Restorative Justice in juvenile delinquency cases

During this session, representatives of the partner cities of the project (Lisbon,

Nice, Riga, Rotterdam, Stuttgart, and Torino) met with Tim Chapman, chairman of the board of the European Forum for Restorative Justice.

City of Lisbon and City of Turin case-studies: Preventing juvenile delinquency and reoffending

Building upon Turin’s and Lisbon’s case-studies, Chapman discussed the case of young offenders who have served time and been released. He points out that detention can often exacerbate the offenders’ problems, especially if they already had strained relationships with school, parents and the community. 

He suggested that, from a restorative perspective, planning for their release should begin as early as possible. It is essential to hold meetings with these individuals before their release to assess the resources and relationships they require for a successful reintegration into the community. Waiting until they are released is not advisable, as they may revert to their previous habits, old friendships, or substance abuse. The reintegration strategy should encompass: 

•  rejoining school
•  establishing guidelines for their return home
•  facilitating employment or training opportunities
•  connecting them with community members.

Chapman underscored the importance of 1) building relationships in the context of the rehabilitation and reintegration of young individuals 2)  the importance of mentors within the community 3) proactive involvement in community activities such as assisting the elderly and 4) rehabilitation programmes that provide young people with opportunities to demonstrate to their families, community and society that they possess underlying goodness despite their delinquent behaviour. 

Drawing from his experience in Northern Ireland, Chapman likened the process to managing a football team: “You can be the best at football, but you need a team, who will you have in your team? Have a team of concerned adults.”

City of Stuttgart: Preventing radicalisation leading to violent extremism 

Chapman provided insights from his experience in Northern Ireland, although the term ‘radicalisation’ has never been used in this context. In Northern Ireland, restorative justice processes focused on the polarised views of offenders involved in political violence. One of the main aspects of the restorative approach to prevent young people from being radicalised was to involve them in non violent community activities.

While there is no one-size-fits-all solution, the restorative approach’s objective was to limit as much as possible the number of individuals being radicalised. Tim Chapman shared his experience of working with people who had been active in terrorist organisations, focusing on helping them to disengage. 

This process involves asking ‘restorative’ questions about the impact of their behaviour on victims, families, and communities. These include: do you think of the victims? Do you see how your behaviour affects your family/community? 

Chapman noted that in European countries, there is a strong tradition of mediation, which has proven effective in various contexts. However, he pointed out that mediation may not always be as effective with young people, as it often revolves around resolving issues related to compensation and payments, which may not be applicable when young individuals lack access to funds.

The ‘young conference’ model

Northern Ireland has introduced the ‘young conference’ model, involving both the young offender and the victim. This approach extends to criminal offences associated with radicalisation, where community members, including elders, contribute by discouraging involvement in violence. Chapman also discussed the use of ‘restorative circles’ in schools, particularly for troubled young individuals who may be experiencing bullying or discrimination, highlighting their usefulness in addressing early signs of radicalisation.

City of Riga: Designing and managing safe public spaces

Regarding the application of restorative approaches to public space safety and public order, Tim Chapman emphasised that anti-social behaviours such as smoking and drinking in public spaces are not criminal issues but rather public health concerns. In these cases, the harm is primarily done by individuals to themselves. 

He suggested that the initial step should involve understanding why many young people engage in smoking and drinking in public areas. Drawing from his personal experience, he mentioned that young individuals often adopt these habits to appear ‘cool’ to their peers, which eventually becomes a habit.

Chapman pointed out that many young people in European societies are growing up experiencing stress and anxiety, leading them to use smoking and drinking as coping mechanisms. 

The Youth in Iceland Strategy

Iceland developed a strategy called Youth in Iceland to address a similar issue of young people engaging in public smoking and drinking, which was more of a nuisance than a criminal activity. Through research, Iceland developed an effective strategy that resulted in a significant reduction of such behaviours.

In the late 1980s, 42% of young people in Iceland were engaging in public smoking and drinking, but by 2016, this number had dropped to just 5%. 

The strategy included changes to laws that banned the purchase by young people under a certain age of cigarettes and alcohol, as well as educational efforts targeting parents through schools and encouraging them to spend quality time with their children. 

Additionally, curfews were implemented, with stricter times for teenagers during the winter months (in the winter, after 10pm for under-16, and after midnight for older ones), and increased recreational opportunities were provided, including vouchers for families to engage in activities together, such as going to the swimming pool.

Youth in Europe supports cities in introducing similar strategies. 

City of Rotterdam: Preventing and reducing trafficking and organised crime

Tim Chapman delved into the challenging issue of working with young people who feel hopeless and indifferent, having nothing to lose. As a former probation officer, he acknowledged the difficulties in dealing with such attitudes and emphasised the need for patience and the establishment of strong relationships.

