Graffiti Vandalism Prevention Programme Design

Main Report

prepared for Community Development and Safety Unit, Auckland Council

May 2014

innovate change is a social innovation agency that identifies and implements new and creative ways to design, deliver and review health and social care programmes, services and policy. www.innovatechange.co.nz Auckland Council commissioned innovate change to lead a social innovation process to develop a new education programme for graffiti vandalism prevention. Summary - - - - - - 3 Part 1: What We Know Eleven Key Insights - - - - - 6 Four Case Studies - - - - - 18 Part 2: What Should Happen? Theory of Change - - - - - 24 Activity 1 Description and Criteria - - - 26 Activity 2 Description and Criteria - - - 29 Measuring Impact - - - - - 34 Appendices Appendix A: People involved - - - - 36 Appendix B: References - - - - 37

2

Graffiti is a costly and contentious issue for communities around the country. In recent years, graffiti vandalism has become less visible in Auckland, yet tagging and other forms of graffiti vandalism remain a problem in some areas. Graffiti vandalism costs Auckland Council over $5 million annually. Graffiti vandalism refers to writing, drawing, painting, spraying or etching done without lawful consent on a wall or other surface in a public space. innovate change spent two months working with Auckland Council’s Community Development and Safety Unit to identify and explore effective approaches to graffiti vandalism prevention and education. This work supports Auckland Council’s vision of a city free of graffiti vandalism. This project was led by Emma Blomkamp and Simon Harger-Forde, with specialist support and peer review by Terry Fleming. The project team worked closely with the Community Safety Programme Manager, Brian Taylor, and other staff within Council. Another 43 people participated in the project through interviews, focus groups and a co-design workshop. The project team generated the insights and case studies in this document by reviewing selected literature and interviewing people who understand, influence and are affected by graffiti in Auckland. Key insights generated through this process included: 1. Graffiti writing is done mostly but not only by young men 2. There are many reasons to write graffiti, but it’s often a question of identity 3. Educating young people requires a comprehensive approach to behaviour change 4. Educating property owners about graffiti prevention through environmental design principles can work

well.

The analysis of ideas generated through the workshop, the insights and the literature generated the proposed education programme detailed in this document. The proposed education programme has two main activities: 1. Communicate simple strategies for property owners and managers to reduce graffiti vandalism. 2. Work with young people to transform graffiti hot spots into safe and vibrant spaces.

Summary

3

The activities could be coordinated by a graffiti vandalism prevention education advisor within Council and delivered by external groups over an initial two year period. These activities would contribute to three key programme outcomes: People who are responsible for property (residential, commercial or public) know what graffiti vandalism is

and ways to prevent it Young people have meaningful things to do and ways to express themselves Public spaces are safe and vibrant This project assumes that Auckland Council’s eradication and enforcement of graffiti vandalism will continue as usual, but that savings and positive community outcomes can be achieved through enhancing evidence-informed, educational approaches to graffiti vandalism prevention. To successfully adopt this programme, Auckland Council would firstly need to communicate this new approach to key stakeholders and decide how it would manage the programme. Key first steps in programme implementation would include identifying neighbourhood ‘hot spot’ areas for focus and beginning to collect baseline data. A range of other considerations are set forth in the discussion document that accompanies this report.

Process innovate change undertook a four-phase social innovation process between February and April 2014. In stage one: questioning, we identified what is already known about graffiti in Auckland and explored different approaches to graffiti prevention. As well as gathering information on current Auckland Council graffiti vandalism prevention work and relevant policies, we conducted a targeted review of evidence and identified potential case studies and project participants. The key questions we sought to answer were: What educational initiatives work to prevent graffiti vandalism? What doesn’t work? What don’t we know?

In stage two: understanding, we tested the relevance of insights and evidence from the literature with individuals and groups who understand, influence and are affected by graffiti in Auckland. We conducted 13 individual interviews and three group interviews. These interviews provided further insights into graffiti culture, community safety, vandalism prevention, public art, and youth and community education.

4

In stage three: designing, we prepared and facilitated an interactive workshop with a group of co-designers to explore ideas and insights that could inform a graffiti vandalism prevention education programme. By the end of the full-day, high energy design workshop, this group of 12 Council staff, experts and creative thinkers generated potential outcomes, activities and success factors. In stage four: refining, we analysed the evidence and ideas generated, and distilled them to develop the programme components and advice presented and discussed in this report and its accompanying documents. This stage included peer review by Terry Fleming and discussions with key leaders in Council to validate and refine the theory of change.

Deliverables Auckland Council and innovate change agreed to these four deliverables for this project: 1. key insights and summary from targeted review of evidence 2. a draft theory of change and/or guiding principles for a new graffiti prevention programme 3. possible success factors for a new graffiti prevention education programme 4. advice on practical issues relating to programme management and implementation (e.g. possible

short and long term activities, geographic equity challenges, staged programme implementation starting with interventions with good evidence base, a possible innovation process, assessing impact, criteria for funding, effectiveness criteria).

This Document This document is the full report on this process and details the proposed education programme that was designed as a result of this project. It is one of four document outputs. The other documents include a Frequently Asked Questions and Future Focused Scenarios document; a PowerPoint presentation (for Council staff use) and the insights and case studies as a stand-alone document.

