Locally Identified Solutions and Practices: Intensive Community Engagement 2nd Ed.

LOCALLY IDENTIFIED SOLUTIONS AND PRACTICES: a guide to Intensive Engagement

By Tim Curtis, Amy Bowkett and Jack Stevens, , with Richard James Illustrations by Laura Brodrick

LISP Locally Identified Solutions and Practices Toolkit CONTENTS

Introduction 5 Objectives ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 5 Foreword .................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 6 Chapter 1.

The toolkit .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 7

Moving from community engagement to involvement........................................................................................................................................... 8 The proforma ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 9 Chapter 2.

STEP 1 Justification for the LISP ............................................................................................................................................................. 9

Chapter 3.

STEP 2. Community Assets ................................................................................................................................................................... 10

Community assets and vulnerabilities ................................................................................................................................................................... 10 What is missing? ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 12 Chapter 4.

STEP 3. Stakeholders and networks ..................................................................................................................................................... 13

Map out networks .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 14 Identify highly capable and highly connected ....................................................................................................................................................... 14 Social capital ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 15 Trust and legitimacy........................................................................................................................................................................................... 18 Grassroots and grass-tips community engagement .......................................................................................................................................... 18 Chapter 5.

STEP 4. Problem Rich pictures ............................................................................................................................................................. 20

Enriching the understanding of the problem .................................................................................................................................................... 20 Defining the problem ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 22 Working definition of the problem .................................................................................................................................................................... 22 Chapter 6.

STEP 5 Working group.......................................................................................................................................................................... 23

2

LISP Locally Identified Solutions and Practices Toolkit Meeting their self-interest ................................................................................................................................................................................. 24 Motivating change ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 24 Chapter 7.

STEP 6 SOLUTIONS ............................................................................................................................................................................... 27

Nudging pro-social behaviour ............................................................................................................................................................................ 27 Chapter 8.

STEP 7. Interventions & Evaluation ..................................................................................................................................................... 29

The evaluation story .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 30 Results Logic....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 30 What is an indicator? ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 30 What are progress indicators............................................................................................................................................................................. 31 Progress ratio evaluation ................................................................................................................................................................................... 31 Chapter 9.

STEP 8. ESCALATION ............................................................................................................................................................................ 32

Chapter 10. WORKED EXAMPLE .............................................................................................................................................................................. 32 Chapter 11. Managing a LISP process ...................................................................................................................................................................... 50 Objectives of LISP ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 50 Choosing when to apply LISP processes ............................................................................................................................................................ 51 Tasking a LISP process ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 51 Principles of quality LISP projects ...................................................................................................................................................................... 52 Supporting quality LISP ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 52 Chapter 12. Practising Rich pictures ........................................................................................................................................................................ 54 How to create your rich picture ............................................................................................................................................................................. 54 Chapter 13. Selected reading .................................................................................................................................................................................. 60 BOOKS: ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 60

3

LISP Locally Identified Solutions and Practices Toolkit JOURNALS: .............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 60 Police Research ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 60 Version 20.4

4

LISP Locally Identified Solutions and Practices Toolkit

INTRODUCTION This quote from Jeff Conklin nicely describes the challenge of continuing to improve neighbourhood and community-based policing beyond the successes of community safety partnerships. At a time when local authorities, health trusts and development agencies, who are partners to the Police in any given locality, are experiencing severe spending cuts, the complexity of reducing crime and the causes of crime become ever more ‘wicked’.

This toolkit outlines a set of activities that can be led by community practitioners to shift away from locally identified problems to developing, in collaboration with community members, Locally Identified Solutions and Practices (LISP). This approach is a response to the observation that there continues to be a mismatch between the community’s perceptions of crime, and actual crime incidents. It also further reinforces the Peelian principle that the police are citizens in uniform and therefore their decision-making processes within localities should be made with all groupings of residents, rather than ‘on behalf of’. The activities outlined in this toolkit are designed to help the practitioner investigate and thoroughly analyse problems in the locality, with the active involvement of residents and other community stakeholders, to arrive at mutually agreed solutions and practices that reduce the conditions for crime.

Objectives

The objective of the toolkit is to equip public sector practitioners and members of the public to work together towards mutual solutions, the ‘co-production’ of community safety. It is not a process owned by the Police, but rather a way for the Police to help organise other stakeholders to help achieve their goals. It is built around a core strategy of 'rich picturing', which allows communities of which LISP practitioners are a part to explore how each other perceive a community problem and develop joint solutions for the challenges neighbourhoods experience.

The mainstream models of problem solving in policing (the National Decision-making Model (NDM) and Scanning, Analysis, Response, and Assessment (SARA) were designed for problems that are straightforward (although technically difficult), whereas the LISP toolkit is designed to think about, and consult with the public on situations where 'nobody agrees on what the problem is, let alone the solution'.

This is known as a 'super-complex problem situation'.

LISP is also a way of encouraging the general public, and community organisations, to be actively involved in solving the problems in their neighbourhood. SARA is a process owned by the Police, whereas LISP is a process shared with the community. Doing a LISP requires intensive engagement with the community to establish networks of capable people working together on a specific problem and devising sustainable practices and behaviours that contribute to community wellbeing and a reduction in crime. The NDM and the LISP models are

5

LISP Locally Identified Solutions and Practices Toolkit shown in Figure 1 to demonstrate how they relate to each other. LISP overlays and further develops the basic models.

Figure 1 National Decision Model and LISP

Sustainable practices and behaviours that contribute to community wellbeing and a reduction in crime are collated in an agreed plan -the LISP proforma- where all parties agreed to sustain a set of solutions and practices. This could be a pre-cursor to a full-fledged Neighbourhood Plan. The whole LISP process is based on the principles of collaborative community-based problem solving. The LISP practitioner is guided to become the organiser of anticrime strategies and solutions, rather than being the solver of problems.

Foreword

Welcome to the second edition of the LISP toolkit from Intensive Engagement. It has been thoroughly updated, with significant changes reflecting the ongoing practice and improvements to Intensive Engagement since 2012. The proforma that is used to manage a LISP process has been through several versions, so using the SARA framework for chapter headings seemed too complicated. This edition focusses squarely on the 8 steps that have been introduced and refined in over 10 different LISP projects, both successful and unsuccessful.

Material that had been consigned to the back of the book has been brought forward to the main sections, starting with the practical instructions for each step, and then more detailed reading in support of the practice. The training and toolkit is now aligned, and exceeds, the requirements for Problem Solving Skills of the Policing Professional Framework (PPF), although the material is focused on any practitioner working on public safety, no longer necessarily a PCSO or police officer.

This work is now based on the experience of training over 500 police officers, PCSOs and local authority staff, and a thorough investigations of 10 detailed cases through PhD and Master’s degree research. The underpinning literature and research evidence has been omitted from this handbook but is available on the Intensive Engagement website.

Tim Curtis Senior Lecturer, The University of Northampton

6

LISP Locally Identified Solutions and Practices Toolkit

CHAPTER 1.

THE TOOLKIT

LISP is the process of developing locally identified solutions and practices to address the conditions that lead to high levels of chronic crime that affects the public. It is particularly designed for use in areas where there are hotspots of crime (real and perceived) and anti-social behaviour, of which has been going on for a very long time- over several years. It is designed for situations where lots of Police 1 activities have already been tried, but a new approach is thought to be necessary.

Police & Crime Commissioners, Police forces and Community Safety Partnerships are involved in deciding what crime patterns and issues are most concerning and invest in intensive engagement with the neighbourhood with enough resources to catalyse and kick-start self-sufficient responses to reduce the possibility of crime. The Police forces themselves can’t and won’t deliver all the solutions, so community partners need to be galvanised to allow the Police and statutory partners to take a step back, freeing up Police resources for use in other areas.

It is an 8-step journey (Figure 2) that is shared with the neighbourhood that is the focus of the policing problem. Like all journeys, we can turn back to the early stages and keep ‘circling the block’ until we have properly understood the reasons why a neighbourhood is suffering from high levels of crime.

Figure 2 Intensive Engagement 8 steps Figure 3 LISP is a shared journey

The word Police with a capital P denotes the official Police force and their staff.

Small ‘p’ policing refers to the work that all citizens engage in to keep themselves and their neighbours safe.

1

7

LISP Locally Identified Solutions and Practices Toolkit Each of the 8 steps illustrated in Figure 3 is a collection of techniques, tips and approaches that help you 1) explain why the LISP is needed, 2) what is already available to work with in the locality, 3) who could be involved and their networks, 4) making sure you understand the problem, 5) pulling together a working group, 6) only then developing suggested solutions and planning 7) actions that include immediate solutions and ongoing practices, whilst knowing how to 8) escalate the plan to the right level to get action.

Moving from involvement

community

engagement

to

Arnstein’s Ladder of Participation (Figure 4) is a useful way of describing the direction in which community engagement can move towards more community involvement. The ladder describes different types of community participation, starting at ‘nonparticipation’ represented by the lower levels of the ladder (Manipulation- step 1 and Therapy- step 2) from the viewpoint that “if we educate the public we will change their ill-informed attitudes and they will support our plans”. Level 3 (informing) and level 4 (consultation) begins to allow citizens to hear and have a voice. It fails, however, to allow them to have an influence as they do not possess the power to do so. It is a one-way communication, informing them of their rights, responsibilities and options, involving asking and collecting their opinions and views but the final say goes to those doing the consultation. Moving up the ladder at level 5 (placation) a two-way communication occurs as participants can have an active role, but ideas and outcomes remain with the agency.

Often a plan or a project has already been defined and agreed, and the project planners are only seeking the public’s permission to

proceed. Level 6 (partnership) is where true participation begins with negotiation and shared decision-making responsibilities and clear roles, responsibilities and powers are achieved with a common goal. At level 7 (delegated power) and 8 (citizen control) participants from the majority are fully involved with decision-making. They hold managerial roles with clear lines of accountability and two-way communication with those giving away the power. By level 8, the community’s existing power to act is recognised, rather than being empowered. Existing resources, assets and skills are harnessed to solve problems. The purpose of LISP is to move the residents, and the public agencies that are involved in public safety and wellbeing up the ladder towards steps 7 and 8.

Figure 4 Arnstein's ladder, engagement to involvement

8

LISP Locally Identified Solutions and Practices Toolkit The LISP process effectively builds the community towards being involved in developing and delivering community-designed interventions that co-produce public safety, rather than just being consulted on by police organisations after important decisions have already been made.

CHAPTER 2.

THE LISP

STEP 1 JUSTIFICATION FOR

The proforma

This toolkit is based around a ‘proforma’, a document that provides a single record of all the LISP investigation and activities. Each step in the LISP process will be described and explained in relation to the proforma. The proforma can be downloaded from www.intensiveengagement.com toolkit page.

The proforma acts a place to record the investigations of, and share information with, community partners. It should contain enough information so that it can be passed on to colleagues so that they understand the issues and expressed in plain English so that members of the public can read it. It should only contain public information. It doesn’t have to be a perfect document- it needs to be good enough to use and revised when new information becomes available. The worked example in Chapter 10 has been completed in such a way to illustrate this.

Figure 5 Step 1 in the LISP proforma

Not all crimes are conducive to community-based problem solving.

Reactive policing will still be required in situations between a few individuals and in emergencies, nevertheless, there are situations, often in vulnerable neighbourhoods where a complex mix of crimes and antisocial behaviour has been on-going for a significant period of time and the Police find themselves being reactive rather than proactive.

