Young People and Interfaces Report - Institute for Conflict Research

Young People and Interfaces
November 2012
John Bell
Institute for Conflict Research
North City Business Centre
2 Duncairn Gardens
Belfast BT15 2GG
T: 028 9074 2682
Email: j.bell@conflictresearch.org.uk
Web: www.conflictresearch.org.uk
1

YOUNG PEOPLE AND INTERFACES
Intentionally blank
2

YOUNG PEOPLE AND INTERFACES
Contents
Executive Summary 04
1. Introduction 07
2. Young People, Public Space and the Interface 10
3. Living at the Interface 14
Discussion and Key Findings 30
References 35
3

YOUNG PEOPLE AND INTERFACES
Executive Summary
The Institute for Conflict Research (ICR) was commissioned early in 2012 to conduct a
process of engagement with young people living in interface areas across Belfast. This
process aimed to assess their views on the impact that living at an interface has on their
daily lives, and how they would like to be included in dialogue around interface issues
moving forwards. Approximately 60 young people in eight different interface areas
participated in the research.
Although there were mixed views on whether or not interface barriers provide any sense of
security, most young people believed that in the longer-term Northern Ireland would be a better
place without walls and barriers separating communities. This is broadly in line from the survey of
interface residents which was published by OFMdFM in 2012 (Byrne et al. 2012). Generally most
young people spoke of living in a safer and better society than their parents did, and highlighted
that the increasing signs of friendships and relationships developing between young people across
the interface was evidence of this. However, many young people still felt that at some level their
freedom of movement around the interface was restricted. This was particularly the case in terms
of accessing shops, leisure facilities and services.
It is clear that many young people felt excluded from the decision making process on what
happens in their area. Most young people would appreciate more opportunities to contribute to any
forthcoming debates about developments at the interface. CRC and the ICP specifically can play
an important role in helping facilitate the inclusion of young people in dialogue around interface
issues, in line with the development of area based action plans to transform interface areas as
identified in the Programme for Government. Such a consultation process may involve three core
elements:
1. An initial process of information sharing with young people;
2. Providing space for young people within an interface community to discuss their views on
interface issues in a safe environment; and
3. Young people from across the interface should be brought together to share their views on
any potential developments.
While this has been a relatively small scale research project there are a number of key findings
which may help inform policy and practice moving forwards. These findings include:
Security
1. There were mixed views on the usefulness of the walls in terms of providing security. Young
people who lived closer to the interface tended to believe that the walls provided some
sense of security;
2. Although broadly speaking most young people wanted the walls to come down at some
stage, many felt that the time yet was not right and that more work had to be done to further
improve community relations first;
4

YOUNG PEOPLE AND INTERFACES
Community relations
3. Most young people however believed that relations between Catholics and Protestants in
Northern Ireland were better now than they ever had been and that they were ‘less
sectarian’ than their parents and grandparents generation;
4. In line with this, there were signs of some cross-community friendships and even
relationships developing among young people from different areas and different
communities.
5. At times some young people differentiated between young people from the ‘Other’ side
whom they knew and thought were ‘ok’ when compared to the general ‘Other’.
6. Most young people felt they had limited opportunities to meet, interact and become friends
with young people from the ‘Other’ community. Even young people who had participated in
school cross-community activities tended to feel that these were not sustained enough to
have much of a lasting impact;
7. It must be noted that the definition of what it means to have a ‘friend’ from a different
community is important. At times some young people talked about their friends from the
‘Other’ community, when in actual fact a more appropriate term would be that they knew
someone from the ‘Other’ community. This should perhaps be borne in mind when
reviewing statistics on the numbers of young people who have friends across the
community divide;
8. Social media was highlighted as having both positive and negative consequences on
community relations. While it was a way to make friends, at times various social media
sources had been used to increase tensions or organise fights;
Perceptions of safe/unsafe space
9. While some young people reported feeling much safer in crossing the interface than they
did even last year, the spatial patterns of many young people, and in particular young
males, remain impacted upon by the location of an interface. Time of day, year and
personal experience all impacted upon movement around the interface. The interface was
felt to be more permanent at night, during the marching season and if a young person had
prior experience of being verbally abused or beaten up due to their community background;
10. A number of young people stated that they developed their knowledge of where to go and
not to go from their parents, wider family and friends;
11. However, there was also evidence of a number of young people actively challenging where
they had been told was safe and unsafe space;
12. Those young people who had traversed the interface and went in to the territory of the
‘Other’ felt more confident to keep doing so;
13. For some young people walking around their area in school uniform was less of an issue
than it used to be. However, a small number of young participants felt there were still issues
with regards to their uniform publicly identifying their community background;
14. Various programmes seek to encourage the development of relationships which will
increase levels of confidence to cross the interface. While there was clearly evidence of
this, it remains the case that some young people will cross the interface as part of a
structured group rather than with their own friends on their own initiative;
5

YOUNG PEOPLE AND INTERFACES
15. It remains the case that for some young people living at interfaces, certain shops and
services are perceived to be ‘off-limits’ if they are perceived to be located in the territory of
the ‘Other’ community;
Interface Violence and Policing
16. While most participants felt that those young people who got involved in interface violence
did so for fun to relieve boredom, this also tended to be more focused on the motivations of
‘our community’. As such the motivations of young people from the ‘Other’ community were
viewed as more sectarian in origin;
17. Youth and interface workers talked about the role of young people from hinterland
communities in interface violence. This is significant given that we know little about how far
the impact of an interface ripples out in to neighbouring communities;
18. Several youth and interface workers were also concerned that the police in their opinion did
not have a standardised protocol from which to engage with young people on the streets;
19. A number of both Catholic and Protestant young people believed that in a riot situation the
police treated their community ‘unfairly’ compared to the ‘Other’ community;
20. Perceptions of the police were also impacted upon by the moving on of young people from
various public spaces. This also fed in to a general view among many young people that
they are ‘unfairly’ treated when compared to adults using public space;
Transforming the interface
21. The majority of young people want to be included in the discussion about what happens
next to make their areas better places to live. The area based action plans envisaged in the
Programme for Government (OFMdFM 2011) may provide a means in which young people
can be included in the consultation process moving forward.
22. CRC and the ICP are well placed to identify young people in local communities and provide
them with information about potential developments in interface areas. The three phased
approach to consultation may provide an appropriate means of properly consulting with
young people and including them in the decision making process with regards to interface
issues.
6

YOUNG PEOPLE AND INTERFACES
1. Introduction
The Institute for Conflict Research (ICR) was commissioned by the Community Relations
Council (CRC) in December 2011 to conduct a process of engagement with young people
and youth leaders living at a number of key interfaces in Belfast. 1 Engagement with young
people was specifically identified by both the Interface Working Group (IWG) and the
Interface Community Partners (ICP) as being a crucial next step in terms of working with
those individuals who live in interface areas at the ‘Challenge of Change’ Conference
organised by CRC in 2011. 2 In fact, as far back as 1998, the Belfast Interface Project argued
that direct engagement with young people to listen to what they are saying was a
prerequisite to improving the quality of life for all at the interface (BIP 1998).
This process is particularly timely given that the Programme for Government recognised the need
to engage with individuals living in interface areas moving forward (OFMdFM 2011). It is clear that
if local area action plans are to be devised with a view to transforming and ultimately reducing or
removing interface barriers in the future, then young people need to be included in this process of
dialogue moving forward. Given that 39% of 16 year olds surveyed in the Young Life and Times 3
survey in 2010 felt that in five years time community relations would be better than they are today,
now is perhaps the time to begin to include young people in a discussion about how best these
relations can be improved with them fully involved in the process. This greater inclusion of young
people in decision making processes, and in particular respect for their views, is one of the four
core principles of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. 4
1.1 Methodology
This research project has sought to gauge the views and opinions of a small number of youth
leaders and interface workers informally alongside more formal focus group discussions with
approximately 60 young people in eight interface areas across Belfast. These focus group
discussions included mixed groups alongside single identity Protestant and Catholic groups of
young people, both male and female. The young participants ranged in age from 14 to 21, although
the majority were aged between 15 and 18. With the permission of the young participants and
youth leaders, discussions were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim. All comments have
been anonymised to protect the identities of the young people. Young people were consulted in
eight different interface locations across north, south, east and west Belfast. 5 A consultation event
was also held in the MAC Arts Centre in Belfast on the 25th September 2012, which brought
together both the groups of young people who had been consulted during the research as well as
new groups who had not been involved with the initial process. Eleven different organisations were
invited to bring young people to the event, with seven organisations bringing young people on the
night itself. The aim of the event was to provide young people with a summary of the research
1 For the purposes of this paper we are adopting Neil Jarman’s definition of an interface as ‘the conjunction or intersection of two or more territories or
social spaces, which are dominated, contested or claimed by some or all members of the differing ethno-national groups’ (Jarman 2004: 7). An
interface is therefore a product of a process of contest over domination of a social space and this contest contains the fear, threat or actual use of
physical forms of violence (Jarman 2005).
2 In the aftermath of the interface wall being built in the grounds of Hazelwood Integrated Primary, the Community Relations Council (CRC) established
the Interface Working Group (IWG) in November 2007. An IWG Community Partners (IWGCP) group was established in Belfast to support the work of
the IWG and act as a conduit between communities and the statutory sector.
3 See the Young Life and Times results for 2010 online at http://www.ark.ac.uk/ylt/results/ Accessed February 20th 2012.
4 See, http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm Accessed 27th July 2012.
5 The locations selected for analysis included those areas with permanent physical structures alongside those areas which are still considered to be
interface areas but do not have physical barriers separating communities. This would include areas such as Skegoneill-Glandore in North Belfast where
the roundabout is considered to be the demarcating line or ‘interface’.
7

