Health Impact Assessment on the draft Hastings District Council

Graffiti Vandalism Strategy

Prepared by: Ana Apatu and Maree Rohleder Hawke’s Bay District Health Board In partnership with Hastings District Council

1

With assistance from Quigley and Watts Ltd

2

Acknowledgements

Maree Rohleder, Health Protection Officer and Ana Apatu, Senior Population Health Advisor

(Hawke’s Bay District Health Board) would like to acknowledge Emma Walsh and Jacqui

Barnes (Hastings District Council) for their willingness to support the health impact

assessment process. Their wealth of knowledge on graffiti issues and the commitment to the

process has been much appreciated.

We would also like to thank the following community members, organisations and other

individuals that gave their time for the stakeholder workshops. Without their feedback we

would not have been able to undertake the Health Impact Assessment.

Safe Hastings Advisory Committee

Hastings District Council Youth Council

Police

Henare O’Keefe Hastings District Council (Councillor)

Rose Smith Hawke’s Bay District Heath Board

Dallas Halbert Graffiti Artist

Taggers/Graffiti Artists

Bert Lincoln Flaxmere Community Patrol

The administration support from Audrey Garrett and Lynn McCowan has also assisted us

greatly in undertaking this HIA.

The Ministry of Health, Health Impact Support Unit Learning by Doing fund, has funded this

Health Impact Assessment and we have appreciated the the support given to us from this unit.

Finally we would also like to thank Rob Quigley, David Driscole, Louise Signal and Velma

McClellan for their assistance and mentoring in undertaking this Health Impact Assessment.

Please note: the graffiti art in this document was produced on paper at our request during the

appraisal workshops in answer to the question – why do you tag?

3

Table of Contents

What Do These Terms Mean In This Report? ................................................. 5

Executive Summary ............................................................................................ 6

History of Engagement ....................................................................................... 9 Background ............................................................................................................................ 9 Health Impact Assessment ................................................................................................... 12

HIA Process Used .............................................................................................. 13 Screening.......................................................................................................................... 13 Scoping/setting the priorities of the HIA ......................................................................... 13 Appraisal .......................................................................................................................... 15 Evaluation......................................................................................................................... 15

Apprasial Findings ............................................................................................ 16 Literature review .................................................................................................................. 16

Wellbeing And Health Pathways Identified In The HIA .............................. 18 Community Profile............................................................................................................... 20 Other Evidence..................................................................................................................... 20

Discussion ........................................................................................................... 20 Reporting and Recording ..................................................................................................... 21 Removal ............................................................................................................................... 24 Prevention............................................................................................................................. 26

Education.......................................................................................................................... 29 Enforcement ..................................................................................................................... 31

Community........................................................................................................................... 35

Recommendations for the Hastings District Council..................................... 38

Appendix One – Screening Report .................................................................. 42

Appendix Two - Scoping Report..................................................................... 45

Appendix Three – Community Profile............................................................ 64

Appendix Four – Literature Review ............................................................... 66

Appendix Five – Safe Hastings Appraisal Committee Workshop ............. 107

Appendix Six – Graffiti Vandalism Workshop Notes ................................. 111

4

Appendix Seven – Key Stakeholders Workshop Notes ............................... 113

Appendix Eight – Police Workshop Tables .................................................. 125

Appendix Nine – Youth Workshop Notes..................................................... 132

Appendix Ten – Newspaper Article............................................................... 133

5

What Do These Terms Mean In This Report? Graffiti Vandalism

Graffiti vandalism is the intentional unlawful defacing of property with writing, markings or

graphics without consent of the occupier, owner or other person in lawful control.

Tagging

Tagging, a form of graffiti vandalism, is the writing of a stylised signature on a wall or other

property and is the most common form of graffiti vandalism in New Zealand.

Graffiti Vandalism Offenders

People who undertake graffiti vandalism.

Graffiti Art

Legally produced graffiti type graphics/art undertaken with permission of the owner or other

person in lawful control.

Graffiti Artists

People who undertake graffiti type graphics/art legally with permission of the owner or other

person in lawful control.

Graffers

A term often used by Graffiti Vandalism Offenders and Graffiti Artists when referring to

themselves.

6

Executive Summary Hastings District Council (HDC) recognises that graffiti is an issue for the district and already

provides significant resources for its removal. Despite these commitments, the Hastings

District Council struggles to make significant progress against graffiti vandalism. The draft

Graffiti Vandalism Strategy has been developed to provide a coordinated approach to graffiti

reduction and provide support for funding applications. The Strategy builds on existing

operations and activities as well as recommending new initiatives and focuses on integrating

the following themes:

Reporting and Recording

Removal

Prevention

Enforcement

Education

Community

The Hastings District Council (HDC) was invited to engage with the Hawke’s Bay District

Health Board (HBDHB) to conduct a Health Impact Assessment (HIA) on the graffiti

vandalism strategy.

Health Impact Assessment is a multidisciplinary approach that investigates the potential public

health and wellbeing outcomes of a proposal. Its aim is to deliver evidence based

recommendations that inform the decision-making process, to maximise gains in health and

wellbeing and to reduce or remove negative impacts or inequalities. HIA uses the broad

definition of health used by the World Health Organization:

“Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely

the absence of disease or infirmity.”

7

The four stages of a typical HIA have been undertaken, drawing together evidence from the

social science literature, community representatives, taggers/graffiti artists, local police,

community organisations and the Council. This rigorous approach has led to the following key

recommendations to the decision makers:

Continue to monitor on a half-yearly basis the Hastings District Council Graffiti

Vandalism Strategy to ensure that the ongoing Stop Tagging our Places (STOP)

research findings/publications are incorporated into the strategy.

Add to the Graffiti Vandalism Strategy: Recommend the development of a crime

prevention through environmental design (CPTED) policy relevant to graffiti.

(Ministry of Justice CPTED guidelines 2008)

Add to the Graffiti Vandalism Strategy: CPTED is taken into account when

undertaking urban design in the Hastings District.

Modify the Graffiti Vandalism Strategy: Develop a graffiti policy statement, including

a process and timeframe for painting out.

Add to Graffiti Vandalism Strategy: “At risk areas” for graffiti vandalism will be

identified and an action plan for long term solutions will be developed for each area.

Add to Graffiti Vandalism Strategy: Community representatives from “at risk areas”

will participate in the decision making process for developing solutions for their areas.

Add to Graffiti Vandalism Strategy: The feasibility of community restorative justice

programmes will be investigated.

Add to Graffiti Vandalism Strategy: Rapid-response to repair damaged murals.

Modify Graffiti Vandalism Strategy: Paint murals on public and commercial buildings

that are commissioned locally and are reflective of the local community. Paint in a

style that reduces the risk of graffiti vandalism.

Add to the Graffiti Vandalism Strategy: Work with the Hawke’s Bay DHB to ensure

the education component adopts the HBDHB health promoting schools model/concept.

Add to Graffiti Vandalism Strategy: Use role models such as local graffiti artists to

work with graffiti vandalism offenders/youth on the effects of graffiti vandalism.

8

Add to Graffiti Vandalism Strategy: Discuss with the police the logistics of getting

communities to report to police any NZ websites that promote graffiti.

Modify Graffiti Vandalism Strategy: Maintain regular liaison with community

constables and the Police Youth Aid section.

Modify Graffiti Vandalism Strategy: Develop a programme to educate graffiti

vandalism offenders by working collaboratively with other agencies. Adopt

frameworks that can support effective interventions that target at risk youth e.g. ‘Tough

is not enough –Getting Smart about Youth Crime (2000) MYD

http://www.myd.govt.nz.

Hawke’s Bay DHB invite HDC staff (particularly those involved in community

development) to joint training initiatives regarding community development, health

promotion and population wellbeing.

Support the Graffiti Vandalism Strategy: Investigate legal tagging walls, especially

given the differing opinion of the STOP strategy conflicting with the evidence from

local graffiti vandalism offenders.

Modify the Graffiti Vandalism Strategy: Trial the promotion of graffiti art initiatives,

and determine if there is evidence of a reduction in graffiti or other benefits.

