Violence continues to be a concern for policymakers and communities, notably so in urban contexts in which socio-demographic change, retrenched social support and evolving forms of exclusion affect its distribution and intensity. While many European cities experience relatively low levels of violence, the caveat to this is that many sub-areas and specific communities experience considerable variations in the form and intensity of such violence.

In this paper, Violence reduction in a changing European urban context: Frontline practitioner’s understanding of the roots of violence, and why it matters for policy and prevention, the research team, including VISION Co-Investigator Dr Elizabeth Cook, present findings from a comparative, qualitative study investigating how key stakeholders – civic and policy actors working at the interface of violence prevention and European urban communities – perceive its cause and overall nature.

Lizzie and colleagues explored the accounts of key support workers, practitioners and local policymakers because they represent essential intermediaries in processes of policy implementation, transfer and reform. The perspectives of practitioners provide insight into how social problems are constructed and under what conditions, which groups are most affected by these conditions, how solutions to such problems should be delivered in city settings (and delivered more effectively) and who should be assigned responsibility for generating effective responses. 

Informed by scholarship on street-level bureaucracy and local knowledge, the paper presents accounts that connect the risk of violence with austerity conditions and their erosion of vital social and institutional fabrics, which thereby worsening localised violence in these ‘ordinary’ cities.

The research team identified the key operating theories, ideas and observations circulating among civic actors tasked with tackling urban violence. Local practitioners understand violence to be linked to macro-economic conditions and social inequalities that sit outside their jurisdiction, but which ultimately present major challenges to the fabric of local urban life and risks to particular communities. Their commentaries build a cumulative picture that is in many ways at odds with the main thrust of many of the policies, political discussions, policing priorities and resource cuts evident in many cities across Europe in recent years.

The strongest shared conclusion is that urban violence cannot be tackled where these deeper conditions, influences and a lack of resources remain unaddressed.

Recommendations

1. Support and invest in long-term collaborative partnerships and policy initiatives which take account of the spatial discrepancies within cities.
2. Encourage connections between civic and state authorities which could help to relieve these frustrations, rebalance power relations and provide accountability in top-down approaches to cities experiencing destructive social, political and economic change.
3. To increase trust in political institutions, policies must also tackle the scarcity of investment in public services, while encouraging better representation of marginalised communities in decision-making processes.