9

LISP Locally Identified Solutions and Practices Toolkit Deciding which issues to LISP will depend on the following considerations: 1.

2.

3.

Screening using VLI to select key areas : The Vulnerable Localities Index (referred to as the VLI) is a method which can help to identify residential neighbourhoods that require prioritised attention for community safety. Indices of Multiple Deprivation may also be available for the neighbourhood.

Crime statistics: Police-led activity will focus on neighbourhoods that have been subject to long-term high levels of reported crime or anti-social behaviour, or in situations where the practitioners predict (with appropriate evidence) that crime patterns will increase in a given location due to external factors. Basic public data can be found at http://www.police.uk/ Complexity of the problem: crime patterns that involve many different stakeholders, victims or perpetrators are sufficiently complex to warrant a LISP process within the localities identified in steps 1 and 2. Different stakeholders may have different opinions regarding the causes of the problem; or significant amounts of the problem are not under the direct influence or control of the Police

These considerations are to be recorded here. It is also important to set a baseline of the current patterns of recorded crimes and antisocial behaviour at the outset and compare the LISP location with other neighbourhoods in the area.

CHAPTER 3.

STEP 2. COMMUNITY ASSETS

Community assets and vulnerabilities

The aim of this step is to rapidly appraise the neighbourhood where the issue has been identified. The LISP team will be looking for assets as well as deficits- not looking for what is wrong with a neighbourhood but also what is good or great about the place so that these things can be invested in to make the community more successful.

The team will systematically walk around every part of the neighbourhood to look for, and list in detail, • • • • •

Community buildings and community groups Housing and neighbourhood associations Centres providing public services like libraries Businesses and charities Any other organisation resident in the locality

10

LISP Locally Identified Solutions and Practices Toolkit It is useful to establish whether any existing Community Profile or Environmental Visual Audit is available, and whether there are any active or closed LISPs nearby. The conclusions of these other activities can be reported in the proforma.

It is important to adopt an ‘asset-based community development approach’ (ABCD) rather than just looking for deficits within a community. It focuses on what resources already exist in the community. Asset-based community development looks at finding what a community already has, and utilising this to suit their community as a means of creating sustainability. This process involves looking at the resources of a community or positive points that may need enhancing to develop the profile of an area. This may involve aspects (tangible and intangible assets) of the community such as community centres, groups that offer skills and valuable knowledge, or different cultures as a few examples.

Every asset has a vulnerability- it doesn’t take much for a lovely park to turn into a dangerous place. For example, certain streets or alleyways may already be run down or neglected. You might refer to the ‘broken window’ theory- where is neglect evident in the neighbourhood, but be aware that it is not as simple as fixing windows and removing graffiti.

Step 2 in constructing the LISP profile is to look at what is already known about the community. This can be gathered through: •

Published statistics http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk and http://www.statistics.gov.uk/hub/people-

• • • •

places/communities/neighbourhoods-andcommunities/index.html Local crime data http://www.police.uk/ Feedback from community members Local council, environmental wardens Previous work done by Crime and Safety Partnerships

This will involve looking at a wide range of community issues such as, health, education, income, occupation/ profession, demographics deprivation, not simply crime data. Local authorities usually have specialist unit that manage such data but may not have broken that data down to a level of detail specific enough for the LISP process, so the data will require ‘ground-truthing’- checking that the real world on the ground is similar to the expectations shown in the data. A request for data relevant to a given postcode or ward is a starting point.

At this stage it is only necessary do a rapid analysis of the data, looking at how these statistics contribute at an ‘good enough’ understanding of the community. This will include, for example, looking at the number of schools in the area, and then looking at the occupation statistics and income to see if there are any emerging trends. Or looking at age difference in population trends and comparing this to the crime statistics in the area. This also can be done with local authority partners and other agencies – speaking to them about the data they hold, and what can be learnt from the data. Looking at the population of an area is important to identify the different (individual or groups) people that are living as one community. This links to social capital and networks (see below) as it is important to remember that these groups may not identify

11

LISP Locally Identified Solutions and Practices Toolkit themselves as a community. For example, different nationalities or ages may not integrate and therefore do not consider themselves to be a community, but they do live in the same neighbourhood.

available, and looking at what is missing and asking questions about how this can affect a community. It may help by asking questions such as;

Once statistics have been analysed and emerging trends have been recognised this will allow the LISP team to begin to establish their priorities and focus. The team can then start to think about:

• What is it?

• Why is it a success/ failure?

• How does it work?

• Why do I think this is important?

By doing this, the LISP practitioners are looking at the realised assets and finding unrealised assets in the community. Asking such questions will encourage you to think about WHAT it is, WHY it is important and HOW it affects the community. For example, this may be through looking at a similar community that uses a community centre for various activities and various populations that is successful at getting community members to integrate and identifying a derelict building that is currently attracting criminal behaviour (in your community) but using this as a community centre for a priority group within the community.

• Why are these considered assets?

• How will this benefit the community?

• What processes are needed for this to work?

It is important to note (and think about) at this stage that once assets have been identified, a community needs to be supported to enable them to use those assets in such a way that they are able to achieve these goals. This requires all stakeholders to come together to build on these assets by identifying the available assets and then matching these with people/groups that have an interest or need in that asset.

What is missing?

Collected data that provides the LISP team with ‘what is already known’ about a community begins to identify areas of problems, priorities or focus points. It is, however, just as important to identify what is missing, through a critical analysis of the data. This analysis is crucial as it begins to highlight the gaps or missing information that is needed for a holistic viewpoint on the ‘wicked issue’ being considered.

It is important to analyse the data and identify the ‘what’s missing’ as it will allow the team to come up with any starting points or suggestions to the ‘situation’ by criticising the data the is readily

12

LISP Locally Identified Solutions and Practices Toolkit

CHAPTER 4.

NETWORKS

STEP 3. STAKEHOLDERS AND

knowledgeable about crime but most, if they do know more, could be persuaded to get involved- even just a little bit. The practitioner can help to inform members of the general public, as well as community groups, about the real nature of criminal activity in their locality and work to engage some of them in actively improving their neighbourhood. Effective engagement with residents should be based on two principles: • •

The next step is to seek out key stakeholders.

These are any people or groups that may have an interest in the problem that the LISP practitioners have been tasked with. There will always be 'known individuals' and community leaders in contact with the Police, but the critical difference with LISP that the practitioners will seek to discover new stakeholders, particularly those with deep 'grass-roots' connections.

Daily activities like door knocking, street-a-week engagements, victim support meetings, and super-cocooning are all ways of meeting ordinary members of the public, but one LISP team found that taking off the uniform and taking their dog for a walk was much more effective than an official neighbourhood engagement vehicle.

Few people, however, are interested in the Police or are even very

understand the self-interest of the stakeholder, and avoid open-ended commitments to 'committees'.

The typical resident will want to have a peaceful life with safe places for their children to play. The average corner shop will want to keep trading safely. A pub or cafe will want to keep trading profitably.

Crime and anti-social behaviour all impact on the self-interest of these stakeholders. The LISP practitioners should be attentive to understanding the self-interests of these stakeholders, and ensure that the LISP process addresses their self-interest.

There has been a long history of community organisations in neighbourhoods, typically organised around a committee structure, which requires a long-term open-ended commitment. The most effective and capable members of the community haven't got the amount of time or energy necessary to sustain their engagement for very long. This leaves these committees populated by 'professional consultees' people who have plenty of time to participate in public meetings, and who often become grass-tips stakeholders- not really deeply embedded in understanding real crime and public safety issues. The LISP practitioner should engage the grass-roots stakeholder by focussing on short and sharp interventions around

13

LISP Locally Identified Solutions and Practices Toolkit specific issues and setting clear 'decision-points' and 'exit strategies'.

These allow the stakeholder to know whether they have succeeded and when they can bow out of the project feeling a sense of accomplishment.

Map out networks

This data is then captured in a simple network diagram that shows who has been identified and who they know. Mapping the connections in this way allows the LISP practitioners to see who is very connected to lots of other people (highly connected), where there are clusters of connections and who are not connected very well. The LISP practitioner will then work to make this network much more connected to each other. Individuals outside the community, but whose activities impact upon the neighbourhood should also be mapped, but shown outside a boundary, showing the amount of bridging capital, and through whom that capital is bridged.

Once this has been completed the LISP team can then map out ‘weak link’ networks like Figure 6.

Identify highly capable and highly connected

The next key task is to narrow the long list of possible stakeholders down to a strong and motivated working group, using a simple test of who is ‘highly capable and highly connected’, representing high levels of ‘social capital’.

Figure 6 Mapping, and creating, social capital networks

Police forces often already operate a system of key informant networks or known individuals (often known as KINS) and these would be a starting point, but the objective will be to widen and deepen the relationship they have with more key connections in the locality. The obvious connections that many forces already have include the grass-tips representatives- existing neighbourhood watch schemes, local businesses, residents’ associations, parish councils, local authority councillors and community group leaders.

Less obvious will be elderly residents (who have lived in the locality for a long time), new community members, particularly migrants, or informal volunteers. Doctors surgeries, dentists and social workers would also be able to indicate (whilst maintaining client

14

LISP Locally Identified Solutions and Practices Toolkit confidentiality) where wellbeing may be most at risk. Special attention should be given to identifying ‘hidden communities’, who could be new arrivals, or groups whose presence is considered illegal or illegitimate such as the homeless and refugees, but who still have a stake in the community.

to note that these mechanisms are primarily ‘broadcast’ media and address only Step 3 of Arnstein’s ladder (see below). Also knocking on doors during the beat is an essential strategy for building up connections with ‘not usual suspects’. Both strategies should be used to strengthen the engagement process.

During this process the LISP practitioner will systematically identify the different contacts within the community (key informants/ stakeholders) which may involve voluntary and funded groups, statutory agencies such as housing, social work, wardens, health professionals and environmental wardens. This involves simply gathering a list of people that are connected within a community and identifying whether these are grass tips or grass roots people.

Social capital

All stakeholders should be informed of the Intensive Engagement process and their role in it, so that they are able to cooperate and support the agenda. The use of social media such as ‘Facebook’ ‘Community Connect’ and other social media can be used as a successful way to inform stakeholders of the Intensive Engagement process and their role. This will act to increase awareness of crime in the community, address their concerns and have their questions answered. For example, it can promote positive images about crime reduction in an area, which will in turn increase community member’s confidence in reducing the fear of crime. This however requires careful but bold communication between police and residents on the ways in which they get involved and access these sources. This may also include how it is used and why it is important, therefore promotion of these services is required. This is important as it has been shown that the impression left, after police have had contact with the community, is long lasting. However, it is important

Community participation can be better achieved when the LISP practitioners understand the flows of social capital within a given community. This is based on the idea that social networks have a value- it simply refers to the network that an individual belongs to.

The cooperation and community cohesion between individuals and groups can have an effect on the economic benefit and social relations of an area (positive social capital). In modern societies consensus is based on the interconnectedness (or interaction) of networks involving residents, families, voluntary organisations, religion, culture or statutory organisations within a community.

In the theory of ‘social networks’ social relationships are made up of ‘nodes’ and ‘ties’. Nodes are individuals (or groups of individuals) within networks and ties are the relationship between them. Those with weak ties are less likely to be involved within the social network than strong ties. This process therefore involves exploring where these weak ties are within the community to begin to bridge these gaps to create a better community network. This will include looking at: • • •

How many acquaintances does an individual have?