Chapman theorised that young people who feel that way were not always like that but have become despaired usually because of difficult family circumstances. In his practice, he’s seen how they often grow up feeling ashamed of their family’s involvement in criminal activities, drugs, and addiction. These young individuals may have experienced exclusion from social events, leading them to feel like there is something inherently wrong with them. As a result, they may adopt a defence mechanism of shamelessness to shield themselves from further emotional pain and rejection.

He underscored that the most effective approach in such cases is to have responsible, resilient, and compassionate adults who invest time in understanding these youths and their underlying issues. He emphasised the importance of uncovering what truly matters to these young individuals, which may involve identifying their dreams and interests hidden beneath their tough demeanour.

Gender approach to restorative justice

Regarding the application of a gender perspective in restorative justice, Tim Chapman acknowledged that this is a field that has been little explored so far: “It is an area where we could do a lot better, in terms of how to work with girls differently than with boys,” he said, noting that there are increasing numbers of female offenders. 

He noted that restorative justice has up to now been almost exclusively focused on stopping public crime, but has been “blind” to domestic crime and gender-based violence. However, in this type of violence, women’s organisations do not recommend using restorative justice processes, because they risk empowering the men, rather than the women. He recognised that it is an important area on which restorative justice should focus, i.e., “misogyny, the rape culture, trauma, the inbalance of power, coercive control”. A lot of women could benefit from it, concluded Chapman. 

IcARUS Workshop Testimonial

Following studies in design innovation at Besign, The Sustainable Design School in Nice, Theo Lefevre is currently pursuing his Master’s in Interior Architecture while undertaking an apprenticeship at Dior Perfume headquarters. Holly Bartley is set to complete her Master’s 2 in Research Design this coming year at École Normale Supérieure Paris-Saclay, in collaboration with ENSCI-Les Ateliers, focused on care design. 

They share a deep passion for social innovation, advocate for design as a holistic problem-solving approach and actively participate in discussions and projects aimed at addressing critical societal challenges.

Recently, invited by Efus design expert and member of the IcARUS EAB, Laetitia Wolff, Theo and Holly participated in IcARUS workshops held in Nice and Paris. Today they share their insights gained from these discussions to offer creative input and visual inspiration for the six cities presently involved in developing innovative urban security initiatives. 

Have a look at it HERE.

How can we keep IcARUS momentum going?

As the IcARUS partner cities begin to test their solutions in their local environment, we are already asking ourselves, how the IcARUS methodology can be implemented further in other urban contexts? So that the work carried out over several years can benefit as many cities as possible.

As we know, the end of the IcARUS project will only be the beginning of the deployment of the methodology. We sincerely hope (and work for!) that what we have learned and the tools we have developed will be useful to many other towns and cities as they develop their public policies on urban safety.

So how can we support the transmission of the methodology over time? How can we ensure that other cities can benefit from what we have learned?

That’s the question on our minds at the moment! That’s why, in parallel with the evaluation of the IcARUS methodology, we are working on a training programme for those involved in supporting local authorities, to give them all the elements of the method and a support structure on how to effectively adopt it in public policy.

Our aim is to build a programme that will enable us to train IcARUS ambassadors, experts capable of helping cities to adapt and implement the methodology throughout Europe!

New tool in the making: “Ask for Angela” by city of Nice

In Icarus project, the city of Nice is now implementing the “Ask for Angela” tool in a pilot zone of the town center. This tool consists of a network of solidarity partners who undertake to welcome anyone in a situation of harassment or insecurity in the public space, regardless of their age, gender or condition, day and night. Thanks to the code “Où est Angela?” » and the logo displayed visibly by the partner establishments, people can request support and find a fallback solution or help, without judgement. This system aims to provide a fallback solution and help victims of sexist and sexual harassment in the public space.
When implementing the “Ask for Angela“ tool, the city of Nice had to face new issues as many storekeepers were reluctant to assists a 3-hour victim support training session. Brainstorming sessions were fruitless as a virtual or a paper-based training would not meet the objective of setting up a network of shops committed to reduce street harassment.
The city of Nice finally set up a shorter version of the training: a 90 minutes face-to-face session that will be experimented in real life the 22nd of June at 2:30 PM in the “Maison d’Accueil des Victimes” created by the city of Nice in 2015. This training will be provided by the Prevention Department of the city with the support of representatives from the Municipal Police. This will also be the opportunity to officially launch the “Ask for Angela” campaign in the city.