YOUNG PEOPLE AND INTERFACES
findings with a view to them putting forward their own ideas on how they could be more included in
dialogue and consultation around interface issues.
The purpose of the initial focus group discussions was to explore what life is like for young people
living in interface areas. In particular we sought to assess attitudes to living in their local area,
perceptions of safety and the role of barriers in terms of providing security, views on any impacts
that living at an interface may have on their daily lives, and thoughts as to what needs to happen in
the future with regards to developing interface areas.
During the course of the research, where possible focus groups were organised in relatively small
groups of young people (between 5-8 persons) to facilitate conversations where all of the young
participants felt comfortable becoming involved. One focus group however was mixed and
consisted of more than 10 young Protestants and Catholics, male and female. It became apparent
in this group that the most assertive or dominant voices were those of young Catholic males, and
in particular young Protestant females were reticent to be drawn into the conversation. In this
instance the young females in question had to be gently encouraged to give their opinion when
they felt comfortable in doing so.
This firstly highlights the power dynamics that can underpin structured discussions and also
indicates that in terms of numbers engaging in focus groups, smaller groups often lead to more indepth
and better quality discussion. It also indicates that gender, age, community background and
individual confidence can all impact upon a young person’s participation in discussion, and it is
worth bearing this in mind in particular when either mixed focus groups of Catholics and
Protestants or young males and females are being organised. A few dominant voices prevalent
amongst one gender or community background can make others less comfortable about speaking
openly.
This small research project has attempted to draw upon the approach utilised by the ‘new
sociology of childhood’ which views children and young people as competent actors in their own
right (Leonard 2006a: 228; James and Prout 1990). Referring to young people as the ‘future’ can at
times ignore their role in the present, and dismisses their views as only potentially and not actually
relevant to the contemporary situation (Smyth and Scott 2000: 113). As such young people are
often either ‘demonised’ or portrayed as ‘victims’ without agency, 6 perhaps most visibly so by the
media (Andersson and Lundstrom 2007). 7 In the Northern Irish context, such negative associations
which often associate young people and violence were very evident during the television coverage
of the riots at the Lower Newtownards Road/Short Strand interface in June 2011.
There has been a plethora of research conducted on issues impacting upon residents in interface
areas, and those studies which have focused on young people have tended to specifically focus on
the relationship between interface areas, young people and violence (Jarman and O’Halloran
2000; 2001; Byrne et al. 2005; Hansson 2005). While not shying away from engaging with these
issues, this process aimed to be slightly more open-ended and hopes to shed some light on the
views of a limited number of young people on what life is like for them growing up in interface
areas in 2012.
6 A Youthnet consultation response in April 2011 to the proposed community safety strategy talks of young people still being talked about as if a ‘problem
to be solved’. The document argues that where this negative stereotyping remains in place it will have an adverse impact on children and young people
in terms of ‘criminalisation’ and unnecessary contact with the criminal justice system. The response is available online at
http://www.dojni.gov.uk/index/public-consultations/archive-consultations/consultation_on_a_new_community_safety_strategy_for_ni/youthnet.pdf
Accessed 28th March 2012.
7 See, Andersson, G., and Lundstrom, T. ‘Teenagers as Victims in the Press’. In, Children and Society, Volume 21 (2007) pp. 175–188.
8

YOUNG PEOPLE AND INTERFACES
1.2 Structure of the report
Section two of the report provides a brief overview of some of the existing literature on interface
related issues, while section three documents some of the key themes emerging in discussions
with young people. Section four concludes the report with a brief discussion of some of the key
issues in terms of engaging with young people in interface areas moving forward.
9

YOUNG PEOPLE AND INTERFACES
2. Young People, Public Space
and the Interface
2.1 Young People and Public Space
Children and young people experience greater difficulties in laying claim to public space compared
to adults (Leonard 2006a: 227; Childress 2004). This is in part related to the broader power
structures in society, 8 and in a context in which groups of young people or ‘hoodies’ using public
space are to be feared and demonised (Meek 2008: 1225; Kraack and Kenway 2002; Valentine
1996). 9
In the Northern Irish context due to perceived ‘threats’ from the ‘Other’ community, while it may
make sense for teenagers from Catholic and Protestant communities to move around in relatively
homogenous groups in terms of providing a sense of safety, this simultaneously feeds into and
(re)produces negative evaluations of the ‘Other’ (Leonard 2008: 484-485).
Despite the negative connotations which have tended to have been rather pejoratively applied to
young people’s use of public space, belonging to the ‘neighbourhood’ is an important part of the
development of a sense of individual and communal identity. Close ties within a locality can give
young people little reason to venture out of their area, and friends and family are an important
aspect of local culture (Laughlin and Johnson 2011: 450).
As such, belonging to the ‘neighbourhood’ or a variant of what Webster (2003) termed
‘neighbourhood nationalism’ can provide a sense of belonging which in and of itself is not
necessarily a negative development - where difficulties arise in the Northern Ireland context is
where locality, ethnicity and territory intersect to powerful effect (Healy 2006: 107).
2.2 Young People and Interfaces
As far back as 1998 BIP noted that children and young people in interface areas are particularly
vulnerable to sectarian violence, intimidation and harassment, and can be exposed to such
dangers on their way to school, going to the shops, or playing near the interface. Children’s lives
can therefore be severely restricted by their difficulty in travelling out of their area or bringing
friends into their own area (BIP 1998: 7).
A survey conducted by Byrne et al. (2005) revealed that the fears of some young people in terms
of going into areas dominated by members of the ‘Other’ community were not necessarily
unfounded. 10 More than one quarter (26%) of young people had felt intimidated travelling to and
from their schools in North Belfast, while 51% had experienced an incident of violence and/or
threatening behaviour while travelling to and from school. 11
8 See, Arefi and Triantafillou (2005); and Laughlin and Johnson (2011).
9 In Rosie Meek’s study in England, young men reported hanging out on the streets or public places more than did young girls (Meek 2008: 127).
10 The survey was of 2,486 young people aged between 14-17 in North Belfast.
11 In 2004, 6% of young people surveyed as part of the Young Life and Times study felt they had been injured as a result of a sectarian incident (8% of
males and 4% females) (ARK 2004).
10

YOUNG PEOPLE AND INTERFACES
The impact of segregation and sectarianism can greatly impact upon the ‘life choices’ of a young
person living in an interface area. 12 A research study by Owen Hargie et al. (2006) found evidence
of a ‘double penalty’ facing young people living in interface areas of Belfast. 13 This ‘double penalty’
is not only linked to the levels of poverty associated with living in areas of multiple deprivation, but
also involves the impact of sectarianism and segregation, which makes young people in interface
areas more vulnerable to social exclusion (Roche 2008: 75; Hargie et al. 2006; Smyth et al. 2004
and 1998; and McVicar 2000). 14
2.3 ‘Building, Bolstering or Bridging Boundaries?’
While concepts of safety and risk have emerged as central concerns in modern childhood, 16
Madeleine Leonard asserts that these issues of safety and risk take on new meanings in areas
which have suffered from prolonged conflict (Leonard 2007: 432).
Young people’s perceptions of risk may at times be based on what they have learnt from their
parents and siblings. Schubotz and Devine (2004) found that young people in Northern Ireland
believed that their parents were the biggest influence on their views about the ‘Other’ community,
while Bell et al. (2010) found that parents and family were two of the three main influences on what
young people learn about Irish history. 17 However, Leonard asserts that young people do not
uncritically accept narratives passed down from their parents and family with regards to ‘safe’ and
‘unsafe’ spaces (Leonard 2010a: 103).
She suggests that some spatial boundaries can be permeable rather than fixed, with young people
giving inconsistent accounts of boundaries and where they felt safe going to (Leonard 2008). She
notes that those children who lived closer to an interface wall were more inclined to express
heightened feelings of fear and uncertainty, and girls were more inclined than boys to suggest that
they could move more easily across the interface (Leonard 2007: 436).
Previous research has also revealed that interface boundaries may become more porous or
permanent at certain times of the day, week or year particularly with regards to the marching
season or specific sporting events (Hamilton et al. 2008; Jarman 2005). The marginal location of
interfaces and the relative lack of an adult presence turns them into spaces and places that
children and young people are both relegated to and, to, some extent, can define for themselves
and claim as their own (Jarman and O’Halloran 2001: 5).
2.4 Young People and Attitudes
Quantitative data gathered on an annual basis by the Young Life and Times survey appears to
show some progress over the past decade with regards to the attitudes of 16 year olds to
community relations issues. 18 However young people still tend to remain more negative in attitudes
in survey data when compared to older generations.
13 Rosellen Roche (2008) referred to an analogous position as one of ‘Bounded Contentment’ in which young people restrict themselves to limited future
pathways. In her study, Roche found that just under two-thirds of the young people had ‘no need’ to mingle with members of the opposite community
and felt safer staying within areas that they ‘knew’.
14 Osborne et al. (2006) found evidence of limited geographic mobility which restricted the areas where young people were prepared to travel to work.
15 This terminology has been adapted directly from Madeleine Leonard’s article (2008).
16 See in particular, Backett-Milburn and Harden (2004) and Valentine and McKendrick (1997).
17 In 2003, 47% of young people surveyed in the YLT stated that their family were the most influential source of ‘knowledge’ about the ‘Other’ community,
in 2007 this figure stood at 50% (ARK 2003b; 2010b).
18 There was no YLT survey held in 2011 due to a lack of funding which is why 2010 statistics have been used as the most up to date information. It
should also be noted that these surveys reflect the views of approximately 1,000 16 year olds across Northern Ireland and not specifically young people
living in interface areas. Prior to 2003 the survey sought the views of 12-17 year olds, but from 2003 onwards only 16 year olds were targeted, in part
due to ethical issues and secondly to better standardise questions for one age cohort.
11