5

Part 1: What we Know

Eleven Key Insights

6

1. Rapidly removing graffiti vandalism reduces graffiti, but requires consistent effort

As a result of Auckland Council rapidly removing graffiti vandalism and actively enforcing the law, graffiti is much less visible in greater Auckland than it was 15 years ago. An area that has been tagged once is more likely to be tagged again, but this can be avoided by quickly removing the graffiti. Rapidly removing graffiti reduces the likelihood of the offender receiving recognition from their peers. Eradication can therefore demotivate graffiti writers. It can, however, result in graffiti writers doing quicker tags and using stickers, rather than taking the time to create more elaborate artwork. Rapid removal of graffiti vandalism can be effective at reducing graffiti, but it is not a systemic approach. It requires sustained effort, ongoing investment and complementary prevention strategies.

“Our success revolves around getting it out straight away.. Don’t allow [graffiti writers] the mana. So now it’s not worth the bother [for them].”

7

2. Of the different types of graffiti writing, tagging is the biggest problem in Auckland

There are four main types of graffiti writing, all found to a varying extent in Auckland: conventional, political, gang-related and tagging. Conventional or bathroom graffiti includes the etching of names into desks, doors or walls, and is found in schools, public toilets and parks. Political or ideological graffiti can be seen as inevitable or important for democratic reasons. Gang-related territorial markings are the most concerning in terms of safety, but are likely done by young prospects rather than patched gang members. Hip hop style graffiti, or tagging, is the most common type of graffiti in Auckland. Originating in New York in the 1970s, it involves writing a simple, stylised name or signature in public, often repeatedly and often using spray paint. Markers and etchers are also common. In Auckland, tagging is often found along the railway line and on vacant, industrial buildings and other types of private and public property.

“There are different worlds here, and you’d need to have a deep understanding of them to design a response.”

8

3. Graffiti writing is done mostly but not only by young men

Most graffiti vandalism is done by young men aged 13 to 23. Some younger and older people, including employed adults, girls and women, are also known to write and paint graffiti. Hip hop style graffiti writers are part of an international sub culture and come from a range of social, cultural and economic backgrounds. Many young people do minor occasional graffiti and a small number do much more. Some young people go through a phase of tagging. For others, belonging to this sub culture is an important part of their identity. Some hone their skills and become street artists; others do not. Those who most repeat graffiti vandalism are typically young men who lack positive connections with education, work or family.

“I’m 37 and some of my peers still tag.”

9

4. There are many reasons to write graffiti, but it’s often a question of identity

There is no single reason why people are involved in graffiti vandalism, but most graffiti writers are not primarily motivated to cause harm or damage. For many, graffiti provides a means of self-expression and a sense of belonging. Key motivations for tagging include: • to be seen, noticed or recognised

(for fame, respect, visibility or credibility)

• the thrill of illicit activity, or to combat boredom (for excitement, challenge)

• to express creative talent (for pride, pleasure, creativity or achievement)

• to fit in with a ‘crew’, peer pressure, or to combat experiences of being excluded

• to claim or enliven space, or to exercise some control over the environment.

“I really enjoyed doing it so I didn’t stop [even after I got caught and] I had to do 100 hours of community service.”

10

5. An extreme reaction to graffiti vandalism is problematic

Some people call for ‘zero tolerance’ for graffiti. They suggest we need to educate the public not to accept any kind of graffiti. According to the ‘broken windows’ theory, minor signs of disorder, like graffiti, invite more serious forms of crime and can have disastrous consequences for a city. However, researchers have not found strong evidence to support the theory that graffiti leads to serious crime. At the other end of the tolerance spectrum, graffiti is seen as inevitable in a modern city. Graffiti has existed ever since humans first etched images on the walls of caves. Prohibition simply does not work. Allowing graffiti writers to tag or draw whatever they want all over Auckland is not an acceptable outcome for most people, though. In between these polar extremes are more balanced and evidence-based responses that allow people to express themselves through legal graffiti without permitting vandalism.

“You’ll never stop graffiti but you can restrict it.”

11

6. Applying principles of environmental design can prevent graffiti in certain spaces

There is a large and growing body of research that suggests crime prevention through environmental design is a pragmatic and effective approach to prevent vandalism and other crime in particular spaces. Applying principles of environmental design to create safe, vibrant spaces can deter people from damaging property in these places. The potential for graffiti can be further reduced by creating surfaces and modifying settings so that graffiti writers do not perceive a wall or space as an empty and inviting “blank canvas” waiting to be filled. Practical examples include planting trees or bushes in front of a fence or wall, installing good lighting and wall murals. To be most effective, this approach needs to involve multiple stakeholder groups and incorporate social, environmental and community development strategies.

“Stop building solid fences and walkways between cul de sacs.”

12

7. Educating property owners about graffiti removal and prevention can work well

Auckland Council already provides information for property owners and other community members about: • how to prevent graffiti (e.g. through

lighting, painting and planting), • how to report graffiti, and • the importance of rapid removal Best practice from the United States and United Kingdom suggests that this can be effective as part of a broader strategy to prevent graffiti vandalism. It can also be combined with assistance with planting, graffiti proof paint or graffiti removal, and education about crime prevention through environmental design. In Auckland and other cities, some property owners have engaged street artists to beautify and enliven their environment. There is scope to improve property owners’ understanding of the value of art projects for graffiti vandalism prevention and how they can work with street artists.

“We need guidelines for businesses or building owners and artists to negotiate together. How would an artist talk to a building owner to get permission? How could building owners see their boring walls as potential canvases for interesting art?”