Update prevention strategy 3.1 ‘Limit access to graffiti instruments’ to incorporate

recent legislative changes.

Add to the Graffiti Vandalism Strategy: Investigate how non-profit organisations who

deal with youth involved in graffiti vandalism can be assisted by Council.

http://www.myd.govt.nz/

9

History of Engagement The Hastings District Council (HDC) was invited to engage with the Hawke’s Bay District

Health Board (HBDHB) to conduct a Health Impact Assessment (HIA) on the Graffiti

Vandalism Strategy. The Hawke’s Bay District Health Board is currently working with local

government bodies to incorporate Health Impact Assessment into their planning processes.

This was also supported by a successful application to the Ministry of Health’s Health Impact

Assessment ‘Learning by Doing fund’ which supports District Health Board’s and council’s to

adopt the tool by engaging ‘experts’ in this area to learn the process. The funding has therefore

enabled us to use Quigley and Watts consultants to facilitate the process and Otago University

to formally evaluate the Health Impact Assessment process. The evaluation report on this HIA

will be available separately to this HIA document and can be obtained by contacting the

authors of this HIA report.

Background The Hastings District Council recognises that graffiti is an issue for this district and already

provides significant resources for its removal. Hastings District Council currently employs

two painters who, among other tasks, remove graffiti from HDC properties, and an

Environment Enhancement Officer who coordinates the Keep Hastings Beautiful (KHB) Trust

efforts to manage the removal of graffiti from private properties.

Despite these commitments, the Hastings District Council struggles to make significant

progress against graffiti vandalism in the district. Graffiti vandalism impacts negatively on

both the social and economic environment of communities.

Between 1 July and 30 September 2008, 384 incidents of graffiti were removed from Council-

owned and private properties. Of these, 59 were new calls recorded through the 0508 NO

GRAFFITI hotline. For a council with a large geographic area but small rating base, the

economic impact on the Hastings District is quite significant. To date, HDC alone has spent

$12,185 this financial year on the removal of graffiti, whilst the KHB Trust has spent another

$12,000. Added to this expenditure are the financial, in-kind and voluntary contributions of

10

businesses, schools and residents who also remove graffiti with the aim of maintaining an

attractive environment.

Of these 384 graffiti incidences, 204 were removed by HDC. Hastings District Council’s

painters also carry out routine maintenance on HDC assets, but are increasingly being

redirected to graffiti removal to cope with the incidence. The commitment to painting out of

graffiti means that other painting jobs, such as maintenance of Hastings District Council’s

housing for the elderly could be deferred. This could require additional staff efforts in

contracting others to do the work or carry a risk that the flats are left untenanted.

The impact of graffiti vandalism on the social environment is equally as great. Vandalism

negatively impacts on the public’s perception of safety, not only for residents, but also for

visitors and tourists. Graffiti vandalism , in particular tagging, presents an unsafe image of a

community as it can symbolise criminal activity, low socio-economics and a community that

lacks pride in its surroundings. It can also encourage other vandalism and thereby lower

property values. It is generally accepted that graffiti vandalism which isn’t cleaned up

immediately encourages more graffiti vandalism.

The Hastings District Council does not have an adopted graffiti vandalism policy and the

previous approach was largely reactive and focussed on removal, rather than reducing the

incidence. If the current approach to graffiti vandalism is further broadened to include

prevention initiatives, it is hoped that the amount of expenditure on graffiti vandalism

removal will stabilise or eventually decrease.

The purpose of the draft Graffiti Vandalism Strategy is to develop a coordinated approach to

the reduction of graffiti vandalism and provide support for funding applications. The primary

objective of the Strategy is to reduce the incidence and presence of graffiti in the Hastings

District. The Strategy focuses on integrating the following themes:

Reporting and Recording

11

Removal

Prevention

Enforcement

Education

Community

The Strategy builds on existing operations and activities as well as recommending new

initiatives.

Both the Council’s Crime Prevention and Central Business Districts’ Safety Plans

acknowledge that reducing graffiti vandalism can not be achieved through removal alone. The

Crime Prevention Plan advocates for a multi-faceted graffiti strategy and both provide

suggestions for proactive initiatives. These initiatives have been incorporated in the Strategy.

The Hastings District Council is not the only council to have experienced this problem.

Manukau City Council (MCC) has developed the Manukau City Council (Control of Graffiti)

Bill as part of a multi-pronged approach against graffiti. MCC recognises that for anti-graffiti

initiatives to be truly effective and sustainable there must be a combination of removal,

prevention, and education and enforcement initiatives.

Early this year, the Government publicly conceded that graffiti is a national issue and

announced the development of the STOP (Stop Tagging Our Place) Strategy which has now

been published. As part of that Strategy some initiatives have been released which include

funds to support local communities and councils in implementing graffiti reduction initiatives.

With central government support, leading examples from other councils and the broadening of

Hastings District Council’s (HDC) Environment Enhancement Officer’s role, HDC is now in a

good position to act holistically in its approach to graffiti.

12

It was decided to undertake a Health Impact Assessment on the draft Graffiti Vandalism

Strategy with the recommendations being given to the Hastings District Council to assist them

in their decision making process. The two key officers involved in writing the draft Strategy

have been involved in the HIA process.

The recommendations from the evaluation report, which is being undertaken by Louise Signal

from the Otago School of Medicine, will be forwarded to the Hawke’s Bay District Health

Board, Hastings District Council and the Ministry of Health to assist when undertaking Health

Impact Assessments in the future.

Health Impact Assessment Health Impact Assessment (HIA) is a multidisciplinary approach that investigates the potential

public health and wellbeing outcomes of a proposal. Its aim is to deliver evidence based

recommendations that inform the decision-making process, to maximise gains in health and

wellbeing and to reduce or remove negative impacts or inequalities. HIA uses the broad

definition of health used by the World Health Organization:

“Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely

the absence of disease or infirmity.”

HIA is an internationally recognised approach that helps to protect and promote community

wellbeing and public health.

The key reasons to undertake a Health Impact Assessment are:

To help policy makers use a sustainable development approach

To assist policy makes meet public health requirements of legislation and policy

direction such as the Local Government Act (2002) and the Land Transport

Management Act (2002)

To help policy-makers incorporate evidence into policy-making

13

To promote cross-sectoral collaboration

To promote a participatory, consultative approach to policy-making

To improve health and wellbeing and reduce inequalities in health

To help policy-makers consider Treaty of Waitangi implications

HIA Process Used The Health Impact Assessment process followed standard methodology as described in the

document “A Guide to Health Impact Assessment: A policy tool for New Zealand”. It is usual

within an HIA to compare one proposed option against another, either comparing a proposal

with business as usual or comparing various proposed options available. In this instance we

compared the status quo with the draft Graffiti Vandalism Strategy developed by the Hastings

District Council

The four key stages in a Health Impact Assessment process are:

Screening Screening is the initial selection process to assess a policy’s suitability for health impact

assessment. The screening for the Graffiti Vandalism HIA was undertaken by a small team

with representatives from Hastings District Council and the Hawke’s Bay District Health

Board. This process showed that it would be appropriate to undertake a HIA on the Graffiti

Vandalism Strategy. See appendix one for the full screening report.

Scoping/setting the priorities of the HIA Scoping highlights the key issues that need to be considered and sets out what will be done in

the HIA. The scoping meeting was held with a group of key people (listed in the

acknowledgements) at the Te Aranga Marae on the 24th July 2008 and was facilitated by

Robert Quigley from Quigley and Watts. A full copy of the scoping report is available in

appendix two.

14

From the scoping meeting the group made the following recommendations about the HIA and

its scope:

Aim

Apply HIA to the draft Graffiti Vandalism Strategy with a view to improving the wellbeing

and health outcomes of people living in the Hastings District.

Objectives

Enhance partnership working between the Hastings District Council and Hawke’s Bay

DHB through shared planning and resourcing.

Assist the Hastings District Council to build on the positive aspects of the strategy and

reduce any unintended negatives impacts and hence develop a well rounded strategy.