Teaching young people in Rotterdam to say ‘no’ to easy drug money

First piloted in schools in Rotterdam-Charlois, the ‘Coco’ (Cocaine Collectors) project seeks to teach young people how to say ‘no’ to easy drug money. One of its most original features is that it uses virtual reality to show them what ‘recruiters’ will do to draw them into working in the drug trade.
For Rotterdam, Europe’s leading port of entry for cocaine shipped from South America, teaching the young how to resist being dragged into this trade is a key part of their overall drug prevention policy. The municipality of Rotterdam and the police hope that in this way young people will learn to recognise the false promise of ‘making quick money’.

According to the Centre against Child Trafficking and Human Trafficking (CKM), the number of victims of criminal exploitation is increasing in Rotterdam. So-called ‘extractors’ in particular pose a major problem. These are young people who empty for a fee the containers full of drugs aimed at being sold in the streets. Dozens of ‘extractors’ arrested in recent years come from Charlois. Furthermore, they are being recruited at an increasingly young age: a 14 year-old boy was arrested earlier this year.

Realistic and intense

Young people with VR headsets crisscross the auditorium of De Hef vocational college. A boy puts his hands in the air when he is (virtually) arrested. Young people can make different choices in the VR experience. If they come into contact with dangerous recruiters, they really can’t go back. “I was standing in a square with friends. A man in an expensive car asked me if I wanted to earn money quickly and easily. He showed me a lot of money,” says a student. “Suddenly, as I was in the street, I was pressured with a firearm. Someone standing in front of you with a gun is quite something. It was very realistic. Although I already knew that making money quickly is a bad choice, I can now put myself in the shoes of victims who are recruited by criminals.”

Resistance to crime

After the VR experience, there is room during the three-hour lesson programme to share experiences and feelings. The project is a collaboration between the municipality of Rotterdam, the police, Stichting Jongerenwerk Op Zuid (JOZ), Bureau Sketch, NPRZ, Stichting Citysteward and the schools involved. “Everyone is doing everything they can to keep our young Rotterdam residents from living in crime. With a good analysis after the test, we can also offer this teaching programme to other schools,” said the Uithalers’ Problem project leader, Faye van der Plas de Haan.

The port and the city

The recruitment of young people into the drug trade, although directly linked to criminal activity in the port, affects the nearby city of Rotterdam. Indeed, youngsters are recruited in the city’s residential areas, notably near schools, and via social media. Once they are recruited, they are ruthlessly monitored, and consequences can be dire if they fail in their ‘job’ of emptying containers from drugs destined for the street market. In the words of a police officer, Reinier de Groen, “Reprisals affect not only one youngster and his family, but their entire environment. Think explosions and shootings at night and also in broad daylight”.
The ‘Coco’ training programme is one of the many actions implemented in Rotterdam to counter drug trafficking. “We try to disrupt the process as early as possible and on as many fronts as possible,”’ adds Reinier.

Young people test the VR glasses project ‘Coco’ (Cocaine Collectors).

Photo: Rotterdam police

Obtaining Feedback: A Key Component in Successful Stakeholder Participation

The activities in work package 3 of the IcARUS project are currently focused on tool development. This summer, the cities will present the final version of the developed tools to their civil society partners. In the coming months, tool validation workshops will take place in Lisbon, Nice, Riga, Rotterdam, Stuttgart, Turin. These validation workshops conclude the participatory development phase of the tools and should enable the cities to engage with their stakeholders and communities of interest. The collected feedback will be used in two ways: first, to generally validate the tool and inform the cities’ security strategies and second, for developing criteria for the implementation of the tool. Therefore, these meetings also represent a transition to the tool demonstration phase.

In a joint effort with the University of Salford, the Swiss research institute Idiap, EFUS, and other IcARUS partners, the six cities are each developing a tool in the priority areas of their choice: Lisbon and Turin on preventing juvenile delinquency, Stuttgart on preventing radicalization leading to violent extremism, Riga and Nice on designing and managing safe public spaces, and Rotterdam on preventing and reducing trafficking and organized crime. However, the collaborative approach in tool development is not limited to the IcARUS partners. Each city organized a local kick-off workshop in spring/summer 2022 to which a number of municipal and, most importantly, civil society stakeholders were invited. The goal was to discuss the respective security challenge in the city in more detail and to develop initial proposals for solutions following a design thinking methodology. The results of the workshops laid a first basis, and since then, the cities have been in a process of involving the partners in the tool development. Each city has done this in a different manner according to their needs, pace of progress, and possibilities, such as meetings with individual partners, group discussions, or events to present the design brief for the tool.

The preparation of the upcoming tool validation workshops in each city focuses on obtaining feedback from the participants. Together with the city representatives, Camino prepares these workshops and offers support in the form of training sessions on workshop facilitation. Apart from developing a workshop concept, the practical implementation of the events are planned, strategies for dealing with different forms of feedback are developed and tested.

