INTEGRATING CRIME AND FEAR OF CRIME WITH TRANSPORT AND ACCESSIBILITY IMPROVEMENTS IN DEPRIVED AREAS IN THE UK

Transcription

1 INTEGRATING CRIME AND FEAR OF CRIME WITH TRANSPORT AND ACCESSIBILITY IMPROVEMENTS IN DEPRIVED AREAS IN THE UK Joanna Machin and Karen Lucas Transport Studies Group, University of Westminster 1. INTRODUCTION For some time, the reduction of crime and fear of crime on the transport network has been identified as a key policy priority by central government in the UK (DETR, 1998). Widely recognised as a major barrier to public transport use, especially after dark, crime and fear of crime on and around public transport can increase feelings of vulnerability among passengers and significantly impact on their travel decisions. Concerns for personal safety can affect how and at what time they travel, their choice of route, and whether they will travel at all. Fear of crime is typically most acute when waiting or walking to, or from, a bus stop or station rather than on board the public transport itself (Crime Concern, 2004, DETR, 1998). Such concerns are particularly acute amongst women, older people and people from minority ethnic backgrounds (Crime Concern, 2004, Nacro, 2003), but is also, perhaps more surprisingly, a key concern for young people travelling on public transport (Crime Concern, 1999). Crime and in particular, fear of crime can act as a considerable barrier to people s ability to access essential goods and services, particularly for those living in deprived areas. The British Crime Survey (Home Office, 2003) and other evidence (Pantazis, 2000) suggests that people living in deprived areas are typically more fearful of crime due, in part, to higher incidence of crime and levels of victimisation. Residents living on social housing estates and inner city areas have been reported to feel particularly vulnerable (Home Office, 2003, Pantazis, 2000). Many people living in deprived areas are also highly dependent on public transport for accessing key activities and services such as employment, education, health care and food shops. Unable to afford taxi fares, there is rarely an alternative to using public transport, exposing them to vulnerable situations and exacerbating their concern for their own personal safety. Fear of crime might be so acute that it makes the transport network completely inaccessible for some people, severely impacting on their quality of life and life chances. The problem is further exacerbated by bus operators cutting back routes perceived to be unsafe in deprived areas. Highlighting the importance of these issues, this paper describes the main findings of a research study commissioned by the UK Department for Transport (DfT), to explore how such considerations of crime and fear of

2 crime could be fed into the wider accessibility planning framework being developed in the UK (DfT, 2004a) 1. It is intended that the method will help local authorities and other local agencies to assess more systematically whether people experiencing or at risk of social exclusion 2 can get to places of work, healthcare facilities, education, food shops and other destinations that are important to local residents (DfT 2004b). The paper is based on key lessons learned from Middlesbrough City Council s intensive efforts to encourage increased public transport use through measures to reduce crime and fear of crime as part of the Civilising Cities initiative THE FRAMEWORK FOR DELIVERING ACCESSIBILITY PLANNING The draft guidance for accessibility planning study (DfT, 2004a) identifies that accessibility planning should be undertaken in five key stages: A strategic accessibility assessment: to identify the problems for socially excluded groups in accessing key services and facilities; A local accessibility assessment: to identify in more depth key accessibility issues in local priority areas; Option appraisal and identification of resources: to identify and evaluate potential measures to improve the accessibility problems identified; Accessibility plan preparation: to plan and deliver the targeted measures; and Performance monitoring: to assess the impact of the measures and evaluate their effectiveness. The specific aim of the study was to identify ways in which consideration of crime and fear of crime issues, and measures to address these, could best be integrated into this wider framework for accessibility planning. To this end, it addressed three key issues: Identifying where crime and fear of crime is having a significant affect on public transport use and accessibility; Developing and appraising different policy options and practical interventions for addressing crime and fear of crime on and around public transport; and Developing ways to monitor the effectiveness of such measures. 3. CRIME AND FEAR OF CRIME ASSESSMENTS Whether a local authority decides to assess the impact of crime and fear of crime on accessibility at the strategic level is likely to be determined by: a) The extent to which crime is identified as an area of high priority for policy attention within that authority, e.g. in Middlesbrough, recorded crime rates

