Disproportionality of minority ethnic children killed or seriously injured in road traffic accidents

Report: 7
Date: 5 June 2008
By: Assistant Commissioner Central Operations on behalf of the Commissioner

Summary

This report was requested by the full Authority at its meeting in December 2007. It deals with Transport for London (TfL) data on deprivation and its effects on child injuries and fatalities. It summarises the police response and reports the early achievement of government targets.

A. Recommendations

That members note the report.

B. Supporting information

1. TfL commissioned a report examining the links between deprivation and road traffic injuries. Albeit it was not published until March 2008, the MPS has had a copy of this internal report since its completion (executive summary attached as Appendix 1).

2. The report concluded that there was a relationship, which is directed towards deprivation rather than any other factor, echoing other national studies. As such, the MPS has ensured that its automatic number plate recognition system (ANPR) and general traffic tasking have been concentrated on the inner city BOCUs (Borough Operational Command Units).

3. The report only made recommendations to TfL and local authority Road Safety Officers. The MPS supports those recommendations in principle. The MPS at the London Safety Camera Partnership (LSCP) has successfully advocated that future LSCP education and enforcement should also be directed to the same inner city boroughs. The MPS also supports its partners by in the following ways:

• Each Borough has a Road Safety Officer, who takes primacy over delivering education to schools. These are borough officers.
• School buses examination.
• ‘Walk to School Week’ next on 19 to 23 May 2008.
• The MPS has supported 'Safe Drive Stay Alive' and 'Risk it, loose it', two hard hitting campaigns aimed at 17-24 year olds.
• The Traffic OCU also runs a number of smaller presentations on Moped Safety and general road safety issues.

4. A separate LSCP report (attached as Appendix 2) highlights the vulnerability of young drivers, riders and passengers aged 17-25 years. They are identified as high-risk road users that are over represented in collisions on London’s roads. In 2006, young drivers accounted for only 8% of car licence holders, but were involved in 18% of all traffic collisions resulting in personal injury. LSCP believe that pre-driver education has a valuable part to play in shaping new driver attitudes and behaviour.

5. A more recent report completed by TfL examines the relationship of ethnicity and pedestrian injury risk whilst also accounting for deprivation and road environment (executive summary attached as Appendix 3). This report builds on the earlier report examining the links between deprivation and road traffic injuries. The report shows that the relationship between deprivation and risk of road traffic injury differs by ethnic group, but is unable to offer an explanation above previous conclusions on deprivation.

6. While the MPS has already achieved the target in relation to child killed and seriously injured (KSI) rates having achieved 60% reduction by 2008 against the target of 50% by 2010, we will continue to work with partners in order to maintain and to improve on this performance.

C. Race and equality impact

There are no additional equality issues.

D. Financial implications

There are no financial implications with regard to this report.

E. Background papers

• Road Fatalities MPA Full Authority – Dec 07
• TfL report: ‘Is there a link between deprivation and road traffic injury in London?’
• Deprivation and Road Safety in London – London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.
• LSCP Report: Young Drivers, Riders and Passengers - Feb 2008
• TfL report: ‘Road Safety of London’s Black and Asian Minority Ethnic Groups’ – London School of Hygiene and tropical Medicine.

F. Contact details

Report author(s): Shabir Hussain

For more information contact:

MPA general: 020 7202 0202
Media enquiries: 020 7202 0217/18

Appendix 1: Deprivation and road safety in London

The report 'Road Safety and Deprivation in London' is in three parts. Part A explores the associations between deprivation and road traffic injury risk for different road user groups; part B1 reviews the evidence on ways of reducing inequalities in injury risk; and part B2 surveys current policy and practice across London on addressing deprivation and road safety.

Part A Relationships and Risks

We have shown that there is a relationship between deprivation and injury risk in London, both across the boroughs and within individual boroughs. The strongest relationship with deprivation is for pedestrians, where the most deprived are over twice as likely to be injured as the least deprived. The relationship was also found for adult cyclists in London. Where factors are not highly correlated with overall deprivation measures are taken into account, the gradients are reduced, but do not disappear, suggesting that there is something ‘about’ deprivation, over and above factors such as differential local road conditions, that is related to risk of injury.