13

8. Educating young people requires a comprehensive approach to behaviour change

A conventional approach to graffiti prevention is to run school-based programmes to educate young people about the negative impacts of graffiti vandalism. However, people often overestimate the benefits of these programmes. Rigorous studies show educational programmes for young people which focus on information about harm or use scare tactics are often ineffective or counter-productive. Similarly, one off educational sessions in schools are unlikely to lead to positive behaviour change Experience from other fields has shown that educational approaches to reduce problematic behaviour can be effective where these form part of an integrated and comprehensive approach and are centered on positive relationships. Educational components delivered by a trusted and known adult are more likely to be effective. The target group, behaviour change goal and behaviour change method also need to be well understood and clearly defined.

“Telling youth not to do something will only encourage them.”

14

9. Legal graffiti walls do not usually appear to prevent graffiti vandalism

Some communities have created graffiti walls where anyone can legally apply graffiti at any time. The idea is that if you provide an outlet for young people to write graffiti publicly, they might “get it out of their system”. Despite the arguments that permitted sites would resolve or ease the problem of graffiti vandalism, most of the evidence does not support this view. If these sites are unsupervised, they may not be safe spaces for young people to gather and develop creative skills. Graffiti has sometimes spread out into surrounding areas of legal graffiti walls. This approach does not seem to address important motivations for graffiti writing such as the appeal of illicit graffiti and the wish to claim space or have a voice in the city.

“We had free walls in the late 90s. It went well until West Auckland came over and wanted to add their part… It went to custard then the neighbourhood complained.”

15

10. Urban art projects can prevent graffiti vandalism in certain areas for a limited time

As well as improving an urban environment, street art projects can address graffiti vandalism. Artwork is less likely to be damaged by graffiti vandals if they know and respect the people who have created it. Engaging street artists and young people from the local community is therefore key. This can also mean community members take ownership of the area, maintain the artwork and manage any vandalism. Murals that do not include participatory processes or exclude the values and input of those involved with graffiti may be less effective. There are many one-off case studies and best practice examples but little formal evidence of the effectiveness of public art for preventing graffiti vandalism. Projects like council-commissioned murals can be complex, expensive and require a long-term approach. They usually only remain tag-free for a certain amount of time (e.g. six months).

“Walls with artwork don’t get tagged as often”

16

11. Young graffiti writers can be offered an alternative outlet for creative expression

Graffiti vandalism might be prevented by providing writers with an alternative way to express their identity, feel connected to others, be recognised for their talents and have a voice in the community. Efforts to engage young people in education or meaningful activities are likely to have a positive effect, especially if they offer creative skill development in connection with hip hop culture. To be most effective, programmes should take a positive youth development approach – this means focusing on young people’s strengths, positive relationships, participation and empowerment. A number of participatory mural projects taking a youth development approach have been completed, although there has been little formal evaluation of their impact. Existing levels of creative talent and youth leadership in Auckland suggest this approach has great potential. It would require significant investment.

“You need to empower the people who are the problem to come up with the solution.”

17

Part 1: What we Know

Four Case Studies

18

Case Study 1: Youth Development Approach to Street Art

In Wellington, from 2011 to 2013, over 60 young people designed and painted public artwork as part of a youth services programme run by BGI. The voluntary participants were predominantly young Māori and Pacific Island men disengaged from education, many of whom had been known to tag. Taking a strengths-based, empowering and participatory approach, the programme fostered a strong group culture, creative skill development, and positive identities and relationships. It empowered young people to have a constructive voice in the community through the artworks, while maintaining a persistent intolerance for vandalism. Participants came to see tagging as immature and inferior, and the vast majority stopped writing graffiti illegally. Key success factors in the project were: its positive youth development approach; strong co-facilitation by a street artist, whom the young people respected, and a skilled and experienced youth worker; the regular structure of weekly art workshops; strong partnerships with Council, local businesses and other community/youth organisations; and positive reporting by local media on significant mural projects.

Photo credit: Rod Baxter, BGI

Case Study 2: Community and Youth Led Approach to Graffiti Prevention

In 2004, the City of Vista threatened to close its skatepark because of problems with graffiti and other kinds of vandalism, which were costing the city around $10,000 a year. A group of local young people and their parents volunteered to keep the Vista Skate Park clean if the City would keep it open. The young people formed “skate and bike watch groups” to take charge of the park. Seven months later, there had been only two minor acts of vandalism at the park and the City spent half as much on skatepark maintenance and supervision the following year. Within a few years, however, the council reported increased problems at the park and suggested that the presence of city supervisors seemed to be aggravating retaliatory acts of vandalism. A key learning from this case study is that community ownership and informal surveillance of a public space where young people enjoy spending time can be more effective for graffiti vandalism prevention than an authoritative approach focusing on apprehension and punishment.

20

Photo credit: https://www.flickr.com/photos/chrisschoenbohm/8569086980/

Case Study 3: Youth Participation in Creative Place-Based Projects

Auckland Council’s Arts and Culture team has proposed collaborating with The Roots Creative Entrepreneurs in a hot spot area as part of a creative approach to graffiti vandalism education prevention. The Roots are an Auckland-based collective that aims to inspire the next generation through creative opportunities in communities, with a particular focus on sustainability and South Pacific arts. Although their past projects have not been graffiti-focused, the work of The Roots could easily contribute to graffiti vandalism prevention outcomes. The Roots started with a project that involved building sculptures from thousands of bottles with high school student ‘tribes’ at Otara Town Centre in South Auckland. Since then, the collective has worked with young people and urban professionals on a range of sustainable art projects, including eco-villages at Pasifika and the Garden of Avondale at Rosebank School. The Roots have recently been working on a programme supported by the Waitemata Local Board, which engaged local high school students in a collaborative and experimental endeavour to create sustainably designed sculptures in Albert Park.