Obtaining feedback is a key component in successful stakeholder participation and for the further collaboration with these partners in the area of urban security. Obtaining valuable feedback on the implementation of the tool is a necessary step to link the development phase to the demonstration phase within the project. In the IcARUS project, feedback is used for three aims:

–        validating the tool

–        developing criteria for implementation

–        informing the cities’ security strategies.

Dealing with feedback was therefore a central part of the first training session organized by Camino in cooperation with the citizen empowerment organisation MakeSense and the cities. A key takeaway of this first session was: a serious feedback culture does not mean that all suggestions and requests can be met, whether it is about validating the tool or taking it into account in the security strategy. Therefore, it is important for workshop facilitators to be clear and transparent about what will be done with the feedback, what kind of feedback can still be taken into account for the implementation, and how feedback can inform other aspects of the municipal security strategy.

Even if feedback is sought for the validation of the tool, it is crucial that feedback is not collected pro forma, but that it feeds into the further process, e.g. implementation or more generally into the development of the cities’ security concepts. Otherwise, feedback as an approach to participation may be watered down to a form of “particitainment” (Selle 2011):   

“Particitainment” is becoming widespread. Instead of substantial debate in the context of a lively local democracy, citizen participation is merely staged, it only suggests participation in opinion-forming and decision-making and can’t deliver on its promise. In fact, many of the results of these processes have no significant influence on urban development and do not change established dynamics in local politics and administration. More importantly: The inflationary staging of ineffective participation processes risks further promoting disenchantment with politics and planning processes and political apathy.” (Selle 2011, p. 3, own translation)

Ineffective participation may thus lead to a feeling of frustration and rejection of the whole participatory process. Concretely, within the context of the IcARUS project, ineffective participation might diminish acceptance for the tools developed by the project and be a burden for future civil society involvement. If participants had the sense that their opinion was only formally requested, they might end up feeling that their time was wasted. This issue should be considered, as the time factor is one of the barriers to participation in such settings.

However, if feedback on participants’ feelings, opinions and wishes is taken seriously, it is then possible to learn from their experience and encourage engagement and cooperation. This can contribute to strengthening a culture of citizen participation. It is also a positive approach to criticism and a productive way of dealing with failure or disappointment, which in turn has a positive effect on the resilience of cities and on their respective security strategies. This is what the tool validation workshops, and the preparatory processes organised in their run-up, will seek to achieve.

The participation process varies greatly in the 6 cities, which is not surprising. Participative cooperation must be established locally and in view of a specific context, and that takes time.

In addition to these considerations on the importance of communication within the tool validation workshops, another important topic of the first training session was to deal with emotions using the “Emotion Monster Cards”. This was useful for finding out how the city representatives feel about the upcoming workshops and what their expectations are. Next to feeling pressure to meet all of the expectations of their partners or fearing unpredictable obstacles, they are also excited to enter this phase, hoping for constructive feedback. Furthermore, through the participatory approach of tool development in the IcARUS project, the cities seek to strengthen their relationship with their local partners and to build new sustainable collaborations.

“Time and again, experts who oversee citizen participation in various communities, make a puzzling discovery: In one city or district, their offer of participation is met with a lack of interest or tiresome discussions with only a handful of the same ‘regulars’. In the next city or district however, the room is full, the discussions are lively and constructive and lead to useful results for the further planning process. How can this be explained? There are various hypotheses for the causes of these local differences. It is clear that it is not due to social structures (the different experiences are also made in neighbourhoods or cities with similar constituencies), nor is it due to the content or the manner of planning. It is also clear that this question needs to be addressed more systematically. Nevertheless, one aspect is already clear: communication skills and interest in exchange require (positive) experiences. We are thus moving in a circular, or rather spiralled, processes. Out of experience with successful exchange grows a willingness and an interest in further communication.” ¹ (Selle 2011 , p. 16, own translation)

¹Selle, Klaus: Particitainment. Oder beteiligen wir uns zu Tode? PNDonline III/2011, www.planung-neu-denken.de

https://scan.gefuehlsmonster.de/de/

Design Thinking out of the box to tackle complex urban problems

The IcARUS project is using the Design Thinking methodology on the development of tools which respond to local urban security challenges because it is proven to foster more innovative, citizen-friendly solutions to complex urban problems. One of the world’s foremost experts on Design Thinking, Professor Kees Dorst recently met with IcARUS partners during a web conference organised by Efus. 

First conceived in the 1960s by designers seeking to better match customers’ needs and expectations when creating new products, the Design Thinking methodology is now used by private sector organisations all over the world. More recently, it has also gained ground in the public realm, inspiring innovative approaches to policy making. 