YOUNG PEOPLE AND INTERFACES
When asked if they would prefer to live in a neighbourhood of their own religion only, in 2003 35%
of 16 year olds stated a preference to live in a single identity area with 53% preferring to live in a
mixed religion community. 19 In 2010 however 25% of young people expressed a desire to live in a
single identity area while 61% stated they would prefer to live in a mixed religion neighbourhood
(ARK 2003; 2010b). While this would appear to indicate progress in terms of the attitudes of 16
year olds, in comparison in 2010 only 12% of adults expressed a preference to live in a single
identity neighbourhood, almost half the number of 16 year olds who desired to live in such a
neighbourhood (ARK 2010a).
Contemporary qualitative research however would appear to provide some evidence to suggest
that, compared to their parents, young people hold more favourable attitudes to cross-community
friendships and cross-community marriages, with teenagers believing that their own views on
cross-community friendships and partnerships would be much less prejudiced than those of their
parents (Leonard 2010a). 20 While most young people had no objections in principle to marrying
across the divide, practical difficulties including deciding where to live, which religion if any to bring
up children, and where to send them to school all resulted in difficulties for young people in
considering a future cross-community relationship. The structures of division in terms of residential
and educational segregation alongside the requirement of ‘peer approval’ for cross-community
liaisons invariably meant that opportunities for young people to meet ‘across the divide’ were
limited, and ultimately …’falling in love for the most part occurred within rather than across
community groups’ (Leonard 2010a: 103; Collins 2003).
Young people with the most positive views of the ‘Other’ community are often those individuals
who have had contact or some form of interaction with the ‘Other’ community (Leonard 2010a). 21
In such instances those young people who had come in contact with young people from the ‘Other’
community were better placed to challenge simplistic stereotypes of different communities, 22
although research has found that it is very difficult for young people to remain in contact after
returning home from cross-community trips as a result of both peer and community pressure
(Smyth et al. 2004: 31).
Although some of these issues indicate more positive developments in terms of attitudes amongst
some young people, it is also important to consider some of the more negative impacts with
regards to young people and violence at the interface.
2.5 ‘Recreational Rioting?’
While the focus of this project is not specifically on young people and violence, it would be
disingenuous to conduct a research project looking at the experiences of young people in
interface areas without considering the role of some young people in violence at the interface, or
what has been termed ‘recreational rioting’ (Jarman and O’Halloran 2000; 2001). This rioting often
takes place within the context of the marching season, but also during the summer when young
people are off school and long summer days lead into long, bright nights (Jarman and O’Halloran
2000; 2001).
19 Young Protestants were more inclined to veer towards preferring to live amongst their ‘own’ community (42% compared to 33%) (ARK 2003).
20 However, it must also be pointed out that to suggest that one is more progressive that others is perhaps not surprising, and this does not necessarily
mean that this is true. The perception is however an interesting one.
21 In 2007, young people were asked through the Young Life and Times whether or not relations between communities would be improved if there were
more cross-community projects. While 36% of respondents strongly agreed and 46% agreed with this sentiment, young males were less likely to be in
favour of more cross-community activity. So too were young Protestants. While 26% of young males strongly agreed that more cross-community
activity would improve relations, 44% of young females felt this way. Similarly, while 43% of young Catholics strongly agreed with this, 30% of young
Protestants did likewise. In 2007, 17% of young people strongly agreed and 55% stated that they felt awkward at times at cross-community events
because they were expected to get on with other people they did not know (and not for sectarian reasons) (ARK 2007).
22 However at times cross-community contact also endorsed rather than challenged views of the ‘Other’.
12

YOUNG PEOPLE AND INTERFACES
As such, young people have been identified as one of the three main types of protagonist in
interface violence (Jarman 2006). 23 Although arguments persist over whether the motivations
of young people engaged in rioting are recreational, sectarian or a combination of many factors
(Leonard 2010b), there is a general consensus that even ‘recreational exchanges’ can have
a significant impact on community relations in interface areas and beyond (Jarman and
O’Halloran 2001: 3).
In part, the ambivalent attitude of some adults to violence has been blamed for on the one hand
legitimising political violence and using young people as ‘foot-soldiers’ as and when required, while
at other times moving them away from the interface based upon the premise that they are engaged
in anti-social behaviour. 24 Undoubtedly this can add to a sense of disillusionment and alienation
from wider society (Jarman 2005; Byrne 2005). Indeed, a powerful theme emerging in many
research projects engaging with marginalised young people is that they very often feel
disenfranchised, powerless and peripheral to any decision-making conducted on their behalf
within communities (Radford et al. 2005: 365; Smyth et al. 2004: 60).
Summary
It is clear that interface areas remain the most visible reminder of Northern Ireland‘s protracted
conflict and the physical barriers are unfortunately a legacy of sectarian division which have proved
much more difficult to remove than they were to build. Interfaces tend to be those areas in greatest
socio-economic need and those areas which suffered the most incidents of violence during the
Troubles. While young people growing up in an inner-city area anywhere in the world often face
difficulties with how they negotiate public space whether it’s in Brooklyn, Birmingham or Belfast,
those young people living in interface areas in Northern Ireland often face a myriad of additional
difficulties associated with sectarianism and segregation.
The following section documents the findings of the discussions and aims to stimulate some
debate around the key issues which are coming directly from the voices of young people
themselves.
23 The other two being anti-social elements and people from outside the immediate area (Jarman 2006).
24 Although young males are often those most likely to be engaged in interface violence, Jarman (2005) has developed a six-fold typology of young
women who engage in interface violence. This may be in the capacity of observer, victim, monitor, restrainer, cheerleader and participant.
13

YOUNG PEOPLE AND INTERFACES
3. Living at the Interface
The following section is structured thematically and aims to document some of the key
themes which emerged in the discussions with young people as well as the less formal
engagements with youth and interface workers.
3.1 Terminology
At the outset it is also important to recognise that while the majority of young people are familiar
with the term ‘interface’, and felt that it referred to a ‘border between two communities’ or ‘division’
more generally, a very small number of young participants had not previously heard of the term.
This is significant for two reasons. Firstly, it means that in terms of engaging with young people
researchers and those in the community and voluntary sector and beyond must be careful to not
further entrench an ‘us’ and ‘them’ mindset. Secondly, it is important that in its usage the term does
not become a mere byword for an area which only experiences violence with neighbouring
communities. While in many cases this can indeed be the case, this restricts the focus to some of
the more negative connotations which can be associated with living in interface areas. As such,
some young people preferred to focus on ‘my area’ as a point of reference for where they lived as
they felt that the term ‘interface’ was often predicated on these notions of tension or violence.
3.2 Views on the walls
While the vast majority of young people believed that one could live in an interface area if there
were no physical barriers or walls separating communities, for many the defining feature of an
interface area was that there was a physical barrier separating communities. In general, young
people were very aware of where the main interfaces were in relation to their local area, however
on one occasion several young people were unsure as to where some of the barriers in their
community were located:
…that big green fence? Are you talking about the one beside the school? I just thought that was
a wee entry (Young Catholic female).
There were very mixed views among young people as to the actual purpose which interface
barriers served. While the majority were aware of the reasons as to why the walls had been put up
in the first place in terms of ‘stopping the fighting’, there were differing views as to whether or not
the walls continued to serve any purpose. While one youth worker felt that the walls ‘limit young
people’s ability to metaphorically see life beyond their own environment’, some young participants
felt that the walls were now ‘pointless and ugly’ and ‘just make it worse’:
It’s just sort of excluding the communities in a way. Like it doesn’t do anything (Young Catholic
male).
I just think it blocks communities. It doesn’t make you any safer (Young Protestant male).
A small number of young people felt that as they were used to the presence of the walls, they were
therefore relatively meaningless to them:
The walls don’t really bother us – you get used to them… (Young Protestant female).
At various times young people debated amongst themselves as to whether or not they felt any
safer living in their area as a result of the walls:
14

YOUNG PEOPLE AND INTERFACES
I think they do (stop violence). Like the whole way up Duncairn Gardens there’s a wall, like I
think it does (stop violence) (Young Catholic female 3).
But they don’t even go there, they stand (and riot) at the traffic lights (Young Catholic female 1).
Young people in the New Lodge discussed the opening up of the gate in Alexandra Park which
some saw as a positive development, although others were concerned that it could lead to
increased levels of violence between local Protestants and Catholics:
But in the summer it’s going to be open completely… I think there could be murder when that
opens up (Young female 3).
Yeah, I don’t think that’s going to work. Everybody just wants to go to the park for a riot in the
summer (Young Catholic female 4).
In West Belfast young people similarly discussed their views on what would happen in their area if
there was no wall. There were differing views, with several young males in particular believing that
the lack of a wall would mean that they would feel less safe, while others, and more so young
females, believed that people should have to ‘get used’ to living without interface barriers:
There would be murder (Young Catholic male 1).
Yeah, for the first while, for the first year like, it would be all riots and all, but after a while people
would get sick of it and move on (Young Catholic 2).
I think they should have to get used to it (Young Protestant female 1).
Another young person felt that while it may be less problematic if there was no physical barrier
today, not that long ago the scenario of not having any walls would have been unthinkable:
Not any more (would there be violence if the walls came down). But a couple of years ago I
thought if the wall came down it would be really bad because there was a time when everyone
was meeting up to riot (Young Catholic female).
Those young people who lived closer to an interface wall were more inclined to feel that the walls
provided some security and that they would feel unsafe, or at the very least, uncomfortable if the
walls were to come down. Young people who lived further away from the interface recognised that
their views may perhaps differ from those who lived in the shadow of the wall:
…well, we don’t live right beside a wall either. I’m guessing people who get vandalised all the
time would like to see a peace-wall. Like before the wall was put up I’m sure they felt really in
danger. But now there is less damage done to their houses and stuff (Young Catholic female).
However, even those young people who wanted the walls down felt that this would be very difficult
as there are still those who are ‘stuck in the past’:
…People will see it as a safety measure, the old people…(Young Protestant male)
Other young people, and particularly young males, believed that if the ‘walls were to come down
tomorrow’, it would not make a difference in terms of improving levels of interaction between
communities. In this regard it was felt that there was still much work to do before any walls came
down to prepare the ground and continue to improve relations between communities:
15