To build capacity for Hawke’s Bay District Health Board and Hastings District Council

staff to use HIA in Hawke’s Bay.

To explicitly consider the equity issues of the strategy for:

o Maori o Youth o Males

To support the Hasting District Council’s consultation process with the community

To deliver the findings in a user-friendly manner to both the DHB and the Council

To disseminate the HIA findings into the wider policy arena of all relevant agencies.

Determinants of Wellbeing and Health

It was not considered possible to undertake a Health Impact Assessment on all of the

determinants identified due to the limited time and resources available. The group therefore

decided to focus on the following determinants:

Crime;

Social and cultural connectedness, including leadership;

Visual amenity value and perception of safety.

15

Please Note: Selected examples of the determinants of wellbeing and health are available in

appendix 3 of the scoping report.

Population Groups of Interest

The Scoping Group decided that the population groups that the Health Impact Assessment

should focus on were:

Community (described as a ‘crime against the community’)

Youth (acknowledging youth within a family/whanau context)

Appraisal The aim of this stage is to appraise the draft Strategy’s potential to affect wellbeing and

population health, if the strategy is implemented. This stage also determines what practical

changes can be made to the policy to promote and protect wellbeing and health.

For this Health Impact Assessment several sources of evidence were used to assist in

undertaking the appraisal. These were:

Literature review (undertaken by Quigley and Watts)

Community profile

Interviews with community and key stakeholder groups

Scan of relevant policy and strategy documents.

Evaluation This assesses how the HIA process was undertaken (process evaluation) and the extent to

which the recommendations were taken up by the policy makers (impact evaluation). The

evaluation will be undertaken by the HIA Research Unit at the University of Otago.

16

Apprasial Findings

Literature review The full literature review is available in appendix four. A summary of the literature review is

as follows:

Tagging and graffiti vandalism is widely recognised by non-graffiti vandals (the wider

community) as a negative aspect within neighbourhoods. The wider community relate graffiti

vandalism to crime, disorder and neighbourhood deterioration, (among other negative

perceptions). Those who tag have a different view and use graffiti vandalism as a form of

expression, a way to become part of environments in which they feel excluded, and a form of

contributing to a particular community they identify with.

These opposing views between graffiti vandal offenders and the wider community are

developed and maintained by both parties. The wider community are often unable to

understand or empathise with graffiti culture, and graffiti vandal offenders maintain their

identity through a behaviour which is viewed by the majority of the non-tagging community as

antisocial. This perception of antisocial behaviour is in itself one of the core reasons for the act

of tagging itself, rebellion.

Almost all of the literature published which investigates the relationship between graffiti

vandalism and a selection of issues combines graffiti vandalism with other elements of

neighbourhood deterioration (such as litter, broken windows, signs of crime and violence). The

majority of the literature published is also mainly derived from observational studies, cross

sectional studies, or from perspectives of either graffiti vandal offenders or those involved in

the prevention and reduction of tagging. The value of this evidence needs to be respected as

such. Finally, much of the research that has been published around tagging is prepared by

those who view graffiti vandalism in a negative light, rather than an unbiased approach of two

competing parts of society.

17

Despite these challenges, this review has identified a range of associations between tagging /

graffiti vandalism and; social connectedness, fear, crime, health and wellbeing. In addition, a

range of strategies to prevent and address tagging (as a perceived negative aspect of society).

This review attempts to provide useful information for the further development of the Hastings

District Council Graffiti Vandalism Strategy. It appears the most successful approaches

involve:

A coordinated prevention and treatment approach

Rapid removal of graffiti vandalism (less than 24hours since it was placed)

The use of professional murals to deter tagging

Incorporating graffiti resistant urban design features and surfaces into public spaces

The least effective strategies included:

Additional surveillance (may act as an additional challenge for graffiti vandal

offenders)

Additional police enforcement (tagging is comparatively a low priority for the police,

is difficult to capture and prosecute individuals, and has very low consequences for

individuals)

18

Wellbeing And Health Pathways Identified In The HIA

Greater involvement of community in reporting, patrol and protection

PREVENTION EDUCATION COMMUNITY REPORTING & RECORDING ENFORCEMENT

Provide alternative concepts & ways to express rather

than graffiti vandalism

More public artworks & murals

Better understanding of

graffiti art & respect as an art

form

Increased feeling of acceptance in community for

youth who enjoy graffiti art

INCREASED SOCIAL CONNECTEDNESS, DECREASED CRIME, INCREASED VISUAL AMENITY & SAFETY

Promote & implement education

programmes

Provide community with

graffiti vandalism prevention &

removal advice

Encourage community members to take

ownership of their local area

Encourage members of

community report graffiti vandalism Educating & enforcing

appropriate legislation eg spray cans

Maintain liaison with Council &

Police (& Patrols etc)

Less spray cans available for under

18 year olds

Encourage targeted police

operations

Encourage appropriate & effective retribution for graffiti vandalism

offenders

Less graffiti vandalism

Greater reporting of graffiti

vandalism

More people caught

Path through social & justice

system

Graffiti vandalism offender reform & change of lifestyle

Increase opportunities to sell art works for

income

Solution where youth & family feel

part of the community

GRAFFITI STRATEGY – POSITIVE OUTCOMES

REMOVAL

Rapid/effective paint art

Less graffiti vandalism

More council funds accessible

Create environments that don’t support graffiti vandalism

Less graffiti vandalism

Better “collective efficacy’

Other social activities for

young people

Legal opportunities to develop graffiti

skills

Intervention programme for youth/graffiti

vandalism offenders

Greater sense of civil pride

Diagram 1

PREVENTION EDUCATION REMOVAL REPORTING ENFORCEMENT COMMUNITY

Less effective murals

Murals tagged

Narrow focusUrban designRegeneration

Not considering urban design,

community involvement, litter,

shop fronts, surfaces, greenery

Kids(schools)

Communitymedia

Increase awareness of

graffiti vandalism offenders

Paint out less effective

Negative Perception

outlook

Encourage graffiti

vandalism offenders

Focus on enforcement only

Poor use of money

Path through social justice

system

Increase in graffiti vandalism

offenders caught

Targeted police operations for

graffiti vandalism

Youth feel victimised

More graffiti vandalism Budget blow out

Money from other projects

Cycle of crime/ graffiti not avoided

Maintaining increases criminal

lifestyle

Poor use of Police resource

Criminal caught

Ineffective reporting

Effective reporting

Overwhelmed by reporting

Absence/ineffective strategy

Poor urban space

Decrease collectiveness of

community

Take law into own hands

Loss of confidence in

council strategy

GRAFFITI STRATEGY – NEGATIVE OUTCOMES

DECREASED SOCIAL CONNECTIVENESS, INCREASED CRIME, DECREASED VISUAL AMENITY & SAFETYDiagram 2

19

20

Community Profile The community profile has been obtained from the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board,

Hastings District Council and the Police database and is attached in appendix three.

Other Evidence As part of the evidence that needed to be gathered for this HIA we also looked at the Stop

Tagging Our Place (STOP) strategy which was published by the Ministry of Justice in 2008.

The current legislative changes have also been considered as part of the evidence gathered.

Discussion The relationship between graffiti vandalism and a range of social, health and wellbeing

outcomes has been well publicised. Graffiti vandalism as part of other aspects of

deteriorating neighbourhoods (such as litter, evidence of crime, neglected buildings and

antisocial behaviour) has been linked with decreased physical activity levels increased

perception of fear, increased levels of mortality rates, increased smoking and decreased

sense of community amongst those that do not tag. Graffiti vandalism is often the “end

product” of underlying social issues.

In Aotearoa/New Zealand and internationally there is increasing recognition of the role that

various social, economic, environmental, and political factors play in determining the health

experiences and outcomes for individuals and social groups. These factors include such

determinants as income, employment status, housing, education, social position, and social

exclusion. They can have both direct and indirect impacts on health as well as having

interrelated and cumulative effects over lifetimes.

There is clear evidence of the differential distribution of the above determinants of health

for Maori and non-Maori and they are the known cause of higher rates of death and

disability for Maori.

