Dd208_Tma_05

Write a review of Sydney’s Safe City Strategy 2007-2012 making use if the concepts, evidence and policy discussed in Book 3. Introduction The concept of community is interpreted by individuals and groups in different ways, resulting in many perceptions drawn from experience both presently and historically. With this in mind, policy makers have many social problems and ideals to overcome when developing strategies to overcome social welfare and crime control issues. Sydney’s Safe City Strategy 2007-2012 (DD208, Course Team, 2010) is an example of policy makers drawing upon experience and using this to combat social issues such as crime control and anti-social behaviour, that are currently presenting themselves in the city and developing a strategy that supports those that need help and creating an environment that will promote positive social behaviour. Summary The Strategy document illustrates how the policy makers in Sydney are disclosing they have certain problems that are recognised as global issues is western society and developing an action plan on how they as a community will deal with the problems effectively. This type of community management recognises the diversity of the city’s population and tapering to their needs while maintaining a positive and healthy environment for all. The 7 objectives laid down by the strategy are revolved around crime prevention and intervention. This is tackled through developing housing and creating a desirable environment and managing behaviour and in turn strengthening the community to be working together instead of against each other. This type of management gives the community ownership of its problems and therefore developing a proactive community that recognises and takes action to prevent the problems from continuing and shape it into something more desirable from both the policy makers and the population. At first glance it provides specific, measurable and realistic targets of how each objective can be reached by setting expectations to individuals like liquor store owners and providing them with knowledge and tools to reach the goal of reducing assaults. Concept of Community The concept of community is a notion of something shared or held in common with another individual or group. It can mean different things to different people, it is changeable and dependant on the environment and is shaped by economic, political and historical moments. It describes social commonality, a sense of togetherness. It can be something as complex as shared spaces to something as simple as a local school fete. It creates social stability and safety by promoting social connectedness between local areas and individuals- which is encouraged by policy makers as it creates unity and ownership. This is also reflected in Chapter 2, ‘it is believed, communities might be able to take on a kind of partnership with government agencies to address problems of social inclusion and social cohesion, welfare and crime control’. (p 41, Cochrane & Newman, 2009) The strategy relies on creating unity and giving a sense of connectedness within its community to encourage the diverse communities in Sydney to deliver the objectives set out within it. By referring to Sydney as a ‘city of villages’, in the document it recognises this. The strategy takes a shared issue approach - it interprets community as both location and identity/culture based as it refers to location specific solutions aimed at target groups. Also those groups settling in certain areas can create boundaries. It also refers to partnerships being essential for implementation of the framework, involving stakeholders from all sectors of the community. Evidence The statistical evidence provided by the Safe City Strategy ( DD208, Course Team, 2010) has been collated based on information ‘reported by the Police and are usually calculated using an areas residential population’ (p3-4, DD208 Course Team 2010). Like most cities, it is frequented by many tourists which therefore means that although the quantitative evidence provide is a view into the crime levels in Sydney, it is not exact representation- it can be open to interpretation and does not come with personal points of view. The evidence on p5 of the document provides statistics that show crimes increasing by postcode. This table of information shows some startling figures in regards to some crimes especially those in double figures like Criminal intent in Sydney increasing by 30.7%. But what the table fails to provide is a deeper explanation as to what each crime is, as criminal intent could be seen as being a fairly vague statement. The table also fails to show us which crimes have decreased- surely it would be interesting to see the control of the system that is currently in place' Also the crimes are selective to each area; there is not a specific list e.g. Criminal Intent only features in 2 postcodes, surely in order to get a broader view each crime should be presented for each postcode. With this in mind, it could be assumed that the evidence provided is selective and used by the writer to prove their point that crime levels are indeed increasing and a strategy is required to ensure that it is controlled. It is persuasive, and because it looks official and it is statistical we are more inclined to believe it and take it at face value. The evidence also fails to provide us with what percentage of the overall crime each crime is. We are therefore led to understand how much it has increased over the time period, but not the actual amount that has occurred. So when looking at Sydney, and seeing that the crime that has increased the most is criminal intent, we assume that this is the biggest problem. But when going further into the document we are told ‘the most common crimes that occur in the City of Sydney are assaults, steal from person, steal from motor vehicle, malicious damage to property and fraud’ (p7, DD208, Course