YOUNG PEOPLE AND INTERFACES
…it would not make a difference. It would just make you be able to see in to (name of area)
maybe. Literally that’s it…(Young Catholic male).
Perhaps most negatively the several young males in this focus group felt that even if the walls
came down they would still never venture in to the nearby Protestant area, indeed as one said,
‘you would probably stay on the other side of the footpath’. A young Protestant interviewed across
the other side of this interface similarly agreed with this sentiment stating, ‘I wouldn’t go down there
ever, even if there was no wall’. Young females tended to be slightly more optimistic in their
assessment, but nonetheless tended to agree that the walls were a symptom of deeper societal
division rather than the causes.
3.3 Community relations
A clear trend which emerged in each focus group was that the vast majority of young participants in
general feel that they are living in a ‘better’ Northern Ireland than the one their parents grew up in:
It’s way better. I feel much safer now than a couple of years ago (Young Catholic female).
This was a feeling which was generally shared by youth and interface workers, although a caveat
was often added that while there were probably more interactions now between young people
across the interface, this still remains the exception rather than the norm.
Echoing some of Leonard’s findings (2010b), many young people believed that as they were
growing up in a better society they held less sectarian views than their parents:
I think it’s easier for us because we don’t really get involved in all the religion. We wouldn’t be
as bad as our parents would be, just fighting and all that there. Like if we start arguing about
something we wouldn’t fall out after it (Young Catholic male).
…now (at 15-16) you are starting to understand more about Catholics and Protestants. And
when you’re that age (10-11) you are hearing more negative than positive about the
Protestants. Because you are only starting to learn about it then and you learn about the bad
things before the good (Young Catholic female).
However, a small number of young people tended to question whether or not their generation was
indeed less sectarian than that of their parents, and one young female suggested that at times
young people could be just as sectarian as some members of the older generations, without
necessarily knowing why:
I don’t think we’re less sectarian. I think when your mummy and daddy grow up they mature
more, but we are being born in to it so we don’t even understand why we are fighting. We just
go along with it anyway (Young Protestant female).
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the space which has been provided by the relative lack of violence was felt
to have helped improve the situation on the ground. Interestingly, alongside this view of the macropolitical
situation helping improve relations, a small number of young people felt that older
teenagers had played a role in terms of setting an example to younger children in their
communities. When asked why they felt the situation was quieter at the interface in their area,
several young people referred to the role that older teenagers had played in terms of acting as
positive role models and volunteering in their communities to mentor younger children and
encourage them to either move away from the interface or take part in diversionary programmes in
community centres.
16

YOUNG PEOPLE AND INTERFACES
This point is an important one in that young people acknowledged that when they were younger,
their older brothers and sisters, peer group and parents were very influential in helping them define
which spaces were safe and unsafe in their area and in the words of one young person, ‘the
younger ones in this area really look up to the older ones’. However, as Leonard’s research
suggests, many young people did not necessarily uncritically accept narratives of safe and unsafe
spaces which were told to them by others. Indeed, one young female talked about her mum still
worrying for her safety when she crossed the interface to take part in a cross-community group
which did not put her off attending, while another spoke of her grandfather’s concern for her safety
when working in a Protestant area which again did not stop her from completing her work
experience:
It’s different though, because when we used to go up I remember telling my mummy and she
was cracking up in case something happened to me for going up there. She’d still be the same
now…(Young Protestant female).
I did my work experience in school in (name of organisation) and my mummy was alright with it
but my granda was like ‘Be careful’ – like you could have recognised me a mile off. And when I
was getting a taxi from my local place I would have asked for a taxi to the Shankill Road and
they asked ‘What’s your name?’ and I said (name), and they thought I was winding them up. So
they took down the top of their sign and said they would be sitting outside, ‘As soon as you see
my car bounce in’. And he had to drive a different way. The taxi man was scared but I wasn’t
scared. But my granda would have been ‘You be very careful over there’, but my mummy was
dead on. And I didn’t really mind (Young Catholic female).
Another young female recounted that despite her parents’ protests that she not get the bus home
in her school uniform, because she had now done it and nothing had happened, she had the
confidence to keep doing it:
I would always be told never to wear my school uniform because it’s a tricolour, it’s green, white
and orange…My mummy and daddy would even hate me coming home from school, they
would always make sure they know where I am because I get the number 2 buses. And nearly
all of them go to all Protestant areas apart from the 2a. And I don’t always get that, I sometimes
just jump on to it. I am confident myself. I don’t mind walking up to (name of nearby Protestant
area) on my own, I don’t know, I am just confident that nothing would happen to me (Young
Catholic female).
Nevertheless, some young people did feel that their parents, friends and family had influenced their
perceptions of safe and unsafe spaces:
…You always grow up hearing ‘never walk past this area because you will get jumped’. It’s
never you might, it’s always you will (Young Catholic male).
For some young people from a Catholic background, the recent beating of a Catholic boy in South
Belfast in which he was subsequently dumped in a ‘wheelie bin’ 25 was referred to by their parents
as being reminiscent of some of the loyalist ‘romper room’ murders of Catholics which occurred
during the Troubles. This incident indicated to one young person that it would be dangerous for him
to stray into a Protestant area. However, perceptions of safety varied amongst young people, and
even one teenager who had been beaten up at the interface felt comfortable walking up and down
past the same spot every day.
25 See the BBC news story, ‘Film teen left for dead in sectarian attack’. Published 10th January 2012. Available online at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uknorthern-ireland-16483213
Accessed 1st May 2012.
17

YOUNG PEOPLE AND INTERFACES
Despite the general perception that community relations had improved, there remain specific
events which were felt to increase tensions between communities such as parades, the flying of
flags and soccer matches such as Rangers-Celtic or Linfield-Cliftonville in the context of North
Belfast. While a number of young Protestants could not understand why some members of the
Catholic community would object to Orange Order and loyalist band parades, similarly some young
people from a Catholic background could not understand why some Protestants would want to
parade. As such the marching season was reported as a time when the potential for violence at the
interface increased and a number of young people reported feeling more wary of going near the
interface when parades or football matches were scheduled.
3.4 Cross-community relationships/friendships
One issue which most young people felt was an indication that relations between communities
were improving was that there were increasing signs of young people being involved in crosscommunity
relationships. Indeed, several young participants spoke about ‘going out’ with someone
from the ‘Other’ community:
My girlfriend’s a Catholic like, she’s from Poleglass (Young Protestant male).
I used to go with a wee girl from the Shankill (Young Catholic male).
I was going with a Protestant there for two months. And I was up there and he was in my house
and all. I didn’t care. From the Shankill. I was up there every weekend partying with them and
all. And when I was going with my one I brought my friend up and she is still going with that
Protestant now…(Young Catholic female).
However, on a small number of occasions several young people reported difficulties within their
own community if they made friends or dated a young person from a different background. One
young person who had a close Protestant friend referred to being called a ‘hun-lover’ by some of
her Catholic friends in her area, while a young Protestant male recalled being teased by his friends
for attending an integrated school with Catholics. In relation to the young Catholic female quoted
above who dated a young Protestant male, the relationship ended due to wider peer and
community pressures:
I felt safe because I knew it was him and he wouldn’t let anything happen to me, know what I
mean? But the other ones in (name of area) said I was (name of former IRA member) daughter
because that’s my second name. And the UVF said to the UDA that I was (name’s) daughter
(Young Catholic female).
Another young Protestant noted that her sister was dating a young Catholic from across the
interface which was ‘fine’, although in the early stages of the relationship he ‘had to be careful’
coming in to the area because he was known to come from across the interface. As such several
young people felt that community or peer pressure against relationships could be worse if girls
brought boys in to their area rather than the other way round:
My sister’s boy(friend), he used to riot with ones in here. So whenever they first started going
out he had to be careful. Like they didn’t go outside or anything. He came to our house. She
walked down and met him and then they walked up. Then they went in the house and never
went out. It’s easier for him now like, they’ve been going out a while (Young Protestant female).
On a number of occasions in various different interface areas young people suggested that ‘there’s
Catholics in our area every weekend partying’, or ‘there’s loads of Protestants come in to our area’,
however there was a tendency to believe that ‘they’ would be safer in ‘our’ area than ‘we’ would in
‘theirs’.
18

YOUNG PEOPLE AND INTERFACES
Rather interestingly young people could at times express some sectarian attitudes while at the
same time dating someone from the ‘Other’ community - however they qualified this by stating that
their attitudes were limited to particular groups within the ‘Other’ community, and in particular
young males. As such a group of young males referred to their friend’s Catholic girlfriend as being
‘dead on’ while talking at other times about young males from across the interface who they knew
as ‘fenians’. In this instance some young people tended to differentiate between the ‘good’
Catholics or Protestants they knew from the others that they didn’t know:
His girl is a Catholic, she’s nice like. We’re going to a party in her house at the weekend in
(name of Catholic area). She’s different though, she’s a Catholic, not a taig (Young Protestant
male).
In this regard, at times various stereotypes were drawn upon to highlight perceived differences
between young people from different communities:
I would probably know if it was a wee lad if he was a Protestant (Young female 1).
Yeah, it’s easier to tell the wee lads. Cos they always have blond tips (Young female 2).
And they usually wear tracksuits more don’t they? (Young Catholic female 3).
Another group of young Protestants discussed what they felt were the differences between
themselves and Catholics:
We can tell who is Catholic (Young Protestant male 1)
Yeah, we overheard one of them talking the other day like ‘Our wee Marty’ (puts on different
Belfast accent) (Young Protestant Male 2)
Perhaps more positively, other young people at times challenged such sectarianised stereotypes
as well:
…but some of them have given their area a name cos there’s good Protestants as well who you
can be friends with (Young Catholic male).
It should be noted however that despite evidence of some cross-community relationships, there
were many young people who stated that they did not have any friends from the ‘Other’ community,
mainly because they believed that they did not have the opportunities to meet given that they went
to different schools and lived in different areas.
Even those young people who had been in contact with young people from the ‘Other’ community
through cross-community programmes in school tended to lose touch with them, which would
appear to corroborate the findings of previous research (Smyth et al. 2004):
Like you do cross-community work, but you never stay in touch with them. You only do it for a
certain amount of months and then that would be it over, and you would probably never see
them again (Young Catholic female).
It is also important to note that how one defines a ‘friend’ is also crucial. While Madeleine
Leonard’s research (2010c) indicated that 75% of young people referred to having a friend from the
‘Other’ community, this tells us little about the nature of the relationship. During the course of the
discussions several young people reported having ‘friends’ from the ‘Other’ community. When
asked where they would hang out or what they would do together it became apparent that the term
‘friend’ was being used when perhaps saying they ‘knew’ someone from the ‘Other’ community
19