21

Photo credit: The Roots

Case Study 4: Property Owners and Street Artists Working Together

Graffiti vandalism has been an ongoing problem for the Bhana family, who have a store on Ponsonby Road. Their alleyway was getting tagged a lot, so the family was happy when some Cut Collective artists proposed to paint their own design there in 2006, especially as they did not ask for any payment. For several years, the artists maintained the walls, returning to paint out the odd tag and evolving the work over time. Harry Bhana told us, “On those particular walls, there was less tagging. Maybe taggers know who they are – the [artists] always sign off their work. The odd one still scrawls something, but it’s nowhere near as bad as a bare wall.” The artists have not repainted the alleyway for around 18 months now, because they have been busy with other commitments, and graffiti vandalism has reappeared. As one of the artists told us, “Some kids have tagged it now.” This case study demonstrates the great potential for property owners and street artists to work together on beautifying their property and protecting it from graffiti vandalism, but this requires a connection and informal agreement to be made between the two parties. Importantly, maintaining the artwork requires ongoing effort.

Photo credit: http://juliadub.com/2012/07/10/and-finally-some-taken-by-me/#jp-carousel-3521/

Part 2: What Should Happen?

A Graffiti Vandalism Prevention Education Programme for Auckland

23

Auckland Council has a vision that communities and visitors enjoy a city free of graffiti vandalism. Alongside its eradication and enforcement activities, Auckland Council can further reduce the negative impacts of graffiti vandalism by implementing an educational approach to prevention. Focusing on graffiti vandalism prevention through education, the proposed programme builds on the evidence analysed, insights gathered and ideas tested during the first three phases of the project. This section outlines the theory of change underpinning the proposed programme. It presents the principles, outcomes, activities, criteria, evaluation questions and indicators of success. The following page presents key elements of the theory of change in an overview diagram.

Principles of an educational approach to graffiti vandalism prevention Prevention focus (reducing opportunities and drivers for graffiti vandalism rather than focusing on

removal, apprehension or punishment. Eradication and enforcement are important complementary activities, but not the focus of the education programme)

Evidence-informed (does not include interventions not supported by evidence; projects are documented and evaluated to grow evidence base; learnings and success stories are shared)

Education through participatory learning and doing Neighbourhood-focused and place-based Young people’s strengths and participation are valued Sociocultural awareness (social and cultural aspects of graffiti are understood) Good value for resources.

24

Theory of Change

1. Communicate simple strategies for property owners and managers to reduce graffiti vandalism

2. Work with young people to transform graffiti hot spots into safe and vibrant spaces

1. Do property owners and key partners (e.g. transport agencies, utilities, eradication contractors) know the council provides information about graffiti and how to prevent graffiti vandalism?

2. Does this information help property owners, partners and council staff decide what action to take?

3. How many people access this information? 4. How many people are involved (in different ways, which age and population groups)? 5. Are more people using the selected public spaces? 6. Have perceptions of safety and vibrancy in these areas improved? 7. How much graffiti vandalism in immediate vicinity of programme area? 8. Did the young people involved have a meaningful experience? 9. What other benefits were achieved (e.g. health, community connections)?

1.Residential, commercial or public (including council) property owners and managers/caretakers

2.Young people who write graffiti 3.Local community members

1. People who are responsible for property (residential, commercial or public) know what graffiti vandalism is and ways to prevent it

2. Young people have meaningful things to do and ways to express themselves

3. Public spaces are safe and vibrant

Auckland communities and visitors enjoy a city free of graffiti vandalism

Sustainable, significant and measurable reductions in graffiti vandalism in targeted areas Improved quality of services that are cost effective and provide good value for Council’s investment Council and its partners working collaboratively and achieving beneficial graffiti vandalism outcomes Communities and visitors experiencing an environment where the negative impacts of graffiti vandalism do not

exist or are significantly reduced

Target Audiences Who are we seeking to influence and benefit?

Programme Outcomes

What benefits are we seeking to achieve?

Activities

How will we make this happen

Evaluation Questions

How will we know we’ve got there?

Graffiti Vandalism Prevention Education Programme: Theory of Change

Programme Activity 1: Communicate simple strategies for property owners and managers to reduce graffiti vandalism

This activity contributes to the outcome: People who are responsible for property (residential, commercial or public) know what graffiti vandalism is and ways to prevent it. People who own and/or look after private and public property have an important role to play in graffiti vandalism prevention. Council can encourage property owners, managers and caretakers to reduce graffiti vandalism by communicating simple strategies that people can carry out on their own property. This approach builds upon the Council’s strong emphasis on the need for rapid removal of graffiti and growing understanding of crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED). It complements existing work by communicating ways to prevent graffiti vandalism from occurring in the first place. An effective communications strategy, dissemination plan and engaging materials would help key staff in Council and the wider community to gain a better understanding of what graffiti vandalism is, why it happens, and what they can do about it.

Target audience The target audience for the communications activity is people who are responsible for property that is susceptible to graffiti vandalism. The core target audience should be the owners or caretakers of property where graffiti is particularly problematic, notably commercial and public property. This core group includes Council staff, contractors and employees of key partner organisations, such as utility companies and transport agencies. The wider audience includes homeowners, leaseholders and property investors.