Who knows who?

How do they solve problems?

15

LISP Locally Identified Solutions and Practices Toolkit • •

Who do they go to get problems solved?

Why do these groups exist?

There is an enormous amount of literature on social capital, but the simplest illustration for this is the burst water pipe.

If my water pipe bursts, I have money and a phone book, so I can phone a plumber for an emergency visit, and it will cost me a lot of money. I have some social capital, because I know that I have a phone book, I know that I have money, but I don’t know whether the plumber is good, or too expensive. If I had no money at all, I would be unable to solve my problem, because I know nothing about plumbing.

If Joe had no money and no plumbing skills, how would Joe go about solving the problem? Joe has lived in the area since he was a child and still knows many of his school mates. None of his close friends is a plumber, but one of his school friends knows a plumber. Joe can’t afford to pay for this plumber, but he knows that his aunt is a wiz with finances. Joe’s friend’s plumber needs an accountant, so Joe links the two together. In gratitude, the plumber shows Joe what to do. He borrows the tools from friends and asks his dad to ask the plumbers merchants for any off cuts and discards. What Joe end’s up with is not an elegant plumbing job, and it was clumsily achieved, but it works and was free.

Joe has weak links- he knows a lot of people, he knows them well enough, and he feels able to ask for solutions. He has a lot of ‘bonding capital’- he can connect to people within the community. However, if he wanted to solve a problem of lots of burst water mains across the

neighbourhood that keep happening, he might struggle to create a solution. He might not know who to contact within the water company or the local authority, he may not know that something could be done, or that the problem is not too big to be solved. When he phones the water company he may not express himself in ways that speaks to the business interests of the water company and may be brushed off. Joe lacks in ‘bridging capital’ which is the ability to bridge out of his immediate social networks to solve a structural problem. Although this case study is about plumbing, it is very simple to extend this to issues about crime and wellbeing- it’s just that the networks and capital need to be re-oriented.

So, this isn’t a static picture, both the LISP practitioner’s social capital, and Joe’s, can be developed and improved, so that a mix of bridging and bonding social capital is created. First, the practitioner needs to find the first set of ‘social capital’ rich connections, and then invest in them to help them make connections they didn’t before.

The practitioner can find out what and who these highly connected and highly capable people know, and how they use these networks to solve problems. Only then does the LISP practitioner begin to work with these people to solve community safety problems.

Social capital is often associated with trust, therefore the interaction between community members and the trust within it may stimulate economic growth. Groups that have strong social network ties are often very trustworthy, yet groups that have closed networks may act against the interest of other groups. Social capital may also reduce the probability of individuals who engage in opportunistic behaviour whereas those communities that are high in civic engagement are less attracted to opportunistic behaviours. On the

16

LISP Locally Identified Solutions and Practices Toolkit other hand, groups that engage in criminal activities may also have high social capital within their own community (or group) which can act as a negative impact or burden a neighbourhood such as high crime rates (negative social capital).

look to seek the bonding capital in the community and create ways in which bridging social capital can be increased (Figure 7).

Social capital also considers how conflicts and good social relations that can affect a resident’s ability to pursue their interests within the community 2. This interaction is referred to as ‘bridging capital’, the bonds of connectedness that are formed between diverse social groups within a community. This connectedness from knowing others, benefits those individuals or communities as it increases access of sources, sharing of information improving the quality of information, enforcement of contracts and having a shared vision or collective goals.

‘Bonding social capital’ refers to homogenous groups. This looks at groups that have similar interests, affiliation, experiences or goals such as neighbours, prospective buyers or school groups. However, ‘bonding social capital’ can have a negative effect on the degree of sociability outside the closed social circle. ‘Bonding social capital’ can have a negative effect on the community, but ‘bridging capital’ can have a positive effect as it makes a link between different groups or networks. For example, the bonding social capital of groups that commit criminal behaviour, or perhaps a same nationality group that do not have bridging capital. This would be important points to consider as the lack of bridging capital may contribute to high levels of crime or nuisance behaviour. The aim of the LISP will therefore

Figure 7 Bridging and bonding social capital

The differences in these approaches are important to comprehend as community cohesion and participation is essential to begin to build a community that works together to solve their problems.

Having a wider understanding will help to ensure that crime is combatted more successfully, rather than moving it elsewhere. This searches for the real issue; because it asks those who know. If

http://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/dlc/bitstream/handle/10535/7661/siisiainen.pdf Accessed 27/01/14 2

17

LISP Locally Identified Solutions and Practices Toolkit community participation does not occur the whole agenda will not be effective, and it will not be accepted; thus, affecting its sustainability.

that this toolkit provides, that allows the practitioner to see through the wicked issues, painting a richer picture rather than just temporarily suppressing the problem.

Trust and legitimacy Establishing and reinforcing the networks within a community will further enable the LISP practitioners to identify the intangible assets within the neighbourhood, such skills, experiences or knowledge further, but this step also builds trust and legitimacy of the practitioner.

Grassroots and grass-tips community engagement Often community involvement is regarded either as a nuisance or ineffectively addressed. This mostly comes from poor preparation, but it also is partly due to engaging with grass tips consultees rather than grass roots activists (Figure 8):

Enhanced trust and legitimacy is likely to encourage voluntary public cooperation and would have a preventive effect on crime. A ‘service’ model of policing helps Police forces to avoid the financial costs, resulting from an approach based narrowly on deterrence and punishment. However, it is important to note that trust and legitimacy are not gained by treating communities like customers.

So, it is important to develop this through cooperation and collaboration with communities, with the Police acting as ‘citizens in uniform’. However, “in the rapidly changing policing landscape, some forces may be inclined to adopt a ‘crime control’ model”.

However, this resource intensive approach might lead to police attention being directed away from the issues that most concern the public at a local level and could fail to capitalise on the public’s primary motivations for cooperating with the police and not breaking the law. A crime control model is based on the idea that crime reduction is the most important function of the criminal process. It looks at reducing crime through increased policing, prosecuting powers and dispose of the high proportion of offenders.

What this perspective fails to see however is the holistic viewpoint

Figure 8 Current community engagement

18

LISP Locally Identified Solutions and Practices Toolkit ‘Grass-tips’ consultees are only partly connected to their community and not well informed about community politics, whereas ‘grassroots’ activists will be well informed about community dynamics and challenges, but not so well informed about the interests of the organisation doing the consulting, creating a mismatch between the community.

This tension can be illustrated by the difference between a ‘grassroots’ community organisation and a ‘grass-tips’ consultee. Grass roots groups often do not have their views expressed in community agendas such as gypsies and travellers, sex workers, young black men, people with physical disabilities, people with learning disabilities, migrants and asylum seekers, or any other groups within that community that may not have a strong voice. By better engaging with these community groups it will allow for a more comprehensive understanding of the communities’ perception of crime.

Furthermore, public institutions are used to consulting with grasstips representatives- neighbourhood watch schemes, chair people, residents’ association leaders, local councillors and religious leaders.

This consultation is important, but it is even more important to help these representatives to ‘reach down from the tips to the roots’ to ensure that their experience, knowledge and opinions are grounded in the community. What can happen with ‘grass-tips’ representatives is that they get used to working at the level of the Police and Community Safety Partnership meetings, understand the special languages of these meetings but don’t have a mechanism for ensuring the information and experiences flows down from them to ‘ordinary members of the public’- the grassroots. They become ‘the

usual suspects’ in any consultation. This can also go badly wrong if they begin communicating their own interests or prejudices. They may be elected to these positions but, having been elected, have no mechanisms to ensure they remain representative.

On the other side of this equation, the grassroots community members, those who are otherwise not directly engaged with the Police provide very little useful information when asked, especially if there is no preparation before they are asked. They are asked about Police priorities in their area, and their primary responses are regarding problems that are not Policing issues. Children on the street, litter or dog-mess are typically raised in community consultations. These issues affect the perception of wellbeing but are frustrating for the Police when they realise that the consultees know nothing about the drug-dealers two doors away, the embezzler at the corner shop, or the domestic violence across the street. These rarely flagged up as policing priorities because they are typically ‘private’ crimes.

Further to this, community consultees are not trained, professional consultees. Members of the public are not experts in policing, the Police force or its command structures. They have not acquired the special language of priorities, planning and strategies- nor should they. Their knowledge and experience are much rawer than that, and it takes experienced consultation teams to elicit meaningful information from grass-roots activists.

In addition, care must be taken to ensure that all parts of a community are considered. There is a temptation to stop a consultation at the level of those members of the public who are

19

LISP Locally Identified Solutions and Practices Toolkit already engaged, able and motivated to act as partners- the ‘law abiding citizens of the big society’. Nevertheless, the Police, and other public partners, have a responsibility to all members of the community, whether they are willing or able to be actively engaged or not. The Police also have a responsibility to engage with those who are part of the criminal environment or who might view the Police with some suspicion.

Bringing together all these diverse interests, from grass-tips representatives, to grass-roots activities and extending to those who are barely engaged in civil society is potentially a mammoth task, and mostly gets discarded in preference for quicker but more superficial consultation or manipulation. Either way it can be disastrous to the initiative and the future of the community if community engagement is misdirected or seen to be an ‘add on’ rather than a fundamental part of the process of strategic planning.

CHAPTER 5.

PICTURES

STEP

4.

PROBLEM

RICH

Enriching the understanding of the problem Having undertaken an initial audit of the assets and vulnerabilities of the neighbourhood, and identified all the possible stakeholders from which a working group of highly capable and highly connected people can be selected, the LISP practitioner then engages with the working group to better understand the crime and ASB issues in the neighbourhood, how it is experienced by the people involved, and perceived by those who are aware but not affected by the issues.

This can be done through a process of ‘rich picturing’.

Rich pictures were particularly developed as part of Peter Checkland’s Soft Systems Methodology for gathering information about a complex situation. Rich Pictures provide a mechanism for learning about complex or ill-defined problems by drawing detailed ("rich") representations of them. Typically, rich pictures follow no commonly agreed structure, usually consist of symbols, sketches or "doodles" and can contain as much (pictorial) information as is deemed necessary. The finished picture may be of value to other stakeholders of the problem being described since it is likely to

20

LISP Locally Identified Solutions and Practices Toolkit capture many different facets of the situation, but the real value of this technique is the way it encourages the creator to think deeply about the problem and understand it well enough to express it pictorially (a process known as action learning).

Rich picturing (Figure 9) is a process which captures the perceptions and experiences we have of data, rather than the data itself.

Intelligence staff and community members can come together around a table with different types of data about crime events and insider knowledge and map them as equals. The picturing process needn’t be tidy or elegant but works to identify differences in understanding about priorities and resources in a locality and allows partners to discuss those differences to solve the problems.

Figure 9 A rich picture about rich pictures

A rich picture can be created individually or as a group. It is helpful to start by asking a small group to draw pictorial representations of their perceptions of the neighbourhood, and the crime and public safety issues that they experience. They can draw the first pictures alone, and then come together in small groups to share their pictures, discuss the similarities and differences, and then co-create a composite picture representing all the viewpoints in the group.

