SLIDE 1
Background to the research The study was conducted in a government - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Background to the research The study was conducted in a government - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Background to the research The study was conducted in a government designated RAPID area, 80% of which covers Policing Forum/Local Drugs Task Force Area Previous needs analysis and research highlighted ASB, crime and community safety
SLIDE 2
SLIDE 3
SLIDE 4
RAPID- Deprivation Index
According to the widely used Haase Deprivation Index, the RAPID area measured below the average level of affluence using CSO 2006 figure. Further, according to this index, certain areas within RAPID are disadvantaged Or very disadvantaged
SLIDE 5
The People Involved
The Research Steering Group:
Statutory Agencies; FCC & Gardaí, Local Development & Community
Organisations; BLDTF, CDP, BYS
Safer Blanchardstown Representative Research Authors/Analysts; Consultant,
DCU student, BLDTF & FCC
The survey was conducted by community
researchers who received training.
SLIDE 6
Survey Design
The survey consisted of 29 questions. Questions were agreed on through the
Research Steering Group.
Questions asked about physical appearance
- f estate, Safety, Crime & ASB (anti-social
behaviour), Community Relationships
Considered Tralee RAPID Community Safety
Survey (2008), Community Safety Initiative, Consultation Report, Tallaght West (2008), Garda Public Attitudes Survey and Dept Justice, Fear of Crime In Ireland (2009)
SLIDE 7
Sampling Frame
Aim was to connect with 10% of RAPID
households for the face-to-face survey.
Every 10th house was included. Of the 2,715 households in the local authority
estate areas in the RAPID area, 297 householders completed an interview.
Focus groups meetings were held in three
community centres in the three study area
SLIDE 8
Focus Groups
Three focus group meetings. Attendants were drawn form the community. Sessions facilitated by consultant and student
researcher
Topics of discussion were, among others,
safety concerns, criminality, ASB and responsibility.
Themes were drawn from the focus group
discussions and included in the quantitative analysis along with the survey results.
SLIDE 9
Pilot Phase
The survey was piloted to ensure suitability Interviews were conducted as part of the pilot and
issues that arose were used to refine the survey questionnaire and process in general.
Responses were confidential: No householder was
identified as giving a particular response.
Feedback sessions with the community researchers
discussed any issues they faced on the doorsteps
SLIDE 10
The aims of the research were….
To identify commonalities and differences To provide information that will inform
partners how resources might be deployed/prioritised more effectively
To provide evidence based research that will
inform policy and strategies in relation to policing/anti social behaviour/drugs & alcohol and other community safety matters
To consider way in which community safety
might be enhanced and improved
SLIDE 11
Witnessed Crimes
This shows that in each category, more than half of respondents
had witnessed instances of crime and/or anti social activity .
The highest percentage of respondents identified drinking in public,
Joyriding/speeding
SLIDE 12
Victims of Crime
Almost a quarter of respondents recorded they were
either a victim of vandalism OR harassment/intimidation.
SLIDE 13
Issues Found
This shows that almost 87% of respondents had an
issue with litter, damaged fencing, railings or boundary walls also figured highly
SLIDE 14
Map: Perceived Incidents & Unsafe Areas
A correlation was found between
- pen areas
and people feeling unsafe
SLIDE 15
Findings (1)
What makes a safe community?
Less crime/ASB, no fear, sense of community,
more policing, people taking responsibility, feeling involved and listened to
What would make estate safer?
More police presence, mechanisms to slow
cars, increased parental responsibility, community spirit, neighbourhood watch, reduced drug use/drug dealing/alcohol and more facilities for teenagers
SLIDE 16
Findings (2)
Confidence gap in authorities ability to deal
satisfactorily with issues – linked to confidentiality, perceived threat.
Large differences around feelings of safety
across 3 study areas and between different estate areas
Respondents in study area were more likely
to have been a victim of crime in some categories than state average
Parks and open spaces very vulnerable
SLIDE 17
Findings (3)
Good community relations were seen as important. Majority felt they had good relations with their
neighbours.
However, when asked about people looking out for
each other and a sense of community, Mulhuddart came out the with the lowest score.
Neighbourliness is one thing, but it was felt that the
community didn’t come together in times of significant perceived threat.
Issues should be tackled in a shared fashion with the
community along with agencies.
SLIDE 18
Quotes & Comments (1)
‘‘People who are given houses in the community should be
given a charter contract of loyalty and responsibility to their neighbours and to the community in which they live’
‘We should go back to the Neighbourhood Watch scheme which
worked for years’
‘There is a need to collaborate with each other in addressing
the problems which exist within our estates. We need to be working together more closely’
‘People involved in serious criminal and antisocial activity
should be evicted from the estate regardless of the fact that they are renting or buying their houses, the Gardaí and the Council know who they are’
SLIDE 19
Quotes & Comments (2)
‘There is a lack of faith in the authorities and a fear of
repercussions’
‘People are very worried about the levels of violence
and anti-social activity which are taking place both day and night’
‘Gangs of youths should not be allowed to gather on
corners in order to get as drunk as they can’
‘A lot of off licences sell alcohol to underage people
and also deliver to underage people in their own homes’
SLIDE 20
Recommendations
Recommendations were agreed
collaboratively through Research Steering Group.
These come under FOUR headings-
Prioritisation Communication Community Responsibility Enforcement
SLIDE 21