Graffiti Prev Prog Design - Main Report

Graffiti Vandalism Prevention
Programme Design
Main Report
prepared for
Community Development and Safety Unit, Auckland Council
May 2014

innovate change is a social innovation agency that identifies and implements new and creative ways
to design, deliver and review health and social care programmes, services and policy.
www.innovatechange.co.nz
Auckland Council commissioned innovate change to lead a social innovation process to develop a
new education programme for graffiti vandalism prevention.
Summary - - - - - - 3
Part 1: What We Know
Eleven Key Insights - - - - - 6
Four Case Studies - - - - - 18
Part 2: What Should Happen?
Theory of Change - - - - - 24
Activity 1 Description and Criteria - - - 26
Activity 2 Description and Criteria - - - 29
Measuring Impact - - - - - 34
Appendices
Appendix A: People involved - - - - 36
Appendix B: References - - - - 37
2

Summary
Graffiti is a costly and contentious issue for communities around the country. In recent years, graffiti
vandalism has become less visible in Auckland, yet tagging and other forms of graffiti vandalism remain a
problem in some areas. Graffiti vandalism costs Auckland Council over $5 million annually. Graffiti
vandalism refers to writing, drawing, painting, spraying or etching done without lawful consent on a wall or
other surface in a public space.
innovate change spent two months working with Auckland Council’s Community Development and Safety
Unit to identify and explore effective approaches to graffiti vandalism prevention and education. This work
supports Auckland Council’s vision of a city free of graffiti vandalism.
This project was led by Emma Blomkamp and Simon Harger-Forde, with specialist support and peer review
by Terry Fleming. The project team worked closely with the Community Safety Programme Manager, Brian
Taylor, and other staff within Council. Another 43 people participated in the project through interviews, focus
groups and a co-design workshop.
The project team generated the insights and case studies in this document by reviewing selected literature
and interviewing people who understand, influence and are affected by graffiti in Auckland.
Key insights generated through this process included:
1. Graffiti writing is done mostly but not only by young men
2. There are many reasons to write graffiti, but it’s often a question of identity
3. Educating young people requires a comprehensive approach to behaviour change
4. Educating property owners about graffiti prevention through environmental design principles can work
well.
The analysis of ideas generated through the workshop, the insights and the literature generated the proposed
education programme detailed in this document. The proposed education programme has two main
activities:
1. Communicate simple strategies for property owners and managers to reduce graffiti vandalism.
2. Work with young people to transform graffiti hot spots into safe and vibrant spaces.
3

The activities could be coordinated by a graffiti vandalism prevention education advisor within Council and
delivered by external groups over an initial two year period. These activities would contribute to three key
programme outcomes:
 People who are responsible for property (residential, commercial or public) know what graffiti vandalism is
and ways to prevent it
 Young people have meaningful things to do and ways to express themselves
 Public spaces are safe and vibrant
This project assumes that Auckland Council’s eradication and enforcement of graffiti vandalism will
continue as usual, but that savings and positive community outcomes can be achieved through enhancing
evidence-informed, educational approaches to graffiti vandalism prevention.
To successfully adopt this programme, Auckland Council would firstly need to communicate this new
approach to key stakeholders and decide how it would manage the programme. Key first steps in programme
implementation would include identifying neighbourhood ‘hot spot’ areas for focus and beginning to collect
baseline data. A range of other considerations are set forth in the discussion document that accompanies this
report.
Process
innovate change undertook a four-phase social innovation process between February and April 2014. In
stage one: questioning, we identified what is already known about graffiti in Auckland and explored
different approaches to graffiti prevention. As well as gathering information on current Auckland Council
graffiti vandalism prevention work and relevant policies, we conducted a targeted review of evidence and
identified potential case studies and project participants. The key questions we sought to answer were:
 What educational initiatives work to prevent graffiti vandalism?
 What doesn’t work?
 What don’t we know?
In stage two: understanding, we tested the relevance of insights and evidence from the literature with
individuals and groups who understand, influence and are affected by graffiti in Auckland. We conducted 13
individual interviews and three group interviews. These interviews provided further insights into graffiti
culture, community safety, vandalism prevention, public art, and youth and community education.
4

In stage three: designing, we prepared and facilitated an interactive workshop with a group of co-designers
to explore ideas and insights that could inform a graffiti vandalism prevention education
programme. By the end of the full-day, high energy design workshop, this group of 12 Council staff,
experts and creative thinkers generated potential outcomes, activities and success factors.
In stage four: refining, we analysed the evidence and ideas generated, and distilled them to develop
the programme components and advice presented and discussed in this report and its accompanying
documents. This stage included peer review by Terry Fleming and discussions with key leaders in
Council to validate and refine the theory of change.
Deliverables
Auckland Council and innovate change agreed to these four deliverables for this project:
1. key insights and summary from targeted review of evidence
2. a draft theory of change and/or guiding principles for a new graffiti prevention programme
3. possible success factors for a new graffiti prevention education programme
4. advice on practical issues relating to programme management and implementation (e.g. possible
short and long term activities, geographic equity challenges, staged programme implementation
starting with interventions with good evidence base, a possible innovation process, assessing
impact, criteria for funding, effectiveness criteria).
This Document
This document is the full report on this process and details the proposed education programme that
was designed as a result of this project. It is one of four document outputs. The other documents
include a Frequently Asked Questions and Future Focused Scenarios document; a PowerPoint
presentation (for Council staff use) and the insights and case studies as a stand-alone document.
5

