Shyu, Y. L., & Sallis, J. F. (2000). Patterns and correlates of physical activity among US women 40 years and older. American Journal of Public Health, 90, Cited in: Cohen, D.A., Farley, T.A., Mason, K. (2003). Why is poverty unhealthy? Social and physical mediators. Social Sciences & Medicine 57, pg Callinan, R. (2002). Dealing with graffiti in New South Wales. Briefing paper presented to the New South Wales Parliament. Retrieved September 15, 2004, from Cited in: Craw, P.J., Leland, L.S., Bussell, M.G., Munday, S.J., Walsh, K. (2006). The Mural as Graffiti Deterrence. Environment and Behavior 38; 422 Cities Project (2004). The Cost of Graffiti. Cities & towns project. Issue 24, March Quarter. Accessed from Cohen, D.A., Farley, T.A., Mason, K. (2003). Why is poverty unhealthy? Social and physical mediators. Social Sciences & Medicine 57, pg Cohen, D. A., Spear, S., Scribner, R. A., Kissinger, P., Mason, K., & Wildgen, J. (2000). Broken windows and the risk of gonorrhea. American Journal of Public Health, 90, Cited in: Cohen, D.A., Farley, T.A., Mason, K. (2003). Why is poverty unhealthy? Social and physical mediators. Social Sciences & Medicine 57, pg

100 Cohen, S. (1973). Property destruction: Motives and meanings. In C. Ward (Ed.), Vandalism (pp ). London: Architectural Press. Cited in: Craw, P.J., Leland, L.S., Bussell, M.G., Munday, S.J., Walsh, K. (2006). The Mural as Graffiti Deterrence. Environment and Behavior 38; 422 Craw, P.J., Leland, L.S., Bussell, M.G., Munday, S.J., Walsh, K. (2006). The Mural as Graffiti Deterrence. Environment and Behavior 38; 422 David, B., & Wilson, M. (2002). Inscribed Landscapes : Marking and Making Place. University of Hawaii Press: Honolulu. Cited in: Marsh, K. (2004). Style Wars: Interpreting Authenticity in Graffiti and Graffiti Art. Unpublished honours dissertation, Canterbury University, Christchurch. De Bourdeaudhuij ID, Sallis JF, Saelens BE. Environmental correlates of physical activity in a sample of Belgian adults. American Journal of Health Promotion 2003; 18: Cited in: Miles, R. (2008). Neighborhood Disorder, Perceived Safety, and Readiness to Encourage Use of Local Playgrounds. American Journal of Preventative Medicine 34(4) pg Doran, B.J., & Lees, B.G. (2005). Investigating the Spatiotemporal Links Between Disorder, Crime, and the Fear of Crime. The Professional Geographer, 57:1,1-12 Fea, S. (2001, May 4). Resort tackles graffiti taggers. The Southland Times, p. 1. Cited in: Craw, P.J., Leland, L.S., Bussell, M.G., Munday, S.J., Walsh, K. (2006). The Mural as Graffiti Deterrence. Environment and Behavior 38; 422 Ferraro, K.F. (1995). Fear of crime: Interpreting victimization risk. Albany: State University of New York Press. Ferrell, J. (1995). Urban graffiti Crime, control and resistance. Youth & Society, 27, Cited in: Craw, P.J., Leland, L.S., Bussell, M.G., Munday, S.J., Walsh, K. (2006). The Mural as Graffiti Deterrence. Environment and Behavior 38; 422 Foster C, Hillsdon M, Thorogood M. Environmental perceptions and walking in English adults. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 2004;58: Cited in: Miles, R. (2008). Neighborhood Disorder, Perceived Safety, and Readiness to Encourage Use of Local Playgrounds. American Journal of Preventative Medicine 34(4) pg Garland, C. A. (1998). The context of fear as an indication of healthy community investment: 80 low income neighbourhoods in Los Angeles. Dissertation Abstracts International, A (Humanities and Social Sciences; Vol. 58, No. 8-A, p. 2883). Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International. Cited in: Craw, P.J., Leland, L.S., Bussell, M.G., Munday, S.J., Walsh, K. (2006). The Mural as Graffiti Deterrence. Environment and Behavior 38;

101 Goldstein, A. P. (1996). The psychology of vandalism. New York: Plenum. Cited in: Craw, P.J., Leland, L.S., Bussell, M.G., Munday, S.J., Walsh, K. (2006). The Mural as Graffiti Deterrence. Environment and Behavior 38; 422 Halsey, M., Young, A. (2006). Our desires are ungovernable Writing graffiti in urban space. Theoretical Criminology 10;275. Holland, P. (2003). Graffiti Management: A Partnership Approach. Presented at the Graffiti and Disorder Conference convened by the Australian Institute of Criminology in conjunction with the Australian Local Government Association. Accessed from: Kelling, G.L. and Coles, C.M. (1997). Fixing broken windows: Restoring order and reducing crime in our communities. New York: Touchstone. Cited in: Doran, B.J., & Lees, B.G. (2005). Investigating the Spatiotemporal Links Between Disorder, Crime, and the Fear of Crime. The Professional Geographer, 57:1,1-12 King, P. & Setter, M. (2003). Young People, Graffiti and the Community. Paper presented at the Graffiti and Disorder Conference convened by the Australian Institute of Criminology in conjunction with the Australian Local Government Association. Accessed from King, A. C., Castro, C., Wilcox, S., Eyler, A. A., Sallis, J. F., & Brownson, R. C. (2000). Personal and environmental factors associated with physical inactivity among different racial-ethnic groups of US middle-aged and older-aged women. Health Psychology, 19, Cited in: Cohen, D.A., Farley, T.A., Mason, K. (2003). Why is poverty unhealthy? Social and physical mediators. Social Sciences & Medicine 57, pg Langworth, S., Amundi, H., Friis, L., Johanson, G., Lind, M.L., Soderman, E., Akesson, B.A. (2001). Acute health effects common during graffiti removal. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health 74; Marsh, K. (2004). Style Wars: Interpreting Authenticity in Graffiti and Graffiti Art. Unpublished honours dissertation, Canterbury University, Christchurch. Miles, R. (2008). Neighborhood Disorder, Perceived Safety, and Readiness to Encourage Use of Local Playgrounds. American Journal of Preventative Medicine 34(4) pg Miles, R. (2006). Neighborhood disorder and smoking: Findings of a European urban survey. Social Sciences & Medicine 63, p Ministry of Justice (2005). National Guidelines for Crime Prevention through Environmental Design in New Zealand. Part 1: Seven Qualities of Safer Places. Ministry of Justice, Wellington, New Zealand. 101