A people-centred approach

The core principle of Design Thinking is to approach issues from the perspective of users. Applied to urban development and urban security, it means empathising with people and how they live and use their city, rather than through the mental construct that is, say, ‘social exclusion’, or ‘unemployment rates’. Simplified in the extreme, the idea is to go and listen to the people on the ground rather than being fixed on data. This empathetic approach often leads to discovering factors that do not appear in hard data, which in turn can inspire innovative solutions based on real life.  

Fostering innovative local responses

Such a creative approach adapted to local urban security policy-making and can help local authorities to improve problem definition and understanding of how citizens experience security, which is why IcARUS seeks to disseminate it among European local authorities. Titled How can the design thinking contribute to a more strategic approach to urban security?, the web conference organised by Efus on 28 February, gave the IcARUS project’s partner cities a unique occasion to discuss ‘live’ with world-renowned expert on Design Thinking Professor Kees Dorst, who is Director of the Designing Out Crime Research Centre at the University of Technology Sydney (UTS) (Australia). 

Complex, dynamic and networked problems

In today’s globalised age, complex problems abound – from tensions in urban hotspots through to radicalisation, to the need to care for an ageing population. Drawing on his years of research into design practice and design thinking, Professor Dorst has developed a methodology he calls ‘frame creation’. In this clear, nine-step process, he demonstrates a method that first generates a deeper understanding of these difficult problems, and then reframes them in a way that leads to new solutions that work.

“Today’s problems are so complex, dynamic, and networked that they seem impervious to solution,” he says. “The trusted routines just don’t work anymore. These new types of problems require a completely different response.”¹

 ¹ This quote and the section sub-titled Complex, globalised problems is taken from an article published on University of Technology Sydney’s website, and signed by Jacqueline Middleton: https://www.uts.edu.au/about/faculty-design-architecture-and-building/news/new-thinking-resolves-complex-problems-design

Case studies in Sydney

In Australia, UTS and Professor Dorst have worked with public authorities to solve some of Sydney’s urban problems. During the web conference, he highlighted the case of the Kings Cross nightlife neighbourhood. 

In the early 2010s, it had a bad reputation for alcohol-fuelled violence. The city authorities and police took a repressive response, including ‘lockout’ laws restricting alcohol sales. This led to the closure of some local businesses but didn’t stop antisocial behaviour and more serious problems. 

The city thus decided to partner up with UTS’ Design Out Crime Centre, which took a radically different approach. Using the Design Thinking methodology, they looked at who was partying in Kings Cross at night: just well-meaning young people who could be anybody’s children. The problem was that when thousands of them all got out of bars and nightclub in the wee hours of the night, they had no transport back home, nowhere to sit and sober up, and nowhere to relieve themselves or charge their phone. 

Like a music festival

The solution proposed was to treat the whole Kings Cross neighbourhood like a music festival, i.e., a place where there are large number of intoxicated people, but with more amenities and less incidents. The core aspects of festival management are Distraction (keeping crowds happy) and Extraction (getting them out). 

Based on this analysis, transport services were improved to get people home faster, thus the area less crowded, and thus with less risks of violence flare-ups. Safe spaces manned by volunteers were set up where people could take a break and charge their batteries (both figuratively and literally), and where women could take refuge from sexual harassment. Clear signage was introduced in the whole neighbourhood (signs on the pavement and through lighting) to gently ‘nudge’ partygoers towards the exits and safe areas. 

This approach contributed to significantly pacify Kings Cross for the enjoyment of both partygoers and local residents. It proved so successful that it inspired Sydney’s 17-year plan (2013-2030) to encourage nightlife as an economic opportunity, called OPEN Sydney. 

Co-producing concrete solutions

The IcARUS six partner cities – Lisbon (Portugal), Nice (France), Riga (Latvia), Rotterdam (Netherlands), Stuttgart (Germany) and Turin (Italy) – are currently working on developing pilot projects based on Design Thinking to tackle issues they have identified as a priority in their local context. 

Even though each city has distinct issues and characteristics, meaning that there are no fit-for-all solutions, the experience of Sydney with Design Thinking to solve their nightlife problem can be a source of inspiration. It shows how listening to citizens and thinking out of the box can lead to solutions that really work and don’t need to be overly expensive or complex.  