Part 1: What we Know
Eleven Key Insights
6

1. Rapidly removing graffiti vandalism
reduces graffiti, but requires consistent effort
As a result of Auckland Council rapidly
removing graffiti vandalism and
actively enforcing the law, graffiti is
much less visible in greater Auckland
than it was 15 years ago.
An area that has been tagged once is
more likely to be tagged again, but this
can be avoided by quickly removing
the graffiti. Rapidly removing graffiti
reduces the likelihood of the offender
receiving recognition from their peers.
Eradication can therefore demotivate
graffiti writers. It can, however, result
in graffiti writers doing quicker tags
and using stickers, rather than taking
the time to create more elaborate
artwork.
Rapid removal of graffiti vandalism can
be effective at reducing graffiti, but it is
not a systemic approach. It requires
sustained effort, ongoing investment
and complementary prevention
strategies.
“Our success revolves around getting it
out straight away.. Don’t allow [graffiti
writers] the mana. So now it’s not worth
the bother [for them].”
7

2. Of the different types of graffiti writing,
tagging is the biggest problem in Auckland
There are four main types of graffiti
writing, all found to a varying extent in
Auckland: conventional, political, gang-related
and tagging. Conventional or
bathroom graffiti includes the etching
of names into desks, doors or walls, and
is found in schools, public toilets and
parks. Political or ideological graffiti
can be seen as inevitable or important
for democratic reasons. Gang-related
territorial markings are the most
concerning in terms of safety, but are
likely done by young prospects rather
than patched gang members.
Hip hop style graffiti, or tagging, is the
most common type of graffiti in
Auckland. Originating in New York in
the 1970s, it involves writing a simple,
stylised name or signature in public,
often repeatedly and often using spray
paint. Markers and etchers are also
common. In Auckland, tagging is often
found along the railway line and on
vacant, industrial buildings and other
types of private and public property.
“There are different worlds here, and you’d
need to have a deep understanding of them
to design a response.”
8

3. Graffiti writing is done mostly but not only
by young men
Most graffiti vandalism is done by
young men aged 13 to 23. Some
younger and older people, including
employed adults, girls and women, are
also known to write and paint graffiti.
Hip hop style graffiti writers are part of
an international sub culture and come
from a range of social, cultural and
economic backgrounds.
Many young people do minor
occasional graffiti and a small number
do much more.
Some young people go through a phase
of tagging. For others, belonging to this
sub culture is an important part of
their identity. Some hone their skills
and become street artists; others do
not.
Those who most repeat graffiti
vandalism are typically young men
who lack positive connections with
education, work or family.
“I’m 37 and some of my
peers still tag.”
9

4. There are many reasons to write graffiti,
but it’s often a question of identity
There is no single reason why people
are involved in graffiti vandalism, but
most graffiti writers are not primarily
motivated to cause harm or damage.
For many, graffiti provides a means of
self-expression and a sense of
belonging.
Key motivations for tagging include:
• to be seen, noticed or recognised
(for fame, respect, visibility or
credibility)
• the thrill of illicit activity, or to
combat boredom (for excitement,
challenge)
• to express creative talent (for pride,
pleasure, creativity or achievement)
• to fit in with a ‘crew’, peer pressure,
or to combat experiences of being
excluded
• to claim or enliven space, or to
exercise some control over the
environment.
“I really enjoyed doing it so I didn’t
stop [even after I got caught and] I
had to do 100 hours of community
service.”
10

5. An extreme reaction to graffiti vandalism is
problematic
Some people call for ‘zero tolerance’ for
graffiti. They suggest we need to
educate the public not to accept any
kind of graffiti. According to the ‘broken
windows’ theory, minor signs of disorder,
like graffiti, invite more serious forms of
crime and can have disastrous
consequences for a city. However,
researchers have not found strong
evidence to support the theory that
graffiti leads to serious crime.
At the other end of the tolerance
spectrum, graffiti is seen as inevitable in
a modern city. Graffiti has existed ever
since humans first etched images on the
walls of caves. Prohibition simply does
not work. Allowing graffiti writers to tag
or draw whatever they want all over
Auckland is not an acceptable outcome
for most people, though.
In between these polar extremes are
more balanced and evidence-based
responses that allow people to express
themselves through legal graffiti
without permitting vandalism.
“You’ll never stop graffiti but
you can restrict it.”
11

6. Applying principles of environmental
design can prevent graffiti in certain spaces
There is a large and growing body of
research that suggests crime
prevention through environmental
design is a pragmatic and effective
approach to prevent vandalism and
other crime in particular spaces.
Applying principles of environmental
design to create safe, vibrant spaces
can deter people from damaging
property in these places. The potential
for graffiti can be further reduced by
creating surfaces and modifying
settings so that graffiti writers do not
perceive a wall or space as an empty
and inviting “blank canvas” waiting to
be filled. Practical examples include
planting trees or bushes in front of a
fence or wall, installing good lighting
and wall murals.
To be most effective, this approach
needs to involve multiple stakeholder
groups and incorporate social,
environmental and community
development strategies.
“Stop building solid
fences and walkways
between cul de sacs.”
12