3 are relatively high across the whole authority area and, as such, reduction of crime and fear of crime is a political priority; and b) The size of the geographical area for which they are responsible, e.g. some local transport authorities in the UK are responsible for very large administrative areas covering numerous local districts. Assessing the impact of crime and fear of crime on accessibility requires localised micro-analysis. The level of effort that is required to both access and analyse the relevant data will generally not be practicable at the strategic level of assessment, particularly for authorities which cover large geographical areas. In such instances, crime and fear of crime assessments are better undertaken at the local assessment stage, i.e. once priority locations and accessibility priorities have already been identified. For example, if the accessibility priority is focused on a need to improve access to a health care facility in a given neighbourhood, then a neighbourhood level assessment of crime and fear of crime should be made in the immediate walking area surrounding the health centre, and between it and the nearest public transport facility. This would identify the best location for crime prevention measures. However, if the local transport authority covers a smaller geographical area and crime is a high priority policy issue, such as in Middlesbrough, looking at crime and fear of crime data across the whole of the administrative area can prove useful. This will help to identify hotspot areas where crime may be acting as a significant barrier to public transport use. Involving stakeholders Stakeholder involvement is imperative, whether or not crime is being analysed at the strategic or local level of assessment. The study demonstrated the importance of transport authorities involving and engaging with crime reduction agencies and other relevant stakeholders to effectively identify problem areas and to develop appropriate solutions. Most importantly, Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships (CDRPs), which are responsible for developing crime reduction strategies for local districts, boroughs and unitary authorities and are highly knowledgeable about local patterns of crime and disorder to inform the accessibility planning process. They were specifically set up to encourage local authorities in England to work together with the police and other relevant bodies to develop strategies to reduce crime and, thus potentially have an important role in ensuring accessibility plans appropriately consider crime and fear of crime issues. CDRPs are required to carry out crime audits to develop their strategies and this data is vital for assessments of crime and fear of crime in accessibility planning. Furthermore, CDRPs already have crime reduction strategies in place, some of which include measures to address transport crime and may also have resources available to contribute to accessibility plans which seek to tackle crime and fear of crime on and around public transport.

4 The extent of the involvement of CDRPs is likely to depend on the priority given to issues relating to personal safety on and around public transport and whether the partnership has the resources, in particular staff time, to commit to the process. If crime is identified as a central accessibility issue, local transport authorities may need to involve a number of CDRPs in order to identify key problem areas within the administrative area. It is expected that, in most cases, CDRPs will be involved once accessibility priorities and areas have been identified, in particular at the option appraisal stage, when measures to improve accessibility may need to accommodate concerns about crime and fear of crime to be effective. Some local transport authorities are already working closely with CDRPs to develop strategies to tackle crime and fear of crime while walking to, waiting for and travelling on, public transport. Where this is the case, it should be possible to identify whether crime reduction should be an overarching element in the accessibility plan or whether such issues are only relevant in certain local areas. Other local transport authorities, who have not, as yet, engaged with their CDRPs will need to consult with them, and in some cases the police. Data and mapping Figure 1 identifies some of the datasets, which were identified during the study for assessing crime, and fear of crime on and around public transport. It is noted that all of these datasets will not be available across all local authorities, and the reliability and comprehensiveness of them will vary significantly between local authority areas. Figure 1: Key sources of data for assessing crime and fear of crime on and around public transport Data type Source Weaknesses Reported crime Bus related incident data Local bus Few operators record all incidents in a (number and types of operator systematic way crime/disorder on the Many incidents not reported network) Difficult to identify specific crime locations on a moving bus Operators may be reluctant to share Crimes reported at rail stations and along rail route Reported crime data (type and location of reported crime/disorder incidents) Damage to bus shelters (locations and nature of damage) British Transport Police and rail operators data with LTA or CDRP Difficult to identify specific crime locations on a moving train Police Some CDRPs and/or LTAs unable to access low level data Many crimes are not reported Police do not specify in their records which crimes occur on or around public transport Local authority or private company Fear of crime Not all local authorities/private companies will maintain records