102 Ministry of Justice, Crime Prevention Unit (2007). Report on Stock-Take of Anti-Tagging Activities in Selected Territorial Authorities. Ministry of Justice, Wellington, New Zealand. (MMWR 1999) Neighborhood safety and the prevalence of physical inactivity selected states. MMWR Morb Mortal Weekly Report 1999;48: Cited in: Miles, R. (2008). Neighborhood Disorder, Perceived Safety, and Readiness to Encourage Use of Local Playgrounds. American Journal of Preventative Medicine 34(4) pg McClinchy, A. (1998, October 24). Green acres. New Zealand Listener, p. 32. Cited in: Craw, P.J., Leland, L.S., Bussell, M.G., Munday, S.J., Walsh, K. (2006). The Mural as Graffiti Deterrence. Environment and Behavior 38; 422 Moore, S., Shepherd, J. (2007). The Elements and Prevalence of Fear. British Journal of Criminology 47 pg Newman, O. (1972). Defensible space: People and design in the violent city. London: Architecture Press. Cited in: Craw, P.J., Leland, L.S., Bussell, M.G., Munday, S.J., Walsh, K. (2006). The Mural as Graffiti Deterrence. Environment and Behavior 38; 422 Ross, C. E.,& Jang, S. J. (2000). Neighbourhood disorder, fear, and mistrust: The buffering role of social ties with neighbors. American Journal of Community Psychology, 28, Cited in: Craw, P.J., Leland, L.S., Bussell, M.G., Munday, S.J., Walsh, K. (2006). The Mural as Graffiti Deterrence. Environment and Behavior 38; 422 Ross, C.E., Mirowsky, J., Shana, P. (2001). Powerlessness and the amplification of threat: Neighborhood disadvantage, disorder, and mistrust. American sociological review vol. 66, no4, pp Skogan, W. G. (1990). Disorder and decline. New York: Free Press. Cited in: Miles, R. (2006). Neighborhood disorder and smoking: Findings of a European urban survey. Social Sciences & Medicine 63, p Sommer, R. (1974). Tight spaces. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Cited in: Craw, P.J., Leland, L.S., Bussell, M.G., Munday, S.J., Walsh, K. (2006). The Mural as Graffiti Deterrence. Environment and Behavior 38; 422 Spooner, S. (2003). Managing Graffiti and Disorder. Paper presented at the Graffiti and Disorder Conference convened by the Australian Institute of Criminology in conjunction with the Australian Local Government Association. Accessed from Sullivan, C., Oakden, J., Young, J., Butcher, H., Lawson, R Obstacles to Action. A Study of New Zealanders' Physical Activity and Nutrition. Overview Report ACNielsen, Sport and Recreation New Zealand (SPARC). Wellington, New Zealand. Ref No

103 Wallace, J.,& Whitehead, L. (1989). Graffiti removal and control (Special publication 71). London: Construction Industry Research and Information Association. Watson, S.T. (1996). A prompt plus delayed contingency procedure for reducing bathroom graffiti. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 29(1), Wilson, James Q., and George L. Kelling The police and neighborhood safety: Broken windows. The Atlantic Monthly (March): Cited in: Doran, B.J., & Lees, B.G. (2005). Investigating the Spatiotemporal Links Between Disorder, Crime, and the Fear of Crime. The Professional Geographer, 57:1,

104 Appendix 1: Concept table for graffiti vandalism literature review Concept 1 Concept 2 Concept 3 Concept 4 Question 1: Does graffiti vandalism impact negatively or positively on health and wellbeing? Graffiti vandalism Impacts Health Affects Wellbeing Outcomes Wellness Result of Identity Influence Culture Spirituality Question 2: Does graffiti vandalism affect crime? How does this affect individuals and communities health and wellbeing Graffiti vandalism Impacts Crime Health Affect Vandalism Wellbeing Outcomes Unlawful behaviour/activity Wellness Result in Illegal behaviour/activity Identity Influence Criminal acts Culture Offence Spirituality Felony 104