7. Educating property owners about graffiti
removal and prevention can work well
Auckland Council already provides
information for property owners and
other community members about:
• how to prevent graffiti (e.g. through
lighting, painting and planting),
• how to report graffiti, and
• the importance of rapid removal
Best practice from the United States
and United Kingdom suggests that this
can be effective as part of a broader
strategy to prevent graffiti vandalism.
It can also be combined with assistance
with planting, graffiti proof paint or
graffiti removal, and education about
crime prevention through
environmental design.
In Auckland and other cities, some
property owners have engaged street
artists to beautify and enliven their
environment. There is scope to
improve property owners’
understanding of the value of art
projects for graffiti vandalism
prevention and how they can work
with street artists.
“We need guidelines for businesses or
building owners and artists to negotiate
together. How would an artist talk to a
building owner to get permission? How
could building owners see their boring
walls as potential canvases for interesting
art?”
13

8. Educating young people requires a
comprehensive approach to behaviour change
A conventional approach to graffiti
prevention is to run school-based
programmes to educate young people
about the negative impacts of graffiti
vandalism. However, people often
overestimate the benefits of these
programmes. Rigorous studies show
educational programmes for young
people which focus on information
about harm or use scare tactics are often
ineffective or counter-productive.
Similarly, one off educational sessions in
schools are unlikely to lead to positive
behaviour change
Experience from other fields has shown
that educational approaches to reduce
problematic behaviour can be effective
where these form part of an integrated
and comprehensive approach and are
centered on positive relationships.
Educational components delivered by a
trusted and known adult are more likely
to be effective. The target group,
behaviour change goal and behaviour
change method also need to be well
understood and clearly defined.
“Telling youth not to do something will
only encourage them.”
14

9. Legal graffiti walls do not usually appear to
prevent graffiti vandalism
Some communities have created
graffiti walls where anyone can legally
apply graffiti at any time. The idea is
that if you provide an outlet for young
people to write graffiti publicly, they
might “get it out of their system”.
Despite the arguments that permitted
sites would resolve or ease the problem
of graffiti vandalism, most of the
evidence does not support this view. If
these sites are unsupervised, they may
not be safe spaces for young people to
gather and develop creative skills.
Graffiti has sometimes spread out into
surrounding areas of legal graffiti
walls.
This approach does not seem to
address important motivations for
graffiti writing such as the appeal of
illicit graffiti and the wish to claim
space or have a voice in the city.
“We had free walls in the late 90s. It
went well until West Auckland came
over and wanted to add their part… It
went to custard then the
neighbourhood complained.”
15

10. Urban art projects can prevent graffiti
vandalism in certain areas for a limited time
As well as improving an urban
environment, street art projects can
address graffiti vandalism. Artwork is
less likely to be damaged by graffiti
vandals if they know and respect the
people who have created it. Engaging
street artists and young people from
the local community is therefore key.
This can also mean community
members take ownership of the area,
maintain the artwork and manage any
vandalism. Murals that do not include
participatory processes or exclude the
values and input of those involved with
graffiti may be less effective.
There are many one-off case studies
and best practice examples but little
formal evidence of the effectiveness of
public art for preventing graffiti
vandalism. Projects like council-commissioned
murals can be complex,
expensive and require a long-term
approach. They usually only remain
tag-free for a certain amount of time
(e.g. six months).
“Walls with artwork don’t get tagged
as often”
16

11. Young graffiti writers can be offered an
alternative outlet for creative expression
Graffiti vandalism might be prevented
by providing writers with an alternative
way to express their identity, feel
connected to others, be recognised for
their talents and have a voice in the
community. Efforts to engage young
people in education or meaningful
activities are likely to have a positive
effect, especially if they offer creative
skill development in connection with
hip hop culture. To be most effective,
programmes should take a positive
youth development approach – this
means focusing on young people’s
strengths, positive relationships,
participation and empowerment.
A number of participatory mural
projects taking a youth development
approach have been completed,
although there has been little formal
evaluation of their impact. Existing
levels of creative talent and youth
leadership in Auckland suggest this
approach has great potential. It would
require significant investment.
“You need to empower the people who
are the problem to come up with the
solution.”
17

Part 1: What we Know
Four Case Studies
18

Case Study 1: Youth Development Approach
to Street Art
In Wellington, from 2011 to 2013, over 60
young people designed and painted public
artwork as part of a youth services
programme run by BGI. The voluntary
participants were predominantly young
Māori and Pacific Island men
disengaged from education, many of whom
had been known to tag.
Taking a strengths-based, empowering and
participatory approach, the programme
fostered a strong group culture, creative skill
development, and positive identities and
relationships. It empowered young people to
have a constructive voice in the community
through the artworks, while maintaining a
persistent intolerance for vandalism.
Participants came to see tagging as immature
and inferior, and the vast majority stopped
writing graffiti illegally.
Key success factors in the project were: its
positive youth development approach; strong
co-facilitation by a street artist, whom the
young people respected, and a skilled and
experienced youth worker; the regular
structure of weekly art workshops; strong
partnerships with Council, local businesses
and other community/youth organisations;
and positive reporting by local media on
significant mural projects.
Photo credit: Rod Baxter, BGI