5 Household/ Population/ Omnibus surveys Local Authority/CDRP Expensive and time consuming Crime/fear of crime issues may be lost in large surveys Panel surveys Local Authority Only questions a small sample of the population Bus surveys Local Transport Authority/bus operator Only questions those using the bus Results sensitive to when survey administered Bus satisfaction surveys Local Authority LTAs in the UK are not provided guidance on the inclusion of fear of crime questions in their local bus satisfaction surveys Focus groups with bus passengers or non-bus passengers Local Authority Not representative Can be expensive and time consuming Practical ways of using crime and fear of crime data Using data collected in Middlesbrough, mapping work was undertaken to assess the utility of some of these datasets in identifying areas where crime and fear of crime might act as a barrier to accessibility. Crime hotspot maps These maps used street level reported crime and disorder data from the police, showing the x,y coordinate locations of crimes and bus stops. Three types of crime related incidents occurring in October 2003 were mapped: Criminal damage; includes actions which deliberately, or recklessly destroy or damage a dwelling, other buildings, vehicles or other items; Violence against the person; includes acts of violence and harassment (e.g. wounding, common assault, manslaughter, harassment); and Disorder; includes crime related incidents not recorded as notifiable offences (e.g. anti-social behaviour). These were selected because they have been identified as the most prolific types of crime-related incidents in Middlesbrough likely to impact on people s willingness to use public transport 4. Figure 2 shows how the mapping work reveals discrete hotspots of disorder incidents around particular bus stops and areas in North Middlesbrough.

6 Figure 2: Hotspots of disorder incidents in October 2003 and bus stop locations in Middlesbrough Crown Copyright Ordnance Survey These types of maps can be used to identify hotspot areas where crime and fear of crime may be likely to act as a barrier to public transport use. However, there are a number of problems associated with using recorded crime statistics in accessibility planning exercises: Recorded crime statistics are not an accurate measure of actual crime levels due to the high rate of under reporting of crime; Recorded crime levels do not accurately reflect the intensity of concern about fear of crime. Some areas might have relatively low recorded crime rates but high levels of anxiety about crime; and Difficulties could arise for local transport authorities accessing recorded crime data from the police or CDRP due to confidentiality reasons. Nevertheless, recorded crime statistics can be useful in understanding the temporal patterns of crime. Figure 3 below, shows the temporal profile of

7 reported incidents of disorder and criminal damage for one month in This type of analysis could be used to help identify the kind of measures that would be most appropriate for improving accessibility. For example, an additional bus route to improve access to a hospital for late visiting might need to incorporate measures to reduce fear of crime, particularly after 7pm when criminal activity starts to peak. Percentage of Incidents Figure 3: Temporal pattern of disorder and criminal damage incidents 12pm-1am 2am-3am 4am-5am 6am-7am 8am-9am 10am-11am 12pm - 1pm 2pm-3pm Time of Day 4pm-5pm 6pm-7pm 8pm-9pm 10pm-11pm Disorder incidents Criminal damage incidents Fear of crime maps From comparative analysis of the Middlesbrough incidence of crime data and data gathered through surveys of people s attitudes to crime, the study made evident that reported crime levels do not necessarily reflect the extent of fear of crime (although they are usually positively correlated). Clearly, fear of crime and perceptions of high crime incidence, even where these are not manifest in the incidence of crime data for an area, can act as deterrent to public transport use. For this reason, data from surveys ascertaining fear of crime levels in an area are likely to provide a more accurate picture of where crime is a barrier to public transport use and, thus, reducing accessibility. Results from a household survey of residents, commissioned by Middlesbrough Council and undertaken by MRUK for the Council s best value review in , questioned 8080 residents on a range of issues, including crime and fear of crime. Each respondent gave their home postcode, allowing the responses to be mapped using GIS (see figure 4).

