Crime Prevention Unit

REPORT ON STOCK-TAKE OF ANTI-TAGGING ACTIVITIES IN SELECTED TERRITORIAL AUTHORITIES 2007

Introduction

1. As part of the process of implementing the Government’s Six Point Plan for preventing tagging and graffiti vandalism, the Ministry of Justice, Crime Prevention Unit conducted a stock-take of activity undertaken towards reducing graffiti vandalism within a number of Territorial Authorities. The stock-take period was between 14 May and 15 June 2007.

Executive Summary

2. This report summarises the main findings of a stock-take conducted to examine policies and programmes aimed at reducing graffiti vandalism which were being delivered by Territorial Authorities.

3. The stock-take highlighted a number of issues, including:

• Localised and uneven approaches to combating graffiti vandalism

• The need for a national strategy to combat graffiti vandalism

• The need to better coordinate work across local agencies.

• The value of establishing of a national database

• The need for a more robust enforcement approach

• The importance of anti-graffiti education for communities and organisations

• The Graffiti "Art" versus Tagging debate

• The relationship between truancy and graffiti vandalism

Purpose

4. The purpose of the stock-take was to gather information from Territorial Authorities to inform both the policy development process and the implementation of the Government’s Six Point Plan.

Background

5. The removal of graffiti vandalism is very resource intensive. Damage to private and public property, through graffiti vandalism, can also contribute to community unease and a perception that an area is ‘out of control’. Furthermore, research suggests high levels of graffiti vandalism can lead to an increased fear of crime.

6. The cost of graffiti removal for Territorial Authorities, residents and businesses in the Auckland region alone is estimated to be at least $5 million per annum.

7. While there is awareness among central and local government agencies of the impact of graffiti vandalism on the safety of communities, information on the extent and impact of current central and local government anti-graffiti policies and programmes of is not readily available.

8. The Stock-take Of Anti-Tagging Activities In Selected Territorial Authorities was an attempt to begin to close this information gap by providing an initial scan of the activities being undertaken by some Territorial Authorities to minimise, and respond to, graffiti vandalism.

Stock-Take Methodology

Questionnaire

9. A questionnaire comprising 23 open-ended questions was sent to a group of 20 Territorial Authorities. Responses were received from 17 Territorial Authorities: Auckland, Christchurch, Dunedin, Hamilton, Hastings, Hutt City, Manukau, Napier, New Plymouth, North Shore, Palmerston North, Papakura, Rodney, South Waikato, Tauranga, Waitakere and Wellington.

10. Territorial Authorities were asked to comment on a number of areas related to graffiti vandalism, specifically:

• policies and programmes

• reporting, recording, and removing

• detection, prevention and deterrence

• education

• community work programmes

• enforcement

• other comments

11. Following receipt of their feedback a number of the Territorial Authorities were contacted for clarification regarding aspects of their responses. A copy of the questionnaire is attached at Appendix 1.

Site Visits

12. Site visits were made to four Territorial Authorities in the Auckland region - Papakura, Manukau, Waitakere and Auckland - to discuss, observe and assess some of the activities undertaken by these councils to combat graffiti vandalism.

13. Discussions during the site visits centred on the perceived strengths and weaknesses of activities undertaken to combat graffiti vandalism in these Territorial Authorities.

14. While the Stock-take was being undertaken a forum was organised by the Manukau Beautification Charitable Trust to showcase what was being done in the Auckland area to reduce graffiti vandalism. This forum was attended by representatives from the Ministry of Justice. The forum presented an opportunity for information sharing, problem solving and increased understanding of the complex issues underlying the graffiti vandalism problem.

Summary of Stock-take Findings

15. A number of key themes emerged from the stock-take, namely:

Theme One: A national strategy to combat graffiti vandalism.

• Many Territorial Authorities expressed the view that a national approach was required to combat graffiti vandalism. The perceived advantages in a national approach were:

• Territorial Authorities expressed a preference for pro-active measures implemented by councils and utilities, voluntary compliance by retailers selling implements often associated with graffiti vandalism, and education by Territorial Authorities, schools and communities to address the issue of graffiti vandalism.

• Diverse approaches and attitudes regarding graffiti exist across New Zealand, ranging from councils which allow or encourage graffiti ‘art’ through to those taking a ‘zero tolerance’ stance; this is seen as problematic.