Case Study 2: Community and Youth Led
Approach to Graffiti Prevention
In 2004, the City of Vista threatened to close
its skatepark because of problems with
graffiti and other kinds of vandalism, which
were costing the city around $10,000 a year. A
group of local young people and their parents
volunteered to keep the Vista Skate Park
clean if the City would keep it open. The
young people formed “skate and bike watch
groups” to take charge of the park.
Seven months later, there had been only two
minor acts of vandalism at the park and the
City spent half as much on skatepark
maintenance and supervision the following
year. Within a few years, however, the council
reported increased problems at the park and
suggested that the presence of city
supervisors seemed to be aggravating
retaliatory acts of vandalism.
A key learning from this case study is that
community ownership and informal
surveillance of a public space where young
people enjoy spending time can be more
effective for graffiti vandalism prevention
than an authoritative approach focusing on
apprehension and punishment.
20
Photo credit: https://www.flickr.com/photos/chrisschoenbohm/8569086980/

Case Study 3: Youth Participation in Creative
Place-Based Projects
Auckland Council’s Arts and Culture team
has proposed collaborating with The Roots
Creative Entrepreneurs in a hot spot area as
part of a creative approach to graffiti
vandalism education prevention. The Roots
are an Auckland-based collective that aims to
inspire the next generation through creative
opportunities in communities, with a
particular focus on sustainability and South
Pacific arts.
Although their past projects have not been
graffiti-focused, the work of The Roots could
easily contribute to graffiti vandalism
prevention outcomes. The Roots started with
a project that involved building sculptures
from thousands of bottles with high school
student ‘tribes’ at Otara Town Centre in South
Auckland. Since then, the collective has
worked with young people and urban
professionals on a range of sustainable art
projects, including eco-villages at Pasifika and
the Garden of Avondale at Rosebank School.
The Roots have recently been working on a
programme supported by the Waitemata
Local Board, which engaged local high school
students in a collaborative and experimental
endeavour to create sustainably designed
sculptures in Albert Park.
21
Photo credit: The Roots

Case Study 4: Property Owners and Street
Artists Working Together
Graffiti vandalism has been an ongoing
problem for the Bhana family, who have a
store on Ponsonby Road. Their alleyway was
getting tagged a lot, so the family was happy
when some Cut Collective artists proposed to
paint their own design there in 2006,
especially as they did not ask for any payment.
For several years, the artists maintained the
walls, returning to paint out the odd tag and
evolving the work over time. Harry Bhana told
us, “On those particular walls, there was less
tagging. Maybe taggers know who they are –
the [artists] always sign off their work. The
odd one still scrawls something, but it’s
nowhere near as bad as a bare wall.”
The artists have not repainted the alleyway for
around 18 months now, because they have
been busy with other commitments, and
graffiti vandalism has reappeared. As one of
the artists told us, “Some kids have tagged it
now.”
This case study demonstrates the great
potential for property owners and street
artists to work together on beautifying their
property and protecting it from graffiti
vandalism, but this requires a connection and
informal agreement to be made between the
two parties. Importantly, maintaining the
artwork requires ongoing effort.
Photo credit:
http://juliadub.com/2012/07/10/and-finally-some-taken-by-me/#jp-carousel-3521/

Part 2: What Should Happen?
A Graffiti Vandalism Prevention
Education Programme for Auckland
23

Auckland Council has a vision that communities and visitors enjoy a city free of graffiti vandalism.
Alongside its eradication and enforcement activities, Auckland Council can further reduce the negative
impacts of graffiti vandalism by implementing an educational approach to prevention. Focusing on
graffiti vandalism prevention through education, the proposed programme builds on the evidence
analysed, insights gathered and ideas tested during the first three phases of the project.
This section outlines the theory of change underpinning the proposed programme. It presents the
principles, outcomes, activities, criteria, evaluation questions and indicators of success. The following
page presents key elements of the theory of change in an overview diagram.
Principles of an educational approach to graffiti vandalism prevention
 Prevention focus (reducing opportunities and drivers for graffiti vandalism rather than focusing on
removal, apprehension or punishment. Eradication and enforcement are important complementary
activities, but not the focus of the education programme)
 Evidence-informed (does not include interventions not supported by evidence; projects are
documented and evaluated to grow evidence base; learnings and success stories are shared)
 Education through participatory learning and doing
 Neighbourhood-focused and place-based
 Young people’s strengths and participation are valued
 Sociocultural awareness (social and cultural aspects of graffiti are understood)
 Good value for resources.
24
Theory of Change

Auckland communities and visitors enjoy a city free of graffiti vandalism
 Sustainable, significant and measurable reductions in graffiti vandalism in targeted areas
 Improved quality of services that are cost effective and provide good value for Council’s investment
 Council and its partners working collaboratively and achieving beneficial graffiti vandalism outcomes
 Communities and visitors experiencing an environment where the negative impacts of graffiti vandalism do not
Evaluation Questions
How will we know we’ve
got there?
1. Communicate simple strategies for property
owners and managers to reduce graffiti vandalism
2. Work with young people to transform graffiti hot
spots into safe and vibrant spaces
exist or are significantly reduced
1. Do property owners and key partners (e.g. transport agencies, utilities, eradication
contractors) know the council provides information about graffiti and how to prevent
graffiti vandalism?
2. Does this information help property owners, partners and council staff decide what action
to take?
3. How many people access this information?
4. How many people are involved (in different ways, which age and population groups)?
5. Are more people using the selected public spaces?
6. Have perceptions of safety and vibrancy in these areas improved?
7. How much graffiti vandalism in immediate vicinity of programme area?
8. Did the young people involved have a meaningful experience?
9. What other benefits were achieved (e.g. health, community connections)?
Activities
How will we make this
happen
1.Residential, commercial or public (including council) property
owners and managers/caretakers
2.Young people who write graffiti
3.Local community members
1. People who are responsible for property
(residential, commercial or public) know what
graffiti vandalism is and ways to prevent it
2. Young people have meaningful things to do and
ways to express themselves
3. Public spaces are safe and vibrant
Target Audiences
Who are we seeking to
influence and benefit?
Programme Outcomes
What benefits are we
seeking to achieve?
Graffiti Vandalism Prevention
Education Programme: Theory of Change