8 Figure 4: Feelings of safety in neighbourhood for all respondents How_safe_is_your_neighbourhood All respondents 4 - Very Unsafe 3 - A bit unsafe 2 - Fairly Safe 1 = Very Safe Source: Map produced by Derek Halden Consultancy Ltd Figure 4 shows the areas where people feel particularly unsafe in their neighbourhoods. It follows that in these areas, residents are more likely to be fearful of crime and less willing to walk and wait for a bus in their neighbourhood, particularly at night. Further mapping work in Middlesbrough reveals that most of these areas, where people feel vulnerable to crime, have high levels of deprivation. For accessibility plans, where crime and fear of crime is a central issue, these types of maps can provide important insight into where fear of crime is most acute and where measures to reduce fear of crime could be implemented to mitigate the impacts on accessibility for socially excluded groups. For more focused plans, where priority areas have already been identified, these maps can be useful in identifying whether fear of crime needs to be considered in developing targeted measures to improve accessibility.

9 Targeted surveys The most useful surveys are likely to be those that specifically ask respondents about personal security on public transport. These might include household surveys or bus surveys, which ask questions about feelings of personal safety and behavioural responses to these fears. This can be highly useful for identifying specific problems and specific areas where people are concerned about travelling on public transport because of fear of crime. Middlesbrough Council include questions about personal safety on and around buses in their bus satisfaction surveys, carried out every three years. These not only ask how safe people feel, but also what measures they think are effective in reducing their anxieties about travelling on and around public transport. There is potentially scope in many local authorities to use existing surveys such as their bus satisfaction surveys or household surveys to specifically address these issues. The types of questions, which could be used, are included in Figure 5 6 : Figure 5: Questions to ascertain feelings of personal safety on and around public transport How safe do you feel walking to public transport during the day? How safe do you feel walking to public transport after dark? How safe do you feel waiting for public transport during the day? How safe do you feel waiting for public transport after dark? How safe do you feel travelling on public transport during the day? How safe do you feel travelling on public transport after dark? Very safe Fairly safe Neither Fairly unsafe Very unsafe Do you avoid using public transport after dark? Do you avoid using public transport because of fear of crime? Always Sometimes Never Would you travel more on public transport if it were safer? Yes, a bit more Yes, a lot more No

10 For local assessments, these surveys might be targeted at specific groups to identify whether crime does impact on the specific accessibility issue. For example, it might be necessary to survey parents and children in schools in a local area to identify whether concern about crime on and around public transport affects the extent of their involvement in out-of-school activities. Middlesbrough Council has found it useful to conduct focus groups with different groups of bus passengers, including pensioners and young women, to identify some of the key safety concerns about walking to, waiting for and travelling on buses. This method can provide useful insights into the impact of crime on travel behaviour. Assessing crime and fear of crime in practice The following scenario illustrates how the different data sources could be used to assess whether targeted accessibility measures should accommodate concerns about crime and fear of crime: Figure 6: How different data sources can be used in accessibility planning Issue: Poor transport access to key employment sites for people living in deprived areas Does crime and fear of crime impact on accessibility? Consult with the CDRP and police to ascertain whether crime and fear of crime is an important issue in deprived areas and around identified employment sites Use recorded crime statistics or incident data from bus operators to identify whether deprived areas and key employment sites are located in crime hotspot areas Use survey data to identify whether people living in the deprived areas are fearful of crime or how safe employees feel travelling to and from work Use survey or focus group data to assess whether those in deprived areas are fearful of using public transport and how this affects their travel behaviour