It is therefore important to concentrate on upstream measures and interventions that impact

on these determinants of wellbeing. Interventions such as this initiative have the potential to

address the needs of rangatahi, particularly those ‘at risk’, by shifting resource allocation to

prevent graffiti vandalism leading to a string of negative consequences for the rangatahi and

the wider community.

The intent of the overall strategy is to prevent these negative impacts which then in turn will

have a significant effect on the social and physical wellbeing of young people within

Hawke’s Bay and the wider community.

The evidence that was gathered for this HIA report is now described under the themes of the

draft Graffiti Vandalism Strategy.

Reporting and Recording The Graffiti Vandalism Strategy has three main goals in relation to reporting and recording

which are:

To develop an internal procedure for the recording of graffiti and the delegation of

removal

o Create a list of all assets on council land showing which ones are privately owned , which ones are council owned and what colour they are painted

o Role responsibilities between the Keep Hastings Beautiful trust and the Council are clearly defined and communicated to the customer support staff

o Ensure adequate information is logged into their database

Encourage members of the community to report graffiti

o Promote the 0508 phone number and the www.nograffiti.co.nz website o Encourage the community to report the specific graffiti vandalism o Ensure council officers record/photograph graffiti vandalism before removing it o Encourage Community Patrols to report new incidences of graffiti vandalism o Encourage HDC Security Patrols to report new incidences of graffiti vandalism

21

http://www.nograffiti.co.nz/

Maintain a graffiti vandalism database

o Develop a graffiti vandalism mapping system o Develop a cohesive graffiti vandalism database

The positive and negative health outcome pathways (diagrams 1 & 2) shows there are five

potential wellbeing impacts from this part of the strategy.

The first wellbeing impact is supported by evidence from both the literature review, STOP

strategy and the appraisal workshops which confirm that rapid reporting if linked to rapid

paint out has shown to be effective in reducing graffiti vandalism. The 0508 NO-

GRAFFITI hotline and website for reporting graffiti vandalism is one method the council

uses for reporting purposes. This pathway shows a positive effective on the wellbeing of the

community with the result of less crime and increased visual amenity and safety.

There is a potential for a negative outcome for wellbeing for reporting as shown by the

second and third impact from the pathways. If reporting is ineffective, resulting in less

effective paint out, there could be a loss of confidence in the Hastings District Council

Graffiti Vandalism Strategy. This would have a negative impact on the determinants (i.e.

decreased social connectives, increased crime and decreased visual amenity and safety).

The pathway also shows that if there was an increased amount of reporting of graffiti

vandalism which overwhelmed the paint out teams that this could potentially have a

negative impact due to the community not seeing a rapid response to its reporting. Without

effective rapid paint out, more graffiti vandalism might occur which subsequently would

have a negative effect on wellbeing. Both of these potential negative pathways highlight the

importance of the current draft Graffiti Vandalism Strategy’s focus on clear internal

procedures for the reporting of graffiti vandalism and the delegation of removal; and the

rapid removal of graffiti vandalism. If these components of the Strategy are implemented

well, they have the potential to prevent these potential negative pathways from occurring

and protect health and wellbeing.

22

Encouraging community participation in graffiti vandalism reporting as shown by another

of the pathways will also lead to more effective reporting and hence this will have a flow on

effect of less graffiti vandalism and more community ownership of the graffiti vandalism

issue. This is supported by evidence from the STOP strategy and the appraisal workshops.

The STOP strategy also highlights that:

“The most effective crime prevention strategies involve communities working together”

As part of its approach to graffiti vandalism the Hastings District Council will photograph

graffiti vandalism and link these to known graffiti vandalism offenders in the region. This

data is routinely shared with police and the police will also provide the statistics to the

HDC. Hastings District Council staff were very knowledgeable about where the graffiti

was occurring, what graffiti vandalism was being seen, and who the graffiti vandalism

belonged to. The fifth pathway which was confirmed by the police appraisal workshop

showed there is a willingness to strengthen relationships between the two organisations and

to continue sharing data to help identify the graffiti vandalism offenders and hence reduce

the incidence of graffiti vandalism. The police in the appraisal workshop indicated that they

do act on this information in their enforcement role. In contrast, the literature review

indicated that due to resource implications police in other jurisdictions have not always been

able to investigate graffiti vandalism and this will be further discussed in the enforcement

section.

The goal of maintaining a graffiti vandalism database is supported by the STOP strategy.

The advent of the internet has removed the geographical boundaries for graffiti vandalism

offenders who can now be part of an online virtual crew incorporating other elements of

their life into their graffiti vandalism. It is recommended by the STOP strategy that any

New Zealand based website promoting graffiti vandalism offences should be reported to the

police. This could be incorporated into any advice that the Hastings District Council

provides about graffiti vandalism.

23

In summary, the evidence shows it is important to continue promoting the 0508 hotline

number and website to encourage rapid reporting. Effective reporting has been found to be

a key requirement for identifying areas which have been vandalised so rapid paint out can

be undertaken. The Hastings District Council needs to ensure that it has strategies to

undertake rapid paint out removal after notification otherwise the benefit of rapid reporting

of graffiti vandalism would be lost and negative outcomes may arise.

Removal The Graffiti Vandalism Strategy has 4 main goals under its objective to decrease the

presence of graffiti vandalism. These are:

Ensure rapid removal of graffiti vandalism from Council properties

o Develop a policy statement o Encourage rapid removal of graffiti vandalism from private properties

Investigate creation of a bylaw or legislation changes to allow council to enter private

property to remove graffiti vandalism

o Ensure “owner approval” forms are accessible o Continue to support the use of Department of Corrections workers for graffiti

vandalism removal

Promote community responsibility towards graffiti vandalism

o Provide the community with clean-up kits o Encourage “adopt - a- spot” for willing community groups o Recommend public building owners remove graffiti vandalism immediately,

particularly off historical buildings

Investigate additional resources for graffiti removal

o Investigate new graffiti vandalism removal products o Investigate the purchase of another van complete with tools/materials o Investigate the utilisation of work and income schemes for employees

The positive and negative outcomes have highlighted there are three pathways for removal

which can affect wellbeing.

24

The first pathway relates to rapid removal of graffiti. The literature review, STOP strategy

and appraisal workshops have all shown there is strong evidence that rapid removal of

graffiti is effective in reducing the incidence of graffiti vandalism.

During the literature review Wallace and Whitehead (1989) emphasised that:

“If new graffiti is not removed quickly more graffiti is likely to be added”

The STOP strategy further explains why the rapid removal of graffiti vandalism is

important:

“Removing graffiti vandalism quickly reduces the likelihood of the offender receiving the

respect from their peers”

This reduction in graffiti vandalism will therefore assist in increasing the positive outcomes

relating to the determinants that we have identified in the scoping exercise. It will also have

an economic positive benefit for the community as the funds that would have been used on

removal of the graffiti vandalism can be diverted into other council projects e.g. painting

elderly flats etc. If the removal of graffiti vandalism is less effective it will lead to the

second and third pathways occurring which have a negative effective on wellbeing. These

pathways show that ineffective removal can cause more graffiti vandalism which can lead to

loss of confidence in the strategy and the perceived poor use of Hastings District Council

finances by the community.

The literature review and the STOP strategy indicate it is necessary for eradication

programmes to have an agreed timeframe for responding to reports. The literature review

revealed that some council's are committed to undertaking removal of graffiti within 24

hours of it occurring as opposed to removal after 24 hours of notification. During some of

our interviews it was revealed that paint out after 24 hours of the graffiti vandalism

occurring could be an issue for this council. The draft Strategy does not have any agreed

timeframes in it for responding to reports.

25

The draft Strategy also includes the provision of paint out kits and usage instructions to

members of the community/businesses to assist in ensuring rapid paint out. This links into

greater participation/ownership by the community. This pathway and the associated effects

on wellbeing will be discussed further in the community section.

Please see the enforcement section for additional comments on the effectiveness, or

otherwise, of rapid paint out.