Whilst it is important to include every detail that the stakeholders deem necessary, it is equally important to ‘let yourself go’ by encouraging them to allow their thoughts to flow freely. This is a crucial aspect of a rich picture, as the whole point of this exercise allows the practitioners to see a problem that is so complex and difficult to comprehend, in a way that ‘step-by-step’ one can begin see how constituent parts contribute to the whole situation. It is important to avoid using a ‘systematic’ or an organised approach, as by doing this, assumptions are made about what the problem is, which will defeat the point of the whole exercise. Also, be aware of stakeholders channelling their thoughts down a particular route; by making stereotypical assumptions or only seeing patterns that they already think exist. However, the rich picture should include factual and subjective information. It may be helpful to look at the social relationships within the community which may relate to the issue and the kind of behaviour expected from these roles. For example, this may be the lack of communication between different groups or how one problem may make someone feel, such as angry, isolated or scared. It may also be important to include the roles of the stakeholder within the rich picture to show the way in which they contribute to the whole situation.

21

LISP Locally Identified Solutions and Practices Toolkit Defining the problem It’s always tempting to suggest that a problem can be definitively solved, but this process allows the limits of success to be considered.

The following principles are guides to understanding the limits to success, illustrating the huge challenges of tackling wicked rather than technically difficult social problems (Figure 10).

• • • • • • • • •

Every complex problem (also known as ‘messy problems’ or ‘wicked issues’), and therefore every community is essentially unique.

The way a problem is described in the first place determines the nature of the solution- the right questions need to be asked to get the right answers Defining wicked problems is itself a wicked problem.

Wicked problems do not have a limited number of potential solutions.

Wicked problems don’t stop being wicked at the end of a project.

There is never a ‘problem-solved’ moment Every solution to a wicked problem is a "one-shot operation"; because there is no opportunity to learn by trial and error, every attempt counts significantly.

Every wicked problem can be considered to be a symptom of another problem.

You have no right to be wrong (we don’t have permission to get it and try again).

‘Solutions’ lie in a combination of small interventions, building on assets and capabilities that already exist rather than big high profile ‘projects’ which ultimately finish without addressing the whole issue.

Figure 10 Features of complex problems

Working definition of the problem The rich picturing process will culminate in a working definition of the problems that are actually being tackled in the neighbourhood.

The definition needs to be precise, to give aid and direction to the search for solutions, but at the same time identify all the possible goals which would contribute the overall objectives responding to the Justification in Step 1. In order to define an open-ended problem, try the following methods.

22

LISP Locally Identified Solutions and Practices Toolkit 1. First to explore, with the key stakeholders, all the possible goals and then to define precisely those which have to be achieved. Defining the problem in terms of a 'How to ...? statements e.g. 'How to prevent bicyclists on the pavement', focuses attention on the problem area and provides a basis for suggesting alternative goals and routes to a solution.

2. Write down a preliminary definition of an open-ended problem being considered. Phrase it in terms 'How to ...?'.

3. Now look at the original definition. Does any of the stakeholder generated redefinitions help to see the problem in a different and perhaps more effective way?

If the stakeholder group have 'tested' many different open-ended problems, it is not unusual to find that they do not have a single' correct' definition. For example, 'How to reduce ASB?' could be restated as How to... make our ASB less interesting? To increase other activities? To redefine ASB? To make our change in the environment in which ASB takes place?

can be defined effectively. The rich picturing activities are designed to get the group talking about and ‘drawing out’ these key features

CHAPTER 6.

STEP 5 WORKING GROUP

Having come up with a clearly defined and agreed description of the key features of the problem, the next step is to convene a working group around delivering the key features of the successful solution.

Trying to find a single all-encompassing definition severely limits the scope of possible solutions. Sometimes what appears to be a single problem is in fact a collection of several smaller, related problems.

Inaccurate or misleading definitions can result in ineffective solutions.

Selecting the working group from the wider set of stakeholders is one of the hardest tasks in this LISP process. Grassroots volunteers have to be identified and motivated to get involved, overcoming apathy, and re-arranging very busy lives to get involved in a project.

Just because this stage is hard doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be done. It is always easier to just meet with those who are already keen to get involved, even if they don’t have the skills to solve the problems in the LISP neighbourhood.

An effective definition accurately represents the key features of the problem in a way which gives direction to the LISP work, and problem situations have to be investigated thoroughly before they

This working group may also involve working within an existing group, like an active Joint Action Group (although these often act as closed, agency led- meetings), or a Community Safety Partnership

23

LISP Locally Identified Solutions and Practices Toolkit (also only involving public agencies), but only insofar as this group is dedicated to your problem. Your working group may contain members from other groups like Neighbourhood Watch or a residents’ association, but remember that their primary reason to exist is not to deliver a successful solution to your problem, so it is essential that the right people are selected from the wider stakeholder group, based on their social capital- their ability to get things done with the least amount of resources.

quite naturally and these techniques may already exist in every-day conversations with community members.

Having selected the stakeholders according to their social capital, it is essential to persuade them to get involved. This is done by a) meeting their self-interest and b) developing their intrinsic motivation for change.

Meeting their self-interest For a LISP practitioner, understanding a person’s self-interest – as they themselves see it – helps engage and involve new grassroots leaders. Conversations with stakeholders, thinking through how they see their own self-interest, can also move someone from a narrow definition of self-interest (what matters to me) to a broader, more communal definition (what matters to us, in our neighbourhood).

Motivating change Enhancing trust and legitimacy is a key step when getting people to change. Enhanced trust in the police from community members is the initial process when motivating people to want to change and cooperate with the police. Of course, this is not as simple as it seems and like much of the other processes within community developing within policing, this too requires a thorough understanding of key techniques. However, once this process is understood it may come

Figure 11 The cycles of social change

Motivational interviewing (MI) is a key ‘cycle of change’ method (Figure 11) designed to encourage people to respond positively to change. The spirit of MI is based on the same three key elements that are adopted in the LISP process: collaboration between the LISP practitioners and the community members; evoking or "drawing out” (rather than imposing) the stakeholders’ ideas about change; and reinforcing the autonomy of the community to improve public safety. Using MI techniques also helps to address the ambivalence and resistance to change or act within the community stakeholders.

24

LISP Locally Identified Solutions and Practices Toolkit Motivational Interviewing is described as a client-centred approach that increases intrinsic motivation in order to encourage someone to change 3 which has also been partially applied to criminal justice subjects 4. This means simply that this technique is focused on the individual (the community member) that will increase their innate desire to want to change. MI explores and resolves people’s ambivalences (uncertainties) focusing on what motivates people to change, supporting a person’s own values and concerns. It focuses on building a rapport in the initial stage of a counselling relationship involving identification, examination and resolution of ambivalences about changing behaviour.

Motivational Interviewing include three essential elements: • • •

MI is a particular kind of conversation about change (not counselling, therapy, or consultation) MI is collaborative (person centred, partnership, honours autonomy) MI is evocative (seeks to call forth the person’s own motivation and commitment)

Miller, W.R., Rollnick, S. (2002). Motivational Interviewing: Preparing People for Change.2nd Edition. New York: Guilford Press.

3

Figure 12 Using motivational interviewing on the LISP journey

MI can be done in stages (Figure 12), starting with Expressing Empathy. Expressing empathy towards a participant shows acceptance and increases the chance of you and participant developing a rapport. Acceptance enhances self-esteem and facilitates change. Skilful reflective listening is fundamental. The rich picturing processes described in the previous chapter are a key empathy building technique because it allows all different types of community member to communicate with each other as equals.

Resources on MI in criminal justice available here http://www.motivationalinterview.org/quick_links/manuals.html Accessed 27/01/14 4

25

LISP Locally Identified Solutions and Practices Toolkit Next is to Develop Discrepancy within the community stakeholder by mapping out the differences between what the stakeholders wants to achieve (like a quiet neighbourhood) and where they are ‘at’ right now. Developing discrepancy enables the participant to see that their present situation does not necessarily fit into their values and what they would like in the future. Motivation to change is provoked by a perceived discrepancy between present behaviour and important personal goals and values. This approach is picked up again later in Step 6 where a common vision of the future is established. Envisioning a perfect common future state for the neighbourhood helps the community stakeholders to appreciate the difference between the current state of affairs, and where they would like the community to be at a given point in the future.

Developing discrepancy deliberately provokes irritation at the problems in the community, and raises aspiration. Doing this without the latter future focussed ‘problem-solving’ stages, however, will result in greater dissatisfaction and anxiety- so it is essential to be able to see the process through to the conclusion and not abandon the project at the first sign of resistance.

Expecting residents and businesses to contribute actively to their communities always meets with a lot of resistance, often described as apathy. Rather than being dismayed or demotivated, the LISP practitioner Rolls with Resistance. Rolling with resistance prevents a breakdown in communication between participants and the practitioner and allows the participants to explore their own resistance to change. It is important to avoid arguing for change, not directly opposing the resistance, but instead offering new perspectives.

This is done by encouraging community members to talk through or think about what they are uncertain with (their ambivalences), why this makes them uncertain and unsure and helping them understand the benefits of this change and why this may not be as negative or frightening as they may of first thought. Communication that is goal orientated is designed to strengthen an individuals’ motivation that will encourage a movement towards a specific goal by exploring their arguments for, and against, change. This can be difficult to do as it requires a subtle encouragement rather than telling someone that they must do something or persuading them that the LISP practitioner’s opinion is correct The participants remain the primary resource in finding answers and solutions. Resistance is a signal for the LISP practitioner to respond differently, to change tack and revisit the current understanding of the problems. This may require going back a few steps, to the working definition of the problem situation, or even returning to the rich picturing.

Fundamentally, the LISP practitioner’s aim is not to implement all the solutions in the neighbourhood on their own: the long-term sustainability of the changes requires the ongoing buy-in and contribution of the community, rather than reinforcing a dependent relationship. Supporting Self-efficacy is a crucial component to facilitating change. If a participant believe that they have the ability to make changes themselves, the likelihood of change occurring is greatly increased. A person's belief in the possibility of change is an important motivator. The participants, not the LISP practitioner, are responsible for choosing and carrying out change. The LISP

26

LISP Locally Identified Solutions and Practices Toolkit practitioner’s own belief and confidence in the community's ability to change becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

CHAPTER 7.

STEP 6 SOLUTIONS

Step 6 involves creating a rich picture (or a composite of many) of the community, in its desired perfect state. This step is designed to think about the desired endpoint, essential for later explaining what success looks like for the different stakeholders. THIS IS KNOWN AS THE ‘SOLUTION RP’.

The LISP practitioner poses the general question: “what would the community look like when it is successful, when all the problems being explored have been resolved?”

To start this type of rich picture, the LISP practitioners decide which priorities can be used to achieve a successful community.

Sometimes, even imagining that a deprived and crime-ridden neighbourhood could be improved is a significant step of imagination for the community.

The LISP practitioner asks questions during the solution rich picture process (made up of several or even dozens of individual picture)

such as “How will they work?” and “what will happen if this were to change?” “who will this effect and how?”. The solution rich picture should include thinking about the assets that have been previously identified so that it is clear how they contribute to the finished/ desired result. This includes looking at what assets (with investment) will contribute to the desired end point. Being able to deliver on the common vision for the neighbourhood, as expressed in this solution rich picturing process may require nudges towards pro-social behaviour Nudging pro-social behaviour ‘Nudges might involve subconscious cues (such as painting targets in urinals to improve accuracy) or correcting misapprehensions about social norms (like telling us that most people do not drink excessively). They can alter the profile of different choices (such as the prominence of healthy food in canteens) or change which options are the default (such as having to opt out of rather than into organ donor schemes). Nudges can also create incentives for some choices or impose minor economic or cognitive costs on other options (such as people who quit smoking banking money they would have spent on their habit but only being able to withdraw it when they test as nicotine free)’.

