2011/9/25

Background
Evaluation of efforts on SafeCommunity
Yoko ShiraishiChair,Japan Institution for Safe Communities（Affiliate Safe Community Support center）

Purposes of the study◎ To reveal changes/ influence brought by
ISC programs◎ To identify what to be improved to see
SC’s contribution to betterment ofcommunities◎ The concept and strategies of Safe Community
has been drawing more attention in Japan- 3 designated communities- 6 communities under preparation- more communities studying◎ More interest in effects/influence on bettementof communities- require investigation of influences
cf. co-relations, causal relations

Methods◎ literature research Records of meetings at;Steering Committee meetings
Taskforce meetings
Other related meetings◎ Observation / Participation researchWorkshop meetings and so on

Methods

Results
Summery◎ Targets- designated as ISC:
Kameoka City (in 2008)
Atsugi City (in 2010)- under preparation for application ISC:
Toshima City
Komoro City
Minowa Town•

1.Structure Cross-sectral collaboration
 Sustainability
2. Resourcessmall change in program, man-power,and information
3. Evaluations
subjective safety and performanceconfusion

12011/9/25

Results
1. Structure

Results
1. Structure

1.1. Cross-sectral

1.2. Sustainability- positioned in the main policies

Interaction within an organization as well as
improvement of network with other organizations

Ordinance
Kameoka-

Fundamental
PlanX

Manifesto

AtsugiX

X-

Toshima---

KomoroX--

Minowa--X-

Results
2. Resources

Results
3.Evalutations

2.1. Utilizing existing;- programs- man-power- information

Local governments
governments doassess
Local
have
some experienceWhattheyhavedone?
in output- & (part of )outcome- evaluation.
-Number of programs, services, staff….
but…
-Number of participants
have difficulty in finding; How programs are proceeded?
- relevance & continuity in series of changes- conducted as planed, not against regulations?
- causal
relation
between efforts and- reached
to goals?
changes
afterwards- how much cost?
 Need another/ further approaches

2.2. Setting up a plat form
- to share & arrange resources- to develop cross-sectral apporaches

Results
3.Evalutations

Discussion-1
Outcomes
Outputs

InputsProblems

Systemsfor intervention

community
diagnosis

Resources

Program
Process

Awareness
Knowledge
AttitudeBehavior
Situation…

• As for structure, communities are trying toensuring collaboration and sustainability• Communities are utilizing existing resourcesand experience- information(including data), manpower,
programs
 Need further effort for effective collaboration2

2011/9/25

Discussion-2

current resources for evaluation• For evaluations,existing information is used, but there arelimitation and difficulty

Shortterm
Change Awarenessin …. knowledge

Midterm
Behavior
AttitudeLongteam
Socialsituation- relevance, continuity & causal-relation between

programs and changes observed latercf. - programs and number of injury and deathneed to develop a model of classificationand evaluation of influences

Scales/ [New]indicator Questionnaire

Programrecords[New]
Questioners

Statistics
Administrative
records[Hope!]
Medical data

Evaluation Phases• For effective evaluation, a frame of evaluation
which shows continuity with programs aresuggested
Problems /Challenges

Inputs /Investments

Outputs

Thank you for your attention

Outcomes
Short-term

Mid-term

Long-term

Yoko Shiraishi
yokomature@cyberoz.net3