Given that we are only able to measure the relationships between risk and area characteristics, we cannot make any strong claims about the mechanisms likely to link them. However, evidence from other sources (e.g. London Area Travel Survey 2001 data, shown in the appendix) suggests that exposure is likely to account for some form of the difference. Children living in more deprived areas are more likely to travel as pedestrians (Sonkin et al 2006), and thus more likely to be exposed to risk of road traffic injury. In addition, people who class themselves as Black (African, Caribbean, or Black other) are likely to travel as pedestrians, and are therefore also more likely to be exposed to road injury risk.

In terms of recommendations for reducing the effect of deprivation on road injury without reducing the amount of walking that residents do, the key is to make walking and cycling safer, through reducing traffic speed and volume and by improving the environment for walking and cycling.

To monitor the impact of policy on the relationship between deprivation and injury risk, our analysis suggests that STATS19 and the Index of Multiple Deprivation, despite limitations are adequate measures for monitoring. Although postcode incompleteness led to some biases in relationships between deprivation and injuries identified through STATS19, these did not impact greatly on the findings. Given that most child pedestrians are injured close to home, using the site of collision rather than casualty postcode made little difference to the relationship between child pedestrian injuries and deprivation. Collision locations are always recorded and therefore analysis by collision location allows all casualties to be included. STATS19 data are known to only include injuries that are reported to the police, but our comparison with hospital admissions data suggests that STATS19 are sufficiently reliable.

Removing the environment domain (which includes collision data) from the Index of Multiple Deprivation measure had little impact on the strength of relationships found, and so it is not necessary to recalculate the Index of Multiple Deprivation for suture analysis. For monitoring changes in the relationship between injury and deprivation over time, the overall number of pedestrians injured, particularly, is a sensitive measure with a strong relationship with deprivation. However, where possible this should take into account the distance travelled as a pedestrian (for example using London Area Travel Survey data when updated) to allow for different levels of walking by age and ethnic groups.

Part B1: Remedial Measures

There is a growing evidence base relating to the effectiveness of interventions to reduce traffic injuries, supporting the use of measures to reduce traffic volume and speed. There is little evidence that education, training and publicity measures alone reduce injury rates, suggesting that targeting these at deprived or other high risk populations is unlikely to reduce inequalities in traffic injury. To address deprivation effectively, road safety policy needs to take a broader public health approach, taking into account how shifts in transport modes are likely to impact on exposures to risk across London’s population. The current strategy of encouraging walking and cycling is likely to reduce one key contributor to inequalities in risk (exposure differences) in the longer term.

Part B2: Policy and Practice

There are policy imperatives at both national and London levels to address the links between deprivation and injury rate. This part of the study aimed to examine the responses of London boroughs to these imperatives, and to identify the challenges to, and opportunities for, addressing deprivation in the context of road safety. Data came from published Road Safety Plans, interviews and a survey.

Across London, the major focus of road safety activities in achieving targets injury reduction, in some boroughs, this is being done with broader ranging strategies of, for instance, road danger reduction or developing sustainable transport. Given the range of other policy agenda to be addressed, few boroughs prioritise action on deprivation specifically within road safety plans. However, many teams and individuals are addressing inequalities in terms of designing, implementing or prioritising interventions.

Setting aside those policies, which directly address deprivation, as these are in general outside the remit of road safety teams, ‘addressing inequalities’ in road safety can entail one or more of three rather different policy strategies. First deprivation can be taken into account through resource allocation by, for instance, using ward level indicators of deprivation as a measure of need or targeting interventions at those groups at highest risk. Second, it can be taken into account by delivering policies for which there is good evidence that they reduce inequalities in outcomes. Third, interventions can be tailored carefully at the specific needs of different sectors of the population, to ensure that services are being delivered appropriately across the borough.

There was considerable reported utilisation of the first strategy, with both engineering and educational interventions often targeted at those more in need. There are real challenges in adopting the second strategy, given the limited evidence about the causes of inequalities in injury risk and, following from this, strategy, in tailoring interventions through good practice in partnership and community consultation.

Although RSPs suggested that many boroughs adopt holistic approaches to road safety within a broader vision for the borough (such as road danger reduction approach), in practice most staff reported using rather a more pragmatic approach based on local knowledge and speculation about likely causes.

The key challenges noted in achieving road safety goals while taking deprivation into account were: the lack of evidence on the causes of inequalities in injury risk and what could address them; having to prioritise programmes that will meet the national casualty reduction targets; reported tensions in meeting obligations to provide universal services whilst targeting those at higher risk. Opportunities were: optimism about the gains made in road safety; the relatively high level and security of funding over the last 5 years; positive models of community consultation and partnership working and the commitment and enthusiasm of many local teams.