Remember that increasing wellbeing and community cohesion rather than increasing security and defensiveness seems to be more effective. The “Security without the spikes” resource pack created for the Home Office gives the example of two tower blocks in London to illustrate the impact of aggressive security measures. One block put up small picket fences and created a community garden. A residents’ association organised events and gardening rotas. A block

27

LISP Locally Identified Solutions and Practices Toolkit 500 yards away put up seven-foot high solid fencing, concreted the area and put in a playing field. This latter block, which appears safer, actually had higher crime levels, higher disorder, graffiti, nuisance and vandalism In recent years, interest has grown in a ‘public health approach’ to neighbourhood crime and disorder. But it is not new. Evidencebased policing, which is one bit of a public health approach, has been around for years. Problem solving approaches like LISP apply public health approaches by seeking to understand how crime, risk of crime, impact of crime and outcomes operate in complex dynamics, and where to intervene to shift that. This is a systems approach.

Here are some resources that may assist in thinking about solutions to the problems:

appropriate, with the results being available permanently online. www.placecheck.info/ Land in limbo - Making the best use of vacant urban spaces: public space lessons – How to transform vacant urban open spaces into valuable public assets. https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/sites/default/files/asset/docum ent/land-in-limbo_0.pdf Spacehive - A funding platform for neighbourhood improvement projects. The service allows anyone to pitch for funding from their community for capital projects. Supporters pledge online and are only charged if the project succeeds in raising its target funds.

Spacehive.com was recently successfully used to fund a community centre in Wales. www.spacehive.com

Spaceshaper - A practical toolkit and facilitated exercise to assess the quality of a public open space and help make investment decisions to improve it. It collects the views of the people who use and manage the space to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the space and assess how well it meets everyone's needs. https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/sites/default/files/asset/docum ent/spaceshaper-a-users-guide.pdf Placecheck – An easy-to-use planning tool for initiating community debate about what needs to be improved. A Placecheck consists of one or more walkabouts, followed by discussion of the information and opinions they turn up, and some serious thinking about the next steps and who needs to be involved. Using the Placecheck app enables you to extend the Placecheck over several weeks, if that is

28

LISP Locally Identified Solutions and Practices Toolkit

CHAPTER 8. STEP 7. INTERVENTIONS & EVALUATION

This section connects back to the crime and social statistics in Step 1 Justification, making sure that the visions for success, and the way in which they are measured are also reflective of the social and crime problems established at the start of the LISP project. It is important to establish what success will look like and agree with the working group how that success should be measured. Success will include a reduction in calls to the Police related to the area, but it could also include an increase in the numbers of residents and businesses actively involved in improving the neighbourhood.

Successfully meeting the self-interests of the individuals in the working group requires recording outcomes for themenvironmental wardens might want to reduce the amount of litter in the area, the businesses might want to increase their trade, mums walking to school might want to feel safer.

SOLUTIONS – One off events, projects or facilities What?

Why? With How? (What is whom? the intended effect?)

By when?

Measures of success

PRACTICES – ongoing behaviours or activities to sustain success What?

Why? With How? By when? Measures of (What is whom? success the intend effect?)

29

LISP Locally Identified Solutions and Practices Toolkit The evaluation story It is critical to agree on what the indicators should report about. This discussion about how the problem should be framed, should involve all relevant stakeholders to ensure that they “own” the resulting indicators. Ideally, the stakeholder consultation must include policymakers, but also those involved in the problem as well as scientists.

Together they should develop what is here called “the story”: a description of the stakeholders’ view on the problem and the ways they see it solved.

Results Logic The interventions (solutions and practices) that the working group have devised have to connect together to make an overall logic. This means that all the proposed interventions, taken as a whole, will tackle as many of the social problems in the neighbourhood as possible, working together in synergy. It is important to explain how the working group think that the outputs of each intervention come together to create the outcomes envisioned in the Solution Rich Picture, and what contribution they make to those outcomes.

Contribution to outcome

One of the most controversial aspects of social impact is being clear about what influence the interventions will have on the problem, and not overstate it. At least three things contribute to a solution being successful: • •

Existing trends: the problem would have solved itself Others: similar organisations working on the same problem should be included in your stakeholder analysis, so you can establish the relative influence you have.

•

Serendipity: Don’t underestimate the effect unrelated events have to the neighbourhood. A youth offender may go through a carefully designed and impactful leadership programme, but actually avoid returning to crime by a new relationship.

What is an indicator?

An indicator is an observed value representative of a phenomenon of study. In general, indicators quantify information by aggregating different and multiple data. The resulting information is therefore synthesised. In short, indicators simplify information that can help to reveal changes in complex phenomena.

It’s not possible to measure everything that LISP designed interventions create, nor should it. A proxy indicator is a variable used to stand in for one that is difficult to measure directly. Cost, complexity and/or the timeliness of data collection may prevent a result from being measured directly.

What is a good indicator?

An indicator that communicates in a sound way a simplified reality should: • • • • •

match the interests and concerns of the stakeholders; be easy to interpret and accessible; be representative of the issue or area being considered; show developments over a relevant time interval (a period in which changes can be shown; go with a reference value for comparing changes over time;

30

LISP Locally Identified Solutions and Practices Toolkit • • • •

be accompanied with explanation of causes behind the trends; be comparable with other indicators that describe similar areas, sectors or activities; be scientifically well-founded; and be based on sound statistics.

It’s often impossible to actually demonstrate impact outcomes in community-based interventions, but it is possible, and desirable, to measure progress towards achieving the expected outcomes.

What are progress indicators Progress indicators measure the ‘distance(s)’ between the current situation, and the desired situation (target): the ‘distance to target’ assessments. The gap between the current situation and the target will have been explored in the Developing Discrepancy discussions earlier in the process, and the targets will have emerged from the solution rich pictures process.

Reporting real numbers are confusing because they typically measure very different things and on different scales. Crime statistics cannot be compared to mental health surveys any more than apples can be compared with pears. So, the LISP practitioner can set the current state to be 1 on a scale of 1 to 10 (or 100 if preferred), and set the target, or desirable outcome, to be 10. The LISP working group can then evaluate their progress at any given time. A target to increase employment by 60% could be evaluated at 6/10 (or 60% complete), and mental wellbeing at 3/10 (30% progress).

Figure 13 Progress ratio evaluation

Progress ratio evaluation The LISP working group then plot progress along this line (as illustrated in Figure 13) and report the ‘ratio of progress’. If the LISP project has moved 2 points along the scale in one year, the working group record 2:10 in crime reduction. In mental health, if the LISP interventions have improved 4 points, the working group report 4:10. Stakeholders can see that the LISP project has made more rapid progress on mental health but are closer to achieving the employment target.

31

LISP Locally Identified Solutions and Practices Toolkit

CHAPTER 9.

STEP 8. ESCALATION

CHAPTER 10. WORKED EXAMPLE SOME OF THE DETAILS IN THIS LISP HAVE BEEN FICTIONALISED FOR TRAINING PURPOSES. PCSO (name & collar number): CURTIS Title: St Seps Street Drinking Start date: 1 Jan 2014

The final, but critical, part of the LISP process is to make sure that the initiatives and interventions don’t get ‘stuck’ with partner agencies. This step is to plan what to do when the LISP project begins to struggle, which is inevitable. This escalation strategy recognises the fact that a lot of community-based problem-solving required decisions to be made much higher than the LISP practitioner, and often out of reach of the residents- it is essential that these plans can be circulated to the right decision-making level for action.

There are two routes to escalate the LISP, internally and externally.

All LISPs should be subject to regular review by Police senior leaders and Community Safety Partnership staff. Police commanders may be tasked with reviewing that the LISPs in their command are appropriately resourced and continue to meet long-term priorities, and request assistance. LISPs can also be referred to the Police and Crime Commissioners office for high level consideration.

REASON FOR LISP (What are the issues identified? What is the evidence for this?)

How many A01s of similar nature have been raised? (What are they?

How are they linked? (identify pattern)) Significant levels of street drinking in the church yard Oasis House – NP/54101/12 The AO1 was prompted because we have recorded more than 3 incidents from the same I/P in a 12-month period. Issues around street drinking and repeat issues around anti-social behaviour have contributed to this AO1 being booked on, along with some violence related issues from prolific offenders in this area.

Incident numbers: - Church Lane/Sheep Street – 11 (June 2012 – present) Holy Sepulchre Church Yard – 11 (July 2012- present date) St Katherine’s Garden of Rest – 35 (October 2012 – present date) Lorne Road – 13 (November 2012 – present date)

32

LISP Locally Identified Solutions and Practices Toolkit College Street – 14 (March 2012 – August 2012) Gold Street – 16 (June 2012-August 2012) SCANNING 1.1 What’s in the area?

•

What community assets/vulnerabilities are there? (if there is any EVA available, please attach EVA and draw out pertinent points) General area

Area 5 bounded by Campbell Sq, Church lane, Sheep St, also extending between Sheep St and A508. Extending along Sheep st to Lady’s lane.Extends north between Campbell St and Ash Street.

Holy Sepulchre church, with main Sheep St frontage

Publicly available images (like google maps) are included to illustrate how PCSOs and community groups can grab information that is immediately available.

5

All google image/maps accessed 27/01/2014 by authors. URLs embedded in each image.

33

LISP Locally Identified Solutions and Practices Toolkit

North along Sheep Street

Alleyway from Ash St to A508

Homeless centre

South along Sheep St. Servicemens Club on right.

34

LISP Locally Identified Solutions and Practices Toolkit Wider stakeholders 7 day a week pharmacy understood to also provide methadone Campbell St, Northampton NN1 3DS Phone:01604 250xxx RELEC shop that needs to board up its windows because they are smashed regularly Adult shop and massage parlour MIND Northampton: Anchor House 6-7 Regent Square, NN1 2NQ. Telephone: 01604 230xxx.Mental health charity, free mental health support Back of Kindergarten and access to Holy Sepulchre church yard.

1.2 Stakeholders. •

Who are directly involved in this issue? (agencies, businesses, residents etc)

Directly affected Hard core street drinkers, familiar to Police Night users of church yard for sleeping/drinking Parish Council for Holy Sep church Kindergarten in church halls, and parents parking in halls carpark Tax office employees who see activities in church yard OASIS house whose clients are seen in the church yard

Up All Night cafĂŠ, 3 Regent Square, Northampton NN1 2N Edge of Town pub http://www.itsallaboutgoingout.com/venues/14/Edge-Of-TownNorthampton 5 Regents Sq., derelict building, land registry indicates owned by Edge of Town pub, with unlocked alleyway providing access to the back of Anchor House.

Empty Blackcat Club Moneyshop Pawn broker Gavin Mills Creative media agency, Sepulchre Hse, involved in town centre BID advertising http://www.gavinwillis.co.uk/casestudies/northampton-alive/

35

LISP Locally Identified Solutions and Practices Toolkit 47 Sheep St Ex-servicemen’s Club, Grade: II listed building Date Listed: 19 January 1952

care and provide information to enable diversion to health care settings as appropriate

English Heritage Building ID: 232220

Maple Access NHS partnership Maple House 17-19 Hazelwood Road NN1 1LG run clinics for OASIS house

Other listed buildings: Sheep Street Nos 18, 18a, 18b, 20 & 20a, Nos 41 & 43, No. 44, Nos 45 (Regent House), 47, 49, 50a, 51, 52, 52a, & 53 No. 54

No. 55/57

No. 56a/56b

•

How are all people/agencies involved associated?

