Graffiti Vandalism Prevention Programme Design

Graffiti Vandalism Prevention
Programme Design
Insights and Case Studies
prepared for
Community Development and Safety Unit, Auckland Council
by
Emma Blomkamp, Simon Harger-Forde and Terry Fleming
May 2014
Summary
innovate change is a social innovation agency that identifies and implements new and creative
ways to design, deliver and review health and social care programmes, services and policy.
Auckland Council commissioned innovate change to lead a social innovation process to
develop a new education programme for graffiti vandalism prevention. This work supports
Auckland Council’s vision of a city free of graffiti vandalism.
Graffiti vandalism refers to writing, drawing, painting, spraying or etching done without lawful
consent on a wall or other surface in a public space.
innovate change undertook a four-phased process of social innovation from February to April
2014 to gain an understanding of the issue, generate and validate ideas, and design a new graffiti
vandalism prevention education programme.
This document presents 11 key insights and four case studies that innovate change generated
and tested during this process. The insights emerged from a targeted review of selected
literature and interviews with people who have knowledge and/or experience of graffiti culture,
urban design, vandalism prevention, public art, youth development or community education.
A list of references is provided at the end of this document. Some of the insights include a quote
from an interview participant. Quotes are unattributed to protect the identity of participants in
this project.
For more information about this project or other services and projects undertaken by innovate
change, please visit www.innovatechange.co.nz.
2
Insights
3
1. Rapidly removing graffiti vandalism
reduces graffiti, but requires consistent effort
As a result of Auckland Council rapidly
removing graffiti vandalism and
actively enforcing the law, graffiti is
much less visible in greater Auckland
than it was 15 years ago.
An area that has been tagged once is
more likely to be tagged again, but this
can be avoided by quickly removing
the graffiti. Rapidly removing graffiti
reduces the likelihood of the offender
receiving recognition from their peers.
Eradication can therefore demotivate
graffiti writers. It can, however, result
in graffiti writers doing quicker tags
and using stickers, rather than taking
the time to create more elaborate
artwork.
“Our success revolves around getting it
out straight away.. Don’t allow [graffiti
writers] the mana. So now it’s not worth
the bother [for them].”
Rapid removal of graffiti vandalism can
be effective at reducing graffiti, but it is
not a systemic approach. It requires
sustained effort, ongoing investment
and complementary prevention
strategies.
4
2. Of the different types of graffiti writing,
tagging is the biggest problem in Auckland
There are four main types of graffiti
writing, all found to a varying extent in
Auckland: conventional, political, gangrelated and tagging. Conventional or
bathroom graffiti includes the etching
of names into desks, doors or walls, and
is found in schools, public toilets and
parks. Political or ideological graffiti
can be seen as inevitable or important
for democratic reasons. Gang-related
territorial markings are the most
concerning in terms of safety, but are
likely done by young prospects rather
than patched gang members.
“There are different worlds here, and you’d
need to have a deep understanding of them
to design a response.”
Hip hop style graffiti, or tagging, is the
most common type of graffiti in
Auckland. Originating in New York in
the 1970s, it involves writing a simple,
stylised name or signature in public,
often repeatedly and often using spray
paint. Markers and etchers are also
common. In Auckland, tagging is often
found along the railway line and on
vacant, industrial buildings and other
5
types of private and public property.
3. Graffiti writing is done mostly but not only
by young men
Most graffiti vandalism is done by
young men aged 13 to 23. Some
younger and older people, including
employed adults, girls and women, are
also known to write and paint graffiti.
Hip hop style graffiti writers are part of
an international sub culture and come
from a range of social, cultural and
economic backgrounds.
Many young people do minor
occasional graffiti and a small number
do much more.
Some young people go through a phase
of tagging. For others, belonging to this
sub culture is an important part of
their identity. Some hone their skills
and become street artists; others do
not.
“I’m 37 and some of my
peers still tag.”
