From Harrow Children's Fund: harrowkidz.com/What_safety_ means-_report_and_findings.doc 

What safety means...

A report of the HCF Young Researchers’ Safety Project, 2004-05 by:

Background

1. During the evaluation of Year 1 of Harrow Children’s Fund (HCF), the issue of safety repeatedly arose. This was linked by a large number of children in touch with projects to bullying and, to a lesser extent, to fears of personal violence (attack, mugging). But, beyond this, several projects described young people’s appreciation of what they offered in terms of more general “places of safety”, detached from the dangers of everyday life. Some went further, to identify danger in terms of traditional contexts – school, home, neighbourhood, or relationships – family, community, which had let children down.

2. The implications of this were discussed by a small steering group (see Annex A). It seemed to us that the issue of safety in the broadest sense could be a good focus for participation by children in the HCF evaluation for a number of reasons:

1)     It is a genuine concern of children themselves, not a policy issue imposed on them

2)     At the same time it relates to key local policy concerns, such as safeguarding children, and crime prevention

3)     Exploring it further could throw light on key issues for mainstreaming – is part of the value of projects their detachment from the mainstream? How do we preserve that value, while ensuring the continuation of the work?

4)     Equally, it may have implications for the extent to which extended schools can provide the sort of safety children are looking for, and

5)     It could pinpoint priorities for action by Harrow after the Programme ends.

3. Before designing our Safety Project, we contacted the (then) Children’s Rights Director for England, Roger Morgan. In July 2004, he had published the results of a consultation he had carried out with 25 groups of children and young people who had all had experience of living away from their natural parents[1]. His findings have been reported in the social work press with surprise: children in these situations were concerned about abuse from strangers. But risks in order of importance were listed as:

1)     bullying

2)     road accidents

3)     illness, and

4)     being abducted.

The greatest protections against risk were identified as someone you trust to talk to, and being listened to and taken seriously – “Listen to the quiet ones too!”

4. Although Roger Morgan’s studies covered a wider age range of children than ours, and children with a particular experience (of living away from home), his results provided us with interesting comparative material. His comments on methodology – in particular, the need to keep sessions with the young people flexible and questions open-ended – were also helpful.

Method

5. The methodology for the project was agreed by HCF’s Management Committee in September 2004. It was decided that, at the beginning of the school year 2004-05, all HCF projects would be contacted for the names of young people interested in becoming part of the core group of “young researchers” who would firstly explore the issue of safety together, and then be trained to survey the views of others using simple checklists (“Opinion Finders”). At the same time, an expanded version of the checklist would be posted on the new Harrowkidz website, and responses would be invited by everyone visiting the site. A sample of the “Opinion Finders”, and the website questionnaire are attached as Annexes B and C.

6. The Young Researchers group (six regular participants aged 9-12) met throughout the winter for discussion, training and fun. In January 2005, members of the group were lent digital cameras, and asked to photograph places, people, anything which reflected their ideas of what was “safe” or “unsafe”. A selection of these photos was exhibited in the Civic Centre. The group carried out their “Opinion Finders” surveys at school, in holidays and weekends, interviewing their friends, classmates, and other young people attending HCF projects. Project providers were also interviewed in some cases. About 70 responses were collected in this way.

7. The Young Researchers also attended a 3-day drama workshop in February 2005 on the subject of safety, and created and edited a DVD – also exhibited at the Civic Centre. Both the DVD and the photos mentioned above are now being widely used at events in the borough. The young people were rewarded for their participation in the 6-month project by a fun celebration event, and a trip to Thorpe Park.

8. The extended checklist was posted on Harrowkidz website between October 2004 and the present. Forty responses were received by March 2005. Those who stated their age (25%) were between 9 and 13 years old.