As it is impossible to recommend specific programmes that will reduce inequalities in injury risk, the recommendations from this research focus on developing strategies that move towards reducing a major cause of inequality (exposure differentials) through reducing traffic speed and volume. To do this in ways, which take account of the challenges noted above, the way forward may lie in strengthening community participation and partnership as ways of both working with all communities within a borough (and thus delivering road safety interventions which meet the needs of deprived as well as less deprived communities) and delivering road safety interventions which mesh with other policy goals (such as sustainable transport) rather than potentially conflict with them. This will require good partnership working within local authorities and across agencies. An integrated approach to road safety, which addresses deprivation as part of a broader strategy of reducing the dangers posed by traffic volumes and strengthening community participation, is less likely to result in fragmented and ineffective action.

Appendix 2: Young drivers, riders and passengers

Introduction

This report, created by the London Safety Camera Partnership (LSCP), highlights the vulnerability of young drivers, riders and passengers aged 17 – 25 years. They are identified as high-risk road users that are over-represented in collisions on London’s roads.

In 2006 young drivers accounted for only 8% of car licence holders however, 18% of all road traffic collisions resulting in personal injury involved young drivers. People in this age group represent 13% of London’s resident population.

LSCP believe that pre-driver education has a valuable part to play in shaping new driver attitudes and behaviour. Driver education, training and testing is key to making novice drivers safer and assisting with the reduction of casualties on London’s roads.

The nature of the problem

5,972 people aged 17-25 were killed, seriously injured or slightly injured in collisions on London's roads in 2006.

1,275 passengers aged 17-25 were killed, seriously injured or slightly injured in collisions on London’s roads in 2006.

3,761 young men aged 17-25 were killed, seriously injured or slightly injured in collisions on London's roads in 2006.

2,211 young women aged 17-25 were killed, seriously injured or injured in collisions on London's roads in 2006.

For car passengers injured in the vehicle being driven by the young car driver, 59% were also aged between 17 and 25 years, indicating that young car drivers tend to be accompanied by passengers of their own age group.

Regarding the gender of drivers in collisions, males accounted for 69% and females 31% in the 17-25 years age group, indicating that young driver safety is particularly an issue for young males.

Over 40% of young driver collisions occurred during the hours of darkness, which is considerably higher than the overall average of 30% for all collisions in London. Similarly, 26% of collisions involving a young driver were on a wet road surface, which is greater than the 21% for all collisions. This tends to indicate that younger drivers may have greater problems due to their relative inexperience of driving in the dark and in adverse conditions, which could be tackled through the introduction of training in night driving.

Education Campaigns/Events

• Educational campaigns aimed at young drivers have been run by LSCP. These have included the ‘Tearing Up’ campaign where billboard posters were placed in strategic locations across London where there were a high number of collisions recorded.
• Borough campaigns have also been held over the summer period, where interaction has taken place with young people in discussing speed related collisions.
• A number of crash reconstructions have been held across London including strategic locations such as Trafalgar Square. A majority of boroughs have also hosted crash re-constructions including Kingston Market Place, Barking & Dagenham Town Show and Southwark, outside Peckham Library. In Bromley, Westminster and Waltham Forest crash reconstruction have taken place at colleges.

LSCP recently organised an event for London sixth form/college and university students to illustrate the consequences of being a driver, passenger or rider involved in a speed related collision. Young people from 20 boroughs took part.

The event, called ‘Risk It and Lose It’, was aimed at 17-25 year olds as in London, young car drivers are more likely to be involved and injured in road traffic collisions than other drivers.

The event’s key message were ‘Risk It and Lose It’, young people who are a passenger or driver/rider in a speeding vehicle risked losing their life, their licence, their friends and their freedom.

This event was organised to demonstrate the serious consequences of speed-related collisions. Research shows that young people cannot easily imagine their own mortality and are more concerned with the social consequences of collisions than they are self-harm. For this reason, this event focused not only on the death/serious injury (physical consequences) that can result from a collision, but also the social consequences (loss of freedom, friends and licence).

Young people attending took part in three interactive workshop sessions followed by a final presentation.