105 Question 3: Does social and cultural connectedness impact on the incidence of graffiti vandalism? How does this impact their health and wellbeing? Graffiti vandalism Impact Social connectedness Health Affect Cultural connectedness Wellbeing Outcomes Connectedness Wellness Result in Cohesion Identity Influence Networks Culture Community Spirituality Society Leadership Neighbourhoods Question 4: Does the presence of visual amenities affect people s perceptions of how safe they are and how safe the area/neighbourhood/community/suburb is? Visual amenities Impact Perceptions Safe/Safety Graffiti vandalism Affect Understandings Secure/Security Outcomes Awareness Wellness Result in Judgement Identity Influence Feeling Culture Spirituality Health Wellbeing Question 5: What initiatives work to prevent and reduce graffiti vandalism? Graffiti vandalism Initiatives Prevention 105

106 Programmes Reduction Work Eradication Interventions Removal Deterrence Enforcement 106

107 Appendix Five Safe Hastings Appraisal Committee Workshop RAPID APPRASIAL WITH THE SAFE HASTINGS ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON THE GRAFFITI VANDALISM STRATEGY The Graffiti Vandalism Strategy is going through a Health Impact Assessment and is currently at the appraisal stage. During the scoping phase of the Health Impact Assessment the group identified the following determinants to focus on: Crime; Social and cultural connectedness including leadership; Visual amenity value and perception of safety The population groups which were identified during the scoping were: Community (described as a crime against the community Youth in families/whanau The Hastings District Council has convened a group called the Safer Hastings Advisory Committee which represented community views. Community was one of the population groups identified during the scoping and it was decided therefore that this group would be a good forum to undertake an appraisal with. This committee meets ever six weeks and we were able to be included on the agenda to undertake a rapid appraisal of the graffiti vandalism strategy. This occurred on the 20 th August at 4:00pm. The attendees at this meeting were: Councillor Henare O'Keefe, Sharon Huata (Iwi/Hapu representative), Stirling Halbert (Community rep), Sally Phelps (formerly RoadSafe now ACC), Natalie Stevens (Hastings City Marketing), Kohi Waihi (CYFS) Johnson Warner (CYFS), Shaun Ownen (member of the public who is interested in this group), Jacqui Barnes (Environment Enhancement Officer HDC), Paddy Steffert (Community Development Advisor HDC) Annette Murdoch (Committee secretary). The appraisal was undertaken by Ana Apatu and Maree Rohleder from the Hawke s Bay District Health Board and followed the agenda which is attached. Due to other items on the agenda of the committee we were only given 30 minutes to explain the strategy and undertake the appraisal. We realised we would not able to complete the appraisal as comprehensively as we would have liked and decided to concentrate on the determinant of crime which was identified at the scoping meeting. 107

108 The group was given two Post it notes each and after some initial discussion were asked to give two comments each relating to the positive and negative aspects of the policy in relation to crime. These comments were placed on a white board in groupings with other similar comments and the group then had limited discussion around these. Due to time constraints we were not able to proceed any further with the appraisal however useful comments were received by the group. Subsequent discussion with the group revealed there was a high interest in Health Impact Assessment with some members of the committee inviting us to speak with their community groups/organisations etc. 108

109 COMMENTS ON THE GRAFFITI VANDALISM STRATEGY FROM THE SAFE HASTINGS ADVISORY COMMITTEE Positive By sending the message that this type of crime is not acceptable there is no excuse for it. The graffiti causes resentment, the resentment fuels irrational behaviour, irrational behaviour leads to craziness. Stop graffiti, should reduce the number of nutters out there. Reduce likelihood of further vandalism Get them to pay the paint job done by the tagger himself Education toward Maori. Potential from a de-colonisation perspective upon Maori offenders Education on the impact of the strategy to gain victim isolation on the decision of offending Education for young people in school Reduce the impact on the general communities by fast removal of graffiti Greater awareness from community A more vigilant community Cultivates proactive leadership Will bring back pride in the community Strategy will create a more proactive community towards reporting crime Improve pride in the community Become an artist Negative It may cause an over reaction leading to such thing happening as the recent murder of a tagger It may be seen as a challenge and lead to increase of offending Likelihood of finding other methods to continue vandalising More risk taking Encourage a back lash Makes them famous Highlights and glamorises graffiti Recognisable brand for individual Diminished sense of community facilities value Imprisonment can cause more harm than reform for a young man especially if he s goo looking! Community approach is that it could take matters into its own hands community taking care of its issues by taking the law into its own hands. Support systems after the offender has been identified and how long is that process could determine a negative. 109

110 Agenda Safe Hastings Advisory Committee Meeting Appraisal HIA Workshop 20 th August - 3:30pm Landmark Room, Hastings District Council Introductions Brief Overview of the Graffiti Strategy. (might be useful for the appraisal if some crime stats, ethnicity data and stories around the taggers lives are discussed) Explain what is HIA and expectations for the session Start Appraisal process. Due to limited time have concentrated only on one determinant identified in the scoping workshop i.e. crime. Give definition of crime from scoping workshop i.e. Crime was looking at the incidence including the impact on the community and the individual victims Two Post-it notes given to each person Write down the positive aspects (factors) of the strategy in relation to crime These are placed/grouped on the board. Have discussion around: o selecting which factors have the greatest importance in respect of the population groups identified in the scoping and the strategy (no more than 5 factors) o the impact these factors have on the proposal o how likely is this to occur (high, medium, low) o the severity/strength of the impact and the number of people likely to be affected o who is likely to be affected are some groups likely to be more affected than others o what key factors might encourage, prevent or mitigate the impact etc Any recommendations/suggestions for the strategy to enhance positive or diminish negative impacts. Repeat for negative aspects of the strategy in relation to crime. Closing Jacqui Barnes/Ana Apatu/Maree Rohleder Jacqui 10 minutes Maree 5-10 minutes Ana to lead Maree to record discussions. Jacqui/Maree/Ana 110