Theme Two: Localised and uneven approach to graffiti vandalism

• There were a wide range of initiatives being undertaken to combat graffiti vandalism across the country. Some initiatives appeared to be producing positive results; others were less successful. Some Territorial Authorities were focusing primarily on graffiti removal with others including additional components, such as educational programmes, as part of their graffiti vandalism reduction measures.

• It was considered to be vital for utilities (national and regional) to be an active participant in any national graffiti vandalism reduction strategy. Territorial Authorities are limited in their ability to remove graffiti vandalism on assets owned by utilities companies. A degree of coordination currently exists between Territorial Authorities and the local branch offices of utilities; however, considerable variance is evident nationally. Increased impetus from head/national offices of utilities towards encouraging, or directing, regional branches to work with Territorial Authorities to address graffiti vandalism would be beneficial.

Theme Three: A zero tolerance approach

• Territorial Authorities reported a need for more active coordination between Territorial Authorities, Police, schools and utilities. Zero tolerance policies, when implemented, need to be supported by all key groups in a community to be effective. The Authorities surveyed expressed the view that graffiti vandals can ‘reign free’ in areas where a zero tolerance policy is not in force. A zero tolerance policy across all Territorial Authorities nationwide would send a strong signal to graffiti vandals and effectively limit their room for manoeuvre between different districts and cities.

Theme Four: A National database

• Territorial Authorities emphasised the need for common ownership of a national database (with capability for photos, offender tracking, trends analysis etc) which could be accessed by all Territorial Authorities. It was thought that a national database would facilitate information sharing on the movement of graffiti vandals, records of ‘tags’ and the production of national and local trends analysis.

• Some Territorial Authorities with graffiti vandalism programmes in place were using databases of their own. The data was not being fully utilised for prediction and prevention of graffiti vandalism and were instead being used as storage devices for information on graffiti vandals that may, at a later date, support a prosecution.

• Under-utilisation of existing databases was linked to the availability of staff resources. The smaller Territorial Authorities do not have the staff or financial resources to purchase databases to manage graffiti vandalism.

• The database in use by the Auckland City Council appeared to offer significant benefits, when compared to those being used by other Territorial Authorities. This database was being considered for use as a model for a regional database in the Auckland Region Graffiti Free Project. A regional database which Territorial Authorities in the Auckland region can collectively use to record and share information would lend added advantage in an effort to combat graffiti vandalism.

Theme Five: Enforcement

• Enforcement was the most common concern expressed by the Territorial Authorities in the stock-take in terms of anti-graffiti vandalism activities. Territorial Authorities took the view that a comprehensive approach to combating graffiti vandalism would not generate the outcomes desired if the existing legal penalties do not provide a sufficient deterrent to prevent the behaviour.

• Territorial Authorities identified the need for a separate offence category created for graffiti vandalism and range of options available for Courts to impose on offenders: increased fines; prison sentences for adult offenders and restorative justice measures.

Theme Six: Education

• Territorial Authorities expressed the view that the level of education regarding graffiti vandalism, and its negative impacts, needed to be strengthened. Some Territorial Authorities did not have education programmes to support their graffiti vandalism eradication efforts. Other Territorial Authorities did have education programmes of varying degrees of success in collaboration with local schools.

• Education to combat graffiti vandalism was seen as not being widespread enough to create a national awareness of the impact this crime has on communities and the need to report it. Territorial Authorities suggested that the Ministry of Education be approached to develop an anti-tagging module for the national education curriculum and to ensure that the national values-based curriculum for schools targets graffiti vandalism.

Theme Seven: Graffiti Art versus Tagging

• Territorial Authorities stated that graffiti can be split into two categories: tagging and art.

• There is a sense that part of the ‘appeal’ of graffiti vandalism to graffiti vandals is the fact that it is illegal. An Ottawa City Council report noted that graffiti vandals typically see themselves as anti-establishment agents, do not respect the law and do not want to work on graffiti legally.

• A number of participating Territorial Authorities had projects or programmes that allowed people to demonstrate their artistic skills in a controlled environment. Graffiti walls were available in some Territorial Authorities for people to engage in graffiti ‘art’.

• Anecdotal evidence from the site visits conducted as part of the Stock take showed that while graffiti art was used in murals (e.g. the graffiti art mural at the Transpower station in Manukau) it was only successful in reducing the incidence of graffiti vandalism in isolated cases. The prevailing opinion among Territorial Authorities appeared to be that encouraging graffiti art by providing sanctioned areas and programmes tends to increase graffiti vandalism.