11 4. DEVELOPING AND APPRAISING THE OPTIONS Crime assessments should help to identify whether crime and fear of crime is likely to act as a barrier to public transport use and accessibility. Where this appears to be the case, the option generation and appraisal process will need to consider these concerns and integrate them into suggested solutions. It is vital that Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships, delivery agencies and local communities themselves should be involved at this stage, to ensure that the most feasible practical solutions are developed and implemented. Local delivery agencies might include front line service providers (e.g. colleges), bus operators or more wide-ranging groups (e.g. Neighbourhood Watch, Age Concern). Optional appraisals should consider a wide range of both transport and nontransport measures to address crime and fear of crime issues. These could include: Improved public transport services, e.g. increased frequency of bus services at night; Service planning and delivery, e.g. changes in opening hours for youth activities; Improved surveillance e.g. installation of CCTV cameras, increased police or warden deployment; Improved lighting e.g. installation of more street lights; Public transport infrastructure improvements e.g. improved bus shelters; Environmental/building redesign e.g. removal of unnecessary alleyways, bus shelter redesign; Improved information e.g. provision of service information at bus stops to reduce the fear of the unknown; Education e.g. police seminars at schools to educate students about the impacts of vandalism; and Legal enforcement e.g. increased use of anti-social behaviour orders. In the option appraisal stage, concerns about crime and fear of crime are likely to be addressed as an integrated part of measures implemented to improve accessibility. Using the above example, one suggested action to improve access to key employment sites for people in deprived areas might be to provide an additional bus route. To ensure safety concerns are accommodated, improved street lighting for example could be provided between the bus stop and housing estates, or CCTV cameras could be installed at bus stops. For other areas, where the reduction of crime and fear of crime is central to the accessibility plan, the action objectives will need to be identified (e.g. to reduce fear of crime at bus stops or to reduce criminal behaviour on buses across the whole administrative area), and locally appropriate options will need to be developed in close consultation with the CDRP and other local stakeholders.

12 Middlesbrough s approach to improving safety on and around public transport has been based on extensive partnership working between, in particular, the local transport authority and CDRP, but also local bus operators and the police. Their focus has been on improving the environment for the entire journey chain, including improvements to street lighting and increased densities of street wardens, improved bus shelters and bus shelter lighting and the implementation of CCTV cameras on bus routes which are susceptible to criminal activity. Resourcing issues The scope for developing accessibility measures that integrate concerns about crime and fear of crime will depend on the resources available. This includes staff time across agencies as well as funding sources. Funding sources are likely to vary significantly according to the action and it is likely that some local transport authorities will need to acquire resources outside of their local transport plan allocations and compete for funding with other service areas. It is anticipated that this will be an easier task in areas where the reduction of crime and fear of crime is high on local political and crossagency agendas. A wide range of fiscal resources has been identified which could contribute to the delivery of actions addressing concerns about crime and fear of crime. These include: Local Transport Plan budgets Rural and urban bus challenge CDRP budgets Building Safer Communities Fund, Basic Command Unit Fund, Regional Building Capacity Fund European funding Single Regeneration budget, European Social Fund (Objective 1 and 2), European Regional Development Fund Neighbourhood Renewal Fund New Deal for Communities Public Private Partnerships Private Finance Initiatives Home Office - Neighbourhood and Street Warden programme Strategic Rail Authority Local bus operators Local train operators Council housing capital programmes It is evident from the Middlesbrough pilot that problems might be experienced across local authority areas in encouraging particular agencies to commit resources to actions that address concerns about crime and fear of crime. It might be difficult for example, to encourage bus operators to commit resources to initiatives, many seeing crime and disorder as the responsibility of the police or local authority. It may be necessary therefore for local transport authorities to prove to agencies the benefits of committing