26

Communications Activity

Change goal The goal of this activity is to get property owners and caretakers to take action to prevent graffiti vandalism on the property they are responsible for.

Details of communications activity The communications would detail a limited number of evidence-informed options for property owners and managers to prevent graffiti vandalism, including: Types of areas (e.g. blank walls) that are more vulnerable to graffiti Advice on materials and colours that attract less tagging How to commission art Ways to link street artists with property owners Planting to prevent graffiti.

This internal and external communications programme would use a range of methods and media presented in a lively, consistent and easily understandable manner. This may include: Presentations by council officers to key partners (e.g. transport agencies, business associations) Property owners being able to share stories of using preventative approaches Web-based step-by-step guides and tools (text, image and/or video) Social media engagement Regular features in Our Auckland Neighbourhood-level media in hot spots (e.g. street posters, stencilling, bus shelters, etc.) that direct

people to the web tools. These communications would complement and be integrated with, or replace, the existing Auckland Council communications web page and graffiti vandalism brochure.

27

Criteria for communications activity These criteria should be considered when designing and delivering the communications activity:

1. Include the gathering of insights from the target audience to ensure that communications are designed and delivered in a way that resonates and is useful

2. Not simply be based on the provision of expert information, but seek to engage the audience in generating content (e.g. sharing success stories), create a positive experience, and inspire the audience

3. Use a variety of communication channels and not rely on a single channel – for instance: relationships with key partners like business associations and residents associations; communicating through partner communications channels; web; print; media advertising; editorial in existing publications (local newspapers, Our Auckland); public space advertising; and social media.

28

Programme Activity 2: Work with young people to transform graffiti hot spots into safe and vibrant spaces This activity contributes to two outcomes: Young people have meaningful things to do and ways to express themselves; and Public spaces are safe and vibrant. Working with young people to enliven selected public spaces through community-based projects would help to achieve these outcomes and prevent graffiti vandalism in two key ways. Firstly, engaging young people in meaningful social and creative activities can reduce the likelihood of them writing graffiti illegally. Significantly this activity should build young people’s positive connections to their community, which will act as a protective factor (protective factors work against ‘risk behaviours’ like graffiti vandalism). Secondly, transforming areas from graffiti hot spots into safer spaces where people enjoy spending time should reduce the likelihood of graffiti vandalism occurring there. By increasing the presence of community members and positive activities in public spaces prone to graffiti, projects funded through this programme would deter vandalism. This programme activity would follow crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) principles by improving natural surveillance, increasing a sense of ownership and conveying the impression that the project areas are cared for. This should increase perceptions of safety and vibrancy in target areas.

29

Rejuvenating Spaces Activity

Target group The primary target group for this activity is young men (primarily those aged 13 to 23, based on the evidence) who might be involved in graffiti. It is anticipated that a broader range of young people would participate in the programme. While this group needs to be targeted because it is the core group for whom change is sought, it is important that they participate in the programme with others, thus creating positive social connections with other young people in their neighbourhoods. If young people who might be involved in graffiti are not targeted, they could be unintentionally excluded from the programme. This is because they will likely be harder to connect with than others, which may mean community groups are more likely to fill up the programme with young people that are easier to reach and engage in community activities. A secondary target audience for this programme is local residents who use and/or live near the selected public space.

Change goal The goals for this activity are: Young people will be less motivated to write graffiti illegally because they have alternative ways to be

seen, noticed and recognised, avoid boredom, express their creative talent, feel connected to their peers and wider community, and exercise some control over their environment

Local residents will feel safer in the public space where this activity is occurring, and will use the space in ways that they enjoy.

30

Details of rejuvenating spaces activity This activity would involve Council funding up to ten community and/or youth organisations to each deliver several (up to five) place-based projects over a two year period. Each project would be located at or near a graffiti vandalism ‘hot spot’. The hot spot areas would be public spaces like parks, squares, town centres, shopping centres, public transport stations/hubs, community halls, libraries, community centres or the surrounding areas, walkways, cycle ways and alleyways or key transport routes. Hot spots could be defined and identified using Stop Tags data. Each project would also need to be in an area where the community or youth organisation can effectively draw on existing skills, local resources and networks. Organisations should be able to deliver up to five projects that each focus on one ‘hot spot’ area. Each project should engage between 10 and 20 young people as core group participants with at least three months of initial intense activity (e.g. weekly meetings in the public space for three months). This would be followed by less intensive activity to ensure ongoing sustainable activation and community ownership of the public space. To be effective, the projects would need to follow a youth development approach, involving creative social activities with otherwise excluded young people and other community members. A positive youth development approach involves focusing on young people’s strengths, enabling youth participation, and facilitating positive connections to social environments. This means young people from the target group will need to have meaningful opportunities to participate in the design and delivery of the projects. It also means the organisations should seek to build positive connections between young people and their local community, and support positive connections between participants and their families, peer groups, and a work or educational setting. Young participants should be identified through the organisation’s informal networks and their participation in a project should be voluntary.

31

32

Appropriate creative and social activities would need to be determined by the young people participating in the programme, but could include: Art or crafts (including creating public art)

Music or dance

Landscape design or gardening

Sports (including cycling or skating)

Local film or performance events hosted by young people

Community markets organised and hosted by young people

Fitness

Games.