These stakeholders are not currently connected together. We need to get them talking to each other.

Church of the Holy Sepulchre Wok Inn Chinese restaurant HMRC Northgate House, Sheep Street, Northampton Recruitment agency http://www.pebble-people.com/

1.3 Perspectives of stakeholders on problems & solutions.

•

What does the problem look like? How is it perceived by stakeholders?) (Attach photos)

Kindergarten nursery, Church Halls http://www.thekindergarten.uk.com/ NHS Campbell House is the base for the Trust's Northampton Community Mental Health Team Bases, Adult Mental Health Day Services, Psychology, Psychotherapy, Outpatients, Initial Screening Assessments and Administration. It is situated in Northampton town centre, close to the main bus station.

NHS Campbell House Criminal Justice Team The core function of the service is to provide assessment for offenders who are thought to have mental health needs or a learning disability; to facilitate health

36

LISP Locally Identified Solutions and Practices Toolkit Main park bench where street drinking occurs Street drinking centred around two park benches and concrete steps outside the side entrance to Holy Sepulchre church. Bins often ignored. Parishioners have to cross the yard to access toilets in church halls and parents of children at Kindergarten access building for nearby carpark.

View from the park bench towards entrance of church, church halls and kindergarten

Area around the back of the church is quiet and not overlooked. Evidence of sleeping, drinking and drug taking.

In one derelict alleyway which is still accessible to the public, a disused shed is being used for night shelter and drug taking.

Since this picture, the incident has been dealt with by the Police and the alleyway secured, but ongoing practices need support.

37

LISP Locally Identified Solutions and Practices Toolkit 1.4 Working group •

Who in the stakeholder group are able to do something? (Names, organisation, contact details)

2. ANALYSIS 2.1 What have we learnt from the scanning?

Immediate Church Hall staff Kindergarten manager/owner OASIS House manager Other people to draw in Creative media agency, for marketing and communications Ex-servicemen’s’ club, and use of building Owner of A-frame company Anchor house manager Establish: Ownership of Black Cat disused pub Derelict building on regent walk

Holy Sepulchre church yard is considered to be the heart of the neighbourhood, but lots of things contribute to a neglected environment. Consultees are clear that the problem is not just the church yard but extends to OASIS house and Fish St, right through to Mayorhold carpark, and the Roadmender club. Connections into town to the drapery and the old bus station, which is due to be knocked down and regenerated. Opportunity to connect this neighbourhood to that?

Could be a nice neighbourhood, with listed buildings, but no shops or cafes encouraging people to visit and stay. Derelict buildings contributing to neglect.

38

LISP Locally Identified Solutions and Practices Toolkit

39

LISP Locally Identified Solutions and Practices Toolkit

PROBLEM RICH PICTURE (deficit view)

40

LISP Locally Identified Solutions and Practices Toolkit

PROBLEM RICH PICTURE (assets perspective)

41

2.2 What needs to be done & why?

The whole area needs to work together towards a coherent plan, especially if it is to benefit from the investment from the bus station regeneration. The centre piece of the district is the church, but it needs more people to use the area for it to become unattractive for street drinkers. There is also a hidden drug problem, in alley ways that are derelict and still accessible 3. RESPONSES 3.1 What do solutions looks like from the stakeholders’ perspective?

•

The working group should discuss & record which solutions look the most viable/possible options. (Short list)

1. Kindergarten create community garden in church yard to increase visibility of use of the site, to reduce attractiveness of street drinking and ‘hanging around’ 2. Clear undergrowth around front and south side of church to reduce places to hide- needs to be sustained throughout spring and summer 3. Create a pathway round the back of the church to the north wall and Sheep St to facilitate public access, making the back of the church more visible. Better during day, but doesn’t address night-time use

4. Move the park benches from the path to less accessible north area of church yard, still operates as a memorial bench but less interaction between those using it for drinking and those walking past. Might act as a hotspot for groups gathering out of sight, but might eliminate the use altogether 5. Place monitoring IR cameras round the back of the church, Police enforce no overnight stays 6. Specific rough sleeping shelter built on to the back wall to make rough sleeping safer 7. Provide sharps bins/safe drug use zone (as in Denmark and Canada, and considered by Brighton http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/apr/14/brightondrug-consumption-rooms 8. Work with Anchor house to upgrade the sheds in the back of derelict house into rough sleeping shelter and create a safe drug & alcohol ‘wet’ zone, develop Anchor house services and extend OASIS services. Pub to help out?

9. Block off access to alleyway from Fish St to Barrack road, get council to sell it to burger shop owners. Enforce clean up and securing of the back of burger shop on Barrack Road 10. Request clean-up of all litter in Fish Street (Oasis clients to help?), find owner of the bin store that is always left open and request secure.

LISP Locally Identified Solutions and Practices Toolkit 11. Get creative media agency to work with working group to develop a Vision for Sheep St and communicate the vision to all users/owners of the neighbourhood.

we need to escalate to the Borough Council to have a tree removed to allow for the garden to be put in place.

3.2 Develop and secure agreement on interventions (S & P) (who is doing what, when how, by when) In the first instance, the working group are made up of the Church halls staff, the owner of the Kindergarten (as they are most affected) and OASIS homeless centre manager (because their clients often use the space). They came together for meetings in Aug 2013, and the Kindergarten said that they want to have an open space outside the kindergarten that they could use as a garden. This requires the clearance of a great deal of undergrowth outside the church halls, which was done in a community day in Aug 2013 (which drew in 20 volunteers and involvement of a volunteering team from a local bank), removing dozens of needles. With the undergrowth removed,

NEXT PAGE SHOW SOLUTIONS RP

43

SOLUTIONS – One off events, projects or facilities What?

Why? (What is the intend effect?)

With whom?

How?

Kindergarten create community garden in church yard to increase visibility of Clear undergrowth around front and south side of church to reduce places to hideneeds to be sustained throughout spring and summer use of the site,

to reduce attractiveness of street drinking and ‘hanging around’

Kindergarten, OASIS house, Parish Council, Borough Council

Parish Council give permission, Borough Council remove tree, Kindergarten and Police create day of action to remove undergrowth. Kindergarten create and maintain garden

Create a pathway round the back of the church to the north wall and Sheep St

to facilitate public access, making the back of the church more visible. Better during day, but doesn’t address night time use Still operates as a memorial bench but less interaction between those using it for drinking and those walking past. Might act as a hotspot for groups gathering out of sight, but might eliminate the use altogether Ability to identify and specifically support individuals.

Parish Council, possibly with manual labour from OASIS and Hope Tool centre Parish Council, possibly with manual labour from OASIS and Hope Tool centre

Project plan needed

Summer 2014

As above

As above

Police. Parish Council

Other facilities in town are full or inaccessible to the people that access this church yard

Parish Council, homelessness charities

Need to be able to provide alternative rough sleeping facility – Action E and/or F Difficult to achieve. Build metal shelters/individual pods big enough to sleep in, provide some form of passive heating. Will council tolerate a deliberate rough sleeping zone? Will it create a hotspot/concentration of sleepers/drug users?

Move the park benches from the path to less accessible north area of church yard,

Place monitoring IR cameras round the back of the church, Police enforce no overnight stays Specific rough sleeping shelter built on to the back wall to make rough sleeping safer

By when?

Feb 2014

Measures of success Kindergarten satisfied that the garden is working for them and is safe Parish Council report reduction in people hanging around on south side and front of church Reduction in ASB calls to Police sustained throughout summer 2014 Flows of public round the north side of the church, encouraged by park benches?

Measure 3 Measure 2

Rough sleepers and drug takers being identified and provided with services Adequate services are provided in a safe way to those who need

LISP Locally Identified Solutions and Practices Toolkit What?

Why? (What is the intend effect?)

With whom?

How?

Work with Anchor house to upgrade the sheds in the back of derelict house into rough sleeping shelter and create a safe drug & alcohol ‘wet’ zone, develop Anchor house services and extend OASIS services. Pub to help out?

Same as a above

Anchor house, OASIS, nearby pub

Same as above but less ‘public’ and closer to services provided by Anchor house.

Better able to staff and contain activity in back yard. Alternative would be to lease and refurbish Black Cat for the purpose

Block off access to alleyway from Fish St to Barrack road, get council to sell it to burger shop owners.

Enforce clean up and securing of the back of burger shop on Barrack Road Request clean-up of all litter in Fish Street (Oasis clients to help?), find owner of the bin store that is always left open and request secure. Cover over or improve the graffiti

Anecdotal evidence of drug dealing operating in this alleyway.

There is no vehicle access reason for the alley and invites ASB.

Escalate to Council for sale

Signal behaviours which indicate neglect. There are a number in this area. This is a barely used area, so graffiti will always occur until regeneration takes place, and alleyway closed off. Better graffiti will make it look better and less inviting to more graffiti.

Long term vision for location needed to make the best of the extensive listed buildings in the area, and market the positive opportunities with underutilised buildings

Newly refurbished Garibalidi hotel may wish to help upgrade the locality.

Users/owners of the old HOPE centre. Council (needs escalating)

Gather more working group members from burger shops, OASIS, light industry neighbours, Garibaldi Hotel to develop a clean-up and create a mini-LISP (in Practices section below)

Makeover of location complete, partners agreeing to progress with Practices

Creative media agency, estate agents who have properties to rent in the area, owners, Council (connect to regeneration of bus station)

A Business Improvement District or develop a Local Neighbourhood Plan by getting working group together into a formal structure

A vision document bringing together different strands and communicating that to external stakeholders

Get creative media agency to work with working group to develop a Vision for Sheep St and communicate the vision to all users/owners of the neighbourhood.

By when?

Measures of success New service for rough sleepers, drug users and street drinkers (and recovering clients) to operate their own service, taking behaviours off the street into safe and controlled environment Public space that invites ASB occupied by private owner who utilises the space productively (a new shop or housing)

46

LISP Locally Identified Solutions and Practices Toolkit PRACTICES – ongoing behaviours or activities to sustain success What?

Why? (What is the intend effect?)

With whom?

How?

By when?

Measures of success

Ongoing relationship between Church, Kindergarten and OASIS house to maintain the church yard to a high standard and provide accessibility to children and parents using the site

Reduction in attractiveness of south side of church to ASB through greater use by public during day and twilight hours. Ongoing development of a Churchyard partnership

Church, Kindergarten, OASIS house

Continued meetings and applying for funding together

tbc

Measures 1 -3 above

4. ASSESSMENT 4.1 Evaluation •

Please ensure that you list what factors will indicate ongoing success from the stakeholders’ perspective into the ‘measures for success’ box above. Please ensure you note how these indicators will be measured.

Measure of success included in the Solutions and Practices table above.

4.2 ESCALATION •

List five things that will make this fail. Pre-empt possible barriers before they occur.

1. Failure to get anyone other than first working group engaged with the problem- incidence of street drinking partially/temporarily solved so stakeholders are over confident.

Failure to sustain will be seen as a failure of the process of LISP rather than a failure to continue the process until it is sustained.