13 resources, for example, how reducing crime and fear of crime will increase bus patronage for bus operators. 5. PERFORMANCE MONITORING Local transport authorities will need to develop local indicators to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the measures they implement to improve accessibility through the reduction of crime and fear of crime. They are not currently required to report progress in terms of an indicator relating to crime/fear of crime on the public transport network, but some are setting their own indicators and targets. For example, Middlesbrough Council currently use the indicator number of incidents on buses to measure their progress in reducing crime on the bus network. In some circumstances, it might be difficult to measure the success of measures implemented to address concerns about crime and fear of crime, if it is part of a broad package of measures to improve accessibility. However, the research work has identified a number of indicators, which could be used for monitoring actions that consider crime, and fear of crime issues: Reduction in crime/disorder incidents on buses; Reduction in crime/disorder incidents around bus stops; Reduction in the fear of crime for people walking to bus stops; Reduction in fear of crime for people waiting at bus stops; Reduction in fear of crime for people travelling on public transport; Number of public transport trips; and Percentage of people regularly using public transport. The most effective indicators are likely to be those which measure public transport use by socially excluded groups. Bus patronage figures on individual bus routes or corridors should be available from bus operators and should provide a useful measure of whether improvements have impacted on accessibility in deprived areas. Local transport authorities will need to work closely with bus operators to ensure this data is made available for monitoring and evaluation purposes 6. CONCLUSIONS Like other factors, such as cost and reliability, personal safety can be an important determining factor in how and when people travel, or whether they travel at all. For those who are dependent on public transport for accessing key services, such as health care, employment or education, improvements which make people feel safer walking to, waiting for and travelling on public transport, can increase public transport use and help people get to key activities effectively and safely.

14 It is important for local transport authorities to consider what part crime and fear of crime plays in restricting accessibility and what can be done to ensure that targeted measures are attentive to the anxieties experienced by socially excluded groups. An accessibility plan is less likely to be successful if important concerns about crime and fear of crime are not addressed. Building effective partnerships with crime reduction agencies and other stakeholders will be important in developing and delivering accessibility action plans that appropriately consider crime and fear of crime issues. Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships should, where relevant, be involved in the process and should help to develop solutions which fit well with their own objectives for crime reduction. To identify the areas and people groups where crime is most likely to act as a barrier to public transport use, fear of crime surveys are likely to be the most useful data source. These will be more effective in identifying the intensity of concern about crime and how this affects travel behaviour than using other datasets that measure crime occurrence. Local transport authorities will need to work closely with other agencies, such as CDRPs, to explore the scope for including questions about personal safety on and around public transport in their surveys and also to ensure appropriate and relevant questions are included. Notes 1. The paper does not go into any detail on the Government s new agenda for accessibility planning as this is the subject of a separate paper being presented by one of the co-authors at the Conference (Lucas and Halden, 2004) 2. The term social exclusion is defined by the Social Exclusion Unit as a shorthand term for what can happen when people or areas suffer from a combination of linked problems such as unemployment, poor skills, low incomes, poor housing, high crime environments, bad health and family breakdown (SEU, 2003 p. 146). 3. Civilising Cities is a five-year research initiative by the University of Westminster in conjunction with participating local authorities, to practically demonstrate ways in which well-chosen packages of transport and land use measures can contribute significantly and cost-effectively to improving a range of quality of life indicators in urban areas. This will show how transport can contribute to other policy agendas, including health, personal safety, wealth creation, environmental sustainability and social inclusion. It is jointly funded by the DfT and the RAC Foundation. 4. Other types of crime that could directly affect accessibility include: sexual offences, robbery, theft from person and drugs. Crimes, which could affect general feelings of safety, include burglary, motor vehicle crime and other types of theft. 5. Funded by Middlesbrough Council through the Corporate Consultation budget 6. Questions sourced from: BIBLIOGRAPHY Crime Concern (1999) Young People and Crime on Public Transport, London: DETR Crime Concern (2004) People s perceptions of personal security and their concerns about crime on public transport: research findings, Department for Transport

15 DETR (1998) A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone London, DETR Department for Transport (2004a) Draft Guidance on Accessibility Planning in Local Transport Plans ans_ hcsp Department for Transport (2004b) What is accessibility planning?, ans_ hcsp Home Office (2003) Crime in England and Wales 2002/3: Home Office statistical bulletin Lucas K. and Halden D. (2004) Delivering the Connections: transport, social exclusion and accessibility planning in the UK. Proceedings of the Annual European Transport, Strasbourg, France. 4 th -6 th October, 2004 NACRO (2003) Getting There: Reducing Crime on Public Transport, Nacro Pantazis, C. (2000), Fear of Crime, Vulnerability and Poverty, British Journal of Criminology, 40, Social Exclusion Unit (2003) Making the Connections: Final Report on Transport and Social Exclusion, ODPM