Global Report on Human Settlements 2007 - PoA-ISS

Reducing urban crime and violence
255
defending ministerial fiefdoms, rather than committing to
the spirit of partnership.
At the same time, it is easy to understand why the
idea of having central government representation on such
partnerships is likely to be an attractive one. In practice,
central government services frequently have a part to play in
the fight against crime and violence in a particular locality,
and partnerships will often want to raise issues with central
governments about how policies and practices might be
changed in order to aid their work. There is no single correct
answer to this, not least because the structure of central
government departments or ministries itself might make a
difference to how an issue of this nature could be tackled.
For example, a governmental structure with regional arms
might find this easier than a structure that consists solely of
nationally focused organizations. Sometimes this creates the
view that the national government level will not be incorporated
within partnerships looking at specific localities. But,
occasionally, ways of enabling this to happen have been
found. The important issue for central governments,
whatever view they take about this particular matter, is that
they should be supportive of the work of partnerships and
should be prepared to look in an unbiased way at how they
can help, whether this comes at them as a result of partnership
membership or as a result of a direct approach to them
by a partnership.
This represents the kinds of challenges that many
partnerships have had to overcome. The primary test is
whether a partnership mechanism can be put together that
will work effectively in the local circumstances and will be
seen, in particular, to be adding real value to what otherwise
would have been achieved. Partnerships can achieve this; of
that, there is no doubt. But the creation of a partnership
structure is not of itself a guarantee that this will happen.
More than anything else, what is probably needed is people
who are committed to the idea that they need to work with
each other and with the affected local communities in order
to be effective – people who, in other words, embrace the
spirit of partnership.
Involving and mobilizing local communities
In just the same way that people need to embrace the idea of
what has been called ‘the spirit of partnership’ in order for
partnerships to deliver to their full potential, so it is in terms
of involving and mobilizing local communities. The central
concern here is that the value of this kind of action needs to
be fully understood and fully committed to, and not undertaken
as an act of tokenism or in the most minimal ways. In a
phrase, action to tackle problems of crime and violence
should be ‘done with’ local communities rather than ‘done
to’ them. This means many different things in different
circumstances, which have to take into account both a differential
willingness and a differential ability to take part in
activities of this nature. It will also vary according to the
types of actions to be taken, although the broad philosophy
about the importance of community involvement as a principle
is a common element. This is well put in relation to
efforts to tackle domestic violence in Africa:
Effective projects aimed at changing harmful
beliefs and practices in a community must
engage and be led by members of that community.
Organizations can play an important
facilitative and supportive role; yet the change
must occur in the hearts and minds of community
members themselves. 48
This gets to the heart of why community involvement is so
central to work in the field of crime and violence. Essentially,
what action to address crime and violence is seeking to
achieve is changing human behaviour for the better, and
while there are potentially a large number and a wide variety
of contributions to this endeavour, much of this comes down
to the various ways that exist of making an impact on individuals.
This is often achieved at least as much through the
influence of families and household members, neighbours
and regular social contacts as it is through the formal mechanisms
of public policy. Not only can engaging with local
communities in developing and implementing programmes
be seen in terms of people’s rights as citizens, but it also
makes sense in terms of working towards successful
outcomes to help mobilize people who are best placed to
make a difference because they are closest to these target
individuals. This is unlikely, in practice, to prove as straightforward
as this may sound; but the principle really is as
simple as this.
What does accepting the philosophy of ‘doing with’
rather than ‘doing to’ mean for partnerships and other implementing
bodies in seeking to involve and mobilize local
communities in taking action against crime and violence?
The suggestion here is that this requires them to make at
least the following three commitments from the beginning:
• A commitment to go down the road of community
involvement with all that this will entail. This includes a
willingness to trust local people even when that trust is
not always immediately repaid.
• A commitment to support communities and individuals
in a range of ways during the implementation process.
For example, programmes seeking to address domestic
violence need to accept the possibility that confronting
this issue might, in some cases, cause violence to
increase in the first instance. Consequently, it is important
not only to pursue programmes of this nature, but
also to offer appropriate victim support and, possibly,
tough police intervention as well.
• A commitment to improve community capacity to take a
leading role not as a one-off activity, but as part of an
ongoing programme. Training and development activities
need to be available not just to partnership
members and public officials engaged in the process of
implementation, but also to a wide range of community
groups and individuals. There is inevitably an element of
upfront cost in this; but the pay-back is in terms of
community members who are both willing and able to
play active roles in the process.
Action to tackle
problems of crime
and violence should
be ‘done with’ local
communities rather
than ‘done to’ them