Criteria for rejuvenating spaces activity

For the programme to have maximum impact, all of the following criteria should be met by each funded place-based project. The criteria are based on the insights gathered. 1. Must engage young people, especially young men who may write graffiti, in design and

delivery (needs to be based on activities they want to do)

2. Must be at or near ‘hot spots’ – places where there is graffiti vandalism that could be reduced

3. Must build on existing community leadership, networks and skills

4. Delivery organisations ensure rapid removal happens in their hot spot

5. Not a one-off event, rather it is ongoing and sustainable activation of space

6. It does not include interventions that may increase graffiti vandalism (e.g. legal graffiti walls, one-off education in schools)

7. Documentation of programme needed for communications and evaluation purposes (budget must allow for this: to tell stories of success; share learnings; review progress and adapt; give young people positive exposure)

8. Any facilitator involved in the programme should hold relevant qualifications/experience, have a clean police check, abstain from graffiti vandalism and other illegal activity, and have credibility in young people’s eyes

9. Engage with local resident and community members around the public spaces being activated, to encourage their involvement in the public space activation

10. Programme design should include consideration of sustaining the public space activation. (After the intense programme, how will people continue to use and enhance this space?).

33

In order to monitor, report on and evaluate the effectiveness of the education programme, it will be important for the activities to be documented and their impacts measured. The following table suggests evaluation questions and possible sources of data to provide indicators of success for each key activity.

34

Activities

How will we make this

happen?

Evaluation Questions

Indicators

How will we know we’ve got there?

Communicate simple

strategies for property

owners and managers to

reduce graffiti

vandalism

Do property owners and key partners (e.g. transport

agencies, utilities, eradication contractors) know the

council provides information about graffiti and how to

prevent graffiti vandalism?

Pop-up online survey

Include question in residents or

stakeholder survey

Does this information help property owners, partners

and council staff decide what action to take?

Survey of property owners in hot spots &

key stakeholders – pre- & post-

communications strategy.

How many people access this information? Number of website hits / web access rates

Work with young

people to transform

graffiti hot spots into

safe and vibrant spaces

How many people are involved (in different ways,

which age and population groups)?

Provider reporting

Are more people using the selected public spaces? Pre- and post- measure at same particular

time

Have perceptions of safety and vibrancy in these areas

improved?

Pre- and post- measure

How much graffiti vandalism in immediate vicinity of

programme area?

Stop tags data at neighbourhood level

Did the young people involved have a meaningful

experience?

Qualitative interviews with young

participants

What other benefits were achieved (e.g. health,

community connections)?

Perceptions of community (post-

measure)

Measuring Impact

Appendices

35

innovate change project team Emma Blomkamp Simon Harger-Forde Terry Fleming

interview participants Jill Nerheny (Kaipatiki Community Facilities Trust) Peter Wolf (Kaipatiki Youth Development Trust) Rod Baxter (BGI youth worker) Liam Willins-Matias (Street artist & youth worker) Sen Thong (Hip hop advocate) Annie Bradley (Arts and Culture, Auckland Council) Barbara Carney (Manukau Beautification Trust) Megan Cooke (Neighbourhood Policing) Kevin Marriott (Community Facilities, Auckland Council) George Wood (Councillor/ former mayor) Amir Kayal (Community Safety, Auckland Council) Sparrow Phillips (Artist) Ronald Kramer (Lecturer in Criminology) Cathy Casey (Councillor)

focus group participants Auckland Council - Graffiti prevention and community development advisors: Christine Van, Roslyn Prictor, Tony Crampton, Rajesh Jattan, Rob Shields, Sarah McGhee. Manurewa Youth Council - Matthew Ward, Amar Jakhu, Sarah Colcord, Michael Tau, Nathaniel Brown, Tatiana Tataurangi-Ruru, Georaui Apulu, Jacinta Taliauli. Strive Young Leaders (Mangere) - Louise Ru, Jordan Taiapo, Augustine Mare, SamSon Tekeu, Te Reinga Putia Browne-Knowles, Leona Faye Wallace, Martha Laufoli, Parnell Rogers, Kimiora Hunia.

Appendix A: People involved

36

co-design group Betty MacLaren Roslyn Prictor Barbara Carney Brian Taylor Lily Linton Liam Willins-Matias Sonia Carter-Amani Michael Tau Meghan Geliza Ema Tavola Greg Whaiapu Terry Fleming

All of the insights and most of the case studies were informed and validated by key informant interviews and focus groups, conducted by innovate change, Auckland, March 2014. The featured quotations in the insight section are verbatim quotes from these interviews. For a list of participants in this project, see Appendix 1. Additional sources of information for each case study and insight are listed below.

Insight 1 Auckland Council. “Auckland Graffiti Vandalism Prevention Plan,” 2012. Auckland Council. “Dramatic Drop in Auckland Graffiti Vandalism.” Scoop News, December 3, 2012. Cox, Joanne, Fiona Hutton, and Mike Rowe. Tagging and Graffiti: Attitudes and Experiences of New Zealanders.

Report prepared for Ministry of Justice. Wellington: Institute of Criminology, Victoria University Wellington, December 2009.

Stafford, J., and G. Pettersson. Vandalism, Graffiti and Environmental Nuisance on Public Transport-Literature Review. Department for Transport Prepared by Crime Concern, 2003..

Tasman Research and Consultation. “A Regional Survey of Graffiti Vandalism in Auckland.” Auckland Council, October 2013.