2. Failure to get Borough Council supportive of community group efforts- delays over tree removals, no litter picks, short-term actions can’t be sustained 3. Short-term actions attract more street drinkers and drug users before longer terms actions in place, controversy created so stakeholders retreat NOTES FROM MEETINGS AND UPDATES Friday 31st May 2013 – This was the first meeting we held with the community members at The Holy Sepulchre Church Rooms. Those present were the local police, businesses from Sheep Street, Bailiff Street and Campbell Street. We started with an introduction to the meeting and spoke about the polices stance in dealing with issues relating to Anti-social street drinking within the area itself and then we allowed for an open forum where they could discuss the issues 47

LISP Locally Identified Solutions and Practices Toolkit they are experiencing. The issues mentioned included, drug and alcohol abuse within The Holy Sepulchre church yard, the nursery discussed having a fenced off area for the children to use as part of their learning environment. Businesses talked about how overgrown the area is therefore attracting street drinkers and drug users to the area and how people can’t use it anymore. The police approach was linked to the dispersal order and supporting letters, so it bides us a bit of time to try and link the community together with the Intense Community Engagement work. The next meeting set was for Friday 5th July 2013 at Oasis House.

Friday 5th July 2013 – This was the second meeting we held with the community members in relation to the street drinking issues within the location. Those present were the nursery, the church officials, Midland Heart, NAASH, Oasis House residents and some officials from Northampton Borough Council, namely colleagues from Community Safety, and Neighbourhood Wardens.

Wednesday 3rdJuly 2013 I had a consultation with contractors at the NBC about what could be done to clear out the church yard and cut back all the overgrown foliage. Planning permission was put through for the work to be carried out under the preservation order and I have received authorisation for the work to be completed midAugust 2013.

The group discussed ideas they would like to look at in relation to making changes within the Holy Sepulchre church yard. NAASH arranged for volunteers from Nationwide Building Society to attend Oasis House and carry out voluntary work there for the day, we looked at the date the group were attending and utilised this group

in the potential work in the church yard. The date that was set for the start of the work was Wednesday 17th July 2013. NAASH agreed to provide the volunteers, including service users and residents of Oasis House. Hope Enterprise provided some machinery to start the work along with Northampton Borough Council who also arranged for contractors to clear the rubbish. The church agreed to provide tea, coffee and other refreshments for volunteers. The work was planned to be started on Wednesday 17th July 2013.

Wednesday 17th July 2013, NAASH, Hope Enterprise, the church officials, the nursery staff, volunteers from Nationwide Building Society, workers from NBC and the local police came together to start work on the church yard. The work started at 9:30 in the morning, prior to this radio interviews were conducted by BBC Radio Northampton and the Chronicle and Echo were there to take pictures of the partnership group. Work was started on the left-hand side of the church yard, closest to the nursery area. All foliage was completely stripped away leaving a blank canvas for the nursery staff to take ownership of and to create their working area for pupils. The work was completed on the areas of the church yard that wasn’t covered by the preservation order and it put the partnership group in good stead to take ownership of the area to make it more user friendly. There are even talks of the church using their own money to put a public path way around the back of the church to make the traffic flow a disruption for drug dealing/using.

August 2013 – Planning permission was put in by contractors for tree work to be carried out in the summer, this was delayed due to the timings through the Borough Council processes for such work, therefore the tree work carried out by an external contactor didn’t

48

LISP Locally Identified Solutions and Practices Toolkit take place until November 2013. The relevant areas leading through to the nursery and next to the nursery itself was cut back and the dead tree removed from the potential garden area. Due to the poor winter weather, this has put a delay on the work to be carried out by stakeholders and maintenance hasn’t been needed due to the bad weather.

In January 2014, another meeting was had with the same person from contractors, to request more work to be carried out in March this year because it was missed in November 2013. Further planning permission has been requested for this work and we are waiting for a response. The main key stakeholders are still planning to carry out

any maintenance work but are unable to do so until it is at a stage where they can manage it.

Numerous meetings have been held with Jodie and Theresa and they still want to take ownership of the working group and any work carried out in the area, this will continue within the area as there has been a reduction in anti-social street drinking. The key stakeholders will arrange, chair and manage the working group meetings for the future and the police will continue to use their powers reference the DPPO legislation for street drinking in the area of the Holy Sepulchre.

Police can maintain a watching brief up to the summer of 2014 to verify the impact of the LISP so far, before reviewing the extent of sustainable impact.

49

LISP Locally Identified Solutions and Practices Toolkit

CHAPTER 11. MANAGING A LISP PROCESS LISP is an 8-step set of activities and a specific approach to Intensive Community Engagement designed by Northamptonshire Police and the University of Northampton out of 7 years of development with Community Development students and PCSOs. It has subsequently been refined and developed in Thames Valley Police, Gloucestershire Constabulary, with Cotswolds Community Safety Partnership and West Yorkshire Police. This chapter provides information for key senior officers and colleagues so that they can understand what LISP is, what it is meant to achieve, and how they can support its implementation as ‘business as usual’ in neighbourhood policing The principles that underpin the Locally Identified Solutions and Practices approach to neighbourhood policing are: • • • • •

Objectives of LISP • • •

To address the underlying causes of crime in neighbourhoods that contribute significantly to Police performance statistics To reduce the contributing factors to crime and anti-social behaviour To ensure that communities and partner agencies are challenged to support policing objectives

Outcomes from LISP At each step, the LISP process creates significant new intelligence and information to assist policing and community safety teams (Figure 14)

Focussed, intensive and sustained dialogue with refreshed community representatives, going beyond the ‘usual suspects’ Supporting the self-efficacy of the community to contribute to safer communities Developing a dialogue rather than just informing and reassuring Policing the boundaries of what is genuinely a policing issue, and sharing the burden with other parties Providing a backdrop of intelligence and engaged community support for operations, projects and other reactive work

Figure 14 Outputs from LISP projects

50

LISP Locally Identified Solutions and Practices Toolkit Choosing when to apply LISP processes It is impossible to undertake the depth of work required for LISP in every neighbourhood, so the most important one’s need to be carefully selected.

Screening using VLI to select key areas: The Vulnerable Localities Index (referred to as the VLI) is a method which can help to identify residential neighbourhoods that require prioritised attention for community safety.

Crime statistics: The Police led activity will focus on neighbourhoods that have been subject to long-term high levels of reported crime or anti-social behaviour, or in situations where PCSOs predict (with appropriate evidence) that crime patterns will increase in a given location due to external factors.

Complexity of the problem: crime patterns that involve a number of different stakeholders, victims or perpetrators are sufficiently complex to warrant a LISP process within the localities identified in steps 1 and 2. Different stakeholders may have different opinions regarding the causes of the problem; or significant amounts of the problem are not under the direct influence or control of the Police

1.

2.

3.

Tasking a LISP process Neighbourhood police officers, PCSOs and community members have been trained to work on intensive engagement in order to •

To engage with refreshed community activists and partner agencies in the locality to address these contributing factors They will need to spend a significant proportion of their time working on the community engagement and solutions planning, being abstracted and shifting from task to task will undermine the depth and effectiveness of the engagement.

•

It will not be helpful for performance criteria to require too many LISPs to be operating at the same time. Performance criteria should be about the depth and quality of the processes rather than numbers.

Short-term interventions, like events, operations and reactive work should be done in the context of and consistent with LISP planning and processes- as part of a long-term engagement, and not in competition with a LISP. OUTPUT: The LISP proforma document is the output of the process and should be well researched and evidenced with community partners agreeing to act collaboratively and evidence of it not being ‘Police-led’ but Police-coordinated.

OUTCOMES: the tangible outcomes are: • •

Decrease in crime More PCSO time available to focus on crime prevention

Understand the contributing factors to the crime statistics in the locality and,

51

LISP Locally Identified Solutions and Practices Toolkit Principles of quality LISP projects Good 1.

Breadth and depth of engagement on a few localities 2.

Refreshed community contacts of capable people 3.

Engage and active contacts 4.

Evidence of co-solving of problems 5.

Group based analysis of problems to increase community ‘buy-in’ 6.

Challenging apathy and inactivity

Poor 1.

Large numbers of LISPS not focussed on complex issues 2.

Usual suspects, professional consultees, agency representatives 3.

Passive and dependent contacts 4.

Limited to informing and reassuring 5.

Solo ‘I know how to sort this’ process, telling people what to do

6.

Supporting status quo or getting frustrated and moving too quickly 7.

Sustained activity 7.

Focus on projects and oneoff events 8.

Developing teams of 8.

Delivering interventions to a teams to affect behaviour of few tens of people hundreds of people 9.

Clear escalation 9.

Inertia or barriers not pathways addressed 10.

Partner agencies held 10.

Police doing it all accountable

Supporting quality LISP The LISP document is comprised of a modified SARA structure- with different detailed activities within the framework as per the diagram below. The key points and quality management are summarised below.

REASON FOR LISP This section should clearly set out the rationale for undertaking a LISP process mapping out the crime patterns that should be addressed by the intensive engagement.

1.

SCAN

This section should collate what is already known about the locality being LISP. Information from partner agencies should be collated here, existing intelligence, conclusions from any EVAs, any existing activities and historical attempts to prevent crime. Some demographic data from MOSAIC or other sources, if relevant. The

52

LISP Locally Identified Solutions and Practices Toolkit LISP practitioner should be looking for assets (tangible and skills) in the locality that can be utilised to help solve the problem.

1.2 Stakeholders This should be a list of all the key assets in the locality, gleaned from street-a-week projects, from walkabouts and from reassurance visits. The list (possibly numbering hundreds of people and organisations) should be representative of the whole demographic of the locality, including suspects and perpetrators. From this long list, a smaller group of active collaborators will be identified. This list will demonstrate that the LISP practitioner is well networked.

1.3 Intensive Engagement Developing the ‘long-list’ of stakeholders into a small group with a plan will take time. This will be about understanding what the selfinterest of those people are to get involved in something they don’t have to do, raising their awareness of a) this will not go away and b) something can be done, is a critical element. Rich Picturing is a collaborative engagement technique that can be used to develop the above understanding and commitment- it gets the stakeholders exploring the issues, not focusing on the police, and visioning solutions in concrete locations.

1.4 Working Group The smaller group selected from the wider stakeholder group must be engaged and able to make changes- with high social capital to ‘do things and persuade people’. These are not professional consultees or even agency partners with an automatic ‘right of representation’-

they should be only those who are willing and able to make a difference. The ‘suspects and perpetrator’ could be represented in this group- rather than excluded. They, more than anyone else, should be part of the solution.

2.

ANALYSE

This section should show evidence of intensive collaborative work with the working group members, fully researching the root causes of the problems, the contributing factors and the different perceptions of the issues 3.

RESPOND

This section should show evidence of the LISP practitioner eliciting ‘visions of success’ on a map of the locality- what little interventions, physical changes to the built environment and changes in behaviour that together create a successful environment. ‘Solutions in a box’ should be avoided- like community centres (because they generally don’t exist for the whole community’ and every solution must be sustained with a set of behaviours that sustain the success of the intervention. An example might be lowering the height of hedges and fixing fences- only useful if that behaviour becomes ‘normal’.

Rich picturing is a good tool to help the working group with this, because crimes happen in the built environment- in the real world and placing solutions and practices in real localities are key to the process.

53

LISP Locally Identified Solutions and Practices Toolkit 3.2 Develop and secure agreement on interventions Partners need to be held accountable, so all partners should commit in writing. Where a partner cannot commit to local action and requires someone else’s permission, this information should be included in the ‘escalation section’ in 4.2 SOLUTIONS – One off events, projects or facilities What?