111 Appendix Six Graffiti Vandalism Workshop Notes Notes from the Graffiti Vandalism Workshop Atomic Cafe 4 th September 2008 Hastings The notes below summarize the input from the graffiti artists during the morning consultation. Many of these have been incorporated into the tables below (in appendix seven). Reasons why people tag include (but not limited to): Individuals may come from a broken family, where nobody in the family unit cared what they did, nor demonstrated respect for property Individuals may have been the subject of family violence, and tagging was a chosen method to express their anger. Individuals follow in the footsteps of older friends or peers. Graffiti and tagging are sometimes seen as a passion and one of few skills an individual may have. The process of tagging provides a rush or excitement for individuals not to get caught. Tagging in itself can be a competition, who can tag bigger, higher, with more detail, on harder to access places. The result is establishing respect and developing fame within a group of tagging individuals. This graffiti art was drawn in response to the question Why do you tag? 111

112 General comments around developing the strategy further The development of interventions and programmes need appropriate community input. This includes both the taggers, graffiti artists and where appropriate, their families. In gaining appropriate input from taggers, it was suggested that McDonalds late at night (when no other food outlet is open) would be a suitable place to access taggers. This would need to be undertaken in conjunction with an appropriate individual (possibly not a council employee directly) to gain relevant information from the target group. 112

113 Appendix Seven Key Stakeholders Workshop Notes Stakeholders Workshop 4 th September 2008 Hastings 113

114 How is the proposed Graffiti Strategy likely to affect this determinant of health, either positively or negatively? How might those positive or negative changes affect wellbeing please describe the causal pathway? Graffiti strategy community involvement reporting of graffiti community involvement in identifying perpetrators families taking responsibility for youth who has been caught/owned up Solution that makes the family and the youth feel part of the community social and cultural connectedness. Graffiti strategy public art works and murals in Hastings District, particularly of culturally appropriate art tagging overall of sites, but when tagged community anger at art work being tagged social and cultural connectedness. Determinant - Social Connectiveness What is the existing Will the What factors evidence for the impact affect might encourage answers you have some people or prevent the given above e.g. more than positive or past experience, others? Who negative on this facts, research & will determinant, or existing data benefit/suffer affect the causal sources most? pathway to Actual experience of vandalism of the community centre being built in Camberly. Dealt with by the community (identified by the school, parents of offenders then patrolled grounds to prevent it happening again) and producing good outcomes. Community perception. Hastings District has many very talented individuals; there is no need to go outside Community benefits. Families and offender benefit. Community suffers most if tagging occurs. Local artists and wellbeing? Well developed community structure assists. Small population size of Camberly community assists. Ability to deal with offenders in Camberly assists. Enforcement. Ability for rapid response to paint out graffiti on murals. Type of murals/art. What recommendations do you suggest to enhance the policy? Who are the recommendations directed at? Community restorative justice sessions are also included in the strategy, where communities are currently able to undertake this. Help other communities get to the point where Camberly is, so that community based work is thriving. Consider a rapid-response community art team who can repair damaged murals. Community determined/community designed/community 114

115 Graffiti strategy public art works and murals in Hastings District, including graffiti art understanding of graffiti art and respect for it as an art form feeling of acceptance in community for youth who enjoy graffiti art social and cultural connectedness. Graffiti strategy public art works and murals in Hastings District, including graffiti art exposure of the art form, skills of artist and ability to sell art works opportunity for youth who enjoy graffiti art to make a small income from this wellbeing for the graffiti artist. the district for art commissions. Community perception. Community perception. community benefit from local art work chosen. Graffiti artists benefit. Community benefits. Graffiti artists benefit. Community benefits. Education policy around graffiti art. Education policy around graffiti art. Graffiti art days. Graffiti-art walls in visible locations. Holiday programmes at Atomic. created art. Council policy that all art commissioned is produced locally. Continue support for the education component of the strategy and inclusion of positive aspects of graffiti art. Continue support for the education component of the strategy and inclusion of positive aspects of graffiti art. Continue support for graffiti art market days and holiday programmes. Encourage graffiti art walls in visible venues. Graffiti strategy awareness of graffiti as an issue reporting of graffiti painting out blank canvas for tagging; feeds competitiveness of taggers losing battle against tagging resources by Council to paint out. Waitakere experience of steadily increasing painting out spend of $600K. Local experience that raising awareness leads to greater reporting. Council - resources drawn on. Community funding that could be better spent elsewhere. Whole-picture response by the council. Continue support for the holistic approach Council is taking to the Strategy. 115

