Conversely, the communities were complaining that none of the agencies were listening to them even though they were being constantly asked to identify issues in their area. They felt that results from these problem solving exercises bore no relation to their issues or priorities and those actions were decided without further consultation with the community and imposed upon them.

HANWaG decided that a single process would satisfy the needs of the partner agencies and community. Consequently HANWaG adapted ‘SARA’ and developed the Community Problem Solving Kit. It was recognised that the process had to be uncomplicated, flexible, deal with wide-ranging community issues (both high and low levels of crime), have a strong participative/visual impact and be community focused.

The kit comprises 4 pre-printed white-boards:

• Issues Wheel and Priority Ladder – used to identify and prioritise all group issues

• Problem Triangle – used to gain information known by the community about the issue and gather potential responses and possible actions to address the priority issue

• Action Plan – focuses the community on how to formulate a ‘SMART’ action plan to deal with the highest priority issue

• Evaluation – community asked to rate their environment, crime and levels of community participation before/after the process. Evaluation included the community being asked to evaluate the benefits of the actions, methods used, lessons learned and provide evidence.

Information gathered during the process would take the form of a coherent, structured, focused, living and tangible Community Problem Solving Booklet providing much needed data which fosters empowerment, community ownership and reduce the blame culture that exists between the community and agencies.

Outcomes:

• community consulted once
• problem solving links into SARA and NIM, allowing partner agencies to take any data they require
• community now part of the problem solving process which is focused on their issues and priorities but provides mutually agreed actions

The kit was piloted with Neighbourhood Watch Groups and agencies. It has now proved so successful that it is expected that all community problem solving will be carried out using the kit by all partners.

See below for a more detailed explanation and pictures of the problem solving process

1. The Wheel “Our Issues” and the Ladder “Our Priorities”

A device was needed to allow the community to inform the facilitators what their issues were in an organised and coherent manner. As it was envisaged that the kit would be utilised in public meetings it also had to be user friendly and have a visible impact. A circle was devised as the shape naturally prohibits the concept of prioritisation. The circle was segmented to allow the various issues to be written within. The group would be asked to name the issues they felt were a problem in their area. If there were more issues than segments it was decided that the reverse of the board could be used. Once the group was satisfied that all issues had been identified they would be given 2 votes each and apply those votes to any single issue or 2 separate issues they felt strongly about, this alleviated the problem of the loudest voice setting the agenda.

Once the votes are cast, the facilitator would count the votes and transfer in order of priority (highest first) the issues onto the vertical ladder. At this point it was envisaged that the group would have vented their frustrations, talked generally about the issues and become more focused on the list of their priorities in front of them. This was deemed to be an administrative, transitory element to be referred back to over time.

2. The Triangle “Our Problem”

At this point the facilitator would write the top issue on the triangle board to help keep the focus of the group on their main priority. The facilitator would draw out information from the group relating to “factors known” by the community in relation to the issue which would be inserted inside the triangle. The area outside the triangle would be used for deductions and potential responses and actions the group feel would assist in solving the issue. At this stage the level(s) of capability in terms of resources, finance and support are unknown; this is dealt with in the next stage.

3. The Action Plan “Our Plan”

The plan was designed as a visual guide for the group to enable discussion of the potential implementation of actions decided on during the scanning and analysis process. It was envisaged that the facilitator would ask the group to formulate their own specific aim in dealing with the problem. From this they would then begin to task assignments and timelines from within the group including a commitment to contact, consult and request support from agencies identified to become involved in helping to provide the solution to the problem. It was anticipated that this process would build enough community confidence to begin a meaningful discourse with the agencies.