Programme Activity 1: Communicate simple strategies for property owners and managers
to reduce graffiti vandalism
This activity contributes to the outcome: People who are responsible for property (residential,
commercial or public) know what graffiti vandalism is and ways to prevent it.
People who own and/or look after private and public property have an important role to play in graffiti
vandalism prevention. Council can encourage property owners, managers and caretakers to reduce
graffiti vandalism by communicating simple strategies that people can carry out on their own property.
This approach builds upon the Council’s strong emphasis on the need for rapid removal of graffiti and
growing understanding of crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED). It complements
existing work by communicating ways to prevent graffiti vandalism from occurring in the first place.
An effective communications strategy, dissemination plan and engaging materials would help key staff
in Council and the wider community to gain a better understanding of what graffiti vandalism is, why it
happens, and what they can do about it.
Target audience
The target audience for the communications activity is people who are responsible for property that is
susceptible to graffiti vandalism. The core target audience should be the owners or caretakers of
property where graffiti is particularly problematic, notably commercial and public property. This core
group includes Council staff, contractors and employees of key partner organisations, such as utility
companies and transport agencies. The wider audience includes homeowners, leaseholders and
property investors.
26
Communications Activity

Change goal
The goal of this activity is to get property owners and caretakers to take action to prevent graffiti
vandalism on the property they are responsible for.
Details of communications activity
The communications would detail a limited number of evidence-informed options for property owners
and managers to prevent graffiti vandalism, including:
 Types of areas (e.g. blank walls) that are more vulnerable to graffiti
 Advice on materials and colours that attract less tagging
 How to commission art
 Ways to link street artists with property owners
 Planting to prevent graffiti.
This internal and external communications programme would use a range of methods and media
presented in a lively, consistent and easily understandable manner. This may include:
 Presentations by council officers to key partners (e.g. transport agencies, business associations)
 Property owners being able to share stories of using preventative approaches
 Web-based step-by-step guides and tools (text, image and/or video)
 Social media engagement
 Regular features in Our Auckland
 Neighbourhood-level media in hot spots (e.g. street posters, stencilling, bus shelters, etc.) that direct
people to the web tools.
These communications would complement and be integrated with, or replace, the existing Auckland
Council communications web page and graffiti vandalism brochure.
27

Criteria for communications activity
These criteria should be considered when
designing and delivering the communications
activity:
1. Include the gathering of insights from the
target audience to ensure that
communications are designed and delivered
in a way that resonates and is useful
2. Not simply be based on the provision of
expert information, but seek to engage the
audience in generating content (e.g. sharing
success stories), create a positive experience,
and inspire the audience
3. Use a variety of communication channels
and not rely on a single channel – for
instance: relationships with key partners like
business associations and residents
associations; communicating through
partner communications channels; web;
print; media advertising; editorial in existing
publications (local newspapers, Our
Auckland); public space advertising; and
social media.
28

Programme Activity 2: Work with young people to transform graffiti hot spots
into safe and vibrant spaces
This activity contributes to two outcomes:
 Young people have meaningful things to do and ways to express themselves; and
 Public spaces are safe and vibrant.
Working with young people to enliven selected public spaces through community-based projects would
help to achieve these outcomes and prevent graffiti vandalism in two key ways.
Firstly, engaging young people in meaningful social and creative activities can reduce the likelihood of
them writing graffiti illegally. Significantly this activity should build young people’s positive
connections to their community, which will act as a protective factor (protective factors work against
‘risk behaviours’ like graffiti vandalism).
Secondly, transforming areas from graffiti hot spots into safer spaces where people enjoy spending time
should reduce the likelihood of graffiti vandalism occurring there. By increasing the presence of
community members and positive activities in public spaces prone to graffiti, projects funded through
this programme would deter vandalism. This programme activity would follow crime prevention
through environmental design (CPTED) principles by improving natural surveillance, increasing a sense
of ownership and conveying the impression that the project areas are cared for. This should increase
perceptions of safety and vibrancy in target areas.
29
Rejuvenating Spaces Activity

Target group
The primary target group for this activity is young men (primarily those aged 13 to 23, based on the
evidence) who might be involved in graffiti. It is anticipated that a broader range of young people would
participate in the programme. While this group needs to be targeted because it is the core group for
whom change is sought, it is important that they participate in the programme with others, thus creating
positive social connections with other young people in their neighbourhoods.
If young people who might be involved in graffiti are not targeted, they could be unintentionally excluded
from the programme. This is because they will likely be harder to connect with than others, which may
mean community groups are more likely to fill up the programme with young people that are easier to
reach and engage in community activities.
A secondary target audience for this programme is local residents who use and/or live near the selected
public space.
Change goal
The goals for this activity are:
 Young people will be less motivated to write graffiti illegally because they have alternative ways to be
seen, noticed and recognised, avoid boredom, express their creative talent, feel connected to their
peers and wider community, and exercise some control over their environment
 Local residents will feel safer in the public space where this activity is occurring, and will use the
space in ways that they enjoy.
30