Prevention The most effective crime prevention/reduction campaigns involve partnerships between

local councils, community organisations, community members such as businesses, sports

clubs, schools, and private individuals-all with a focus with community engagement

ownership and action.

Graffiti vandalism offenders in Hawke’s Bay are known to be predominantly Maori youth

and it is therefore important to concentrate on upstream measures and interventions to

reduce the high rate of criminal conviction and imprisonment in Maori. The experience of

graffiti vandalism for the victims can cause negative outcomes for the determinants which

will lead to the health of the community being adversely affected. The prevention theme

therefore has a key objective to “prevent the incidence of graffiti vandalism” and hence

prevent these negative impacts from occurring.

There are four goals and associated actions under the Prevention theme:

Limit access to graffiti vandalism implements

o Support Central Governments legislative changes Promote and support positive and challenging activities for young people

o Investigate legal graffiti walls o Promote activities that engage and challenge young people o Promote graffiti art initiatives

26

o Create art/mural competitions Utilise Urban Design protocols and Crime Prevention through Environmental Design

(CPTED) principles

o Support the development of a CPTED Policy o Continue to provide close circuit television (CCTV) coverage, regular

monitoring of footage, three-yearly reviews and upgrades of CCTV cameras and

coverage as required

o Provide property owners with CPTED advice ( see Education) o Conduct regular CPTED audits on known graffiti vandalism “hotspots” o Promote regular lighting audits

Reduce the amount of suitable surfaces for graffiti vandalism

o Paint murals of public and commercial buildings o Advise building owners of paint colours that do not encourage graffiti vandalism o Encourage plantings against “hotspot” walls i.e. creepers or prickly bushes o Investigate other graffiti vandalism prevention inventions o Lobby for power boxes to be cleaned regularly or for murals to be painted on

them

o Encourage businesses to paint their logo/advertising on “hotspot” walls

Under the prevention strand there are four pathways which will affect wellbeing. The first

three pathways relate to alternative concepts and ways for graffiti vandalism offenders to

express themselves other than graffiti vandalism. This could be through more public

artworks, murals, legal tagging walls, creating art for income etc. The pathway indicates

that by having these “legal” alternatives it will give a greater understanding of graffiti art

which will flow onto a better acceptance by the community of youth who enjoy graffiti art.

This is in turn will cause a positive wellbeing outcome for the graffiti vandalism offenders

and the community. We found that there was conflicting evidence around this issue. The

literature review revealed that graffiti vandalism by definition needs to be done illegally to

be seen as’ true’. In the graffiti vandalism appraisal workshop we met someone who has

made the transition from being a graffiti vandalism offender to a recognised artist whose

paint spraying artistic skills are now legally and profitably providing him and his family

27

with a regular income. The participants of the workshop also suggested that outlets be

provided for graffers to sell their art.

It was also noted by some of the partipcants of the workshop that “boredom” has been a

contributing factor to them starting graffiti vandalism and this would fit in with them having

“other social activities” which is part of the positive prevention pathway. This could be

explored more with other youth agencies and this is discussed further under the community

theme.

The literature review and the appraisal workshops also highlighted that graffiti vandalism

rarely deface murals, often out of respect for the artists (Cities Project 2004). The STOP

strategy also commented that

“Using urban murals to replace graffiti-vandalism walls works well when the murals are

reflective of the local community”

The literature review discussed that graffiti vandalism offenders also prefer a blank surface

which will contrast with their paint to ensure their graffiti stands out. It also noted that the

variety and contrasting colours of murals makes it difficult for their graffiti to stand out thus

unattractive for abuse.

The use of legal graffiti walls also had conflicting opinion. The STOP strategy stated:

There is little evidence that legal graffiti walls contribute to a reduction in graffiti

vandalism – and the concept doesn’t fit well with the Governments legislative stance on the

sale and possession of spray-paint cans to minors. (STOP strategy).

When discussing legal graffiti walls at the graffiti vandalism appraisal workshops they

mentioned that:

28

Providing “legal walls” for graffing – gives young graffers the opportunities to legally

demonstrate differences between tagging and graffing – opens up positive doors.

In the graffiti appraisal workshops it was also commented that graffiti vandalism provides

an adrenalin rush i.e. when running to escape police/detection and in the literature review

one author (Marsh 2004) noted that graffiti vandalism by definition has to be done illegally

to be seen as “true”.

The use of legal walls is therefore an issue which does need to be considered further by the

Hastings District Council especially given the STOP strategy’s stance on this matter.

The fourth pathway looks at well designed public spaces which can significantly reduce the

crime and antisocial behaviour that takes place there. This links into the positive outcomes

pathway and will have a positive effect on increasing social connectedness, reducing crime

and increasing visual amenity and safety. The STOP strategy encourages the thoughtful use

of crime prevention though environmental design (CPTED) techniques to reduce the

prevalence of graffiti vandalism- including considering the redevelopment of areas already

targeted by graffiti vandalism offenders. CPTED is described in the Hastings District

Council draft Graffiti Vandalism Strategy but given the evidence for its effectiveness it

could be further strengthened in the strategy.

It should be noted that since the draft strategy was written, central government legislation

has now been amended to include several graffiti vandalism-related offences. The key

statues are:

the Summary of Offences Act 1981 as amended in 2008

the Crimes Act 1961, which also contains a graffiti-related offence

Education The education theme of the Hasting District Council’s draft graffiti vandalism strategy has

three main goals.

29

It aims to develop education programmes for young people, graffiti vandalism offenders

themselves, and to work with media and the wider community.

a) Promote and implement education programmes

Develop an education programme utilising the pilot KHB programme as

a basis

Encourage school children to’ adopt a spot’

Develop a programme to educate graffiti vandalism offenders

b) Work with media

Develop a media strategy

Promote the No-Graffiti hotline and website-posters/pamphlets/

newsletters/magnets

Encourage media not to print photos of specific tags

Establish regular columns in existing newsletters (i.e. Outlook,

neighbourhood safety, Hastings City Marketing, business associations)

for graffiti prevention advice

Promote the Environmental Enhancement Office as an advisory contact

Include information pamphlet in clean-up pack

We found four wellbeing and health pathways (positive and negative outcomes – diagram 1

& 2) which relate to education. The first relates to community having information on

graffiti prevention and removal advice. The STOP strategy identifies ‘the ability to foster a

sense of community pride and respect in children and young people – with flow on effects

in reduced graffiti vandalism’. This is also demonstrated by the pathway where graffiti

prevention and removal advice can help to create environments that do not support graffiti

and so reduce the risk of graffiti vandalism, further leading to positive health and wellbeing

outcomes.

However the negative outcome pathway (diagram 2) describes that by increasing the

awareness of graffiti vandalism, this may then lead to an unintended consequence of ‘more

30

graffiti vandalism’. The pathway also highlights that if media continues to create a negative

perception of young people within a particular community setting, this may then have a

detrimental effect i.e. ‘feeling victimised”, and therefore decreased social and cultural

connectedness for the young people and the community.

Another pathway indicates that ‘media showing images of graffit vandalism’ could

encourage graffiti vandalism to occur and hence cause negative outcomes for the

determinants. This has occurred in Hastings in the past with the Hastings District Council

Environment Enhancement Officer noticing increased rates of graffiti vandalism after media

coverage of it. The STOP strategy also states that:

Including unaltered images of graffiti vandalism only serves to give the graffiti vandalism

offender’s wider public recognition

The Graffiti Vandalism Strategy has included this within the draft Strategy. Working with

the media about how they portray images and messages is an important part of the draft

Strategy to prevent negative health and wellbeing outcomes.

The literature review did not highlight any evidence for or against the proposed education

programmes.

To support further understandings of the impact of wellbeing on communities the Hawke’s

Bay District Health Board invited Hastings District Council staff (particularly those

involved in community development) to joint training initiatives regarding community

development, health promotion and population wellbeing. The ‘Health Promoting Schools

Programme’ which is facilitated by the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board can also be an

avenue for working with schools regarding graffiti vandalism issues.