Insight 2 Allen, Daniel. Fighting Graffiti: An Investigation of Causes and Solutions. Minneapolis: Standish-Ericsson

Neighborhood Association (SENA), 2007. Brewer, Devon. “Hip Hop Graffiti Writers’ Evaluations of Strategies to Control Illegal Graffiti.” Human Organization

51, no. 2 (June 1, 1992): 188–96. Freeman, Fay. How to STOP Graffiti Guide. Ministry of Justice, 2007. Stafford, J., and G. Pettersson. Vandalism, Graffiti and Environmental Nuisance on Public Transport-Literature

Review. Department for Transport Prepared by Crime Concern, 2003. Tasman Research and Consultation. “A Regional Survey of Graffiti Vandalism in Auckland.” Auckland Council,

October 2013. “Words of Art.” Tearaway, March 2009, p. 5.

Appendix B: References

37

Insight 3 Cox, Joanne, Fiona Hutton, and Mike Rowe. Tagging and Graffiti: Attitudes and Experiences of New Zealanders.

Report prepared for Ministry of Justice. Wellington: Institute of Criminology, Victoria University Wellington, December 2009.

Freeman, Fay. How to STOP Graffiti Guide. Ministry of Justice, 2007. Kramer, R. “Painting with Permission: Legal Graffiti in New York City.” Ethnography 11, no. 2 (June 1, 2010): 235–53. Ministry of Justice. “STOP Strategy Implementation Progress Report,” 2010. Office of Crime Prevention. “A Study of Urban Art as a Graffiti Prevention Strategy.” State Graffiti Taskforce, 2010.

http://goodbyegraffiti.wa.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/Urban-Art-Research-Paper.pdf. Spicer, Valerie. “Couch Surfing in Vancouver: An Aggregate Study of the Vancouver Graffiti Suspect Network.” Thesis,

School of Criminology - Simon Fraser University, 2005. http://summit.sfu.ca/item/9840. Stafford, J., and G. Pettersson. Vandalism, Graffiti and Environmental Nuisance on Public Transport-Literature

Review. Department for Transport Prepared by Crime Concern, 2003.

Insight 4 Office of Crime Prevention. “A Study of Urban Art as a Graffiti Prevention Strategy.” State Graffiti Taskforce, 2010. Cox, Joanne, Fiona Hutton, and Mike Rowe. Tagging and Graffiti: Attitudes and Experiences of New Zealanders.

Report prepared for Ministry of Justice. Wellington: Institute of Criminology, Victoria University Wellington, December 2009.

Halsey, Mark, and Alison Young. “The Meanings of Graffiti and Municipal Administration.” Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology 35, no. 2 (August 1, 2002): 165–86/

Spicer, Valerie. “Couch Surfing in Vancouver: An Aggregate Study of the Vancouver Graffiti Suspect Network.” Thesis, School of Criminology - Simon Fraser University, 2005. http://summit.sfu.ca/item/9840.

Stafford, J., and G. Pettersson. Vandalism, Graffiti and Environmental Nuisance on Public Transport-Literature Review. Department for Transport Prepared by Crime Concern, 2003.

38

Insight 5 Brewer, Devon. “Hip Hop Graffiti Writers’ Evaluations of Strategies to Control Illegal Graffiti.” Human Organization

51, no. 2 (June 1, 1992): 188–96. Kramer, Ronald. “Political Elites, ‘Broken Windows’, and the Commodification of Urban Space.” Critical Criminology

20, no. 3 (September 2012):. Office of Crime Prevention. “A Study of Urban Art as a Graffiti Prevention Strategy.” State Graffiti Taskforce, 2010. Rowe, Michael, and Fiona Hutton. “‘Is Your City Pretty Anyway?’ Perspectives on Graffiti and the Urban Landscape.”

Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology 45, no. 1 (April 1, 2012): 66–86. Stafford, J., and G. Pettersson. Vandalism, Graffiti and Environmental Nuisance on Public Transport-Literature

Review. Department for Transport Prepared by Crime Concern, 2003.

Insight 6

Cozens, Paul Michael, Greg Saville, and David Hillier. “Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED): A Review and Modern Bibliography.” Property Management 23, no. 5 (2005): 328–56.

National Guidelines for Crime Prevention through Environmental Design in New Zealand. Wellington: Ministry of Justice, 2005. http://www.justice.govt.nz/publications/global-publications/n/national-guidelines-for-crime-prevention-through-environmental-design-in-new-zealand-part-1-seven-qualities-of-safer-places-part-2-implementation-guide-november-2005.

Project for Public Spaces. “Preventing Graffiti.” Project for Public Spaces. Accessed April 16, 2014. http://www.pps.org/reference/graffitiprevent/.

WA Police Graffiti Team. “Designing out Graffiti.” State Graffiti Taskforce, July 2013. http://goodbyegraffiti.wa.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/Designing-out-Graffiti-brochure.pdf.

Insight 7 Auckland Council. “Graffiti Vandalism: Help Prevent Graffiti Vandalism in Your Neighbourhood,” 2012. Ministry of Justice. “STOP Strategy: A Strategy for Change 2008-11,” 2008. Stafford, J., and G. Pettersson. Vandalism, Graffiti and Environmental Nuisance on Public Transport-Literature

Review. Department for Transport Prepared by Crime Concern, 2003. WA Police Graffiti Team. “Designing out Graffiti.” State Graffiti Taskforce, July 2013.

http://goodbyegraffiti.wa.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/Designing-out-Graffiti-brochure.pdf.