Details of rejuvenating spaces activity
This activity would involve Council funding up to ten community and/or youth organisations to each
deliver several (up to five) place-based projects over a two year period.
Each project would be located at or near a graffiti vandalism ‘hot spot’. The hot spot areas would be
public spaces like parks, squares, town centres, shopping centres, public transport stations/hubs,
community halls, libraries, community centres or the surrounding areas, walkways, cycle ways and
alleyways or key transport routes. Hot spots could be defined and identified using Stop Tags data. Each
project would also need to be in an area where the community or youth organisation can effectively
draw on existing skills, local resources and networks.
Organisations should be able to deliver up to five projects that each focus on one ‘hot spot’ area. Each
project should engage between 10 and 20 young people as core group participants with at least three
months of initial intense activity (e.g. weekly meetings in the public space for three months). This
would be followed by less intensive activity to ensure ongoing sustainable activation and community
ownership of the public space.
To be effective, the projects would need to follow a youth development approach, involving creative
social activities with otherwise excluded young people and other community members. A positive
youth development approach involves focusing on young people’s strengths, enabling youth
participation, and facilitating positive connections to social environments. This means young people
from the target group will need to have meaningful opportunities to participate in the design and
delivery of the projects. It also means the organisations should seek to build positive connections
between young people and their local community, and support positive connections between
participants and their families, peer groups, and a work or educational setting.
Young participants should be identified through the organisation’s informal networks and their
participation in a project should be voluntary.
31

32
Appropriate creative and social activities would need to be determined by the young people
participating in the programme, but could include:
 Art or crafts (including creating public art)
 Music or dance
 Landscape design or gardening
 Sports (including cycling or skating)
 Local film or performance events hosted by young people
 Community markets organised and hosted by young people
 Fitness
 Games.

Criteria for rejuvenating spaces activity
For the programme to have maximum impact, all of the following criteria should be met by each
funded place-based project. The criteria are based on the insights gathered.
1. Must engage young people, especially young men who may write graffiti, in design and
delivery (needs to be based on activities they want to do)
2. Must be at or near ‘hot spots’ – places where there is graffiti vandalism that could be reduced
3. Must build on existing community leadership, networks and skills
4. Delivery organisations ensure rapid removal happens in their hot spot
5. Not a one-off event, rather it is ongoing and sustainable activation of space
6. It does not include interventions that may increase graffiti vandalism (e.g. legal graffiti walls,
one-off education in schools)
7. Documentation of programme needed for communications and evaluation purposes (budget
must allow for this: to tell stories of success; share learnings; review progress and adapt; give
young people positive exposure)
8. Any facilitator involved in the programme should hold relevant qualifications/experience,
have a clean police check, abstain from graffiti vandalism and other illegal activity, and have
credibility in young people’s eyes
9. Engage with local resident and community members around the public spaces being
activated, to encourage their involvement in the public space activation
10. Programme design should include consideration of sustaining the public space activation.
(After the intense programme, how will people continue to use and enhance this space?).
33

In order to monitor, report on and evaluate the effectiveness of the education programme, it will be
important for the activities to be documented and their impacts measured. The following table
suggests evaluation questions and possible sources of data to provide indicators of success for each key
activity.
34
Activities
How will we make this
happen?
Evaluation Questions
Indicators
How will we know we’ve got there?
Communicate simple
strategies for property
owners and managers to
reduce graffiti
vandalism
Do property owners and key partners (e.g. transport
agencies, utilities, eradication contractors) know the
council provides information about graffiti and how to
prevent graffiti vandalism?
Pop-up online survey
Include question in residents or
stakeholder survey
Does this information help property owners, partners
and council staff decide what action to take?
Survey of property owners in hot spots &
key stakeholders – pre- & post-communications
strategy.
How many people access this information? Number of website hits / web access rates
Work with young
people to transform
graffiti hot spots into
safe and vibrant spaces
How many people are involved (in different ways,
which age and population groups)?
Provider reporting
Are more people using the selected public spaces? Pre- and post- measure at same particular
time
Have perceptions of safety and vibrancy in these areas
improved?
Pre- and post- measure
How much graffiti vandalism in immediate vicinity of
programme area?
Stop tags data at neighbourhood level
Did the young people involved have a meaningful
experience?
Qualitative interviews with young
participants
What other benefits were achieved (e.g. health,
community connections)?
Perceptions of community (post-measure)
Measuring Impact

Appendix A: People involved
innovate change project team
Emma Blomkamp
Simon Harger-Forde
Terry Fleming
interview participants
Jill Nerheny (Kaipatiki Community Facilities Trust)
Peter Wolf (Kaipatiki Youth Development Trust)
Rod Baxter (BGI youth worker)
Liam Willins-Matias (Street artist & youth worker)
Sen Thong (Hip hop advocate)
Annie Bradley (Arts and Culture, Auckland Council)
Barbara Carney (Manukau Beautification Trust)
Megan Cooke (Neighbourhood Policing)
Kevin Marriott (Community Facilities, Auckland Council)
George Wood (Councillor/ former mayor)
Amir Kayal (Community Safety, Auckland Council)
Sparrow Phillips (Artist)
Ronald Kramer (Lecturer in Criminology)
Cathy Casey (Councillor)
focus group participants
Auckland Council - Graffiti prevention and community development advisors: Christine Van, Roslyn Prictor, Tony
Crampton, Rajesh Jattan, Rob Shields, Sarah McGhee.
Manurewa Youth Council - Matthew Ward, Amar Jakhu, Sarah Colcord, Michael Tau, Nathaniel Brown, Tatiana
Tataurangi-Ruru, Georaui Apulu, Jacinta Taliauli.
Strive Young Leaders (Mangere) - Louise Ru, Jordan Taiapo, Augustine Mare, SamSon Tekeu, Te Reinga Putia Browne-
Knowles, Leona Faye Wallace, Martha Laufoli, Parnell Rogers, Kimiora Hunia.
36
co-design group
Betty MacLaren
Roslyn Prictor
Barbara Carney
Brian Taylor
Lily Linton
Liam Willins-Matias
Sonia Carter-Amani
Michael Tau
Meghan Geliza
Ema Tavola
Greg Whaiapu
Terry Fleming