Enforcement The Graffiti Vandalism Strategy has three main components to address enforcement, and

these will have differing impacts on health and wellbeing:

31

a) Maintain liaison between Council and Police

Share weekly reports of problem areas and prolific Graffiti Vandalism

Maintain regular liaison with Community Constables

Support the Police’s Youth Diversion Scheme

b) Encourage targeted police operations

Plan specific operations to target areas of concern

Utilise mobile cameras

Increase community patrols or police presence in the area

c) Encourage appropriate and effective retribution for graffiti vandalism offenders

Support the Government’s proposed new legislation for tougher penalties

Investigate the accreditation process to become an approved organisation for

facilitating community service for convicted graffiti vandalism offenders

Attend Family Group and Restorative Justice Conferences

Provide Police with evidence i.e. photos of graffiti vandalism, disposed spray

cans

Although Maori youth are arrested on average for less severe offences, they are more

frequently referred by the police to the Youth Court for minor offences, rather than directly

for family group conference. This results in more serious outcomes for young Maori and

impacts on other lifelong outcomes such as employment.

Graffiti vandalism offenders in Hawke’s Bay are known to be predominantly Maori youth.

The Crimes Act states that graffiti vandalism is a criminal offence, which can carry a

penalty of up to three months in jail and the first known case of imprisonment for graffiti

vandalism occurred within the Hawke’s Bay region (see appendix eleven). Maori

imprisonment rates adjusted for population size and age structure are more than five and

seven times the rates of non-Maori for males and females respectively.

32

As can be seen in Diagrams 1 and 2, there are four potential wellbeing impacts from this

part of the strategy. Firstly, the literature review and the workshop with the Police describe

that catching offenders is highly resource intensive as offenders must be caught in the act,

so the ability of this to prevent the problem is minimised. Resourcing targeted-graffiti-

operations is an opportunity cost for the police that cannot be overlooked. Secondly,

offenders who are caught are sent into the social (and or criminal) justice systems and

unless effective strategies within these systems are employed, the social, health and

wellbeing outcomes could be more negative than the original crime of graffiti vandalism. If

the path through the social and criminal justice systems is appropriate, then reform for the

graffiti vandalism offendersand good community wellbeing outcomes are achievable

(supported by the literature review and information from the Graffiti Vandalism Workshop).

For example, within the Graffiti Vandalism Workshop, one of the offenders described his

experience of being sent to jail for his significant repeat graffiti offences, and on the face of

his comments it appeared to be effective –

“Tagging – no way. My girlfriend doesn’t want me to go back to jail again”.

The STOP Strategy clearly outlines that a range of processes (for example, a tiered

approach to punishment) for dealing with child and youth offenders is required, and

mentions several times that,

“Graffiti enforcement action should not unnecessarily bring children and young people into

the formal criminal justice system”.

The STOP Strategy describes that 80% of the graffiti vandalism is believed to be carried out

by 20% of offenders, and so it recommends concentrating resources on ‘hardcore’ offenders

to reduce overall graffiti vandalism. Therefore a significant focus of the Graffiti Vandalism

Strategy is required within the social and criminal justice systems, as it appears critical for

ensuring the best outcomes for the offender and community are achieved. Finally,

comments from the Graffiti Vandalism Workshop reflect that detention-based sentences

33

such as jail and juvenile centres also provided an opportunity for the graffiti vandalism

offendersto ‘practice his art 24/7’. Clearly there is not a single ideal solution.

Thirdly, supporting the Governments STOP Strategy via enforcement of appropriate

legislation such as the sale of Spray Cans was reported by most Workshop groups to be

likely to lead to less graffiti vandalism. This outcome would in turn lead to improved

wellbeing for the members of the community. The current Hastings District Council draft

Graffiti Vandalism Strategy does not explicitly link to sale of spray cans and this should be

added to the strategy.

Finally, in the workshop with Police, maintaining liaison between police and council was

believed to heighten reporting of graffiti vandalism and this in turn would probably lead to

greater reporting and increased likelihood of a rapid paint out (and possibly to greater

apprehension of offenders). The STOP Strategy and the literature review both support rapid

paint out as an effective tool for reducing overall graffiti levels, however care is required.

For example, Manukau City Council now spends up to $1 million dollars on seven paint-out

vans and staff, and the STOP Strategy goes on to list the square meterage and tags per

month paint-outed out by the Council. They are not declining. The workshop with the

graffiti vandalism offenders also presented a different view from the STOP Strategy and the

Manukau City Council, where graffiti vandalism offenders described that painting out

‘increased the competitiveness to tag more, faster and higher’ and provided ‘new canvases’.

Therefore paint out should not be seen as the major plank of the Graffiti Strategy and more

permanent solutions for each site should be considered via CPTED and other location

specific solutions.

We uncovered no evidence either for or against the use of mobile cameras or increasing

community patrols/police presence in the area with respect to wellbeing.

34

Community The Graffiti Vandalism Strategy has two goals to encourage community responsibility and

pride. This component will impact on wellbeing, particularly with respect to creating a

greater sense of social and cultural connectedness, and fostering leadership.

a) Build capacity with the community

Maintain advice on the KHB and Hastings District Council website

Encourage home owners and retailers to remove graffiti themselves

immediately

b) Encourage community members to take ownership of their local area

Encourage community groups to report graffiti vandalism

Encourage community clean-up days

Investigate a tidiest street competition

Promote an adopt a street campaign

Support Keep New Zealand Beautiful week

Promote the establishment of Neighbourhood safety groups

One of the positive outcome pathways highlighted the ability for communities to take

ownership of their local area. Becoming more involved with reporting graffiti vandalism,

‘more eyes on the street’ and involvement in generating solutions for their community were

seen as concrete actions for uniting communities and encouraging social interaction. An

example of this came from one of the appraisal workshops, when a graffiti vandalism

offender had been identified at a local facility by community members. As a consequence

the graffiti vandalism offenders’s whole family became involved in patrolling the area to

prevent graffiti vandalism occurring in this area again. By following this pathway, it would

lead to less graffiti vandalism, a decrease in crime, and increased perception of safety. It

would also have the added benefit of potentially taking the pressure off policing for graffiti

related vanadalism and free up resources for dealing with other aspects of police work. The

positive outcome pathways also describe that if more people from the community become

35

involved with identification, removal and patrol of high risk areas, this may lead to a greater

sense of civic pride and positive outcomes on the determinants of health and wellbeing.

The STOP Strategy also emphasises the importance of community engagement.

‘If a community has a problem with graffiti vandalism it is important that everyone in the

community works together to address it’.

Another of the pathways describes the interventions for youth/graffiti vandalism offenders

and a “holistic wrap around approach” which would lead to less graffiti vandalism and

therefore positive outcomes for the determinants. The STOP Strategy also clearly outlines

the importance of interventions for youth to

“…build strengths by teaching new skills, targeting the causes of offending, strengthening

families, and providing comprehensive treatment that addresses all issues leading to

offending”.

This was also described by the Police and youth aid workshop participants, who highlighted

the importance of a ‘wrap around’ approach when dealing with youth at risk and working in

a holistic manner with other agencies and community leaders. As also discussed under the

prevention theme, youth who are bored can start vandalising. The police workshop

highlighted that when they encounter youth who are truant from school, boredom can cause

them to undertake illegal activities e.g. graffiti vandalism. A modification which would

strength the strategy in this area would be to educate graffiti vandalism offenders/youth by

working collaboratively with other agencies and looking at adopting frameworks that can

support effective interventions that target at risk youth e.g. ‘Tough is not enough –Getting

Smart about youth crime (2000) MYD http://www.myd.govt.nz.

The appraisal workshops also highlighted the importance of role models in the community

as a potential catalyst to positive health and wellbeing outcomes. We were fortunate in the

Graffiti Vandalism Workshop to have a reformed graffiti vandalism offender who is now a

36

http://www.myd.govt.nz/

graffiti artist and using his skills to generate a legal income. He has been working with

graffiti vandalism offenders to redirect them onto other legal actives (e.g. graffiti art). The

approach of using a “role model” to work with “at risk” youth could be pursued by the

Hastings District Council to further support the potential positive health and wellbeing

outcomes from this pathway.