YOUNG PEOPLE AND INTERFACES
would have been more appropriate. It is important to bear this in mind when assessing statistics or
survey data about cross-community friendships:
I play with a rugby team and nearly everyone in it is Catholic…Although I don’t really know them
outside the rugby (Young Protestant male).
Young people also talked about the positive and negative aspects to using social media. On the
one hand it allowed them to come into contact with young people from the ‘Other’ community,
make friends and even in rare instances, begin dating. For one youth worker in South Belfast,
social media could allow young people to interact virtually with others in their own home which was
a safer environment than doing so at the interface. However, the downside was there was an
acknowledgement from young participants that Facebook, Twitter and texting were used at times to
contact others across the interface to organise a fight or try and start a riot. There was also an
apparent issue in parts of North and South Belfast with young people from different communities
insulting members of the ‘Other’ community who had taken their own lives, and this was believed
to have been the source of an increase in tensions between some young people at the Suffolk-
Lenadoon interface in particular. This was also the case in North Belfast:
Remember that wee girl from the (name of area) killed herself she was only about 13? Then
some ones made a fake name and covered her face in red, white and blue, it was terrible like
(Young Catholic female 1).
Yeah, and what do you call him, Ian Paisley, he was dying and that started a whole big ruckus
on Facebook. I’ve seen loads of fights on Facebook because of that (Young Catholic female 2).
3.5 Navigating the interface
Despite the view that ‘things were better’ and a small number of young people were moving across
the interface into the ‘Other’ community, the spatial patterns of young people clearly remain heavily
influenced by the interface and many young people were still reluctant to venture in to areas of the
‘Other’ community. Several youth workers referred to this as an ongoing issue in terms of the
psychology of geographical boundaries which were now well established. Young males in particular
seemed less likely to traverse the interface for fear of being ‘beaten up’. In South Belfast some
young Protestants discussed how far into the nearby ‘Catholic’ area they would venture:
I wouldn’t go past Lidl like (Young Protestant male 1).
Aye, well there’s a takeaway there on that road and I wouldn’t go past it
(Young Protestant male 2).
In North Belfast, two Catholic young people were reluctant to venture on to the Shore Road which
they perceived to be a predominantly Protestant area:
I’d feel uncomfortable on the Shore Road, I just wouldn’t walk about it. I’d need some reason to
go there, and ones from my school (integrated school) would know me as a Catholic
(Young Catholic female).
Discussions in North Belfast also focused on the use of the Waterworks. As such, some young
people felt that the space in the park would be used differently depending on community
background:
20

YOUNG PEOPLE AND INTERFACES
I’m scared to go to the Waterworks (Young Catholic female).
The Waterworks – below the bridge is for Protestants, you wouldn’t really go past that on your
own. Where the bend is in the park, there’s a hill and it’s usually full of them (Protestants) and
they all stand there, so you can’t really walk past (Young Catholic male).
Some other young people referred to being scared to go to certain areas, but reported that these
concerns were more to do with their personal safety rather than anything of a sectarian nature:
I would feel safe during the day (at Duncairn Gardens) but not at night I wouldn’t (Young
Catholic female 4).
But that’s only because it’s all dark and there’s no street lights, it’s scary that way. Not because
a Prod is going to jump out and knife you…that’s why you’re scared generally, not Protestants
and that. It’s because Duncairn Gardens is really dark with all the big houses with the windows
out. It’s not because of Protestants (Young Catholic female 2).
Those young people who had travelled into areas of the ‘Other’ community unsurprisingly were
those least likely to feel restricted in terms of where they went to:
We did it before and it was ok. One time the bus wasn’t on and we went up and got a few of the
Protestant lads and brought them into Ballymurphy and showed them the murals and all. That
was all right like. And we have been in Springmartin. We walked up to their club before as well
(Young Catholic male).
Remember we walked up the Shankill? Nothing happened to us (Young Catholic female).
I can honestly say that I have walked from the town up the Springfield Road and no one has
said anything to me (Young Protestant male).
For those young people who had safely gone across to the other side of the interface, this
experience made them realise ‘you are not going to get jumped every day like’. The Ambassadors
for Peace youth group involving Corpus Christi and Springmartin youth clubs was a good example
of a project which aimed to improve relationships between young people and increase their
feelings of safety around the interface. As part of the programme, for the past eighteen months
young people from both communities have met with one another weekly, going in to one another’s
areas and visiting each community centre. The young people felt that their participation in this
group had provided them with the opportunity to go in to an area and meet people they would not
normally have had the opportunity to meet:
See before this group started I would never have went in to Springmartin…if this group hadn’t
happened I still would probably never have been in Springmartin (Young Catholic male 1).
I didn’t even know where it was (Young Catholic male 2).
I just knew the gates, didn’t know who lived there, didn’t know nothing about it
(Young Catholic male 1).
As a result of the ongoing contact, two girls in particular whose houses were back to back to one
another on each side of the interface in West Belfast had become good friends and would now
often go to one another’s areas, something that they would not have done prior to the programme.
However at times even these young people in West Belfast who generally felt freer to move around
the interface did so in a rather structured format with their youth club:
21

YOUNG PEOPLE AND INTERFACES
If you were going in on your own it would be different like (Young Catholic male).
One young male spoke of his continuing reluctance to go in to the nearby Protestant area unless
some of his new Protestant friends were with him:
I would feel comfortable going in with ones from the other side, but I wouldn’t feel comfortable
going in with (another Catholic young person in the group). Just because we are both Catholic.
Even though nothing would happen, you’d just feel uneasy in case something happened
(Young Catholic male).
One cross-interface community organisation have been working in recent years to build
relationships between young people. As a result of the engagement over the past two years in one
interface location in North Belfast, a number of Protestant young people from one particular area
reported feeling safer and would now use a local garage which they would not have done before as
they had previously perceived it as ‘Catholic territory’. Indeed, some young Protestants now use a
local drop-in centre which is also located in a predominantly ‘Catholic’ area. As such improved
relationships between some local young people across the interface led to them asking one
another questions about their culture or religion, a process which one youth leader felt was a more
‘natural’ development over time rather than part of a more artificial attempt to bring young people
together prematurely.
While these young people now used the shop at the garage on the Antrim Road in the evenings
with their friends, again other young people who traversed the interface tended to do so as part of
a more formalised youth group or with school, and they would not feel as comfortable doing so with
their friends on their own initiative. At various times some young people also felt very aware of
which parts of the area would be ‘off-limits’ for individuals from ‘their community’, and felt they
could ‘tell’ someone’s community background based on how they moved around an area:
That’s what I am saying walking up to the Antrim Road, that’s how you know if you’re Catholic
or Protestant, what side of the road you walk on…If you walk on one side you are Protestant if
you walk on the other you are a Catholic (Young Protestant male).
You’d stay on this side of the doctors (Young Catholic male).
These issues in terms of being able to ‘tell’ someone’s community background impacted upon
which services and facilities some young people felt they could access.
3.6 Accessing services and facilities
The restricted movement associated with living at an interface impacted upon the majority of young
people, and it seemed to be the case that this impact was particularly significant for young people
from what could be termed enclave interface communities such as Suffolk or Short Strand. For
young males in Suffolk in particular, their dentists and GPs were all in Dunmurry and Finaghy and
very few services in wider nationalist West Belfast on the Stewartstown Road and beyond were
utilised. Rather than using the nearest leisure centre which was situated in Andersonstown, they
spoke about travelling to Lisburn:
We are surrounded basically...We can’t go to certain places that the likes of them can. They can
go up and round us. They don’t necessarily have to walk down Black’s Road, it’s the quicker
option, but they can walk round it (Young Protestant male).
22

YOUNG PEOPLE AND INTERFACES
At the same time, some young Catholics of the Lower Whitewell area reported a reluctance to use
Tesco’s in Newtownabbey given its close proximity to Rathcoole and most young people would not
walk down the Shore Road to go in to town:
And even when you are over at Tesco’s you keep your eyes open because that’s where people
get jumped most. Round that area and round Tesco garage (Young Catholic male 1).
I’d go and be careful. Like I wouldn’t go to Tesco’s on my own, I would make sure someone was
with me (Young Catholic female).
Perhaps more positively a young person in the same focus group felt more comfortable accessing
Abbeycentre now than they had done in the past:
You used to be a wee bit cautious going over to Abbey(centre) but now you don’t really. They
(Protestants) always used to hang about at McDonald’s (Young Catholic male 2).
Several young participants in this group did not use the Valley leisure centre given its close
proximity to Rathcoole and they contrasted this with the sense of security they felt when using the
gym at Bawnmore given that many of their friends and family from their community lived in the
area. Conversely some young Protestants spoken to in Whitecity did not feel comfortable walking
down the Whitewell Road to use shops or services there, although one young Protestant male did
so as he attended school there and felt that he knew people well enough to feel safe. However, on
going to visit his father in another interface area in Belfast he commented:
I hate going through Short Strand. My dad lives up that direction. I know quite a lot of people
there, my bus goes through the area. Some of them go to my school and some I know quite
well. I would just keep my head down and never let on (Young Protestant male).
Elsewhere in North Belfast, some young Catholics from the New Lodge felt that KFC was closer to
the Tiger’s Bay side of the interface, although they still reported using it. Several Catholic young
people referred to wanting to use the new Grove Wellbeing Centre but felt unable to do so given
the location. One young female in particular spoke of not using the Grove, Asda or Lidl given the
fact that they were on what she saw as the ‘Protestant’ side of the interface:
You wouldn’t be able to walk to it (the Grove) and Asda like to do shopping...My mummy walks
up like. My mummy and my sister would get their shopping and walk back and it’s nothing. But I
personally wouldn’t. And I’d love to be able to use the Grove (Young Catholic female).
However, another young Catholic male interviewed in a different part of North Belfast did use the
Grove and felt comfortable doing so.
Youth leaders and interface workers tended to highlight that there were still difficulties for many of
their young people in terms of accessing particular shops and services depending on where they
were located. In particular one youth worker from West Belfast felt that young people still tended to
use shops located within their own ‘side’ of the interface or alternatively would at times go out of
their way to feel comfortable. Along these lines, one young Catholic male from West Belfast
commented:
Tesco Ballygomartin. I wouldn’t use that one…I would go to the one way over at the Valley in
Newtownabbey (Young Catholic male).
23