Team, 2010) of which only assault is mentioned in the table showing an increase of 6.3%. Other evidence that is provided within the document is done so in a manner that appears to be a statement but is not backed up by any facts or figures. For example, on p4 of the SCS document it reads, ‘Based on the data for the ten-year period…it is apparent that some crimes have increased, while others have decreased in the city of Sydney’. Also, we are to assume that the house hold survey conducted, which is referred to on p6 of the document is above board, as we have no definitive data apart from the answer to the question ‘What do you like least about your suburb'’. We have not been given access to any other questions were asked in this survey or any of the results that came from it, which leads us to assume that the evidence that has been presented is being manipulated and that some facts are being hidden. Policy Proposals When raising the issues of crime prevention, in turn the social well-being of a community must be addressed. In Objective 2 of the document ‘Tackling complex crime and safety issues in areas of public housing’, the tensions between crime control and social welfare policy are made visible by the community that use public housing are seen to have ‘their own specific community safety needs. The city aims to…address these needs in relation to addressing fear of crime and social exclusion’ (p8 DD208 Course team, 2010). This fear of social exclusion could lead us to believe that those in public housing create a problem community which is stigmatised due to its location and reputation. This is also highlighted in Extract 2.1 (p45, Cochrane & Newman, 2009) where ‘most tenants were single mothers and were unemployed, drug and alcohol misuse and diagnosed mental health problems were common’ among tenants of social housing. Therefore the relationships between the welfare of the tenants and controlling the local criminal behaviour by promoting behavioural change can be seen as entangled. It holds a fine line between ‘us and them’, as it ‘becomes possible to identify both the source of the problem and the means of solving them. ‘Proper’ communities deliver solutions, whereas ‘dysfunctional’ communities work to reinforce and reproduce failure’ (p43-44, Cochrane & Newman, 2009). Breaking this stigma can only be solved in breaking current behaviour patterns. The document addresses that there is a problem in this area and provides initiatives that may create a more positive outlook on the community, but the detail is lacking which could prevent any results being achieved. Objective 3, improving the look and feel of our public spaces (p9, DD208, Course Team, 2010), addresses the installation of CCTV to be used as a deterrent against criminal activity. CCTV in itself raises questions around care and control, some view it as a watchful eye and others see it as intrusion. The installation of CCTV in this instance is to ‘minimise opportunities fir crime and anti-social behaviour and maximise casual surveillance so that people feel safe at all times’. This is also demonstrated in Chapter 4 also illustrates these complex tensions, ‘Common to both elements of situational and social crime prevention is their claim to be both less damaging and more effective than traditional (reactive ‘law and order’) criminal justice approaches’ (p105, Hughes, 2009). Objective 3 continues by giving councils the power to do ‘Community safety audits’ on groups of residents to document issues which may ‘impact negatively on people’s feelings of safety in a designated area’ (p10, DD208, Course Team, 2010). The audit system that is suggested could be viewed again as a fine line between care and control. The management of the audits could be seen as subjective and create solidarity by making the consequences of anti-social behaviour more visible to the public. This is also demonstrated through the example of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 in England and Wales in chapter 4 (p105, Hughes, 2009). It clearly shows anti-social behaviour being managed through orders. If the behaviour continues the consequences will get tighter, if it improves the behaviour is rewarded with more freedom. The main positive that resulted from this act was that the local community created strategies as a special and moral concept, which in turn created a sense of belonging and togetherness but the individuals and groups that had a tendency towards anti-social behaviour were excluded from the community creating more divides. Although this type of behaviour management can be seen as people taking responsibility and being held accountable for their actions, it is also a way of creating data that is measurable which demonstrates the tensions between crime control and social welfare. The strategy recognizes that the criminal justices system is necessary but doesn't always address the issues of why people commit a crime. Objectives 1, 4 and 5 all aim at addressing offending behaviour through social welfare and incentives. Therefore it’s entangled because it aims to address offending before it happens but if it happens the criminal justice system is there to regain social order. A balance must be achieved in order for progress to be achieved. Conclusion The strategy itself has good intentions to improve the current crime problems in Sydney. It understands that in order to get a tighter grip on problematic behaviour can be achieved by gaining a firmer understanding of its community and by creating a more desirable environment will give the residents a better platform to achieve in. The problems come when the strategy itself presents evidence which is not transparent and gives facts and figures that appear to be manipulated to give the reader a false understanding of the issues raised. The solutions to the objectives come across undemanding and not measurable enough to gain firm results that are objective.