Those who most repeat graffiti
vandalism are typically young men
who lack positive connections with
education, work or family.
6
4. There are many reasons to write graffiti,
but it’s often a question of identity
There is no single reason why people
are involved in graffiti vandalism, but
most graffiti writers are not primarily
motivated to cause harm or damage.
For many, graffiti provides a means of
self-expression and a sense of
belonging.
Key motivations for tagging include:
•
•
•
•
“I really enjoyed doing it so I didn’t
stop [even after I got caught and] I
had to do 100 hours of community
service.”
•
to be seen, noticed or recognised
(for fame, respect, visibility or
credibility)
the thrill of illicit activity, or to
combat boredom (for excitement,
challenge)
to express creative talent (for pride,
pleasure, creativity or achievement)
to fit in with a ‘crew’, peer pressure,
or to combat experiences of being
excluded
to claim or enliven space, or to
exercise some control over the
environment.
7
5. An extreme reaction to graffiti vandalism is
problematic
Some people call for ‘zero tolerance’ for
graffiti. They suggest we need to
educate the public not to accept any
kind of graffiti. According to the ‘broken
windows’ theory, minor signs of disorder,
like graffiti, invite more serious forms of
crime and can have disastrous
consequences for a city. However,
researchers have not found strong
evidence to support the theory that
graffiti leads to serious crime.
At the other end of the tolerance
spectrum, graffiti is seen as inevitable in
a modern city. Graffiti has existed ever
since humans first etched images on the
walls of caves. Prohibition simply does
not work. Allowing graffiti writers to tag
or draw whatever they want all over
Auckland is not an acceptable outcome
for most people, though.
“You’ll never stop graffiti but
you can restrict it.”
In between these polar extremes are
more balanced and evidence-based
responses that allow people to express
themselves through legal graffiti 8
without permitting vandalism.
6. Applying principles of environmental
design can prevent graffiti in certain spaces
There is a large and growing body of
research that suggests crime
prevention through environmental
design is a pragmatic and effective
approach to prevent vandalism and
other crime in particular spaces.
Applying principles of environmental
design to create safe, vibrant spaces
can deter people from damaging
property in these places. The potential
for graffiti can be further reduced by
creating surfaces and modifying
settings so that graffiti writers do not
perceive a wall or space as an empty
and inviting “blank canvas” waiting to
be filled. Practical examples include
planting trees or bushes in front of a
fence or wall, installing good lighting
and wall murals.
“Stop building solid
fences and walkways
between cul de sacs.”
To be most effective, this approach
needs to involve multiple stakeholder
groups and incorporate social,
environmental and community
9
development strategies.
7. Educating property owners about graffiti
removal and prevention can work well
Auckland Council already provides
information for property owners and
other community members about:
• how to prevent graffiti (e.g. through
lighting, painting and planting),
• how to report graffiti, and
• the importance of rapid removal
Best practice from the United States
and United Kingdom suggests that this
can be effective as part of a broader
strategy to prevent graffiti vandalism.
It can also be combined with assistance
with planting, graffiti proof paint or
graffiti removal, and education about
crime prevention through
environmental design.
“We need guidelines for businesses or
building owners and artists to negotiate
together. How would an artist talk to a
building owner to get permission? How
could building owners see their boring
walls as potential canvases for interesting
art?”
In Auckland and other cities, some
property owners have engaged street
artists to beautify and enliven their
environment. There is scope to
improve property owners’
understanding of the value of art
projects for graffiti vandalism
prevention and how they can work
10
with street artists.
8. Educating young people requires a
comprehensive approach to behaviour change
A conventional approach to graffiti
prevention is to run school-based
programmes to educate young people
about the negative impacts of graffiti
vandalism. However, people often
overestimate the benefits of these
programmes. Rigorous studies show
educational programmes for young
people which focus on information
about harm or use scare tactics are often
ineffective or counter-productive.
Similarly, one-off educational sessions in
schools are unlikely to lead to positive
behaviour change.