YOUNG PEOPLE AND INTERFACES
It should be noted that while some young people reported difficulties in using particular shops or
services given their location, other young people felt relatively unconcerned with where they could
travel to, and a number of young people suggested that they even felt safe wearing their school
uniform in public. They tended to contrast this to a few years ago when they would have been
more wary of doing so:
Yeah. I was down after school today and walked down to Tesco’s in my uniform (Young
Protestant female).
Like I never think or it. Like I never think of Protestants. I just walk about (in uniform) (Young
Catholic female).
This increasing sense of confidence for some young people to wear one’s school uniform
appeared to at one level be linked to the fact that levels of violence at the interface have
significantly decreased. However, other young people reported ongoing difficulties in terms of
school uniform clearly identifying community background:
Our friend went up to Ligoniel and it was Protestants pushed them…And this woman called my
friend a ‘slut’ when she was in her school uniform (Young Catholic female).
The young participants were subsequently asked to think about violence at the interface, why it
occurred and what impact it had on their lives.
3.7 Interface violence and Policing
Although young people tended to be unaware of the term ‘recreational rioting’ and several
young people referred to wanting to ‘defend their community’ if it was under attack, many felt that
those young people who get involved in riots do so as a result of boredom or there being nothing to
do. This particularly appeared to be the case for those in their mid-teens who had outgrown some
of the more structured youth activities in their area. Some young people spoke of their excitement
at participating in riots when they were younger, and now that they were a bit older they had
matured and ‘grown out of it’. However, this sense that riots could develop out of boredom and for
the ‘craic’ tended to be more focused on ‘our’ young people and as such the motivations of young
people from the ‘Other’ community who were involved in rioting were at times viewed as more
sectarian in origin. This particularly appeared to be the case with regards the rioting in East Belfast
in June 2011:
Researcher – Why do you think some young people rioted in East Belfast last summer? Was it for
the ‘craic’?
No, I think there was bitterness or something (Young Catholic female).
Yeah, something happened like the Protestants ran in or something and that’s how it
all kicked off (Young Catholic male).
Youth workers also tended to focus on the ‘recreational’ aspects of young people engaging in
rioting, although several youth leaders also suggested that there were deeper reasons as to why
some young people get involved in violence, including disputes over parades and protests, a
perception they are ‘defending’ their area and ‘confused’ community leadership from adults. On a
number of occasions both young participants and youth leaders spoke about the role of young
people from outside the immediate interface area participating in violence. Indeed, the work at
Skegoneill-Glandore Common Purpose interface group with young people on the Antrim Road who
at times became involved in fights at the interface was an attempt to deal with these hinterland
24

YOUNG PEOPLE AND INTERFACES
issues. This wider process of engagement with young people from surrounding areas was viewed
as an important one in terms of improving the situation.
With regards to attitudes towards the police, young people from both communities tended to
believe that the police treated their community unfairly and were more lenient on young people
from the ‘Other’ community, particularly in a riot situation:
They never go after the Catholics like when there’s trouble, but they surround our area
(Young Protestant male).
But look at it, in the Strand, like all the Catholics got arrested not the Protestants…I think the
police are unfair to Catholics and stick up for Protestants more…Like they say that the police
are 50/50 now but I don’t think they are (Young Catholic female).
Up at the Valley, like there used to be riots up there on the pitches at the back of Longlands.
And like the police had to drive through the alleyway to get to the Longlands ones, but
Rathcoole is closer to where they were driving but they went straight to Longlands. So they
would have got away (young Protestants). That’s a few years ago when I was there like
(Young Catholic male).
In South Belfast several young Protestant males referred to being moved on by the police from the
interface even when they weren’t doing anything as local residents had reported ‘anti-social
behaviour’ in the area. Some young people found this perception that they were constantly ‘up to
no good’ if in public as unfair, particularly since they had little else to do but hang out on the streets
with their mates:
There’s nowhere for us to go together, like if we wanted to go out together, there’s nowhere
really for us to go…We would be in our own area constantly like if we weren’t in here
(community centre) (Young Catholic male).
Indeed, there was a feeling amongst a sizeable number of young people across the areas that they
were constantly being moved on by adults, and often the police, who were responding to
complaints by residents:
We’d walk up and down the Cavehill Road until the peelers tell us to move. Then we go down to
the Spar and get moved, then you go somewhere else and get moved. Then we go to the shop
and get moved. Then we go to the park which is a public park but they say we can’t stay there
(Young Catholic female).
At times this treatment tended to feed into a perception that many adults had little time for young
people and saw them as a ‘nuisance’:
They (adults) think we’re all hoods and rob grannies (Young Protestant male).
Alongside the concerns over constantly being moved on by police, some young people felt that
sometimes particular police officers could be rude to them, with several interface workers
concerned that the lack of an overall coordinated approach by the police to deal with young people
congregating at an interface could inflame an already tense situation. In particular the perceived
lack of a standard police protocol on how to deal with young people at risk of coming in to contact
with the criminal justice system was particularly frustrating for several interface workers who felt
that different police divisions behaved differently when engaging with young people on the street.
25

YOUNG PEOPLE AND INTERFACES
The frustration amongst some young people that they weren’t really taken seriously by adults was
one reflected in their discussion of what needs to happen next in terms of further developing
interface areas.
3.8 What next?
The majority of young people shared many of the same concerns that their adult counterparts have
in the contemporary period, worries over jobs, money and services in their area coupled with their
concerns over the restricted levels of movement associated with living at an interface.
Overwhelmingly, the young participants wanted an opportunity to feed in to the debate about how
their local area should develop, particularly if as seems to be the case that various interface
barriers are being looked at with a view to areas being physically opened up. In this regard a
number of young people talked about the need for economic and physical regeneration of derelict
land around the interface:
They spent 300,000 grand on two big balls down the bottom of the Falls. I would have spent it on
the flats beside it. You look at this big attraction and there’s two big wrecked flats beside it…Like
that old barracks, nothing is getting done on the barracks land (Young Catholic male).
Aye, they should have spent the money on the surrounding areas (Young Catholic female).
Researcher - What would you do on the empty barracks land?
Build something, a 3g pitch, something for both sides (Young Catholic male 1).
Yeah, something for both communities to use (Young Protestant male).
A mixed housing estate… (Young Catholic male 2).
However, while the vast majority of young people were keen to be involved in discussions around
regeneration and transforming the interface, there was general consensus throughout the research
that their views were rarely sought by adults, and that they were often viewed as a ‘problem’ rather
than as part of the solution to improving relations between communities:
Young people are only included when violence happens (Young Catholic female).
It was significant that several young people from different interface areas spoke of their attendance
at the consultation event in the MAC Arts Centre on 25th September as being the first time they
had ever been invited to a discussion on interface issues with other young people:
Apart from tonight, we have never been invited to a cross-community discussion about
interfaces. Also this is the first time we have been invited to a cross-city interface discussion, as
not all interfaces have the same problems (Young Protestant male).
Some young people were concerned that without their input, another generation would be
consigned to living with sectarianism and in segregated communities, and on a number of
occasions the phrase ‘listen to us’ was used with regards to developing strategies to work in
interface areas moving forwards:
They (politicians) don’t really seem to be arguing about sectarianism these days, they seem to be
talking crap and spending money…Apparently there is more money being spent on separating
Catholics and Protestants than bringing them together (Young Protestant female).
26

YOUNG PEOPLE AND INTERFACES
Researcher – If I was a politician, what would you say to me?
What are you doing to try and stop sectarianism? (Young Catholic male).
As such a number of young people felt that there was not enough being done by adults to provide
them with opportunities to meet and interact with young people from a different community
background. It also became clear that young people wanted the opportunity to be listened to in
terms of regenerating the interface, and a number of young participants complained that adults did
not take them seriously and would not value their opinions on what should happen in their areas:
The government say they’ll listen to young people but don’t (Young Catholic male).
This tendency to feel excluded from the decision making process was compounded for those
young people who believed that they had benefitted little from the Peace Process due to a
perceived lack of investment in their areas:
In East Belfast we have the Titanic Quarter, but there was no local investment from this such
as jobs etc… (Young Protestant male).
The majority of young people spoken with during the course of this research felt a sense of
disempowerment and detachment from the decision making process. However, young people
themselves were keen to become more involved in dialogue around interface issues and
suggested a number of ways in which they could be more included in debates on the ‘Peace
Process’, interfaces and good relations issues:
We need more opportunities to talk to young people from the other side of the interface
(Young Protestant male).
There should be meetings between young people and adults from different interfaces so that
we can talk to them about it (Young Catholic female).
Like a youth committee that has so many young people on it and meets up once a month to
discuss interface issues (Young Catholic female).
For their part, a number of youth workers suggested that young people need to be included in a
genuine consultation process moving forward, and with a genuine say, rather than only being
involved in side projects which have a limited impact on decision making.
Recently published research on interfaces found that 64% of approximately 1,500 general
respondents believed that interfaces should be a main priority for the Northern Ireland government,
while 63% of interface residents would like to know more about initiatives and discussions about
the walls and barriers (Byrne et al. 2012). Although these results are very interesting, and indicate
that local residents want to be consulted with on interface issues, this is based upon the views of
adults in interface areas. We know little about the views of young people outside of small scale
research projects and consultations. To date there seems to have been a lack of opportunities for
young people from different parts of Belfast, and from different communities, to discuss issues
relating to the walls, security and regeneration.
There are various ways and means (or models) of engagement which may be employed to
increase the role young people play in discussions around interface issues in particular.
A report produced by the UN on young people and their participation in decision making found
that there were three main models of engagement for better including young people in decision
making (UN 2003):
27

YOUNG PEOPLE AND INTERFACES
• The first model focuses on adult-led processes. This method allows young people to be invited to
events and share their views and experiences. However, the report argued that this in and of
itself does not lead to the empowerment of young people as it is predicated upon consultation
rather than participation;
• The second model focuses on adult-initiated processes. While adults develop a project or
process of dialogue, young people are invited to have some control over the inputs and outcomes
of the discussion. As such they are not merely responding to an adult agenda and are allowed the
space to shape the questions they would like answered; and
• The third and final model of engagement focuses on youth-led processes. This involves young
people themselves identifying the issues of primary concern and taking resultant action. This may
involve the establishment of youth forums to campaign on specific issues. One challenge with
such developments is that they tend to limit the engagement to a small number of committed
young people, and this can become dominated by the most articulate and exclude those on the
margins. 26
It is clear that in line with the Programme for Government, young people who live in interface areas
should be part of the area based action plan discussions on developments at the interface,
including any potential changes to security architecture. But effective consultation and engagement
with young people needs to allow space for them to ask questions they feel are relevant (within
reason) rather than simply being told of developments which are happening and why they are
happening.
While a youth led process in terms of discussion on interface issues is likely to be impractical,
certainly an adult initiated process in which young people have the opportunity to explore issues or
concerns they have regarding the interface would be an appropriate process of dialogue which the
CRC and ICP could help facilitate. Such a consultation process may involve three core elements:
1. An initial process of information sharing with young people. The UN report suggests that young
people at all times need adequate information about the issues at hand in order for them to
make a meaningful contribution to consultation. The ICP are well placed to work with young
people in their areas, through schools, church groups, sports clubs, educational organisations,
local youth organisations and youth clubs, to inform young people about developments at the
interface;
2. Space should be provided for young people within an interface community to discuss their views
on interface issues in a safe environment. Initially this may take place amongst young people
before potentially including young representatives in an inter-generational discussion with adults;
3. Young people from across the interface should be brought together to share their views on any
potential developments. These discussions may only include young people, or rather include
young people with adults in a cross-interface discussion. Relevant stakeholders should decide
which is the most appropriate means of engagement. It may be useful for members of statutory
organisations such as DoJ to be in attendance to discuss future plans.
26 All three models of engagement with young people follow the principle of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child which states that
young people under the age of 18 have the right to participate in decision-making.
28