The workshops were

• The Speed Quiz - Learning how to be a safer passenger, driver or rider.
• The Crash – Showed how the Emergency Services deal with a fatal crash.
• The Coroner's Court - Experienced a mock inquest into a speed related crash.

Loss of life – the front seat passenger was killed in the collision. Some held the driver responsible for this.

Loss of licence – We were using some slight artistic licence with this Court session. In real life, the proceedings in the criminal court (if applicable) would have already taken place. In this scenario nothing has happened in the criminal court yet, however the Coroner warned the driver that in giving evidence he may say something which could lead to criminal proceedings.

Loss of friends – the driver had drifted apart from his friends since the collision. They blamed him for causing the collision, which killed another friend (the front seat passenger). The driver cannot face seeing them knowing what has happened.

Loss of freedom – the rear seat passenger (a 17 year old female) now suffers from a lack of confidence in social situations due to bad scarring. She was also not comfortable travelling in a car and has lost touch with some friends.

There was also a presentation at the end of the workshop sessions; this bought all of the workshops together, reinforcing the key message:

'Young people who speed, or who are a passenger in a speeding vehicle, risk losing their life, their licence, their friends and their freedom'.

Evaluation into Risk It and Lose It is currently taking place with young people, tutors and emergency service personnel.

In March 2008, LSCP ran an advertising campaign in conjunction with the London Road Safety Unit (LRSU) called ‘Kid Again’. The campaign is aimed at young drivers, particularly males and will portrait that if you speed, drug drive, drive uninsured or unlicensed then you face losing your social life, independence and your job.

The campaign was running in cinema, radio, magazines and on bus backs. To support this, posters were made available for borough road safety officers to use at sixth form centres, colleges and universities.

The Way Forward

Education is a vital part of the process to assist in reducing the number of drivers/riders and passengers killed or seriously injured aged 17- 25 years on London’s roads.

LSCP are considering a feasibility study into the possibility of delivering Risk It and Lose It on a borough to borough basis, directly into sixth forms, colleges and universities.

LSCP are also looking into producing and distributing a teaching resource ‘The Crash’ DVD that road safety officers or tutors can use to deliver the road safety messages of the consequences of speeding within the post 16 curriculum.

To investigate how pre driver education can be delivered within the secondary school curriculum via Personal, Social, Health Education (PHSE), starting with year 7 pupils (11 years of age), thus enabling a greater understanding of the consequences of speeding from a earlier age and the impact speeding can have on London’s roads.

LSCP will continue looking at changing young drivers/riders and passengers behaviours and attitudes when using London’s roads. We are committed to working with all stakeholders and young people to ensure speed related collisions reduce in the future, assisting with achieving the Mayor’s targets by 2010.

Christine Fitzgerald
London Safety Camera Partnership
February 2008

Appendix 3: Road safety of London’s Black and Asian minority ethnic groups

Summary & Aims

Our previous study (Edwards et al 2006) demonstrated a relationship between deprivation and risk of road traffic injury in London, with pedestrians in particular at higher risk of injury in more deprived areas. This study builds on the work to examine the relationship between ethnicity, deprivation and risk of road traffic injury in London.

This study addressed four specific questions –

1. Are there differences in the risk of road traffic injury between different ethnic groups in London?
2. How far can the differences identified between ethnic groups be accounted for by: measurement errors; different levels of exposure; or different levels of deprivation across areas of London?
3. Within ethnic groups, how far does deprivation affect the risk of road traffic injury?
4. Taking into account what we know about differences in risk, possible explanations for differences, what works to reduce risk, and the policy context in London – what are the implications for police and practice?

To do this, we analysed injuries recorded in STATS19 data between 1986 and 2006. We used census data and GLA population projections to estimate injury rates across ethnic groupings, and the Index of Multiple Deprivation to rank census Super Output Areas in terms of deprivation. Ethnicity was coded by mapping STATS19 categories onto census categories, and deriving three broad groupings called ‘White’, ‘Black and ‘Asian’. Interviews with policy makers, practitioners, young people and parents were used to provide an overview of the policy context.

Background

There has been limited research on ethnic inequalities in road traffic injury risks in the UK. Although previous studies have identified ‘differences’, these do not provide any national pattern of which particular communities are at high risk, and there is little understanding of ‘what’ about ethnicity might lead to differences identified.