The pathway for community members to take ownership of their local areas and hence less

graffiti vandalism etc can also be facilitated by the identification of at risk areas through the

reporting phase. Currently the strategy does not clearly outline how community leaders

would be involved, but it was apparent from the workshops and participants feedback just

how important these community leaders are in creating solutions, not just to address graffiti

vandalism but wider implications of supporting healthy and vibrant communities.

Working with community leaders/representatives in these at risk areas to develop solutions

for their areas would enable the community to help take ownership of the issue. The

addition to the strategy that community leaders, in particular Māori leader from “at risk

areas” will participate in the decision making process for developing action plans for their

areas will strengthen this positive outcome pathway.

It was also discussed at the appraisal workshops that there are some non-profit

organisations/people who are working with at risk youth which include graffiti vandalism

offenders. Some of these organisations/people would appreciate assistance for their work

with youth and it could be useful to explore how the council might be able to provide

assistance/support to these programmes. This also links into the positive outcomes pathway

by encouraging the community to take ownership of their local area.

37

38

Recommendations for the Hastings District Council Themes Recommendation

Reporting and Recording

Removal Prevention Enforcement Education Community

Continue to monitor on a half-yearly basis the Hastings District Council Graffiti Vandalism strategy to ensure that the ongoing STOP research findings/publications are incorporated into the strategy.

√ √ √ √ √ √

Add to the Graffiti Vandalism Strategy: Recommend the development of a crime prevention through environmental design ( CPTED) policy relevant to graffiti. (Ministry of Justice CPTED guidelines 2008)

√ Goal 3.3

Add to the Graffiti Vandalism Strategy: CPTED is taken into account when undertaking urban design in the Hastings District.

√ Goal 3.3

Modify the Graffiti Vandalism Strategy: Develop a graffiti policy statement, including a process and timeframe for painting out.

√ Goal 2.1

Add to Graffiti Vandalism Strategy: “At risk areas” for graffiti vandalism will be identified and long term solutions will be developed for each area.

√ Goal 1.3

√

Themes Recommendation Reporting and Recording

Removal Prevention Enforcement Education Community

Add to Graffiti Vandalism Strategy: Community representatives from “at risk areas” will participate in the decision making process for developing solutions for their areas.

√ Goal 2.3

√ Goal 6.2

Add to Graffiti Vandalism Strategy: The feasibility of community restorative justice programmes will be investigated.

√ √ Goal 4.4

√

Add to Graffiti Vandalism Strategy: A rapid-response to repair damaged murals.

√ Goal 2.4

√ Goal 3.4

Modify Graffiti Vandalism Strategy: Paint murals on public and commercial buildings that are commissioned locally and are reflective of the local community. Paint in a style that reduces the risk of graffiti vandalism.

√ Goal 3.4

Add to the Graffiti Vandalism Strategy: Work with the Hawke’s Bay DHB to ensure the education component adopts the HBDHB health promoting schools model/concept.

√

Add to Graffiti Vandalism Strategy: Use role models such as local graffiti artists to work with graffiti vandalism offenders/youth on the effects of graffiti vandalism.

√ Goal 3.2

√ √

Add to Graffiti Vandalism Strategy: √ √ √

39

Themes Recommendation Reporting and Recording

Removal Prevention Enforcement Education Community

Discuss with the police the logistics of getting communities to report to police any NZ websites that promote graffiti.

Goal 1.2 Goal 4.4 Goal 5.2

Modify Graffiti Vandalism Strategy: Maintain regular liaison with community constables and the Police Youth Aid section.

√ Goal 4.1

Modify Graffiti Vandalism Strategy: Develop a programme to educate graffiti vandalism offenders by working collaboratively with other agencies. Adopt frameworks that can support effective interventions that target at risk youth e.g. ‘Tough is not enough –Getting Smart about Youth Crime (2000) MYD http://www.myd.govt.nz

√ Goal 5.1

Hawke’s Bay DHB invite HDC staff (particularly those involved in community development) to joint training initiatives regarding community development, health promotion and population wellbeing.

√ Goal 5.1

Support the Graffiti Vandalism Strategy: Investigate legal tagging walls, especially given the differing opinion of

√ Goal 3.2

40

http://www.myd.govt.nz/

Themes Recommendation Reporting and Recording

Removal Prevention Enforcement Education Community

the STOP strategy conflicting with the evidence from local graffiti vandalism offenders. Modify the Graffiti Vandalism Strategy: Trial the promotion of graffiti art initiatives, and determine if there is evidence of a reduction in graffiti or other benefits.

√ Goal 3.2

Update prevention strategy 3.1 ‘Limit access to graffiti instruments’ to incorporate recent legislative changes.

√ Goal 3.1

√ Goal 4.4

Add to the Graffiti Vandalism Strategy: Investigate how non-profit organisations who deal with youth involved in graffiti vandalism can be supported by Council.

√ Goal 3.2

√ Goal 6.1 Goal 6.2

41

42

Appendix One – Screening Report

HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT SCREENING FOR THE GRAFFITI STRAGETY

11TH JULY 2008

Background

The Hastings District Council recognises that graffiti is an issue for this district and already provides significant resources for its removal. Council currently employs two painters who, among other tasks, remove graffiti from Council properties, and an Environment Enhancement Officer who coordinates the Keep Hastings Beautiful (KHB) Trust efforts to manage the removal of graffiti from private properties.

Despite these commitments, the Hastings District Council struggles to make significant headway against graffiti vandalism in the district. The Hastings District Council does not have an adopted graffiti policy and the current approach is largely reactive and focussed on removal, rather than reducing the incidence. The Hastings District Council has therefore developed a draft graffiti strategy which will also include prevention initiatives. The purpose of the draft Graffiti Vandalism Strategy is to develop a coordinated approach to graffiti reduction and provide support for funding applications. The primary objective of the Strategy is to reduce the incidence and presence of graffiti in the Hastings District. The Strategy focuses on integrating the following themes:

Reporting and Recording Removal Prevention Enforcement Education Community

This Strategy builds on existing operations and activities as well as recommending new initiatives. The Health Impact Assessment screening was undertaken on this draft graffiti strategy with the following people undertaking the screening: Emma Walsh Hastings District Council Jacqui Barnes Hastings District Council Maree Rohleder Hawke’s Bay District Health Board Ana Apatu Hawke’s Bay District Health Board

Screening Questions Is there potential for positive or negative health impacts from the proposed change? Consider social, cultural and economic impacts on the health and independence of Maori and their whanau. The proposed graffiti strategy has many potential impacts on health and wellbeing. These include:

Taggers in Hawke’s Bay are known to be predominantly Maori youth. The intent of the initiative is to prevent offending. Maori imprisonment rates adjusted for population size and age structure are more than five and seven times the rates of non-Maori for males and females respectively. It is therefore important to concentrate on upstream measures and interventions to reduce the high rate of criminal conviction and imprisonment in Maori. Interventions such as this initiative has the potential to address the needs of rangatahi, particularly those ‘at risk’ by shifting resource allocation to prevent these events occurring. Tagging can also lead onto “harder” crime and vandalism. It has been noted that there is an increase in car break-ins associated with an increase in graffiti. The intent of the overall strategy is to prevent these negative impacts which then in turn will have a significant effect on the social and physical wellbeing of young people within Hawke’s Bay.

Tagging can become addictive and anecdotal evidence indicates it increases after

the taggers have been drinking. Boredom is also a factor in causing people to become taggers. This strategy looks at developing youth art programmes and having public murals etc which have been done by taggers in known “hot spots” for tagging.

The impact of graffiti on the social environment is equally as great. Vandalism

negatively impacts on the public’s perception of safety, not only for residents, but also for visitors and tourists. Some members of the community feel threatened by the taggers e.g. elderly. Graffiti, in particular tagging, presents an unsafe, unsavoury image of a community as it can symbolise gang and criminal activity, low socio-economics and a community that lacks pride in its surroundings. It can also encourage other vandalism and thereby lower property values. It is generally accepted that graffiti which isn’t cleaned up immediately encourages more graffiti.