Results

9. The results recorded here are derived from participant observation of the Young Researchers group, and statistical analysis of the two sets of questionnaire responses. We do not make any claims about the “scientific” quality of the data: all participants were in effect self-selected, and the rather negative feel of some of responses to the website survey may reinforce the view that it appealed to people with problems, rather than a random sample of young people. Nonetheless, the volume of material we collected suggests that the issues raised are of genuine concern to at least a significant sub-set of Harrow’s young people. We also cannot be certain about the age range covered: the likelihood is that Opinion Finders reflect the views of younger children (up to 13), while the website may have attracted older respondents.

10. The results which follow are broken down into three sections: Young Researchers, Opinion Finders, and Harrowkidz Website. They relate simply to the views of young people which were revealed by the project. An evaluation of the project in terms of the wider goals of the Children’s Fund will be covered in the end-year Evaluation Report.

YOUNG RESEARCHERS

11. The Young Researchers (all boys, apart from one girl who attended the drama workshop) appeared to find it easy to relate to the subject of the project. Both they (and their parents who brought them to the sessions) took attendance seriously; and although each meeting included plenty of fun, the young people were impressive in the extent to which they were prepared to discuss and learn at quite long evening meetings.

12. They were invited to explore and explain their own views about safety from the very beginning, through a range of activities. It was impossible for us to disentangle the source of their views with the resources available to us, but very broadly, they seemed to fall into three or four categories:

Ø      Fundamental fears and frightening fantasies experienced by all or most children – of the dark, and dark places, of being left alone. One of these – fear of kidnap – which occurred quite frequently, may also relate to stories of abductions in the press.

Ø      Fears generated by national or world events reported in the press, involving danger, guns or violence. One participant, for example, said that beaches were no longer safe.

Ø      Practical concerns for safety instilled by school and parents: about crossing the road carefully, standing back from the railway platform edge, paying attention to “hazard” signs.

Ø      And mixed with all these, many insights into what it is like to be a young person living in Harrow just now.

13. Home and family, especially Mum, seemed important to all these young people, and it was clear that their sense of security was fixed in the familiar. Pluses – things that made them feel safe – included their siblings, extended family, their houses, family cars, household objects, holidays, favourite music, football. A list of “safe” things photographed by one young researcher included his house, front room, Mum and friend, and bathroom. He commented that his kitchen, DVDs, Dad and the garden should also be included! One photographed his Mum, and said, “ – she’s very nice, comforts and cheers me up”; while another described his garden as safe because, “Mum is watching from the kitchen.”

14. Perhaps less predictable were their perceptions of things that are unsafe in their lives. Important worries included the following:

Kidnapping has already been mentioned. No-one knew anybody who had been abducted, but it was generally felt to be a real risk.

Dark alleyways

A broad concern with pollution was related to passive smoking, cars, graffiti, vandalism and rubbish in the streets. Litter was also mentioned by most, but opinions differed as to how seriously litter should be treated.

Health concerns included poor diet, smoking and substance abuse and alcohol. These young people were against them all.

They were equally severe about places serving alcohol. Clubs and pubs that encouraged heavy drinking were associated with noisy, dangerous gangs; and casinos, with pointless, dangerous waste of money.

Dangerous gangs were also mentioned as one of the hazards of Harrow bus station - again, sometimes in connection with drugs, alcohol, and mobile ‘phone theft.

Racism was mentioned as a problem by some, and – conversely – a “multicultural” setting was seen as a safe one.

15. A few issues were seen as particularly complicated: policing was one. While the police could be reassuring in some contexts – for example, outside pubs at night – their obvious presence in schools was seen as threatening and heavy-handed. Some held the general view that the “police will not help you”, even when an obvious crime is being committed.

16. Most saw school as a fundamentally safe place, and trusted the adults there to prevent kidnap or other violence. On the other hand, bullying was generally said to be a problem, although there had been little personal experience of it.

17. As one part of the preparation for surveying the views of other young people, the Young Researchers developed their own list of qualities needed for the task. These were:

18. Overall, the group thought the project had been very successful. They said that they had enjoyed learning about what concerned other people, and thinking about how the environment could be improved, and young people’s worries about safety solved. They also said that they had learned a lot about Harrow, Harrow Council and the Youth Council as a result of the project.