> Read the IcARUS factsheet on the Design Thinking methodology

> Kees Dorst’s book, Frame Innovation – Create new thinking by design, is published by MIT Press 

 

A Critical Analysis of International and National Legal Frameworks for Urban Security Policies

IcARUS is an EU-funded project that aims to identify innovative ways to implement urban security policies by addressing barriers to their implementation. The project focuses on four priority areas: preventing juvenile delinquency, preventing trafficking and organised crime, managing and designing safe public spaces, and preventing radicalisation leading to violent extremism. To clearly delimit the limits and possibilities of the IcARUS outcomes in ethical and legal terms, Plus Ethics has conducted a legal analysis of the international and European legal frameworks in the sector of crime prevention and urban security, as well as the national legal frameworks of six cities: Nice, Rotterdam, Riga, Stuttgart, Turin, and Lisbon.

To achieve the project’s objectives, the legal report (D6.1) adopted a methodological approach based on the analysis of regulatory frameworks at both the international and national levels. The project analysed the legal instruments available to the law enforcement agencies (LEAs) or municipalities in each of the six cities. The analysis focused on the relevant guidelines, recommendations, resolutions, directives, declarations, rules, protocols, conventions, proposals, opinions, and international codes at the international level. At the national level, the analysis focused on the constitution, criminal code, specific legislation, and other relevant instruments. To identify the specific urban security challenges faced by each city, an online questionnaire was distributed to representatives of each city.

Findings

Firstly, the analysis of the international legal frameworks at the Council of Europe, United Nations, and European Union levels revealed that the most relevant instruments for each of the priority areas are as follows (in quantity of instruments found):

On the other hand, the IcARUS project has collaborated with law enforcement agencies and municipalities in Nice, Rotterdam, Riga, Turin, and Lisbon to analyse legal tools and challenges in preventing conflict and negative uses of public space. Each city has identified its specific concerns related to public safety and urban security.

• Nice is primarily concerned about mass gatherings, incivilities, and increased aggressions against law enforcement officers, and has enacted legislative and regulatory measures to punish antisocial and criminal behaviours in public spaces.

• Rotterdam is also focused on the prevention of violent demonstrations, incivilities, and criminal activity in the online world, and has embraced the idea of administrative orders providing mayors with an instrument to sanction infringements on municipal codes of prohibitions.

• Riga is concerned about public order and public security in public spaces, with a particular interest in prevention of violent demonstrations, mass gatherings and crowds, incivilities, aggression against law enforcement, and protection of public spaces against modern technologies. Latvia has developed strong emphasis on supporting human resilience, with many law enforcement agencies working to guarantee the safety of individuals and society.

• Stuttgart is concerned about radicalisation and terrorism in relation to urban security, with a focus on religious radicalisation, hate speech, and discrimination towards certain groups. Germany has developed comprehensive legislation on this topic, with a recent focus on the problems that hate speech is causing for citizens, due to the rise of right-wing extremism.

• Turin is concerned about juvenile delinquency and crimes in public spaces committed by young people, with a specific interest in the phenomenon of “Baby Gangs.” The tools to be applied for urban security in this context should be oriented towards prevention and reintegration of delinquency by young people and not towards harsh punishment.

• Lisbon is concerned about crime committed in public spaces, in particular the problem of drug use on the streets. While most of the international and supranational legislation on the subject is directly related to drug trafficking itself, there is a lack of extensive legislative development at the national level to alleviate this problem, and the little legislation that does exist is not enforced by local authorities.

To study these topics, the national legal frameworks of the six cities were analyzed to assess the legal options and limitations of various legal tools, including:

• Nice: the Constitution, Criminal Code, and specific laws
• Rotterdam: the Constitution, Municipalities Act, Public Order Act, Police Act, and specific laws
• Riga: the Constitution, Criminal Law, Law on Police, Law on State Border, and specific laws
• Stuttgart: the Constitution, Criminal Code, Police Act, and specific laws
• Turin: the Constitution, Juvenile Code, and specific laws
• Lisbon: the Constitution, Penal Code, Municipalities Code, and specific laws

While each city has specific tools, mechanisms and legislation in place to address their urban security concerns, the main problem is the lack of initiative to implement legal recommendations or indications at the local level. National power should follow up and reinforce local authorities to implement action and prevention plans for crimes of concern to the actors.

Conclusion

The IcARUS legal report provides a critical analysis of the international and national legal frameworks for urban security policies in the six cities involved in the project. The analysis identified the most relevant instruments for each of the priority areas and the legal instruments available to the LEAs or municipalities in each city. The analysis also revealed the specific urban security challenges faced by each city and the legal instruments that are relevant for addressing these challenges. The report is expected to provide a comprehensive understanding of the required legal frameworks for preventive actions at the local level and the policies that are currently in place to prevent further criminal activities.

Including the gender perspective into urban security policies and practices

Including the gender perspective into urban security policies and practices 

How to make cities safer for women, and how to integrate the gender perspective into all aspects of urban security policies and practices? This was the theme of a conference organised (online) by Efus for the IcARUS project, the first of a series of five. 