“Telling youth not to do something will
only encourage them.”
Experience from other fields has shown
that educational approaches to reduce
problematic behaviour can be effective
where these form part of an integrated
and comprehensive approach and are
centered on positive relationships.
Educational components delivered by a
trusted and known adult are more likely
to be effective. The target group,
behaviour change goal and behaviour
change method also need to be well 11
understood and clearly defined.
9. Legal graffiti walls do not usually appear to
prevent graffiti vandalism
Some communities have created
graffiti walls where anyone can legally
apply graffiti at any time. The idea is
that if you provide an outlet for young
people to write graffiti publicly, they
might “get it out of their system”.
Despite the arguments that permitted
sites would resolve or ease the problem
of graffiti vandalism, most of the
evidence does not support this view. If
these sites are unsupervised, they may
not be safe spaces for young people to
gather and develop creative skills.
Graffiti has sometimes spread out into
surrounding areas of legal graffiti
walls.
“We had free walls in the late 90s. It
went well until West Auckland came
over and wanted to add their part… It
went to custard then the
neighbourhood complained.”
This approach does not seem to
address important motivations for
graffiti writing such as the appeal of
illicit graffiti and the wish to claim
space or have a voice in the city.
12
10. Urban art projects can prevent graffiti
vandalism in certain areas for a limited time
As well as improving an urban
environment, street art projects can
address graffiti vandalism. Artwork is
less likely to be damaged by graffiti
vandals if they know and respect the
people who have created it. Engaging
street artists and young people from
the local community is therefore key.
This can also mean community
members take ownership of the area,
maintain the artwork and manage any
vandalism. Murals that do not include
participatory processes or exclude the
values and input of those involved with
graffiti may be less effective.
“Walls with artwork don’t get tagged
as often.”
There are many one-off case studies
and best practice examples but little
formal evidence of the effectiveness of
public art for preventing graffiti
vandalism. Projects like councilcommissioned murals can be complex,
expensive and require a long-term
approach. They usually only remain
tag-free for a certain amount of time
13
(e.g. six months).
11. Young graffiti writers can be offered an
alternative outlet for creative expression
Graffiti vandalism might be prevented
by providing writers with an alternative
way to express their identity, feel
connected to others, be recognised for
their talents and have a voice in the
community. Efforts to engage young
people in education or meaningful
activities are likely to have a positive
effect, especially if they offer creative
skill development in connection with
hip hop culture. To be most effective,
programmes should take a positive
youth development approach – this
means focusing on young people’s
strengths, positive relationships,
participation and empowerment.
“You need to empower the people who
are the problem to come up with the
solution.”
A number of participatory mural
projects taking a youth development
approach have been completed,
although there has been little formal
evaluation of their impact. Existing
levels of creative talent and youth
leadership in Auckland suggest this
approach has great potential. It would
require significant investment. 14
Case Studies
15
Case Study 1: Youth Development Approach
to Street Art
In Wellington, from 2011 to 2013, over 60
young people designed and painted public
artwork as part of a youth services
programme run by BGI. The voluntary
participants were predominantly young
Māori and Pacific Island men
disengaged from education, many of whom
had been known to tag.
Taking a strengths-based, empowering and
participatory approach, the programme
fostered a strong group culture, creative skill
development, and positive identities and
relationships. It empowered young people to
have a constructive voice in the community
through the artworks, while maintaining a
persistent intolerance for vandalism.
Participants came to see tagging as immature
and inferior, and the vast majority stopped
writing graffiti illegally.
Photo credit: Rod Baxter, BGI
Key success factors in the project were: its
positive youth development approach; strong
co-facilitation by a street artist, whom the
young people respected, and a skilled and
experienced youth worker; the regular
structure of weekly art workshops; strong
partnerships with Council, local businesses
and other community/youth organisations;
and positive reporting by local media on
significant mural projects.