Graffiti vandalism impacts negatively on the social and economic environment of

communities. Between 1 January and 18 April 2008, 601 incidences of graffiti were removed from Council-owned and private properties. Of these, 121 were new calls recorded through the 0508 NO GRAFFITI hotline. For a council with a large geographic area but small rating base, the economic impact on the Hastings District is quite significant. To date, Council alone has spent $55,312 this

43

financial year on the removal of graffiti, whilst the KHB Trust has spent another $12,000. Added to this expenditure are the financial, in-kind and voluntary contributions of businesses, schools and residents who also remove graffiti with the aim of maintaining an attractive environment.

Of these 601 graffiti incidences, 351 were removed by Council. Council’s

painters also carry out routine maintenance on Council assets, but are increasingly being redirected to graffiti removal to cope with the high levels of incidences. The commitment to the painting out of graffiti means that other painting jobs, such as maintenance of Council’s housing for the elderly, could be deferred. This could require additional staff efforts in contracting others to do the work or carry a risk that the flats are left untenanted.

Is there potential for the proposed policy to increase or decrease existing health inequalities between Maori and non-Maori or other groups? The strategy if implemented well has the potential to reduce inequalities as taggers in Hawke’s Bay are predominately Maori youth. Is there support from policy maker’s involved or political support with the organisation to carry out the HIA? The senior executives of the Hastings District Council fully support the HIA being undertaken and Hastings District Council councillors are involved in the scoping process. Decision Proceed with the HIA

44

Appendix Two - Scoping Report

Scoping Report for the Graffiti Vandalism Strategy Health Impact Assessment

July 2008

Prepared by: Hawke’s Bay District Health Board Hastings District Council With Assistance from: Quigley and Watts Ltd HIA Research Unit at the University of Otago

45

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

WHAT IS HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT?

WHAT UNDERPINS HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT?

OTHER INFORMATION ON HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT

PROJECT CONTEXT

SCOPE OF THE HIA

SCOPING MEETING

OVERVIEW OF THE GRAFFITI VANDALISM STRATEGY

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Aim:

Objectives:

DETERMINANTS OF HEALTH

POPULATIONS AFFECTED

POTENTIAL STAKEHOLDERS

POTENTIAL SOURCES OF EVIDENCE

Literature review

Discussions with the community

Stakeholder list

Community profile

Environmental Policy

PROPOSED METHODOLOGY

Reporting

Evaluation

WHO WILL THE RECOMMENDATIONS BE FOR?

TIMEFRAME

APPENDIX

APPENDIX 1 - AGENDA

APPENDIX 2- EVALUATION

APPENDIX 3 -SELECTED EXAMPLES OF THE DETERMINANTS OF HEALTH AND WELLBEING

46

INTRODUCTION The Hastings District Health Board and Hastings District Council are undertaking a Health Impact Assessment (HIA) on the Graffiti Vandalism Strategy which is being undertaken by the Hastings District Council. The funding for this Health Impact Assessment has been obtained from the Ministry of Health. The purpose of this scoping report is to introduce the concept of HIA and to scope the methodology for the proposed HIA. This will ensure all stakeholders are in agreement with the assessment methodologies. WHAT IS HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT? HIA is a multidisciplinary approach that investigates the potential public health and wellbeing outcomes of a proposal. Its aim is to deliver evidence based recommendations that inform the decision-making process, to maximise gains in health and wellbeing and to reduce or remove negative impacts or inequalities. HIA uses the broad definition of health used by the World Health Organization: “Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.” It does not just consider the absence of disease, which is a very narrow definition of health. Flexible methodologies are used to ensure that the approach best fits with the proposal in question, the resources available, and the local populations affected. HIA is an internationally recognised approach that helps to protect and promote public health and community wellbeing. WHAT UNDERPINS HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT? Public health and wellbeing are not solely determined by the health sector as assumed by many people. The health sector spends the majority of its budget on treating people when they are unwell (making a significant contribution to population wellbeing), but only a very small amount (approximately 2-5% in direct funding channels) is spent on trying to prevent illness. This is mentioned only to illustrate that protecting the health and wellbeing of the population cannot rest with the health sector alone, as the health sector is largely focused on treatment rather than prevention. For this reason HIA largely focuses on the proposals across many sectors and not just health sector proposals. Another reason is that public health and wellbeing are determined by the interplay between individual lifestyle factors, the environment in which we live and the services that we have access to, as well as broad social and economic factors. For example, public health and wellbeing are not determined solely by individual lifestyle factors like smoking, fruit and vegetable intake and/or obesity. There is no doubt that these factors contribute to population health and wellbeing by influencing the risk of developing many diseases, but they are not recognised as the sole determinants of health and wellbeing. The community in which people live, work, play and study is where our illnesses and injuries develop and occur – so for example, homes that are dry and warm, workplaces that are safe, and streets that promote walking and cycling are some of the places where

47

community health and wellbeing are largely determined. These are also critical determinants of health and wellbeing. Overarching the individual and community factors are broader social and economic environments that contribute to wellbeing. For example, these include sound and reliable governance, unemployment rates, general economic conditions, and social support structures. Imagine countries where these things are not in place, and it is easy to see how these factors impact on population health and wellbeing. All of the factors mentioned above are important and are often intertwined. A list of a wide range of determinants of health is attached as Appendix 3. When these determinants of health are affected by a proposal, then health and wellbeing will also be affected, either directly or indirectly. HIA helps to assess how the broader determinants of health are affected by a proposal. OTHER INFORMATION ON HEALTH IMPACT ASSESSMENT Health Impact Assessment can be carried out as an individual study, but is sometimes addressed as part of an integrated assessment with either environmental and/or social assessments. An HIA is best undertaken before a plan is implemented so that measures which will help increase the positive aspects of the project and minimise or avoid any negative impacts can be recommended. Evidence gathered is both quantitative and qualitative and may include literature, expert advice and community participation. Unlike environmental assessments that do not typically identify positive effects of a strategy, health impact assessment includes a focus on identifying and enhancing positive implications. This is particularly helpful when trying to justify the adoption of strategies, or to seek funding. HIA is widely used in many countries throughout the world (particularly in Europe and Canada) and is an established methodology encouraged by the World Health Organization and the European Union. However, Health Impact Assessment is still in its infancy in New Zealand. This is changing rapidly as the Ministry of Heath and the Public Health Advisory Committee have released guidance on carrying out policy-level HIA within New Zealand, the draft Public Health Bill promotes HIA as a tool to improve health within the NZ setting, and the NZ Health Strategy promotes the consideration of health in non-health sector decision making. The Human Rights Commission recommends its use at the strategic level, and government legislation is placing public health higher on the agenda within the transport and local government settings. PROJECT CONTEXT The Hastings District Council recognises that graffiti is an issue for this district and already provides significant resources for its removal. Council currently employs two painters who, among other tasks, remove graffiti from Council properties, and an Environment Enhancement Officer who coordinates the Keep Hastings Beautiful (KHB) Trust efforts to manage the removal of graffiti from private properties.

48

Despite these commitments, the Hastings District Council struggles to make significant headway against graffiti vandalism in the district. Graffiti vandalism impacts negatively on the social and economic environment of communities. Between 1 January and 18 April 2008, 601 incidents of graffiti were removed from Council-owned and private properties. Of these, 121 were new calls recorded through the 0508 NO GRAFFITI hotline. For a council with a large geographic area but small rating base, the economic impact on the Hastings District is quite significant. To date, Council alone has spent $55,312 this financial year on the removal of graffiti, whilst the KHB Trust has spent another $12,000. Added to this expenditure are the financial, in-kind and voluntary contributions of businesses, schools and residents who also remove graffiti with the aim of maintaining an attractive environment. Of these 601 graffiti incidences, 351 were removed by Council. Council’s painters also carry out routine maintenance on Council assets, but are increasingly being redirected to graffiti removal to cope with the incidence. The commitment to painting out of graffiti means that other pa