Main takeaways

• create bonds between women/girls and men/boys and a sense of shared community
• think small: local, small-scale projects have a big impact 
• include the perspective of women in data-collection tools and surveys

The idea that cities should be gender inclusive, i.e., take into account the specific needs of women, but also minority genders, is gaining traction all over the world. The World Bank and the United Nations recently published reports on this issue, and many universities, such as the London School of Economics, and researchers such as the renowned University of Oxford economist Kate Raworth, to name a few, are working on it. 

Among all the aspects of urban life and development that affect women differently than men, security is one of the most prominent. All over the world, women and people from minority genders feel unsafe in some urban places because of the way they are designed and managed. For example, women are more likely to experience sexual harassment and gender-based violence, while men are more vulnerable to violence and robbery. 

Integrating gender into urban security policies

This means that urban security strategies, policies and interventions, as well as their evaluation, should include the gender perspective in order to benefit both women and men and not reinforce inequalities. But how? This was the theme of the first of a series of five web conferences organised by Efus for the IcARUS project between January and September this year. 

Delivered on 11 January, the conference was presented by Barbara Holtmann, Director of Fixed, a non-governmental “feminist organisation with a strong focus on women’s equity and safety” (in their own words) based in Johannesburg, South Africa. She is also an associate expert of Efus’ Women in Cities Initiative (WICI) and a member of the IcARUS Expert Advisory Board.

Rather than an ex-cathedra presentation, it was organised as a questions and answers session with representatives of five IcARUS partner cities: Lisbon, Nice, Riga, Rotterdam, and Stuttgart. (The sixth partner city, Turin, could not be represented at this event). 

Lisbon: how to engage young people? 

Within IcARUS, Lisbon (Portugal) has chosen to work on the issue of juvenile delinquency and has developed a 12-week programme to engage young people aged between 11 and 19 in community safety. How can they also engage them with the gender issue? 

“Even though boys and men are the main cause of insecurity for girls and women, it is important to create a bond between them, a sense of shared community and empathy,” suggested Barbara Holtmann. “To do so, we can first ask girls and boys what security means for them. Also, we must look at what young boys can gain from the empowerment of girls, and how girls can be more empowered.”

Nice: what tools to reduce feelings of insecurity? 

As part of IcARUS, the city of Nice (France) is working on how to improve feelings of insecurity. Research has shown that one factor in such perceptions is the feeling of being cut off from the rest of the city and isolated. At night, women feel more insecure than men. Are there tools to counter such perceptions? 

One interesting avenue is to encourage small, very local projects by women, said Barbara Holtmann. She gave the example of a city in India that gave young local women a disused plot surrounded by buildings, which they converted into a thriving garden. 

There are increasing numbers of mobile apps that help women find shelter and assistance when they feel threatened, in particular at night, such as Ask for Angela or Umay in France. “But the important thing here is that such complementary tools be integrated into a more global strategy against gender-based violence.” 

“What women don’t do in a city because they fear for their safety doesn’t appear in crime statistics, but it’s an interesting way of creating an accountability framework for a municipality.” Barbara Holtmann, Director, Fixed and Associate expert, Efus’ WICI

Riga: improving data on feelings of insecurity

The Riga (Latvia) municipal police wants to better understand citizens’ feelings of insecurity and improve the quality of data they collect. The municipality is thus revamping its data collection system and will regularly gather feedback from citizens. 

Barbara Holtmann suggested including the perspective of women in such tools. Also, an interesting point of view is to identify what makes them feel safe, rather than unsafe. She gave the example of the India-developed mobile application Safetipin, which maps out cities according to women-users’ safety ratings on issues such as public lighting, access, pavement and attendance. 

“What women don’t do in a city because they fear for their safety doesn’t appear in crime statistics, but it’s an interesting way of creating an accountability framework for the municipality. Very often, crimes are the result of things that are beyond the mandate of cities, but here they can actually do something to create an environment conducive to women participating more fully and feeling less insecure.”

Rotterdam: gender and organised crime

One of the most pressing issues facing Rotterdam is organised crime, and the municipality has been working since 2014 on prevention programmes in an industrial park situated on the Spaanse Polder. The municipality is conducting different types of actions there and has set up processes to exchange and work with local stakeholders to prevent the spreading of illegal trafficking and business. How to link the issue of gender with preventing and fighting organised crime? 

“The problem here is that we’re dealing with a business area, not a living one. However, women are also impacted by organised crime, not only as victims but also as family members of people who are engaged in it. So, one line of work is to communicate with mothers, sisters, daughters about the impact of organised crime on their lives, even if they’re not involved with it. This enables you to create another sphere of influence.” 