Appendix B: References
All of the insights and most of the case studies were informed and validated by key informant interviews and focus
groups, conducted by innovate change, Auckland, March 2014. The featured quotations in the insight section are
verbatim quotes from these interviews. For a list of participants in this project, see Appendix 1.
Additional sources of information for each case study and insight are listed below.
Insight 1
 Auckland Council. “Auckland Graffiti Vandalism Prevention Plan,” 2012.
 Auckland Council. “Dramatic Drop in Auckland Graffiti Vandalism.” Scoop News, December 3, 2012.
 Cox, Joanne, Fiona Hutton, and Mike Rowe. Tagging and Graffiti: Attitudes and Experiences of New Zealanders.
Report prepared for Ministry of Justice. Wellington: Institute of Criminology, Victoria University Wellington,
December 2009.
 Stafford, J., and G. Pettersson. Vandalism, Graffiti and Environmental Nuisance on Public Transport-Literature
Review. Department for Transport Prepared by Crime Concern, 2003..
 Tasman Research and Consultation. “A Regional Survey of Graffiti Vandalism in Auckland.” Auckland Council,
October 2013.
Insight 2
 Allen, Daniel. Fighting Graffiti: An Investigation of Causes and Solutions. Minneapolis: Standish-Ericsson
Neighborhood Association (SENA), 2007.
 Brewer, Devon. “Hip Hop Graffiti Writers’ Evaluations of Strategies to Control Illegal Graffiti.” Human Organization
51, no. 2 (June 1, 1992): 188–96.
 Freeman, Fay. How to STOP Graffiti Guide. Ministry of Justice, 2007.
Review. Department for Transport Prepared by Crime Concern, 2003.
 Tasman Research and Consultation. “A Regional Survey of Graffiti Vandalism in Auckland.” Auckland Council,
October 2013.
 “Words of Art.” Tearaway, March 2009, p. 5.
37

Insight 3
December 2009.
 Freeman, Fay. How to STOP Graffiti Guide. Ministry of Justice, 2007.
 Kramer, R. “Painting with Permission: Legal Graffiti in New York City.” Ethnography 11, no. 2 (June 1, 2010): 235–53.
 Ministry of Justice. “STOP Strategy Implementation Progress Report,” 2010.
 Office of Crime Prevention. “A Study of Urban Art as a Graffiti Prevention Strategy.” State Graffiti Taskforce, 2010.
http://goodbyegraffiti.wa.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/Urban-Art-Research-Paper.pdf.
 Spicer, Valerie. “Couch Surfing in Vancouver: An Aggregate Study of the Vancouver Graffiti Suspect Network.” Thesis,
School of Criminology - Simon Fraser University, 2005. http://summit.sfu.ca/item/9840.
Insight 4
December 2009.
 Halsey, Mark, and Alison Young. “The Meanings of Graffiti and Municipal Administration.” Australian & New Zealand
Journal of Criminology 35, no. 2 (August 1, 2002): 165–86/
 Spicer, Valerie. “Couch Surfing in Vancouver: An Aggregate Study of the Vancouver Graffiti Suspect Network.” Thesis,
School of Criminology - Simon Fraser University, 2005. http://summit.sfu.ca/item/9840.
38

Insight 5
 Brewer, Devon. “Hip Hop Graffiti Writers’ Evaluations of Strategies to Control Illegal Graffiti.” Human Organization
51, no. 2 (June 1, 1992): 188–96.
 Kramer, Ronald. “Political Elites, ‘Broken Windows’, and the Commodification of Urban Space.” Critical Criminology
20, no. 3 (September 2012):.
 Rowe, Michael, and Fiona Hutton. “‘Is Your City Pretty Anyway?’ Perspectives on Graffiti and the Urban Landscape.”
Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology 45, no. 1 (April 1, 2012): 66–86.
Insight 6
 Cozens, Paul Michael, Greg Saville, and David Hillier. “Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED): A
Review and Modern Bibliography.” Property Management 23, no. 5 (2005): 328–56.
 National Guidelines for Crime Prevention through Environmental Design in New Zealand. Wellington: Ministry of
Justice, 2005. http://www.justice.govt.nz/publications/global-publications/n/national-guidelines-for-crime-prevention-through-
environmental-design-in-new-zealand-part-1-seven-qualities-of-safer-places-part-2-implementation-guide-november-
2005.
 Project for Public Spaces. “Preventing Graffiti.” Project for Public Spaces. Accessed April 16, 2014.
http://www.pps.org/reference/graffitiprevent/.
 WA Police Graffiti Team. “Designing out Graffiti.” State Graffiti Taskforce, July 2013.
http://goodbyegraffiti.wa.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/Designing-out-Graffiti-brochure.pdf.
Insight 7
 Auckland Council. “Graffiti Vandalism: Help Prevent Graffiti Vandalism in Your Neighbourhood,” 2012.
 Ministry of Justice. “STOP Strategy: A Strategy for Change 2008-11,” 2008.
 WA Police Graffiti Team. “Designing out Graffiti.” State Graffiti Taskforce, July 2013.
http://goodbyegraffiti.wa.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/Designing-out-Graffiti-brochure.pdf.
39