Theme Eight: Relationship between truancy and graffiti

Conclusion

Appendix 1: Anti-Tagging/Anti-Graffiti Stock-take – Questionnaire

APPENDIX 1

The Ministry of Justice is currently gathering information on tagging/graffiti to support the development of a national anti-tagging/anti-graffiti strategy. This strategy will provide the basis for the Ministry, other departments and ministries, crown entities and Territorial Authorities to coordinate policies and programmes towards agreed national goals.

This stock-take seeks information from Territorial Authorities about their anti-tagging/anti-graffiti policies and programmes.

Territorial Authorities identified for this survey are encouraged to provide as much information as possible that will assist in the formation of a broad picture on current tagging/graffiti and anti-tagging/anti-graffiti activities nationally.

STOCK-TAKE QUESTIONS

Policies and Programmes

• What goals and/or objectives does your territorial authority have in its policy to deal with tagging/graffiti? Can you provide us with a copy of your anti-tagging/anti-graffiti policy?

• How often does your territorial authority review such policies and what consultation processes are involved?

• Using a scale of 1-10, with 1 being the lowest and 10 being the highest, how would you evaluate the effectiveness of your anti-tagging/anti-graffiti policies/programmes? Tell us what is effective about your anti-tagging/anti-graffiti policies/programmes.

• How does your territorial authority report tagging/graffiti? – do you use telephone reporting, local 0800 numbers or other forms of reporting etc?

• How many staff/contracted persons/groups/crews are directly employed in policy and operations to combat tagging/graffiti?

• Are retailers, neighbourhood support groups, schools, police or other organisations involved in the development of your anti-tagging/anti-graffiti policies? If so, describe the way in which they are involved in assisting your territorial authority to prevent tagging/graffiti.

Reporting, Recording and Removing Tagging/Graffiti

• Would the development of a recognisable national 0800 number help your territorial authority to prevent graffiti? Assume that, depending upon the location of the call, a national 0800 number would automatically be re-directed to a local number.

• What mechanisms does your territorial authority rely on to trigger a response to an act of tagging/graffiti vandalism? E.g., community patrols; ratepayers phoning in; retailers complaining; spotting youth at risk and gangs operating in a particular area being associated with a rise in tagging/graffiti vandalism.

• How does your territorial authority record tagging/graffiti. What sort of tools (e.g. photos) or databases are used for this purpose?

• How does your territorial authority remove tagging/graffiti (e.g. clean up kits/equipment). Do you remove all tags within 24 hrs, remove offensive tags as a priority, remove only graffiti that is on public property or TA property, seek permission to remove on private property.

• What is the total annual cost of removing tags for your territorial authority?

• Does your territorial authority use tagging/graffiti clean-up kits to manage your tagging/graffiti problem? Are volunteers involved in clean up teams?

Detection, Prevention and Deterrence

• How has your territorial authority incorporated anti-tagging/anti-graffiti strategies into Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED)?

• What advice/tactics/equipment does your territorial authority provide to assist retailers and residents in target hardening of high risk and frequently tagged sites?

Education

• What local education programmes does your territorial authority or any other local organisation in your territorial area have, that are aimed at reducing tags?

• Tagging/graffiti is often associated with the hip hop culture. How does your local authority or its partnership with other agencies utilise support from hip-hop role models to raise awareness of the negative aspects of tagging/graffiti?

Community Work Programmes

• How does your territorial authority use community work programmes comprising small work parties, entirely (or partially) made up of tagging/graffiti offenders to clean up tagging/graffiti?

• Are community work gangs, which may include tagging/graffiti offenders (convicted or diverted), used to staff your clean up crews? If so, are these programmes operated in partnership with Corrections, Child Youth and Family, Police, schools or any other agency?

Enforcement

• What types of enforcement techniques are used by your territorial authority to detect tagging/graffiti vandalism?

• Is your territorial authority using any type of database or spreadsheet to capture information on tagging/graffiti? If so, what type? Are photos of tags taken?

• How is the information on a database/spreadsheet used to prevent tagging/graffiti?

• Are there any other intelligence gathering systems used to predict and target graffiti/tagging vandalism.

Other Comments

Are there any other aspects of this stock-take on anti-graffiti/anti-tagging that you wish to comment on?