116 Graffiti strategy awareness of graffiti as an issue reporting of graffiti painting out blank canvas for tagging losing battle against tagging more people getting caught path through the justice system that allows dialogue and mediation for tagger likelihood of tagger reform and change of lifestyle wellbeing for youth and connectedness for communities. Graffiti strategy awareness of graffiti as an issue reporting of graffiti painting out blank canvas for tagging losing battle against tagging more people getting caught path through the justice system that ends up in court for tagger multiple opportunities for working with the tagger likelihood of tagger reform and change of lifestyle wellbeing for youth and connectedness for communities. Graffiti strategy awareness of graffiti as an issue reporting of graffiti painting out blank canvas for tagging losing battle against tagging more people getting caught path through the justice system that ends up in court for Local experience that raising awareness leads to greater reporting. Turks bar local experience that Taggers can come out with better life opportunities if an appropriate path through the system is followed (what was this?) Local experience that Family Group Conference approaches are supportive of tagger reform. Jail has scared straight one of the Hastings taggers. Local experience that not all taggers give up tagging after cycling through supportive and justice cycles. Long term outcome is good for tagger. Long term outcome is good for tagger. Long term outcome is poor for tagger. Path through the justice system that is bespoke for each individual and circumstance. System s ability to cope with additional taggers caught. Path through the justice system that is bespoke for each individual and circumstance. System s ability to cope with additional taggers caught. System s ability to deal with persistent offenders. Community restorative justice where appropriate. Wrap-around services for the tagger that address the underlying social issues of tagging, e.g. employment, education, housing etc. Multiple options for dealing with and processing taggers that are appropriate for each individual. Review of system s ability to cope with taggers being caught. Community restorative justice where appropriate. Wrap-around services for the tagger that address the underlying social issues of tagging, e.g. employment, education, housing etc. Multiple options for dealing with and processing taggers that are appropriate for each individual. Review of system s ability to cope with taggers being caught. 116

117 tagger cycle of crime not avoided maintains/increases criminal lifestyle wellbeing for youth and connectedness for communities. Graffiti strategy educational components in school message about alternatives to express themselves awareness of opportunities to express themselves tagging connectedness for communities. Graffiti strategy educational components in school message about alternatives to express themselves exposure to tagging tagging connectedness for communities. Graffiti strategy community confidence that something is being done in a coordinated manner involvement of community in reporting, patrol and protection connectedness of communities. Graffiti strategy community confidence that something is being done in a coordinated manner community thinks Community perception. Community perception. Investigate using column inches of tagging in local paper positive graffiti art stories vs negative graffiti vandalism stories. Community perception School, police, council involved in education. School, police, council involved in education. Community benefits. Community. Type of message and how it is delivered. Quality, frequency and availability of alternative opportunities. Many taggers aren t in school. Type of message and how it is delivered. Many taggers aren t in school. Media reporting. Type of message and how it is delivered. Media reporting. Type of message and how it is Careful development and delivery of educational messages. Consider multiple target audiences with subsequent multiple approaches for education component. Careful development and delivery of educational messages. Consider multiple target audiences with subsequent multiple approaches for education component. Highlight need for continual community involvement as a key message in educational campaign. Highlight need for continual community involvement as a key message in 117

118 it s under control and someone else s problem involvement of community in reporting, patrol and protection connectedness of communities. Graffiti strategy community misunderstands breadth of strategy and focuses on single issue, for example catch offenders and prosecute youth painted as criminals by community integration of youth into community Community perception Youth. delivered. Media reporting. Type of message and how it is delivered. educational campaign. Highlight the multiple prongs of the strategy, with equal weight on each component. Have a media strategy, with pre-prepared statements and your own catchy headlines. connectedness of communities. Note: For graffiti education, providing a message to children about civic pride and seeing beyond the immediate trend of tagging. Might be able to describe the costs of tagging to children in a way they understand, e.g. proportion of a skate board park spent each year on painting out; or looking at other youth-oriented campaigns and how they develop their messages. Query about whether there is anything in mental health addiction services that might be useful here? Determinant Discussed Visual Amenity including the perception of safety 118

119 How is the proposed Graffiti Strategy likely to affect this determinant of health, either positively or negatively? Graffiti vandalism strategy 1.0 Less graffiti in Hastings How might those positive or negative changes affect wellbeing please describe the causal pathway? 11. Decreased opportunities for expression. This may lead to other antisocial behavior: 11.1 Increase in violence 11.2 Increase in motor vehicle theft 11.3 Increase in drug abuse 10. Potential increase in social isolation 09. Decreased opportunity for individuals to develop graffiti skills 08. Decrease sense of community (between taggers and the wider community) 07. Loss of potential for competition 06. Loss of rush and excitement 05. Loss of ability to do those things that taggers love 04. Loss of opportunity to be famous 03. Loss of economic potential due to lack of skill development: 03.1 Escape van design and decoration 03.2 Clothing designs 03.3 Tattoo 02. Decrease access to safe places (during the day). Taggers and graffiti artists will take bigger risks to carry on their passion in potentially unsafe environments (either physical safety or territorial gang safety). 01. Decrease in recreation opportunities decreased wellness What is the existing evidence for the answers you have given above e.g. past experience, facts, research & existing data sources Evidence for provided in consultation with graffiti artists. Will the impact affect some people more than others? Who will benefit/suffer most? Taggers (whose drive is vandalism) will be negatively affected the most from a strategy to decrease the rates of illegal graffiti. An unintended side affect could be the migration from the tagging behavior to other anti-social or criminal behavior. This may have a significant affect on the wider community. What factors might encourage or prevent the positive or negative on this determinant, or affect the causal pathway to wellbeing? The notes below correspond to the numbers in the first column. 01. Addressed in prevention strategies Addressed in prevention strategy It was suggested by the graffiti artists that someone (council?) should provide financial incentives to develop quality artwork (i.e. paid to paint appropriate areas). 04. Addressed in prevention strategies 4 & Addressed in education strategies 2 (with a caveat around educating around the art of graffiti art, rather than the negative aspects of tagging) 06. Addressed in prevention strategies 2 & Addressed in prevention strategies 2 & Addressed in education strategies 2 (with a caveat around developing graffiti skills) 11. Addressed to some extent in prevention strategy 3. Risk of need to be managed appropriately What recommendations do you suggest to enhance the policy? Who are the recommendations directed at? Refer to tables below on recommendations to the strategy. 119