In London Research on this issue faces similar problems to elsewhere in the country:

• London has many diverse ethnic communities, but data available only allows us to aggregate figures for ‘Black’, ‘Asian’ or ‘White’, which obscure differences between communities.
• It is difficult to calculate accurate rates for each grouping, as the ethnicity of injured road users is classified by the police (through STATS19) using different categories from those used (in the census) to estimate population numbers. If there are large or systematic errors in how individuals are classified by STATS19 or census data, we could under or over estimate the size of populations by ethnicity in small areas.

However, there is some evidence that there are ethnic inequalities in injury risks, so it is important that we identify these inequalities as robustly as we can, and that we suggest some possible explanations, in order to form policy around road safety, which might address inequalities where possible.

Are some ethnic groups at higher risk of injury?

Between 1996 and 2006, there were 428,008 casualties recorded in road traffic collisions occurring in London. Of those with ethnicity coded, we classified 262,310 (61.3%) as ‘White’, 54,348 (12.7%) as ‘Black’ and 38,858 (9.1%) as ‘Asian’. Ethnicity was not coded for 64,233 (15.0%) casualties. Road traffic injury rates per 100,000 population differed by ethnicity. In children and adults, road traffic injury rates were higher in ‘Black’ groups (305 for 100,000 population in children; 617 in adults), compared with rates in ‘White’ groups (234 in children and 479 in adults).’Black’ Londoners have been on average 1.3 times more likely to be injured on the roads than ‘White’ Londoners.

Between 2001 and 2006, rates of injury for children and adults in all ethnic groups declined for all modes of travel. The rate of decline was similar across the ethnic groups, with one exception: for adult car occupants, ‘White’ rates declined faster than other groups.

How can we explain these differences between ethnic groups?

Measurement error - some of the differences may be due to measurement errors. These might include:

Systematic bias under reporting ethnicity of some groups in STATS19, or inaccuracies in mapping STATS19 ethnic categories to census ethnic categories. These could not account for the differences between ‘Black’ and other groups, but may explain some of the difference between ‘Asian’ and ‘White’ groups.

Exposure - If, on average, road users in different ethnic groups tend to live in more dangerous traffic environments, or have different patterns of transport or leisure activity, they will be more exposed to injury risk. Data to exposure to traffic are limited and we did not identify significant differences in the average amounts of walking across ethnic groups. However, more research could be done to examine for instance, differences in leisure – related exposure to traffic.

Deprivation – In London, there is a link between ethnicity and area level deprivation: in least deprived deciles of census super output areas an average 1.5% of the population is ‘Black’ and 6.6% is ’Asian’, compared with an average 23.2% ‘Black’ and 15.6% ‘Asian’ in the most deprived deciles. Given that area deprivation is linked to risk of injury, and more ‘Black’ people, on average live in the most deprived areas, we would expect more ‘Black’ people to be injured. However, these area level effects do not explain all the difference.

How far does deprivation affect the risk of road traffic injury within ethnic groupings?

For ‘White’ and ‘Asian’ groups, the risk of pedestrian injury was higher for each decile of deprivation (measured by Index of Multiple Deprivation at census super output area level). ‘White’ children in the most deprived areas were 2.5 times more likely to be injured as pedestrians than those in the least deprived. For ’Asian’ children, the injury rates in the most deprived areas were over 4 times higher than for ‘Asian’ children in the least deprived areas. However, for ‘Black’ children there did not appear to be a relationship between deprivation and risk – the relative risk of being injured was the same across deciles of deprived areas.

This suggests that deprivation does not account for all the differences in injury rates between ethnic groups. It also suggests that deprivation may have different effects in different ethnic groups. For instance it is possible that lifestyle (and thus exposure to traffic) differs between ‘White’ or ‘Asian’ children depending on where they live but that the effect of lifestyle in ‘Black’ children is independent of area. However, when we examined these relationships by ethnic groups for adults injured as pedestrians, we found similar relationships to those in children. That is, for ’Black’ adults, the relative risk of injury is also the same across the deciles of deprivation. This would tend to suggest that any explanation for ethnic differences in how deprivation relates to injury risk, such as lifestyle or behavioural differences, would also apply to adults.