Case Study 2: Community Ownership and
Youth Led Approach to Graffiti Prevention
In 2004, the City of Vista threatened to close
its skatepark because of problems with
graffiti and other kinds of vandalism, which
were costing the city around $10,000 a year. A
group of local young people and their parents
volunteered to keep the Vista Skate Park
clean if the City would keep it open. The
young people formed “skate and bike watch
groups” to take charge of the park.
Seven months later, there had been only two
minor acts of vandalism at the park and the
City spent half as much on skatepark
maintenance and supervision the following
year. Within a few years, however, the council
reported increased problems at the park and
suggested that the presence of city
supervisors seemed to be aggravating
retaliatory acts of vandalism.
A key learning from this case study is that
community ownership and informal
surveillance of a public space where young
people enjoy spending time can be more
effective for graffiti vandalism prevention
than an authoritative approach focusing on
apprehension and punishment.
17
Photo credit: https://www.flickr.com/photos/chrisschoenbohm/8569086980/
Case Study 3: Youth Participation in Creative
Place-Based Projects
Auckland Council’s Arts and Culture team
has proposed collaborating with The Roots
Creative Entrepreneurs in a hot spot area as
part of a creative approach to graffiti
vandalism education prevention. The Roots
are an Auckland-based collective that aims to
inspire the next generation through creative
opportunities in communities, with a
particular focus on sustainability and South
Pacific arts.
Although their past projects have not been
graffiti-focused, the work of The Roots could
easily contribute to graffiti vandalism
prevention outcomes. The Roots started with
a project that involved building sculptures
from thousands of bottles with high school
student ‘tribes’ at Otara Town Centre in South
Auckland. Since then, the collective has
worked with young people and urban
professionals on a range of sustainable art
projects, including eco-villages at Pasifika and
the Garden of Avondale at Rosebank School.
The Roots have recently been working on a
programme supported by the Waitemata
Local Board, which engaged local high school
students in a collaborative and experimental
endeavour to create sustainably designed
18
sculptures in Albert Park.
Photo credit: The Roots
Case Study 4: Property Owners and Street
Artists Working Together
Graffiti vandalism has been an ongoing
problem for the Bhana family, who have a
store on Ponsonby Road. Their alleyway was
getting tagged a lot, so the family was happy
when some Cut Collective artists proposed to
paint their own design there in 2006,
especially as they did not ask for any payment.
For several years, the artists maintained the
walls, returning to paint out the odd tag and
evolving the work over time. Harry Bhana told
us, “On those particular walls, there was less
tagging. Maybe taggers know who they are –
the [artists] always sign off their work. The
odd one still scrawls something, but it’s
nowhere near as bad as a bare wall.”
The artists have not repainted the alleyway for
around 18 months now, because they have
been busy with other commitments, and
graffiti vandalism has reappeared. As one of
the artists told us, “Some kids have tagged it
now.”
Photo credit:
http://juliadub.com/2012/07/10/and-finally-some-taken-by-me/#jp-carousel-3521/
This case study demonstrates the great
potential for property owners and street
artists to work together on beautifying their
property and protecting it from graffiti
vandalism, but this requires a connection and
informal agreement to be made between the
two parties. Importantly, maintaining the 19
artwork requires ongoing effort.
References
All of the insights were informed and validated by key informant interviews and focus groups, conducted by innovate
change, Auckland, March 2014. The featured quotations in the insight section are verbatim quotes from these interviews.
Additional sources of information for each insight and case study are listed below.
Insight 1
 Auckland Council. “Auckland Graffiti Vandalism Prevention Plan,” 2012.
 Auckland Council. “Dramatic Drop in Auckland Graffiti Vandalism.” Scoop News, December 3, 2012.
 Cox, Joanne, Fiona Hutton, and Mike Rowe. Tagging and Graffiti: Attitudes and Experiences of New Zealanders.
Report prepared for Ministry of Justice. Wellington: Institute of Criminology, Victoria University Wellington,
December 2009.