120 Factors not specifically addressed by strategy: 08. Decrease sense of community 10. Potential increased social isolation 120

121 How is the proposed Graffiti Strategy likely to affect this determinant of health, either positively or negatively? Graffiti vandalism strategy 1.0 Less graffiti in Hastings How might those positive or negative changes affect wellbeing please describe the causal pathway? 20. Improved visual amenity or 21. enhanced quality in the public realm Enhance sense of civic pride stronger community 21.2 Attracts people Greater social and community enhancement 21.3 Supports business Enhanced economic performance 21.4 Increases walk ability Improved health outcomes 21.5 Use of artistic murals Increased sense of pride and connectedness of diverse community What is the existing evidence for the answers you have given above e.g. past experience, facts, research & existing data sources Evidence between 1.0 & 2.0/2.1 possibly weak. Evidence for 21 through to 25 (not including 22) can be found from literature on urban design (see foot note). Evidence for 22 provided through consultation with Graffiti artists. Will the impact affect some people more than others? Who will benefit/suffer most? The general community and many of the graffiti artists (whose passion is art) will benefit the most from this strategy. What factors might encourage or prevent the positive or negative on this determinant, or affect the causal pathway to wellbeing? 21. Could be facilitated by recruiting established graffiti artists to undertake artistic work (21.5). Alternatively, local respected artists may be able to use their talents to cover potential canvases in a manner which taggers would respect and not want to cover. It was also suggested that brining together different cultural aspects into one art piece may help unite different cultures within the community. What recommendations do you suggest to enhance the policy? Who are the recommendations directed at? Refer to tables below on recommendations to the strategy. 23. Increase perceptions of safety 24. Increase activity and opportunity 25. Increase sense of community 22. Increase rush of legal police encounters (as suggested by graffiti artists encounters with police when they were bombing a wall or alley with permission from the owner) Increased wellness 1 McIndoe, M., Chapman, R., McDonald, C., Holden, G., Howden-Chapman, P., Bray Sharpin, A. (2005). The value of urban design. The economic, environmental and social benefits of urban design. Ministry for the Environment, Wellington, New Zealand. ISBN

122 What recommendations do you suggest to enhance the policy? Who are the recommendations directed at? The tables below have been re-ordered from the original six strategies in the policy. They are ordered in a manner which attempts to reflect the continuum from prevention through to justice of the tagging cycle. It has been reported in this manner as this is how it was used within the HIA workshop, and does not necessarily reflect suggested changes to the structure of the current policy document. Stage Graffiti Strategy Recommendations Who are they directed at? Prevention 1. Limit access to graffiti paint etc Prevention 2. Set up legal tagging walls This will help to provide safe environments for artists to develop their skills. The location has to be selected appropriately. Council and artists / taggers Prevention It was also suggested that both council and private property owners could work together to provide legal canvas options; shop walls, alleyways, toilet blocks etc. Community space providers (community halls) could open their facilities to provide safe environments for artists to develop their skills. This may need to be mediated by an appropriate member of the council. Prevention 3. Undertake activities that engage and challenge young people These need to be developed in conjunction with graffiti artists / taggers for suitable alternatives. Prevention 4. Promote graffiti art initiatives Saturday markets which showcase graffiti art also provide an opportunity for artists to make a commercial gain from their work. Programme developers Saturday market coordinators Prevention 5. Create art/mural competitions Prevention 6. Use CCTV, lighting, plantings, murals, logos, etc Education1. School children can adopt-a-spot These may also provide an interface between the community and artists, and possibly help develop the recognition of graffiti as a place in the community. Consider including fence design (height and material guidelines) for new developments. This will influence the potential canvas available for taggers to have access to. Policy writers, Council, Housing New Zealand 122

123 Stage Graffiti Strategy Recommendations Who are they directed at? Education 2. Educate graffiti vandalism offenders Education 3. Encourage media not to print photos of graffiti Education 4. Inform the community about what they can do to prevent and remove graffiti Community 5. Establish Neighbourhood Safety groups Education needs to be tailored for the specific groups it is aimed at. For some, education needs to be around the artistic value of graffiti art. For others, it should focus on the negative elements of vandalism (targeting young people before they start, that it s not right to tag). Other education should help the community recognise and appreciate quality graffiti art as a welcome aspect of the community. Consider using reformed taggers or established graffiti artists to mentor young people. A deeper investigation into the root causes needs to be undertaken to identify some of the motivating factors for graffiti artists. This may be outside the scope or responsibility of this working group. Prevention needs to start at a young age, before children adopt tagging behaviour. Policy writers, those who will intervene with education programmes (teachers / schools), Police, respected community members. An appropriate vehicle for this message needs to be adopted. Consider using the financial cost of establishing new community recreation opportunities (for example, the cost of building a new skate park) compared to the cost of removing graffiti. Policy writers Clean up Removal 1. Remove graffiti rapidly from Council property Removal 2. New bylaw to allow council to remove Graffiti from private property Removal 3. Give the community clean up kits and get them to adopt-a-spot Removal 4. Continue to use Corrections people to remove graffiti and investigate use of WINZ people too Removal 5. Purchase another removal van Education 5. No-graffiti hotline and website Community 1. Home owners and retailers to remove graffiti themselves immediately Community 2. Community groups to report graffiti Community 3. Have community clean-up days Community 4. Adopt a street campaign and tidy-street competitions Ap pre hen Enforcement 1. Council and Police work closely together Enforcement 2. Plan specific operations to target hotspots 123