YOUNG PEOPLE AND INTERFACES
Summary
Despite mixed views as to whether or not physical barriers provided any sense of security, the
majority of young people felt that in the long-term Northern Irish society would be better off without
the walls, although the length of time that it will take to get to that stage was disputed amongst
young people. Generally most young participants spoke of living in a safer and better society than
their parents did, and highlighted that the increasing signs of friendships and relationships
developing between young people across the interface was evidence of this. However it should be
borne in mind that the numbers of friendships and relationships discussed were limited, and at
times young people drew upon stereotypes and sectarianized narratives to talk about the ‘Other’
community, even when they considered themselves to have friends from that community.
Although a small number of young people felt relatively unhindered in terms of their movement
across the interface, many young people still felt that at some level their freedom of movement
around the interface was restricted. They may have felt that their movement was better than it was
even one or two years ago, but nonetheless it tended to be restricted in some way.
This was particularly apparent with regards to accessing particular shops, leisure facilities and
services which at times were perceived as ‘off-limits’. Young males appeared to be more inclined to
impose restrictions on where they travelled to than young females, and at times parents, friends
and family appeared to influence where the young people felt was ‘safe’ and ‘unsafe’ space,
although there was evidence of young people also challenging what their parents and others told
them in terms of areas to avoid. In line with this, those young people who had travelled into the
territory of the ‘Other’ found that it increased their levels of confidence to increasingly travel into
areas which they previously would have avoided.
It is clear that many young people felt excluded from the decision making process and would like
an opportunity to contribute to any forthcoming debates about developments at the interface.
The following section provides a very brief discussion of some of these findings within the context
of other research which has been conducted in the UK and further afield.
29

YOUNG PEOPLE AND INTERFACES
4. Discussion and Key Findings
If as Margaret O’Brien argues, one of the main principles of a ‘just city’ is that it enables the
free movement of children through it (O’Brien et al. 2000: 258), then it is debatable whether
or not Belfast as of May 2012 would qualify. While clearly some young people living at the
interface feel relatively free to go where they please, there remain issues associated with a
restricted sense of movement in and around the interface for many others, particularly with
regards to accessing particular services and facilities.
Despite the fact that many young people did not uncritically or passively accept narratives of ‘safe’
and ‘unsafe’ space as told to them by their friends, family and others (Leonard 2010c), it remained
the case that for many there was a wariness associated with the ‘Other’ community and in moving
through the territory of the ‘Other’. This was particularly the case in the evenings and during the
summer months when various trigger events can increase tensions between communities.
For teenagers who feel they are too old to get involved in standard youth club activities and for
whom there seems little else to do, wandering the streets where they live becomes a regular
occurrence and in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing. Indeed, this ‘neighbourhood
nationalism’ (Webster 2003) and attachment to an area where friends and family live is an
important part of developing a sense of place bound identity (Matthews et al. 2000; Laughlin and
Johnson 2011). However, the difficulty in Northern Ireland occurs where locality, territory and
ethnicity intersect, particularly when groups of young people encounter one another at the interface
(Healy 2006).
The visible presence of groups of young people on the street is also often perceived by adults as
young people being ‘up to no good’ which in turn alienates young people further from local adults
and wider society (Radford et al. 2005). The constant moving on of young people from public
spaces, which while understandable in some ways as a response to resident fears of large
numbers of young people in public, does little to alter perceptions that they are regarded as little
more than a ‘nuisance’, and this can also feed into negative perceptions of the police who are
responding to residents’ concerns.
Of course there are young people who gather at interfaces with the intention of, or indeed actually,
getting involved in violence. This is clearly a key issue which needs to be tackled by the police and
other organisations to, if possible, prevent a young person from coming in to contact with the
criminal justice system. The 174 Trust have begun a ‘Together Stronger’ project which will run until
2015 and which aims to improve community relations at the Carlisle Circus interface. One aspect
of this project will be to engage with marginalised young people in the surrounding areas who may
be at risk of engaging in interface violence and coming into contact with the criminal justice system
– this project and others like it should be welcomed as a step in the right direction in terms of
improving engagement with young people at the interface.
Despite the potential of this and other similar one-off projects, all young people in public spaces
should not be judged as being ‘up to no good’ purely on account of their age and their appearance
in public space. The position of many young people in interface areas and beyond is often on the
periphery of citizenship, without a full sense of place in the community, where they are viewed as in
the process of ‘becoming’ adults, but they are not yet complete social beings (Blitzer 1991;
Leonard 2006b: 1129). This may mean that in times of interface violence, getting involved to
30

YOUNG PEOPLE AND INTERFACES
‘defend’ one’s community becomes an attractive option which provides a sense of purpose, identity
and status within the community which otherwise remains elusive.
Rosie Meek (2008: 132) talks about inter-generational work being important in a rural English
context to improve relationships between adults and young people and there are already a variety
of projects on the ground which seek to adopt such an approach in Belfast. One such intergenerational
project occurred in the Suffolk and Lenadoon areas recently and was facilitated by
ASCERT. 27 One part of this work, alongside engaging young people and residents, was the
distribution of a leaflet to houses at the interface which aimed to highlight to young people the
consequences that their behaviour on the street can have on local residents.
This process should be reciprocal, with local adults also being encouraged to challenge some of
their own views that young people are ‘guilty until proven innocent’ by their mere presence in public
space. Clearly feelings of trust, a sense of belonging and mutual support within communities are
more likely to build in a place where face-to-face contact on a regular basis is possible (O’Brien et
al. 2000: 267). Such inter-generational work may provide further opportunities to challenge some of
these stereotypes of the ‘hoodie’ generation who tend to be feared and demonised while at the
same time highlighting to young people why local residents may be concerned at the presence of
large groups gathering on the streets, particularly at night (Meek 2008).
It is crucial in the forthcoming debates around regenerating interface areas and developing area
based action plans to potentially think about removing barriers and transforming the interface that
young people are included in this process. CRC and the ICP can assist in terms of providing
information to young people in interface areas as a precursor to them being included in broader
dialogue within and between interface communities.
The ‘Draw Down the Walls’ project between the North Belfast Interface Project, the Lower Shankill
Community Association and the Golden Thread Gallery was a good example of creatively
engaging with young people to begin to think about what their area might look like if there were no
walls separating communities. This is one of the questions which needs to be asked of young
people just as it does of adults – what conditions would need to be in place before you would feel
comfortable living in an area without barriers?
Part of this process moving forwards may involve rethinking the strict dichotomy around defining
public and private space. This may require a shift in thinking to one where space is defined on a
sense of belonging rather than ownership (Laughlin and Johnson 2011). Otherwise a regeneration
plan which emphasises divisions between public and private space and introduces social mix may
leave little room for the interpretations of young people (Laughlin and Johnson 2011: 452-453). It is
imperative in the Northern Irish context that this doesn’t happen and the views of young people are
included in the regeneration process.
While there are therefore a number of key issues to be addressed in terms of intra-community
relationships between young people and adults and young people also need to be included in the
regeneration debate, it is of concern that there remains a general lack of opportunities for young
people to have sustained ‘face to face’ contact with others from different backgrounds given
persistent segregated living and segregated education. In such a context there remain
sectarianised narratives from which some young people draw upon to refer to the generalised
‘Other’ which need to be challenged.
27 Action on Substances through Community Education and Related Training. Based in Lisburn.
31

YOUNG PEOPLE AND INTERFACES
Even those young people spoken to in this research project who participated in cross-community
activities in school suggested that they were not long enough to provide a major change in the
nature of relationships with the ‘Other’ community. In some senses this is where specific projects
such as the Ambassadors for Peace group in West Belfast as a longer-term effort to challenge
stereotypes, create friendships and increase confidence traversing the interface come in. Perhaps
the new Inner North Youth Platform, which held its inaugural conference on the on 22nd March in
the Church of the Nazerene, may provide the opportunity for similar increased levels of
cooperation amongst youth providers in the North of the city, although these one-off initiatives do
little to alter the overall structures of division.
However, such projects should be welcomed for bringing a fresh approach to engaging with young
people across the interface. As part of the project in West Belfast, young people from Ballymurphy
and Springmartin have set a target date of 2019 as when they would like to see the first of the
walls come down. While this may be seen in some quarters as wishful thinking, at least this small
group of young people are starting to think about what the interface may look like in a few years
time. As such, we as adults need to start listening to the young people themselves. Madeleine
Leonard is absolutely right when she suggests that children are not merely ‘empty vessels’ into
which are poured adult thoughts and prejudices (Leonard 2006a). Children and young people must
be viewed as individuals in their own right, as residents in interface communities, whose input
moving forward can only make interface areas better places to live (BIP 1998). While this has been
a limited research project which has only engaged with a relatively small number of young people,
nevertheless their voices are valid and should be listened to moving forward.
The key findings from this research project include:
Security
1. There were mixed views on the usefulness of the walls in terms of providing security,
however those young people who lived closer to the interface tended to believe that the
walls provided some sense of security.
2. Although broadly speaking most young people wanted the walls to come down at some
stage, many felt that the time yet was not right and that more work had to be done to further
improve community relations first.
Community relations
3. Most young people however believed that relations between Catholics and Protestants in
Northern Ireland were better now than they ever had been and that they were ‘less
sectarian’ than their parents and grandparents generation.
4. In line with this, there were signs of some cross-community friendships and even
relationships developing among young people from different areas and different
communities. However, it should be noted that the numbers of these relationships were
relatively small and there remain some issues associated with peer and/or community
pressure in terms of becoming friends or dating someone from the ‘Other’ community.
5. At times some young people differentiated between young people from the ‘Other’ side
whom they knew and thought were ‘ok’ when compared to the general ‘Other’. At times
stereotypes were drawn upon to refer to the generalised ‘Other’. At different times some
young people referred to sectarianised narratives when talking about the ‘Other’
community, although some young people actively challenged these views based upon their
own more positive experiences.
32