Why? (What is the intend effect?)

With whom?

How?

By when?

Measures success

of

Measures success

of

PRACTICES – ongoing behaviours or activities to sustain success What?

4.

Why? (What is the intend effect?)

With whom?

How?

By when?

ASSESS

4.1 Evaluation Although success for the Police should be clearly recorded, it is also very important to record what success will look like for the partners.

This will be part of their exit strategy. Very few people what to work in long-term, open-ended committees, so clearly explaining success will be critical for the working group to ‘bow out gracefully, having done their bit’.

4.2 Escalation The LISP practitioner should be clear about the issues that might arise, or conditions that could cause an escalation- where the stakeholders are unable to solve an issue or implement a solution at their level. This might be planning permission, or funding for an intervention, or a partner agency is not fulfilling their duties. The escalation may be within the Police, to an inspector to take to a Community Safety Partnership, or higher. They could also be escalated externally, to a regional or head office for a local shopkeeper, or through a partner local authority.

Overall The whole document should be dynamic and active planning document, ready to be handed over to a new team or brief a new stakeholder. LISPs don’t get definitively closed off- they will require maintenance and supporting behaviours.

They should be reviewed by sector inspectors with a view to ensuring the depth of engagement is occurring and to support the LISP practitioner in overcoming blocks and barriers. The most significant barrier will be apathy.

CHAPTER 12. PRACTISING RICH PICTURES How to create your rich picture

STEP 1: A rich picture can be created individually or as a group. The starting point of your rich picture is to think about the situation.

54

LISP Locally Identified Solutions and Practices Toolkit Step-by-step, look at the situation and break it up so that you can begin to identify the ‘problems’ or separate ‘issues’ that contribute to it. Similar to brainstorming techniques it may help to put the ‘situation’ into the centre of the page. This way it can be easily seen what the rich picture is concerned with.

Figure 15 Starting a Rich Picture

STEP 2: It is important to think about the way that you see or interpret the situation. When you have done this, you can start to draw the first piece of the puzzle.

By thinking of the issue first you can begin to think of the way in which you interpret this into a picture, diagram, symbol etc. This may help by using symbols such as ‘!’ or ‘?’ or perhaps colours can represent your situations, or even buzz words such as ‘angry’ or ‘isolation’. However, you choose to represent your issue, it is important that this relates to the way that you see the situation as this will begin to develop your understanding of it and this is important when you need to go back and assess your holistic viewpoint.

It may help by:

55

LISP Locally Identified Solutions and Practices Toolkit way, if something is affected by another, this can easily be shown by arrows. During this process when you think of a contributing factor ask yourself ‘how does this contribute to the issue I am looking at?’ ‘who does this affect?’ ‘why is this important?’ By doing this it will develop your thinking and understanding of the whole situation by encouraging you to think harder about that single situation in the way in which it contributes or overlaps on others.

Figure 16 Adding in issues

Once these ‘assets’ and ‘vulnerabilities’ are identified as part of your LISP process, the rich pictures allows you to further develop your knowledge and understanding of these areas, asking questions such as ‘why is this area considered vulnerable?’ and ‘what is causing this?’ to begin to produce a bigger picture, or a holistic viewpoint of the neighbourhood. Whilst maintaining the idea of an ‘asset-based’ community development, looking at these vulnerabilities during your rich picture you can begin to identify what the community has got and what needs to be enhanced or changed in order for it to work for that community.

STEP 3: When these ideas develop further it is also important to show the way in which these inter-relate, or if one issue causes another to happen or if one situation changes something else. Either

Figure 17 Who is affected and how?

STEP 4: Remember to include everything that you believe to contribute to the whole situation. Although buzz words can be used, try to show your situation through pictures and diagrams and only

56

LISP Locally Identified Solutions and Practices Toolkit use words when your pictures are not quite enough to explain the real problem. This is because it forces you to think deeper about the situation when you need to think of the way in which you interpret it through a picture. Also, a picture is helpful as they can be understood by everyone.

Whilst it is important to include every detail that you deem necessary, it is equally important to ‘let yourself go’ by allowing your thoughts to flow freely. This is a crucial aspect of a rich picture, as the whole point of this exercise allows you to see a problem that is so complex and difficult to comprehend, in a way that ‘step-by-step’ you can begin see how constituent parts contribute to the whole situation. Avoid using a ‘systematic’ or an organised approach, as by doing this, you may be assuming what the problem is, which will defeat the point of the whole exercise. Also, you may be channelling your thoughts down a particular route; by doing this you may only be making stereotypical assumptions or only seeing patterns that you already think exist. However, your rich picture will include factual information and some subjective information. It may be helpful to look at the social relationships within the community which may relate to the issue we are concerned with and the kind of behaviour expected from these roles. For example, this may be the lack of communication between different cultural groups or how one problem may make someone feel such as angry, isolated or scared.

It may also be important to include your role within the rich picture to show the way in which you contribute to the whole situation.

this it will increase your understanding of holistic and problemsolving thinking so that you can see the situation in the community as a whole. Your rich picture shows the way that you interpret the situation, your perceptions, ideas and beliefs and this develops the way that you understand and see the whole situation. It may also help to ask yourself “who will this have a direct impact on?”

Figure 18 A Problem Rich Picture

During your own rich picture process, you will be able to start to identify what you believe are the issues or problems within the community and think about how each aspect interrelates. As you do

57

LISP Locally Identified Solutions and Practices Toolkit Here are just some examples of the rich pictures conducted by the police and community members.

Repeat this process Next a repeat of the street walking with the key informants should be undertaken to visualise and identify community vulnerabilities and assets.

The key informants that you previously identified will also need to develop their own rich picture. This involves repeating the processes that you went through in your own rich picture.

58

LISP Locally Identified Solutions and Practices Toolkit NOTE: It is important to consider the potential barriers to communication when you are explaining technical aspects so that it is in an easy-to-understand manner to avoid misinterpretation and confusion.

Remember, these key informants will include the community residents. These are a crucial aspect within the profile because the way in which they interpret their community and draw their rich pictures are an important process of your understanding of their community. The aim is to better engage with ‘seldom heard’10 groups.

Once this is completed, all of these key aspects highlighted in the rich pictures by all stakeholders should be combined to begin to produce your holistic view of the community. This process of integrating different perspectives provides an opportunity to conceptualise the key problems into statements from the rich picture consultations.

Remember; keep it wicked! Go back to ‘the wickedness of the situation’ but ensure that you do not leap to any conclusions at this stage as you are at risk of identifying what your perceptions are. You may attempt to sift the data to fit a pattern- this only confirms what is thought to be known already however this is invalid and unreliable.

Once all of the key informants involved have completed their rich picture process, these should be compared and discussed in order to identify any commonalities and differences. This should allow all perceptions and ideas to be discussed. This will start to highlight common themes or ones that have not yet been discovered. This process will involve discussions between all stakeholders which is an important part of this process as it allows for explanations and better understanding to support a holistic Rapid Community Appraisal. This will allow the profile to increase its sustainability. However, during this process, it will be important to note that if there are too many stakeholders it will only over-complicate this existing complex process. Careful consideration is needed to ensure that only the most important and most influential stakeholders are part of this process as an abundance of people that only have weak ties within that community will further complicate it. This will only cause conflicting ideas that will only delay the process.

59

LISP Locally Identified Solutions and Practices Toolkit

CHAPTER 13. SELECTED READING BOOKS:

Ackhoff, R. (1974), Redesigning the Future: A Systems Approach to Societal Problems. John Wiley & Sons: New York Alinsky, S (1971) Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals. New York: Random House.

Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of planners, 35(4), 216-224.

Checkland, Peter B. and Scholes, J. (1990) Soft Systems Methodology in Action, John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Ledwith, M (2011) Community Development A Critical Approach (2nd Edition) Bristol: Policy Press.

Pawson, R. (2006). Evidence-based policy: a realist perspective.

London: Sage.

Pawson, R. (2013). The Science of Evaluation: A Realist Manifesto.

London: Sage.

Pawson, R., & Tilley, N. (2001). Realistic Evaluation Bloodlines.

American Journal of Evaluation, 22(3), 317–324.

Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Sen, Amartya. (1993). Capability and Well-Being. In M. Nussbaum and A. Sen, eds. The Quality of Life, pp. 30–53. New York: Oxford Clarendon Press

JOURNALS:

Argyris.C (1995) Action Science and Organizational Learning. Journal of Managerial Psychological. 10: 6. Pp 20-26.

Arnstein, S R. (1969) A Ladder of Citizen Participation. JAIP, 35:4. Pp. 216-224 Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The Strength of Weak Ties. The American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380.

Kretzmann, John P. and McKnight, John L., (1993) Building Communities from the Inside Out: A Path Toward Finding and Mobilizing a Community's Assets. Center for Urban Affairs and Policy Research.

Rollnick, S., & Miller, W. R. (1995). What is motivational interviewing? Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 23(4), 325–334.

Police Research

Braga, A. A. (2008). Problem-oriented policing and crime prevention. Criminal Justice Press Monsey, NY. Chainey, S. (2008). Identifying Priority Neighbourhoods Using the Vulnerable Localities Index. Policing, 2(2), 196–209.

60

LISP Locally Identified Solutions and Practices Toolkit Crocker, R., Webb, S., Garner, D. S., & Skidmore, M. (2017). The impact of organised crime in local communities. The Police Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.policefoundation.org.uk/2017/wpcontent/uploads/2017/08/oc_in_local_communities_final.pdf Engel, R. S., & Worden, R. E. (2003). Police officers’ attitudes, behavior and supervisory influences: an analysis of problem solving.

Criminology; an Interdisciplinary Journal, 41(1), 131–166 Hawdon, J. (2008) ‘Legitimacy, Trust, Social Capital, and Policing Styles: A Theoretical Statement’, Police Q. SAGE Publications Inc, 11(2), pp. 182–201.

Innes, M., & Fielding, N. (2002). From community to communicative policing: “Signal crimes” and the problem of public reassurance.

Sociological Research Online, 7(2), 1–12.

Innes, M., Abbott, L., Lowe, T., & Roberts, C. (2009). Seeing like a citizen: field experiments in “community intelligence-led policing.”

Police Practice & Research: An International Journal, 10(2), 99–114.

Myhill, A. and Quinton, P. (2011) It’sa fair cop? Police legitimacy, public co-operation, and crime reduction: An interpretative evidence commentary.

O’Neill, M. (2014). PCSOs as the paraprofessionals of policing: findings and recommendations from a research project. Scottish Institute for Policing Research, University of Dundee. Retrieved from https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/30660587.pdf Quinton, P., & Tuffin, R. (2007). Neighbourhood Change: the Impact of the National Reassurance Policing Programme. Policing, 1(2), 149–160.

Reisig, M. D., & Giacomazzi, A. L. (1998). Citizen perceptions of community policing: are attitudes toward police important?

Policing: An International Journal, 21(3), 547–561 Weisburd, D. (2016). Place Matters: Criminology for the TwentyFirst Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lloyd, K., & Foster, J. (2009). Citizen Focus and Community Engagement, a Review of the Literature. The Police Foundation.

Retrieved from http://www.police-foundation.org.uk/2017/wpcontent/uploads/2017/06/citizen_focus.pdf Myhill, A. (2006) Community engagement in policing: Lessons from the literature. whatworks.college.police.uk.

61