OPINION FINDERS

19. The following statements are based on the completed or partially-completed questionnaires (about 70) collected by the young researchers. Often, the numbers of respondents replying to any one question are small: proportions which are stated relate to the number of people responding to the individual question. Few very young children were contacted: most respondents would be in the 9-13 age range.

20. Relationships

Half the (few) respondents to this question felt that they could talk to their parents when worried

Virtually all respondents felt that they felt most safe at home

Seven out of ten felt that they had someone to turn to when they were worried; even more, that they have someone they can trust, to talk to

Virtually all had an adult to talk to about their problems

21. Harrow – the streets and the environment

Most respondents to this question felt that, overall, Harrow was a safe place to live

Most felt that street lighting was an issue – there should be more

Two-thirds agreed or agreed strongly with the proposition that litter and graffiti are a problem in Harrow

Virtually all respondents to this question felt that pollution in Harrow is dangerous

There were no strong views about road safety in Harrow

The majority of a small number of respondents felt that ill-health was a problem for the borough

22. Safe places

All respondents to this question feel safe at home

Two-thirds feel that drunks and pubs are a problem in the borough

One-half believe that racism is an issue

Most believe strongly that public transport is safe

Two-thirds feel that the police help them to feel safe

About half feel that there are safe places to go after school

23. School

Three-quarters of the children who answered this question said that they could always talk to their teacher when they were worried

More than half feel safe at school

But three out of five think that bullying is a problem at their school

And more than half think that most children have been bullied at some time

24. Crime

Less than half of the respondents to this question felt that Harrow is safer than other parts of London

Most agreed that there is too much crime in Harrow, and that it is a problem

But very few thought that crime was a problem where they lived

Half knew someone who had been a victim of crime

About half thought that teenagers could be a problem

HARROWKIDZ WEBSITE 

25. Again, although about 40 responses were collected from the website up to March 2005, many respondents only answered those questions of most concern to them.

26. Safe places

27 respondents felt safe at home, or at home with their family; no-one felt unsafe. Others wrote about supportive friends and family, and feeling safe indoors, when the family is at home; 3 mentioned feeling unsafe when the family wasn’t home

Familiar places and people, lighting, plenty of company, friends, respected institutions like places of worship or after-school clubs all inspired confidence, as did traffic control measures. Locks and dogs were also appreciated.

27. Unsafe places

Most unsafe places were “outside”, and 29 people knew of some. They included Harrow bus station, parks and alleys

Unsafe places were associated with late night noise and rowdy kids; drunks; drug use; bullies; crime of all kinds; fights, gangs; people in hiding, and kidnap

They also involve physical danger – falling over, falling on railway lines, traffic

28. “I feel safe when...”

“I’m at home, with family and friends, in a crowd, when the sun is shining, somewhere familiar and in good lighting”

“When I’m inside and nice and warm, in bed”

“With teachers, at school, playing football”

29. Things that make me feel unsafe

Bad language and shouting, people arguing in the street

Strangers, being alone in the house, dark and lonely streets and alleys, my back garden at night, deserted places

Fights, family fights

Gangs and drunks

30. People who are the best protection against danger

Parents, the wider family and friends were all mentioned by numerous respondents. Older people could generally be relied on to help. One commented simply that, “they are all helpful, but you don’t want them escorting you everywhere”

Teachers/school, and neighbours were also frequently listed

The police were listed by six respondents, but had also been listed as “dangerous” by one

31. Bullying

27 respondents were worried about bullying; 7 were not

A few wrote that it had happened to them: one boy, for example, was stigmatised for getting on with the girls at his school

But many respondents knew how it would feel: it made them scared; they would feel sad, deceived, worried, upset, lonely, frightened, let down and hurt. Their self-esteem would be damaged, and it could lead to dangerous violence

Findings

32. The consistency of the findings across all three samples is clear. The young people contacted during this project generally find security within their homes and immediate family, their neighbours and friends. The only negative points concern some family fights, being alone at home, and some “dodgy” neighbours. Neighbourhoods, however, can be dangerous: alleyways, environmental and industrial dangers can be compounded – in young minds – by people lying in wait. In spite of the statistics, crime of all kinds is seen as a problem. The role of the police is on balance seen as a positive, but clearly some respondents remain to be convinced that the police are on their side.