124 Stage Graffiti Strategy Recommendations Who are they directed at? Enforcement 3. More patrols Graffiti consultation revealed that this wouldn t deter taggers from tagging, as these groups have no real authority. Conversely, the process of developing patrols may bring the community closer together against tagging. Justice Enforcement 4. Have tougher penalties, e.g. jail Consider implications of penalties. In some cases, these may increase social isolation, further impacting on antisocial behaviour. In other instances (as identified through consultation with graffiti artists) jail time provided the necessary catalyst for reform and further development as an artist, rather than a vandal. Those who determine penalties for tagging. It was also suggested that the type of justice may need to vary depending on both the chronically age of the offender, in conjunction with the length of time they have been tagging. For example, the justice required for a young person caught in their first three months of tagging, may be significantly different to the justice required for a thirty year old who has been tagging for fifteen years. This area of justice needs further investigation. Enforcement 5. Use family group and restorative justice conferences. 124

125 Appendix Eight Police Workshop Tables Police Appraisal Workshop 16 th September Attendees: SGT Mike Stevenson SGT Karl Bakerfield S/Const Maraki Edwards Const Len Hui S/Const Brad Clark Ana Apatu Maree Rohleder Jacqui Barnes Emma Walsh Police Police Police Police Police Hawke s Bay District Health Board Hawke s Bay District Health Board Hastings District Council Hastings District Council 125

126 How is the proposed Graffiti Strategy likely to affect this determinant of health, either positively or negatively? How might those positive or negative changes affect wellbeing please describe the causal pathway? Tagging Identify the culprit Liase with council Better identification of offending Effective social service Incorporating a holistic approach wrap around to deal with health social issue Decrease in Crime Compliance in relation to selling of products (spray paints new legislation coming in) Availability of products (Taggers) Education of shop keepers Visit shops Media release Determinant Discussed Crime What is the existing Will the evidence for the impact affect answers you have some people given above e.g. more than past experience, others? Who facts, research & will existing data benefit/suffer sources most? Actual experience of vandalism through their policing roles. Have seen the benefits of a holistic approach first hand. Actual experience and inspection of shops etc. Are in the process of sending letters to the shopkeepers to advise them of the Community benefits Tagger benefits Community benefits Shop keepers benefit What factors might encourage or prevent the positive or negative on this determinant, or affect the causal pathway to wellbeing? Encourage better liaison with other key stakeholder groups to provide a holistic approach. Building of relationships between different agencies e.g. Police and the HDC. Good communication with the shopkeepers who are selling spray paints so they are aware of the new What recommendations do you suggest to enhance the policy? Who are the recommendations directed at? Building relationships between the different agencies and to assist the social services to wrap around the taggers etc. Police and the Graffiti Vandalism Team to develop stronger working relationships. Support the community groups who are working with at risk youth/taggers including looking at funding etc Careful development and delivery of educational messages. 126

127 How is the proposed Graffiti Strategy likely to affect this determinant of health, either positively or negatively? How might those positive or negative changes affect wellbeing please describe the causal pathway? Poster displays Letter drop through SCC High visibility of Police in Hot Spots Decrease in Crime Compliance in relation to selling of products (spray paints) Availability of products (Taggers) Education of shop keepers Enforcement of non compliance Targeted Operations Undercover Sting Operations Stores are aware this is occurring Decrease in Crime What is the existing evidence for the answers you have given above e.g. past experience, facts, research & existing data sources situation. Actual experience have used undercover operations successfully in alcohol operations etc in the past. They believe this could work with shopkeepers who sell spray cans. Will the impact affect some people more than others? Who will benefit/suffer most? Community benefits Shop keepers benefit/suffer depending on the situation What factors might encourage or prevent the positive or negative on this determinant, or affect the causal pathway to wellbeing? legislative requirements. The taggers may use another tool to do tagging e.g. sponge shoe polish or vivid pens. Good communication with the shopkeepers who are selling spray paints so they are aware of the new legislative requirements. The taggers may use another tool to do tagging e.g. sponge shoe What recommendations do you suggest to enhance the policy? Who are the recommendations directed at? Careful development and delivery of educational messages. Look at the feasibility of conducting undercover operations and if permitted then proceed with undertaking them. 127

128 How is the proposed Graffiti Strategy likely to affect this determinant of health, either positively or negatively? How might those positive or negative changes affect wellbeing please describe the causal pathway? Graffiti Strategy Enforcement Punitive Process Removal Could lead to an Increase or a Decrease in Crime What is the existing evidence for the answers you have given above e.g. past experience, facts, research & existing data sources Waitakere City has used this strategy but now has an increase in the amount of Will the impact affect some people more than others? Who will benefit/suffer most? Community can suffer if there is an increase in What factors might encourage or prevent the positive or negative on this determinant, or affect the causal pathway to wellbeing? polish or vivid pens. Need to ascertain if they can legally do undercover operations. Successful result from undercover operations to establish if stores are selling etc. If a shopkeeper is convicted of selling a successful prosecution could deter others from illegally selling spray cans. Rapid removal has shown to work. Having convicted taggers What recommendations do you suggest to enhance the policy? Who are the recommendations directed at? Rapid removal of graffiti. Encourage the justice system when dealing with taggers to put them on the 128