 Stafford, J., and G. Pettersson. Vandalism, Graffiti and Environmental Nuisance on Public Transport-Literature
Review. Department for Transport Prepared by Crime Concern, 2003..
 Tasman Research and Consultation. “A Regional Survey of Graffiti Vandalism in Auckland.” Auckland Council,
October 2013.
Insight 2
 Allen, Daniel. Fighting Graffiti: An Investigation of Causes and Solutions. Minneapolis: Standish-Ericsson
Neighborhood Association (SENA), 2007.
 Brewer, Devon. “Hip Hop Graffiti Writers’ Evaluations of Strategies to Control Illegal Graffiti.” Human Organization
51, no. 2 (June 1, 1992): 188–96.
 Freeman, Fay. How to STOP Graffiti Guide. Ministry of Justice, 2007.
 Stafford, J., and G. Pettersson. Vandalism, Graffiti and Environmental Nuisance on Public Transport-Literature
Review. Department for Transport Prepared by Crime Concern, 2003.
 Tasman Research and Consultation. “A Regional Survey of Graffiti Vandalism in Auckland.” Auckland Council,
October 2013.
 “Words of Art.” Tearaway, March 2009, p. 5.
20
Insight 3
 Cox, Joanne, Fiona Hutton, and Mike Rowe. Tagging and Graffiti: Attitudes and Experiences of New Zealanders.
Report prepared for Ministry of Justice. Wellington: Institute of Criminology, Victoria University Wellington,
December 2009.
 Freeman, Fay. How to STOP Graffiti Guide. Ministry of Justice, 2007.
 Kramer, R. “Painting with Permission: Legal Graffiti in New York City.” Ethnography 11, no. 2 (June 1, 2010): 235–53.
 Ministry of Justice. “STOP Strategy Implementation Progress Report,” 2010.
 Office of Crime Prevention. “A Study of Urban Art as a Graffiti Prevention Strategy.” State Graffiti Taskforce, 2010.
http://goodbyegraffiti.wa.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/Urban-Art-Research-Paper.pdf.
 Spicer, Valerie. “Couch Surfing in Vancouver: An Aggregate Study of the Vancouver Graffiti Suspect Network.” Thesis,
School of Criminology - Simon Fraser University, 2005. http://summit.sfu.ca/item/9840.
 Stafford, J., and G. Pettersson. Vandalism, Graffiti and Environmental Nuisance on Public Transport-Literature
Review. Department for Transport Prepared by Crime Concern, 2003.
Insight 4
 Office of Crime Prevention. “A Study of Urban Art as a Graffiti Prevention Strategy.” State Graffiti Taskforce, 2010.
 Cox, Joanne, Fiona Hutton, and Mike Rowe. Tagging and Graffiti: Attitudes and Experiences of New Zealanders.
Report prepared for Ministry of Justice. Wellington: Institute of Criminology, Victoria University Wellington,
December 2009.
 Halsey, Mark, and Alison Young. “The Meanings of Graffiti and Municipal Administration.” Australian & New Zealand
Journal of Criminology 35, no. 2 (August 1, 2002): 165–86/
 Spicer, Valerie. “Couch Surfing in Vancouver: An Aggregate Study of the Vancouver Graffiti Suspect Network.” Thesis,
School of Criminology - Simon Fraser University, 2005. http://summit.sfu.ca/item/9840.
 Stafford, J., and G. Pettersson. Vandalism, Graffiti and Environmental Nuisance on Public Transport-Literature
Review. Department for Transport Prepared by Crime Concern, 2003.
21
Insight 5
 Brewer, Devon. “Hip Hop Graffiti Writers’ Evaluations of Strategies to Control Illegal Graffiti.” Human Organization
51, no. 2 (June 1, 1992): 188–96.
 Kramer, Ronald. “Political Elites, ‘Broken Windows’, and the Commodification of Urban Space.” Critical Criminology
20, no. 3 (September 2012):.
 Office of Crime Prevention. “A Study of Urban Art as a Graffiti Prevention Strategy.” State Graffiti Taskforce, 2010.