33. Poor street lighting, graffiti, vandalism and rubbish are taken seriously by Harrow’s young people who identify them with the uncertainty and social instability which they fear. Drunkenness and loud crowds around pubs and clubs are almost universally disliked.

34. Schools and teachers receive a generally very positive response from the young people. But – in spite of this – school holds one of their chief fears. Very few seem to have had direct experience of bullying, but most fear it, and can describe in graphic terms what it would mean to them.

Conclusion

35. This project was to a large extent experimental. It demonstrated beyond doubt the feasibility, and the value of involving young people in the evaluation of social programmes which are of direct concern to their lives. Our young researchers worked hard and enjoyed the experience of examining their own lives, and the lives of their contemporaries in Harrow. They had important things to say about the streets, schools and homes they experience every day.

Annex C: Website questionnaire

1.      Where do you feel safe? What are safe places for you?

2.    Are some places dangerous? In what ways?

3.    When do you feel safe?

4.    What are the things that make you feel unsafe?

5.    Which people are the best protection against danger

·        Family? – Who exactly...

·        School?

·        Friends?

·        Neighbours?

·        A particular teacher, or other adult?

6.    What people do you feel really safe with?

7.    Who do you trust, for good advice and support?

8.    Who can you talk to, if you feel worried or frightened?

9.    Does bullying happen/worry you? What’s it like 

10.Are there things about Harrow which make you feel safe/unsafe?

From Track Off: www.teachingzone.org/pdf/15-16Phselp.pdf

Railway crime is a big problem for the people who run the railway tracks and the trains. It takes place at

railway stations, on trains and on railway tracks.

At railway stations, crimes include stealing cars and from cars, hurting station users or staff, theft from

customers and damaging station buildings.

On trains, crimes include stealing peoples’ suitcases, hurting passengers or train staff and damage by

football hooligans.

On railway tracks, crimes include walking on or across the railway line without using an official crossing,

throwing things at trains, putting things on the track in front of trains, dumping rubbish at the side of tracks

and damaging or spraying graffiti on railway buildings.

• Half of all damage to trains is usually caused by children between the ages of 5 and 16 throwing

rocks or bricks from the side of the tracks or putting things on the tracks.

• 4 million objects are thrown at trains every year.

• 640,000 objects are put on the tracks in front of trains every year.

• It costs the railway industry £260 million every year to repair damaged trains and tracks,

replace staff who may have been shocked or injured and in delays to trains.

• It is estimated 27 million crimes of going on the railway tracks without permission (trespass)

are carried out each year - 17million of these crimes are committed by adults and 10 million

by children under the age of 16.

• It is estimated these crimes of going on the railway tracks without permission are carried out

by 1 million adults and 1.3 million children under the age of 16.

• British Transport Police will visit the homes and schools of young children who carry out acts

of railway crime.

• Walking on or near the tracks without permission, except at an official crossing, is a crime - people can

be fined up to £1,000.

• Throwing things at trains is a crime - people can be sent to prison for life for a serious offence.

• Putting things on the track that can damage or derail a train is a crime - people can be sent to prison

for life for a serious offence.

• A train cannot stop quickly or swerve like a car. Even a slow moving freight train cannot stop quickly as it

can weigh up to 2,000 tonnes.

• At a speed of 225 kilometres an hour an inter-city train can travel over 2,000 metres (20 football pitches)

in 7 seconds.