Insight 8
 Aos, Steven, Roxanne Lieb, Jim Mayfield, Marna Miller, and Annie Pennucci. Benefits and Costs of Prevention and
Early Intervention Programs for Youth. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 2004.
 Lilienfeld, Scott O. “Psychological Treatments That Cause Harm.” Perspectives on Psychological Science 2, no. 1
(2007): 53–70.
 Petrosino, Anthony, Carolyn Turpin-Petrosino, and John Buehler. “Scared Straight and Other Juvenile Awareness
Programs for Preventing Juvenile Delinquency: A Systematic Review of the Randomized Experimental Evidence.” The
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 589, no. 1 (2003): 41–62.
 Rosenbaum, Dennis P., and Gordon S. Hanson. “Assessing the Effects of School-Based Drug Education: A Six-Year
Multilevel Analysis of Project DARE.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 35, no. 4 (1998): 381–412.
 Sherman, Lawrence W., Denise Gottfredson, Doris MacKenzie, John Eck, Peter Reuter, and Shawn Bushway. Preventing
Crime: What Works, What Doesn’t, What’s Promising. Washington DC: National Institute of Justice, 1995.
 Satcher, David. Youth Violence: A Report of the Surgeon General. USA: Office of the Surgeon General, 2001.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20669522.
 Weiss, Carol H., Erin Murphy-Graham, Anthony Petrosino, and Allison G. Gandhi. “The Fairy Godmother—and Her
Warts Making the Dream of Evidence-Based Policy Come True.” American Journal of Evaluation 29, no. 1 (2008): 29–
47.
Insight 9
December 2009.
 Ministry of Justice. “STOP Strategy: A Strategy for Change 2008-11,” 2008.
40

Insight 10
 Allen, Daniel. Fighting Graffiti: An Investigation of Causes and Solutions. Minneapolis: Standish-Ericsson
Neighborhood Association (SENA), 2007..
 Craw, Penelope J., Louis S. Leland, Michelle G. Bussell, Simon J. Munday, and Karen Walsh. “The Mural as Graffiti
Deterrence.” Environment and Behavior 38, no. 3 (May 1, 2006): 422–34.
 Halsey, Mark, and Alison Young. “The Meanings of Graffiti and Municipal Administration.” Australian & New Zealand
Journal of Criminology 35, no. 2 (August 1, 2002): 165–86.
 National Guidelines for Crime Prevention through Environmental Design in New Zealand. Wellington: Ministry of
Justice, 2005.
http://goodbyegraffiti.wa.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/Urban-Art-Research-Paper.pdf.
 Taylor, Myra, and Ida Marais. “Does Urban Art Deter Graffiti Proliferation?” In Urban Art and Graffiti Papers from the
British Criminology Conference, 9:57–70, 2009. http://www.britsoccrim.org/volume9/wholedoc09.pdf#page=61.
Insight 11
 Baxter, Rod. “Aro Valley Community Centre Bunker Mural Report 2011.” BGI, 2011.
 Lerner, Richard M., Jason B. Almerigi, Christina Theokas, and Jacqueline V. Lerner. “Positive Youth Development.”
Journal of Early Adolescence 25, no. 1 (2005): 10–16.
Image credits
Insights 1-5, 8-11 – Photography by Emma Blomkamp
Insights 6-7 – Photography by Terry Fleming
41

Case study 1
 Baxter, Rod. “Aro Valley Community Centre Bunker Mural Report 2011.” BGI, 2011
 BGI, “Street Art Projects”, prepared by Rod Baxter for the Ministry of Justice, 2013
 McBride, Kerry. “Massive mural brightens up city alleyway.” The Dominion Post, 17 July 2012.
Case study 2
 Keep America Beautiful, “Graffiti Hurts: Best Practices.” 2014.
http://www.graffitihurts.org/community/bestpractices.jsp
 Klawonn, Adam. “Vandalism drops at Vista skate park.” Union Tribune. August 18, 2004
 http://www.utsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040818/news_1mi18skate.html
 TENBROECK, Craig. “Vista Skatepark at a Crossroads.” U-T San Diego, August 4, 2007.
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2007/aug/04/vista-skatepark-at-a-crossroads/.
Case study 3
 Community Development Arts and Culture, “A creative approach to the Education & Prevention of Graffiti Vandalism”,
Auckland Council, November 2013.
 Stills, Andrea. “The Roots Inspire the next Generation.” Unitec Student Media, February 28, 2014.
http://studentmediahub.com/?p=369898.
 The Roots Creative Entrepreneurs, 2014. http://theroots.org.nz/what-we-do/.
For a video about the Waitemata project, see: http://vimeo.com/87538721.
42

Graffiti Prev Prog Design - Main Report

Graffiti Prev Prog Design - Main Report

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Graffiti Prev Prog Design - Main Report

Similar to Graffiti Prev Prog Design - Main Report (20)

Graffiti Prev Prog Design - Main Report