Stuttgart: finding common ground

As part of IcARUS, the city of Stuttgart is working on the prevention of radicalisation leading to violent extremism, in particular among young people. More broadly, the city seeks to promote a sense of belonging to society among the young. How to also involve them in achieving gender equality?Amongst other initiatives, Stuttgart is contemplating proposing self-defence courses for girls. 

“The problem is that if we train girls to defend themselves, we avoid tackling the main issue, which is that they shouldn’t have to defend themselves in the first place. The real question is rather how to make boys and girls feel they are part of the same group. What’s really important in gender issues is commonalities, rather than focusing on the difference.” > More information on IcARUS on Efus website

Conclusion 

Gender is a crucial cross-cutting issue for IcARUS, and it will continue to be a significant area of focus in the future. With the introduction of WICI, Efus has expanded its expertise and support for gender-based approaches, methods, and tools, and is now providing its members with guidance on how cities and regions can better promote the inclusion of women in local security forces. As we move forward, it is important to prioritize gender-based perspectives and initiatives in the field of security to ensure that our communities are safe and inclusive for all.

IcARUS Consultative Committee of Cities (CCC) interviews

Welcome to the IcARUS Consultative Committee of Cities (CCC) interviews!

The CCC supports and disseminates the implementation of the project by providing practitioners’ perspectives and feedback. As such, it plays a key role in strengthening multi-level governance and local partnerships.

We’re starting this series of interviews with Gian Guido Nobili, Head of the Urban Security and Crime Prevention Unit of the Emilia-Romagna Region and national coordinator of the Italian Forum for Urban Security FISU.

“Local crime prevention needs more resources and professionalism”

What does the Region of Emilia Romagna hope to bring to the IcARUS project?

Gian Guido Nobili: The Emilia-Romagna Region set up its Urban Security and Crime Prevention Unit in 1994. It was the first time that a department was created in an Italian region specifically to deal with issues of urban safety. One of its first projects was Città Sicure (“safe cities”), which was groundbreaking at the time for its originality and the depth of the scientific and theoretic debate it generated. Through Città Sicure, we explored urban security through the prism of politics and culture. We also planned and conducted  research-action activities, as well as projects based on innovative crime prevention methods, training programmes and opportunities to exchange experiences. Furthermore, the project published a periodic journal featuring critical analyses of the activities that were carried out and in-depth coverage of scientific debates on crime prevention. This publication also contributed to disseminating a common terminology on urban security issues. Both Città Sicure and IcARUS were/are broad, in-depth projects that explore a wide range of urban security problems. We thus hope to bring the experience we gained through Città Sicure to our IcARUS partners with a view to provide recommendations to local governments and disseminate information and best practices on innovative approaches to urban security.

What results do you expect from the IcARUS project?

We hope to better understand the social phenomena that are being targeted by local urban security strategies and how crime prevention programmes and other types of interventions and schemes have impacted local communities in different European contexts. Moreover, we are keen to gain more information on phenomena of criminality and on the most suitable strategies to prevent urban violence and decay. In particular, we seek to better understand how urban security strategies affect citizens’ fear of crime and feelings of insecurity, how they can effectively prevent crime, and how they can transform relationships between citizens and public institutions.

What is the added value for the Emilia Romagna Region in being part of the Consultative Committee of Cities (CCC)?

The added value resides in being able to compare practices and exchange expertise between international experts, with the aim of formulating recommendations that will be applicable in our regional context.

What other cooperation opportunities can arise from your involvement in this project?

This project could also facilitate inter-institutional co-ordination and exchanges of information and best practices in order to identify elements that are similar in different cultural or local contexts and can be translated into innovative urban security policies here in the Emilia-Romagna Region.

What inspiration have you gained through the project’s results to date and network events?

The role of local authorities and community actors, including the private sector, in urban security policies is more frequently recognised now than in the past by international and national organisations. Yet, actual progress does not appear to match the stated goals. While local authorities are best placed to identify the needs and potential of the local population, their legal status and financial resources remain limited. The participation and involvement of residents and community groups is still often restricted to a more or less informal consultation and is hindered by instability and a lack of sustainable resources.

What are the main drawbacks that hinder local crime prevention, in your view?

Local governments too rarely employ  real experts, i.e. professional security managers, and safety and security remain by and large an added function given to one or more local civil servants, who thus only deal with these issues a few times a year or only manage the meetings of the local safety and security council. Consequently, the management of safety/security, disorder and crime prevention remains in too many cases a matter for the local police only, as the only professional organisation which is involved in local efforts to strengthen the safety and security of local communities.

We need to provide capable professionals who can successfully deal with local safety/security and crime problems. It is one of the main problems that must be overcome in order to have really innovative urban security policies in Europe.