It is important to note that the measure of deprivation used in our analysis includes a number of domains that might be better at discriminating levels of deprivation to some ethnic groups than others. It may be possible, then, that it is our measure of deprivation (IMD) that has artificially “flattened out” a real underlying relationship between deprivation and casualty rates for ‘Black’ children and adults. However, the two domains for IMD which comprise nearly half of the IMD score are ‘income’ and ‘employment’ deprivation, neither which are likely to discriminate differentially between ‘White’, ‘Black’ or ‘Asian’ Londoners.

What are the implications for policy and practice?

We have suggested, then, that ‘Black’ groups in London appear to be at higher risk of road traffic injury, and that at least some of this excess risk is ‘real’ rather than an artefact of inadequacies in the data available. ‘Asian’ groups appear to be at lower risk than ‘Black’ or ‘White’ groups. We have also suggested that although deprivation levels of a neighbourhood are an important influence on risk, they do not account for all of this risk. In the two most deprived deciles of the population, there are no differences in the injury rates between ‘White’ and ‘Black’ Londoners, but in more affluent areas, ‘Black’ rates are higher, suggesting that increasing area affluence protects ‘White’, but not ‘Black’ road users. There are grounds for predicting that exposure to traffic may account for some of the risk differential, but data available have not been able to identify how much.

There are a number of challenges in implementing road safety initiatives in ways that are likely to reduce the observed ethnic inequalities in injury rates:

• Available data are at a crude aggregated level (e.g. ‘White’, Black’, Asian’) that both obscures important differences between groups, and bears little relationship to local communities’ own identification of ethnicity;
• Available data are not sufficient to tell why there appears to be an increased rate in those groups identified as ‘Black’, and possibly lower rate in those identified as ‘Asian’.

Discussions with key stakeholders in London (including local authority road safety staff, community organisations, regional policy makers, young people, parents) raised a number of issues that need to be taken into account:

• Some Black community groups and parents reported a lack of awareness of road danger as an issue that affects them, and there are opportunities of raising interest in the issue;
• Young black people were concerned about the potential for further stigma- this is another issue where their behaviour is seen as 'a problem'.
• Given the uncertainties about both why there are ethnic differences, and what would work to reduce them, programmes should be broad enough to meet other goals (e.g. community engagement) rather than narrowly directed at ‘Road Safety’;
• Policy should be directed at making London’s roads safer to travel around, and neighbourhoods safer to play in, rather than in problemtising the behaviour of particular groups.

In general, interventions directed at making the environment safer (e.g. reducing the speed and volume of traffic) will reduce injury risk for the whole population in the longer term, as well as reducing the differences across ethnic groups. However, in the short term, it will be necessary to work with local communities to look at ways of managing existing risks.

Recommendations

The first three recommendations relate to the needs for more robust information:

1. Analysis based on STATS19 data and area-level measures has provided a ‘broad brush’ picture if the relationship between deprivation, ethnicity and road traffic injury, but further research is needed to:
   • Understand in detail different patterns if exposure to risk of road traffic injury, particularly for children, and how these relate to deprivation;
   • Look at the impact of existing interventions (e.g. 20 mph zones) on ethnic inequalities.
2. To monitor trends in the relationship between road traffic injury and ethnicity, the most useful outcome measures are rates of child pedestrian and adult pedestrian casualties.
3. Work on improving the completeness of STATS19 data should continue, with monitoring under- reporting and recording of road traffic injuries.

The final two recommendations relate to potential policy implications:

4. The headline findings on ethnic differences in road traffic injury rates could be used to raise awareness of the issue of road safety. There is considerable potential for local authority road safety teams and Transport for London to work with both statutory partners (e.g. Equality or Diversity teams) and 3rd sector partners representing BAME communities, to include road safety issues as part of a broader community safety agenda.
5. Although similar rates of decline in road traffic injury rates across ethnic groups suggests that current strategies are, in general, addressing needs across the population, to reduce observed inequalities it will be necessary to reduce injury rates faster in groups identified as ‘Black’. However, given the limited knowledge we have on how exposure to risk and other variables interact to put people at higher risk, interventions designed to address ethnic inequalities need to be carefully designed in consultation with local communities in order to:
   • Avoid ‘victim blaming’
   • Ensure that Road Safety teams understand the precise risks faced from the perspective of those affected;
   • Ensure that programmes are appropriate and tailored to community needs.

‘Local communities’ in this context will include neighbourhood communities, but also groups which identify themselves in terms of faith, ethnicity or other communalities (e.g. young people).

Send an e-mail linking to this page

Feedback