 Rowe, Michael, and Fiona Hutton. “‘Is Your City Pretty Anyway?’ Perspectives on Graffiti and the Urban Landscape.”
Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology 45, no. 1 (April 1, 2012): 66–86.
 Stafford, J., and G. Pettersson. Vandalism, Graffiti and Environmental Nuisance on Public Transport-Literature
Review. Department for Transport Prepared by Crime Concern, 2003.
Insight 6
 Cozens, Paul Michael, Greg Saville, and David Hillier. “Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED): A
Review and Modern Bibliography.” Property Management 23, no. 5 (2005): 328–56.
 National Guidelines for Crime Prevention through Environmental Design in New Zealand. Wellington: Ministry of
Justice, 2005. http://www.justice.govt.nz/publications/global-publications/n/national-guidelines-for-crime-preventionthrough-environmental-design-in-new-zealand-part-1-seven-qualities-of-safer-places-part-2-implementation-guidenovember-2005.
 Project for Public Spaces. “Preventing Graffiti.” Project for Public Spaces. Accessed April 16, 2014.
http://www.pps.org/reference/graffitiprevent/.
 WA Police Graffiti Team. “Designing out Graffiti.” State Graffiti Taskforce, July 2013.
http://goodbyegraffiti.wa.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/Designing-out-Graffiti-brochure.pdf.
Insight 7
 Auckland Council. “Graffiti Vandalism: Help Prevent Graffiti Vandalism in Your Neighbourhood,” 2012.
 Ministry of Justice. “STOP Strategy: A Strategy for Change 2008-11,” 2008.
 Stafford, J., and G. Pettersson. Vandalism, Graffiti and Environmental Nuisance on Public Transport-Literature
Review. Department for Transport Prepared by Crime Concern, 2003.
 WA Police Graffiti Team. “Designing out Graffiti.” State Graffiti Taskforce, July 2013.
http://goodbyegraffiti.wa.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/Designing-out-Graffiti-brochure.pdf.
22
Insight 8
 Aos, Steven, Roxanne Lieb, Jim Mayfield, Marna Miller, and Annie Pennucci. Benefits and Costs of Prevention and
Early Intervention Programs for Youth. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 2004.
 Lilienfeld, Scott O. “Psychological Treatments That Cause Harm.” Perspectives on Psychological Science 2, no. 1
(2007): 53–70.
 Ministry of Justice. “STOP Strategy Implementation Progress Report,” 2010.
 Petrosino, Anthony, Carolyn Turpin-Petrosino, and John Buehler. “Scared Straight and Other Juvenile Awareness
Programs for Preventing Juvenile Delinquency: A Systematic Review of the Randomized Experimental Evidence.” The
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 589, no. 1 (2003): 41–62.
 Rosenbaum, Dennis P., and Gordon S. Hanson. “Assessing the Effects of School-Based Drug Education: A Six-Year
Multilevel Analysis of Project DARE.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 35, no. 4 (1998): 381–412.
 Sherman, Lawrence W., Denise Gottfredson, Doris MacKenzie, John Eck, Peter Reuter, and Shawn Bushway. Preventing
Crime: What Works, What Doesn’t, What’s Promising. Washington DC: National Institute of Justice, 1995.
 Satcher, David. Youth Violence: A Report of the Surgeon General. USA: Office of the Surgeon General, 2001.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20669522.
 Weiss, Carol H., Erin Murphy-Graham, Anthony Petrosino, and Allison G. Gandhi. “The Fairy Godmother—and Her
Warts Making the Dream of Evidence-Based Policy Come True.” American Journal of Evaluation 29, no. 1 (2008): 29–
47.
Insight 9
 Cox, Joanne, Fiona Hutton, and Mike Rowe. Tagging and Graffiti: Attitudes and Experiences of New Zealanders.
Report prepared for Ministry of Justice. Wellington: Institute of Criminology, Victoria University Wellington,
December 2009.