• If the driver puts on his emergency brakes it would take 2 kilometres for an inter-city train to stop.

• Track switching points can trap feet causing serious injury or trap someone in front of a train.

• Electricity from overhead cables on the railway can ‘jump’

From Sentencing Guideline Council Draft Report 2005:
For each of the three categories, three levels of seriousness have been identified based on the extent of force used or threatened. For each level of seriousness a sentencing range and a starting point within that range have been identified. Adult and youth offenders are distinguished and the guideline provides for them as separate groups.

From The Sun Online: http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2005550090,00.html 

Tortured by girl gang

By JAMIE PYATT

A TEENAGE waitress was kidnapped and tortured by a gang of girls who filmed the sick attack on a mobile phone.

The terrified 17-year-old was tied semi-naked to a tree by three women and then put through an hour-long “happy-slap” ordeal.

Her torturers poured hair remover over her scalp and rubbed chilli sauce into her genitals.

They also shaved off her eyebrows, beat her with sticks and forced her to wet herself.

The victim was snatched off the street because gang leader Allea Ejaz, 21, believed the teenager was having an affair with the father of her child, Reading Crown Court heard.

The girl was blindfolded, handcuffed and driven to a beauty spot before being lashed to a tree and having her clothes cut off.

Gang member Manessah Hodge, 23, took photographs of the attack as the waitress screamed in terror and begged for mercy.

Afterwards the girl was pushed into a bramble bush and abandoned.

Ejaz and Hodge, who both have four-year-old sons, and a third girl, who has never been traced, planned the attack the night before.

The victim was filmed being tortured in Burnham Beeches woods, near Slough, Berks. Ejaz and Hodge, both from the town, admitted kidnapping, false imprisonment and grievous bodily harm.

But the pair were cleared of sexual assault. Judge Gordon Risius jailed both women for four years and said they had subjected their victim to “sustained violence”.

The waitress suffered hair loss, scalp burns and 14 other injuries. The judge said: “She could put up no fight outnumbered three to one.”

A Thames Valley Police spokesman said: “Taking pictures of the girl being sadistically tortured on a mobile phone to show to others later was an extreme aggravating factor in this case.”

The victim, also from Slough, refused to comment after the trial.

Harrow Police & Community Consultative Group, Harrow Scrutiny Unit, Harrow’s Children and Young People’s Strategic Partnership 

Harrow Police & Community Consultative Group (HPCCG) consists of local police officers, Harrow elected representatives and residents. Interested person can sit in on their meetings, where the police, and the crime and safety units report on their recent activities – the next one is their AGM in Harrow Civic Centre on Thursday 8 December, from 7.30pm.

Please contact the Group Administrator Sam Challis: 020 8424 1785, sam.challis@harrow.gov.uk, or HPCCG, c/o Legal Services, London Borough of Harrow, P.O. Box 2, Civic Centre, Harrow, Middx, HA1 2UH

Harrow Scrutiny Unit priority 2005-06:

Scrutiny reviews currently underway are:

Harrow’s Children and Young People’s Strategic Partnership (CYPSP) must agree and publish the CYPP document by April 2006.  The council, the primary care trust, the police and others working together as partners, are all involved. The CYPSP will co-ordinate action and evaluate the impact of local services. CYPSP are responsible for making services better and work more together. The plan, and its associated arrangements, will be a management tool for the CYPSP.

The first plan will cover three years: 2006 – 2009. It will be looked at again (reviewed) each year.  This single plan will replace the number of individual plans, and help concentrate on key issues.  It will set out clearly where we want to be over the next three years and how we aim to get there.

We aspire to a local community where all children and young people enjoy the highest quality of life. This means that there will have to be changes. The focus of the plan is to ensure that every child in Harrow is

Mothers Against Murder And Aggression
MAMAA is a national registered charity which supports and campaigns on behalf of families and friends of murder victims. Each year there is an average of 800 murders across the UK which ultimately affects many more than just the immediate families.

Back