39

Insight 8 Aos, Steven, Roxanne Lieb, Jim Mayfield, Marna Miller, and Annie Pennucci. Benefits and Costs of Prevention and

Early Intervention Programs for Youth. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 2004. Lilienfeld, Scott O. “Psychological Treatments That Cause Harm.” Perspectives on Psychological Science 2, no. 1

(2007): 53–70. Ministry of Justice. “STOP Strategy Implementation Progress Report,” 2010. Petrosino, Anthony, Carolyn Turpin-Petrosino, and John Buehler. “Scared Straight and Other Juvenile Awareness

Programs for Preventing Juvenile Delinquency: A Systematic Review of the Randomized Experimental Evidence.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 589, no. 1 (2003): 41–62.

Rosenbaum, Dennis P., and Gordon S. Hanson. “Assessing the Effects of School-Based Drug Education: A Six-Year Multilevel Analysis of Project DARE.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 35, no. 4 (1998): 381–412.

Sherman, Lawrence W., Denise Gottfredson, Doris MacKenzie, John Eck, Peter Reuter, and Shawn Bushway. Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn’t, What’s Promising. Washington DC: National Institute of Justice, 1995.

Satcher, David. Youth Violence: A Report of the Surgeon General. USA: Office of the Surgeon General, 2001. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20669522.

Weiss, Carol H., Erin Murphy-Graham, Anthony Petrosino, and Allison G. Gandhi. “The Fairy Godmother—and Her Warts Making the Dream of Evidence-Based Policy Come True.” American Journal of Evaluation 29, no. 1 (2008): 29–47.

Insight 9 Cox, Joanne, Fiona Hutton, and Mike Rowe. Tagging and Graffiti: Attitudes and Experiences of New Zealanders.

Report prepared for Ministry of Justice. Wellington: Institute of Criminology, Victoria University Wellington, December 2009.

Ministry of Justice. “STOP Strategy: A Strategy for Change 2008-11,” 2008. Office of Crime Prevention. “A Study of Urban Art as a Graffiti Prevention Strategy.” State Graffiti Taskforce, 2010. Stafford, J., and G. Pettersson. Vandalism, Graffiti and Environmental Nuisance on Public Transport-Literature

Review. Department for Transport Prepared by Crime Concern, 2003.

40

Insight 10 Allen, Daniel. Fighting Graffiti: An Investigation of Causes and Solutions. Minneapolis: Standish-Ericsson

Neighborhood Association (SENA), 2007.. Craw, Penelope J., Louis S. Leland, Michelle G. Bussell, Simon J. Munday, and Karen Walsh. “The Mural as Graffiti

Deterrence.” Environment and Behavior 38, no. 3 (May 1, 2006): 422–34. Halsey, Mark, and Alison Young. “The Meanings of Graffiti and Municipal Administration.” Australian & New Zealand

Journal of Criminology 35, no. 2 (August 1, 2002): 165–86. Ministry of Justice. “STOP Strategy Implementation Progress Report,” 2010. National Guidelines for Crime Prevention through Environmental Design in New Zealand. Wellington: Ministry of

Justice, 2005. Office of Crime Prevention. “A Study of Urban Art as a Graffiti Prevention Strategy.” State Graffiti Taskforce, 2010.

http://goodbyegraffiti.wa.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/Urban-Art-Research-Paper.pdf. Taylor, Myra, and Ida Marais. “Does Urban Art Deter Graffiti Proliferation?” In Urban Art and Graffiti Papers from the

British Criminology Conference, 9:57–70, 2009. http://www.britsoccrim.org/volume9/wholedoc09.pdf#page=61.

Insight 11 Baxter, Rod. “Aro Valley Community Centre Bunker Mural Report 2011.” BGI, 2011. Lerner, Richard M., Jason B. Almerigi, Christina Theokas, and Jacqueline V. Lerner. “Positive Youth Development.”

Journal of Early Adolescence 25, no. 1 (2005): 10–16. Ministry of Justice. “STOP Strategy Implementation Progress Report,” 2010.

Image credits Insights 1-5, 8-11 – Photography by Emma Blomkamp Insights 6-7 – Photography by Terry Fleming

41

Case study 1 Baxter, Rod. “Aro Valley Community Centre Bunker Mural Report 2011.” BGI, 2011 BGI, “Street Art Projects”, prepared by Rod Baxter for the Ministry of Justice, 2013 McBride, Kerry. “Massive mural brightens up city alleyway.” The Dominion Post, 17 July 2012.

Case study 2 Keep America Beautiful, “Graffiti Hurts: Best Practices.” 2014.

http://www.graffitihurts.org/community/bestpractices.jsp Klawonn, Adam. “Vandalism drops at Vista skate park.” Union Tribune. August 18, 2004 http://www.utsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040818/news_1mi18skate.html TENBROECK, Craig. “Vista Skatepark at a Crossroads.” U-T San Diego, August 4, 2007.

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2007/aug/04/vista-skatepark-at-a-crossroads/.

Case study 3 Community Development Arts and Culture, “A creative approach to the Education & Prevention of Graffiti Vandalism”,

Auckland Council, November 2013. Stills, Andrea. “The Roots Inspire the next Generation.” Unitec Student Media, February 28, 2014.

http://studentmediahub.com/?p=369898.\ The Roots Creative Entrepreneurs, 2014. http://theroots.org.nz/what-we-do/.

For a video about the Waitemata project, see: http://vimeo.com/87538721.

42