 Ministry of Justice. “STOP Strategy: A Strategy for Change 2008-11,” 2008.
 Office of Crime Prevention. “A Study of Urban Art as a Graffiti Prevention Strategy.” State Graffiti Taskforce, 2010.
 Stafford, J., and G. Pettersson. Vandalism, Graffiti and Environmental Nuisance on Public Transport-Literature
Review. Department for Transport Prepared by Crime Concern, 2003.
23
Insight 10
 Allen, Daniel. Fighting Graffiti: An Investigation of Causes and Solutions. Minneapolis: Standish-Ericsson
Neighborhood Association (SENA), 2007..
 Craw, Penelope J., Louis S. Leland, Michelle G. Bussell, Simon J. Munday, and Karen Walsh. “The Mural as Graffiti
Deterrence.” Environment and Behavior 38, no. 3 (May 1, 2006): 422–34.
 Halsey, Mark, and Alison Young. “The Meanings of Graffiti and Municipal Administration.” Australian & New Zealand
Journal of Criminology 35, no. 2 (August 1, 2002): 165–86.
 Ministry of Justice. “STOP Strategy Implementation Progress Report,” 2010.
 National Guidelines for Crime Prevention through Environmental Design in New Zealand. Wellington: Ministry of
Justice, 2005.
 Office of Crime Prevention. “A Study of Urban Art as a Graffiti Prevention Strategy.” State Graffiti Taskforce, 2010.
http://goodbyegraffiti.wa.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/Urban-Art-Research-Paper.pdf.
 Taylor, Myra, and Ida Marais. “Does Urban Art Deter Graffiti Proliferation?” In Urban Art and Graffiti Papers from the
British Criminology Conference, 9:57–70, 2009. http://www.britsoccrim.org/volume9/wholedoc09.pdf#page=61.
Insight 11
 Baxter, Rod. “Aro Valley Community Centre Bunker Mural Report 2011.” BGI, 2011.
 Lerner, Richard M., Jason B. Almerigi, Christina Theokas, and Jacqueline V. Lerner. “Positive Youth Development.”
Journal of Early Adolescence 25, no. 1 (2005): 10–16.
 Ministry of Justice. “STOP Strategy Implementation Progress Report,” 2010.
Image credits
Insights 1-5, 8-11 – Photography by Emma Blomkamp
Insights 6-7 – Photography by Terry Fleming
24
Case study 1



Baxter, Rod. “Aro Valley Community Centre Bunker Mural Report 2011.” BGI, 2011
BGI, “Street Art Projects”, prepared by Rod Baxter for the Ministry of Justice, 2013
McBride, Kerry. “Massive mural brightens up city alleyway.” The Dominion Post, 17 July 2012.
Case study 2
 Keep America Beautiful, “Graffiti Hurts: Best Practices.” 2014.
http://www.graffitihurts.org/community/bestpractices.jsp
 Klawonn, Adam. “Vandalism drops at Vista skate park.” Union Tribune. August 18, 2004
 http://www.utsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040818/news_1mi18skate.html
 TENBROECK, Craig. “Vista Skatepark at a Crossroads.” U-T San Diego, August 4, 2007.
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2007/aug/04/vista-skatepark-at-a-crossroads/.
Case study 3
 Community Development Arts and Culture, “A creative approach to the Education & Prevention of Graffiti Vandalism”,
Auckland Council, November 2013.
 Stills, Andrea. “The Roots Inspire the next Generation.” Unitec Student Media, February 28, 2014.
http://studentmediahub.com/?p=369898.\
 The Roots Creative Entrepreneurs, 2014. http://theroots.org.nz/what-we-do/.
For a video about the Waitemata project, see: http://vimeo.com/87538721.
Project participants
Although they remain anonymous, innovate change would like to acknowledge the 43 people who contributed to these
insights and case studies in March-April 2014 by participating in interviews, focus groups and a design workshop.
25