129 How is the proposed Graffiti Strategy likely to affect this determinant of health, either positively or negatively? How might those positive or negative changes affect wellbeing please describe the causal pathway? What is the existing evidence for the answers you have given above e.g. past experience, facts, research & existing data sources tagging that it has to remove. Will the impact affect some people more than others? Who will benefit/suffer most? the tagging. Police and other stakeholders e.g. Council paint out teams will also be busier What factors might encourage or prevent the positive or negative on this determinant, or affect the causal pathway to wellbeing? on the paint out vans has shown to reduce the tagger reoffending. The taggers tend to find Preventative Detention in a group setting fun but being by themselves on a van having to paint out their own tags has a greater impact on stopping them reoffending. Better liaison between the HDC and the Police in identifying the taggers. Restorative What recommendations do you suggest to enhance the policy? Who are the recommendations directed at? paint out vans. Encourage use of restorative justice scheme 129

130 How is the proposed Graffiti Strategy likely to affect this determinant of health, either positively or negatively? How might those positive or negative changes affect wellbeing please describe the causal pathway? Graffiti Strategy Enforcement Prevention Decrease in Crime What is the existing evidence for the answers you have given above e.g. past experience, facts, research & existing data sources Youth Police Experience Will the impact affect some people more than others? Who will benefit/suffer most? Community What factors might encourage or prevent the positive or negative on this determinant, or affect the causal pathway to wellbeing? justice schemes can also Taggers not attending school and getting bored and getting into tagging etc. What recommendations do you suggest to enhance the policy? Who are the recommendations directed at? Need to look at the nonattendance at school/graffiti link. Graffiti Strategy Enforcement Resources (area of responsibility, Actual experience Actual Police experience Community benefit Elderly are scared for their safety when they are the victims of tagging or live in neighbourhoods where tagging has occurred. This could prevent them from venturing outside of the house etc Resourcing implications for Provide victim support for victims of tagging who have concerns re their safety. Police and the Graffiti Vandalism Team to develop 130

131 How is the proposed Graffiti Strategy likely to affect this determinant of health, either positively or negatively? How might those positive or negative changes affect wellbeing please describe the causal pathway? sustainability) Targeted Police Operations Decrease in Crime What is the existing evidence for the answers you have given above e.g. past experience, facts, research & existing data sources Will the impact affect some people more than others? Who will benefit/suffer most? What factors might encourage or prevent the positive or negative on this determinant, or affect the causal pathway to wellbeing? the police and the priority given to graffiti due to other work load pressures. Working with the council who also have information on taggers can assist the police with their work What recommendations do you suggest to enhance the policy? Who are the recommendations directed at? stronger working relationships. 131

132 Appendix Nine Youth Workshop Notes Hastings District Council Youth Council 15 th September 2008 Hastings District Council The Hastings District Council Youth Council is run by the Hastings District Council and consists of representatives from the High Schools in the Hasting District Council region. We had limited time with the groups as it was undertaken during one of their scheduled meetings, therefore we asked the group several key questions: Why do they think taggers tag? What prevents them from tagging? What do they know about tagging? They were split into two groups and workshoped their answers down on paper. We then had a group discussion around the answers they gave to the questions posed with the following being their response to the questions: Why do Taggers Tag - Teenagers rebelling - Bored teenagers - Mark territory, revenge - Peer pressure - A select group of society are prone (hip-hop culture, gang) - *values, morals (respect) What prevents us from tagging? - Education *right and wrong - Family morals - Society it is not acceptable this needs to start at a young age - It needs to have public opposition and it needs to have actual consequences - Wouldn t want to ruin the community it s not right - The fact that it is associated with gangs and generally people who do not want to be associated with this What do we know about tagging? - People are stereotyped - It has its place eg, Banksy - if it actually meant something! - Meaningless associated with gangs = BAD! - The fact that it is there makes it attractive to people - Lack of something else to do - Low achievers claim to fame the only thing they will get their name on. 132

133 Appendix Ten Newspaper Article Newspaper Article Dominion Post Don't like graffiti? He doesn't care The Dominion Post Tuesday, 27 May a Friend Printable View TAG MAN: Joseph Kitchener says he thinks about tagging every minute of every day. Related Links Subscribe to Archivestuff Comment on this story LYNDA FORREST/Dominion Post The 'tagging bill' may come down harder on graffiti vandalism, but the motivation of one prolific tagger suggests it probably won't stop bored young men making marks on your fence or business. Marty Sharpe reports. Meet Joseph Kitchener. The 24-year-old former P addict from Flaxmere has found a more addictive drug: graffiti vandalism. He is a prolific tagger and a "bomber" and boasts of "stuffing up" much of the North Island. Kitchener epitomises all that people detest when they see their city or town defaced by vandals. A seasonal fruit picker currently out of work, he's a young, bored man with no interests and no ambitions that don't include spraying paint on someone else's property. His idea of a good night out is to board a moving freight train in Napier, hang off the side of it with a bag-load of spray cans and "bomb" a shipping container before jumping off as the train nears Hastings. His friends - part of his "crew" - drive alongside filming him as he does it. Kitchener won't reveal the name of his crew for fear of being charged for numerous tags around the North Island, but says it includes four others in Hawke's Bay, three in Hamilton and two in Wellington. They tag scrawls of three to four letters marking their turf and paint "bombs", which are larger, colourful images and words - better known as graffiti. 133