YOUNG PEOPLE AND INTERFACES
6. In general, most young people felt they had limited opportunities to meet, interact and
become friends with young people from the ‘Other’ community. Even young people who
had participated in school cross-community activities tended to feel that these were not
sustained enough to have much of a lasting impact.
7. It must be noted that the definition of what it means to have a ‘friend’ from a different
community is important. At times some young people talked about their friends from the
‘Other’ community, when in actual fact a more appropriate term would be that they knew
someone from the ‘Other’ community. This should perhaps be borne in mind when
reviewing statistics on the numbers of young people who have friends across the
community divide.
8. Social media was highlighted as having both positive and negative consequences on
community relations. While it was a way to make friends, at times various social media
sources had been used to increase tensions or organise fights.
Perceptions of safe/unsafe space
9. While some young people reported feeling much safer in crossing the interface than they
did even last year, the spatial patterns of many young people, and in particular young
males, remain impacted upon by the location of an interface. Time of day, year and
personal experience all impacted upon movement around the interface. The interface was
felt to be more permanent at night, during the marching season and if a young person had
prior experience of being verbally abused or beaten up due to their community background.
10. A number of young people stated that they developed their knowledge of where to go and
not to go from their parents, wider family and friends.
11. However, there was also evidence of a number of young people actively challenging where
they had been told was safe and unsafe space.
12. Those young people who had traversed the interface and went in to the territory of the
‘Other’ felt more confident to keep doing so.
13. For some young people walking around their area in school uniform was less of an issue
than it used to be. However, a small number of young participants felt there were still issues
with regards to their uniform publicly identifying their community background.
14. Various programmes seek to encourage the development of relationships which will
increase levels of confidence to cross the interface. While there was clearly evidence of
this, it remains the case that some young people will cross the interface as part of a
structured group rather than with their own friends on their own initiative.
15. It remains the case that for some young people living at interfaces, certain shops and
services are perceived to be ‘off-limits’ if they are perceived to be located in the territory of
the ‘Other’ community.
33

YOUNG PEOPLE AND INTERFACES
Interface Violence and Policing
16. While most participants felt that those young people who got involved in interface violence
did so for fun to relieve boredom, this also tended to be more focused on the motivations of
‘our community’. As such the motivations of young people from the ‘Other’ community were
viewed as more sectarian in origin.
17. Youth and interface workers talked about the role of young people from hinterland
communities in interface violence. This is significant given that we know little about how far
the impact of an interface ripples out in to neighbouring communities.
18. Several youth and interface workers were also concerned that the police in their opinion did
not have a standardised protocol from which to engage with young people on the streets.
19. A number of both Catholic and Protestant young people believed that in a riot situation the
police treated their community ‘unfairly’ compared to the ‘Other’ community.
20. Perceptions of the police were also impacted upon by the moving on of young people from
various public spaces. This also fed in to a general view among many young people that
they are ‘unfairly’ treated when compared to adults using public space.
Transforming the interface
21. The majority of young people want to be included in the discussion about what happens
next to make their areas better places to live. The area based action plans envisaged in the
Programme for Government (OFMdFM 2011) may provide a means in which young people
can be included in the consultation process moving forward.
22. CRC and the ICP are well placed to identify young people in local communities and provide
them with information about potential developments in interface areas. The three phased
approach to consultation identified in the previous section may provide an appropriate
means of properly consulting with young people and including them in the decision making
process with regards to interface issues.
34

YOUNG PEOPLE AND INTERFACES
References
Andersson, G., and Lundstrom, T. ‘Teenagers as Victims in the Press’. In, Children and Society,
Volume 21 (2007) pp. 175–188.
Arefi, M., and Triantafillou, M. (2005) ‘Reflections on the pedagogy of place in planning and urban
design’. In, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 25, pp.75-88.
ARK (2003) The Young Life and Times Survey. Derry Londonderry: ARK and INCORE.
ARK (2004) The Young Life and Times Survey. Derry Londonderry: ARK and INCORE.
ARK (2010a) The Northern Ireland Life and Times Survey. Derry Londonderry: ARK and INCORE.
ARK (2010b) The Young Life and Times Survey. Derry Londonderry: ARK and INCORE.
Backett-Milurn, K., and Harden, J. (2004) ‘How children and their families construct and negotiate
risk, safety and danger’. In, Childhood, 11(4), pp.429-447.
Belfast Interface Project (1998) Young people on the interface. Belfast: BIP.
Bell, J., Hansson, U., and McCaffrey, N. (2010) The Trouble’s Aren’t History Yet: Young People’s
Understanding of the Past. Belfast: CRC.
Byrne, J., Conway, M., and Ostermeyer, M. (2005) Young People’s Attitudes and Experiences of
Policing, Violence and Community Safety in North Belfast. Belfast: ICR.
Byrne, J., Gormley-Heenan, C., and Robinson, G. (2012) Attitudes To Peace Walls Research
Report. Belfast: OFMdFM.
Byrne, J. (2005) Interface Violence in East Belfast during 2002: The impact on residents of Short
Strand and Inner East Belfast. Belfast: ICR.
Collins, D., and Kearns, R. (2001) Under curfew and under siege? Legal geographies of young
people. In, Geoforum, 32, pp.389-403.
Healy, J. (2006) ‘Locality Matters: Ethnic Segregation and Community Conflict – the Experience of
Protestant Girls in Belfast. In, Children and Society, Vol. 20, pp.105-115.
Hamilton, J., Hansson, U., Bell, J., and Toucas, S. (2008) Segregated Lives? Social Division,
Sectarianism and Everyday Life in Northern Ireland. Belfast: ICR.
Hargie, O., Dickson, D., and O’Donnell, A. (2006) Breaking Down Barriers: Sectarianism,
Unemployment and the Exclusion of young people from Northern Ireland Society. Jordanstown:
University of Ulster.
Jarman, N., and O’Halloran, C. (2000) ‘Recreational Rioting: Young People, Interface Areas and
Violence. In, Child Care in Practice, 7(1), pp.45-58.
35

YOUNG PEOPLE AND INTERFACES
Jarman, N., and O’Halloran, C. (2001) Peacelines or Battlefields? Responding to Violence in
Interface Areas. Belfast: Community Development Centre.
Jarman, N. (2005) No Longer a problem? Sectarian Violence in Northern Ireland. Belfast:
OFMdFM.
Jarman, N. (2006) Working at the interface: Good practice in Reducing Tension and Violence.
Belfast: ICR.
Kraack, A., and Kenway, J. (2002) ‘Place, time and stigmatized youthful identities: bad boys in
paradise’. Journal of Rural Studies, 18, pp.145-155.
Laughlin, D. L., and Johnson, L. C. (2011) ‘Defining and exploring public space perspectives of
young people from Regent Park, Toronto. In, Children’s Geographies, 9: 3-4, pp.439-456.
Leonard, M. (2006) Teens and Territory in Contested Spaces: Negotiating Sectarian Interfaces in
Northern Ireland, In, Children’s Geographies, 4, pp.225-238.
Leonard, M. (2007) Trapped in Space? Children’s Accounts of Risky Environments. In, Children
and Society, Vol. 21, pp.432-445.
Leonard, M. (2008) ‘Building, Bolstering and Bridging Boundaries: Teenagers’ Negotiations of
Interface Areas in Belfast. In, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 34:3, pp.471-489.
Leonard, M. (2010a) ‘It’s better to stick to your own kind’: Teenagers’ Views on Cross-Community
Marriages in Northern Ireland. In, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 35: 1, pp.97-113.
Leonard, M. (2010b) ‘What’s recreational about recreational rioting? Children on the Streets in
Belfast. In, Children and Society, Vol. 24, pp.38-49.
Leonard, M. (2010c) ‘Parochial Geographies: Growing up in divided Belfast’. In, Childhood, 17(3),
pp. 328-342.
Meek, R. (2008) ‘Young People, Social Exclusion and Inter-Generational Tension in a Rural
Somerset Town’. In, Children and Society, Vol. 22, pp.128-135.
McVicar, D. (2000) Young People and Social Exclusion in Northern Ireland – Status ‘0’ Four Years
On. Belfast: NIERC.
OFMdFM (2011) A Draft Programme for Government 2011-2015. Belfast: OFMdFM.
Osborne, B., Smith, A., and Hayes, A. (2006) Higher Education in Northern Ireland: A report on
factors associated with participation and migration. Social and Policy Research Institute.
Jordanstown: University of Ulster.
Radford, K., Hamilton, J., and Jarman, N. (2005) ‘It’s their word against mine’: Young People’s
Attitudes to the Police Complaints Procedure in Northern Ireland. In, Children and Society, Vol. 19,
pp.360-370.
Roche, R. (2008) Facts, Fears and Feelings Project: Sectarianism and Segregation in Urban
Northern Ireland: Northern Irish Youth Post-Agreement. Belfast: Queens University.
Schubotz, D., and Devine, P. (2004) ‘Us and Them’? Research update 28. Derry Londonderry:
INCORE and ARK.
36

YOUNG PEOPLE AND INTERFACES
Smyth, M., Fay, M. T., Brough, E., and Hamilton, J. (2004) The Impact of Political Conflict on
Children in Northern Ireland. Belfast: ICR.
United Nations (2003) Youth Participation in Decision Making. UN: New York.
Valentine, G. (1996) Angels and devils: moral landscapes of childhood. Environment and Planning
D: Society and Space, 14, pp.581-599.
Valentine, G., and McKendrick, J. (1997) ‘Children’s Outdoor Play: Exploring Parental Concerns
about Children’s Safety and the Changing nature of Childhood’, Geoforum 28(2): pp.219-235.
Webster, C. (2003) ‘Race, space and fear: imagined geographies of racism, crime, violence and
disorder in Northern England’, In, Capital and Class, 80: pp.95-128.
37

Community Relations Council
6 Murray Street
Belfast BT1 6DN
Tel: +44 (0)28 90227500
Website: www.nicrc.org.uk
Email: info@nicrc.org.uk