Download the file - United Nations Rule of Law

Reducing urban crime and violence251the deep-seated and multidimensional nature of the problemhas led to a growing emphasis on more programmaticapproaches, which seek to address not merely the symptomsand effects of crime and violence, but also its causes. TheUN-Habitat Safer Cities Programme is one example of suchan approach. A second example is the approach to be foundin England as a result of the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act,which required local Crime and Disorder ReductionPartnerships to prepare three-year rolling strategies toaddress the issues revealed by a careful audit of crime andviolence in the locality. 40There are several characteristics that appear to beimportant in making approaches of this nature successful:• a careful audit of the main crime and violence issuesthat are experienced in the locality that needs to berepeated periodically;• an approach to tackling these issues that has both clearstrategic intentions and specific actionplans/programmes;• effective public consultation practices and a good levelof community support for the proposed actions thatincludes opportunities for direct action by communities,where appropriate;• a partnership framework that draws key stakeholderstogether, generates real commitment from them, andencourages them to address how their own mainstreamactivities can support this work;• a long-term perspective in recognition of the fact that itis unlikely that all problems will be resolved quickly,together with a commitment to achieve some earlysuccesses in order to generate some momentum for theprocess;• an innovative approach to providing resources forprogramme work that does not just rely on what willinevitably be limited public budgets, but creativelyexplores a range of possible sources;• a firm commitment to evaluation and the publication ofresults on a regular basis so that the programme can beadjusted, where necessary, in the light of experience.Not all programmes display these characteristics; indeed, itis important to recognize that they are not all easily attained.In particular, the recognition that this must be seen as along-term commitment to tackling problems that will noteasily be eradicated does not sit easily with much shortertermpolitical and electoral cycles. It is also clear that manyprogrammes have been limited by the resources available tothem not just in terms of finance, but in terms of expertise.It should also be remembered that criminal communitiesoften do not just stand by while their hegemony is beingchallenged; thus, programmes need to constantly adapt asthe nature of the problem changes. All of this underlies thepoint that this should not be seen as an easy road.Nevertheless, there is ample evidence from around theworld that programmatic approaches have much to offer, notjust in tackling problems of crime and violence, but in termsof engaging people from many walks of life and across allsectors to address these problems.The use of the partnership mechanismIf properly used, partnerships can be helpful and effective.But as the discussion in Chapter 4 has shown, the process ofpartnership by itself is not a universal panacea since partnershipneeds to be seen both as a specific tool and as a moregeneral philosophy about the importance of workingtogether. There are examples of successful partnerships andthere are also examples of partnerships that achieve verylittle. This sub-section explores what partnerships set out todo, who is involved and with whom they seek to engage, andhow effectively they are able to go beyond mere discussionand undertake meaningful action. Key questions in thiscontext include:• Who is involved in the partnership and who is not? Howis membership determined, and what sort of commitmentto the partnership process does membershipentail?• How is the partnership process led and how broadlyaccepted is that process of leadership? If leadership sitswith the political or executive leadership of the localauthority, does this carry with it a commitment toensure that the aims of the partnership are supported inthe everyday work of the authority?• What sorts of resources are available to the partnershipto enable it to undertake its work? Can the partnershipseek to add to these in a variety of ways?• How does the partnership see its relationships with thevarious sectors that are active in the local community –public, private, voluntary and community? Does it havea communications strategy which ensures that it is notonly committed to keeping people up to date with whatit is doing, but also listens to what they are saying? Ifmembers of the community wish to engage with oraccess the work of the partnership, is this easy for themto do?• Is this a partnership with clear terms of reference thatallow it to go beyond discussion and into action? Is itclear just what it and other organizations are responsiblefor, and what the lines of communication arebetween these bodies?• Has it achieved a strong level of buy-in for what it isdoing from all sectors, and does it keep checking thisfrom time to time? Is it willing to review what it hasbeen doing in the light of feedback from theseprocesses?• Is the partnership committed to evaluation processes asa standard arm of its activity, and does it carefullydiscuss the results of such evaluations and make adjustmentsin the light of them?• What is the distribution of power within the partnership?Can all partnership members, irrespective of theirbackgrounds, influence what the partnership does, or isit, in practice, dominated by a small number ofmembers who are seen as holding the most powerfulpositions?• Is the partnership willing to challenge existing orthodoxiesif there is evidence that they may be part of theproblem, or is it unwilling to step on what it regards as