Final Conference SME-city project December 2014, Bologna SME-city Share My European City Project number: HOME/2011/ISEC/AG/

Content 1.Theory of Change: introduction 2.Diversity in SME-city project areas 3.Common indicators for three project areas 4. Results overview SME-city Share My European City Project number: HOME/2011/ISEC/AG/

THEORY OF CHANGE: INTRODUCTION Part one SME-city Share My European City Project number: HOME/2011/ISEC/AG/

Theory of Change: most common use SME-city Share My European City Project number: HOME/2011/ISEC/AG/ Social change Planning Participation Evaluation Also considered as a tool for developing solutions to complex social problems

Why did we choose Theory of Change? SME-city Share My European City Project number: HOME/2011/ISEC/AG/ Later it maps backward to identify necessary preconditions Theory of Change firstly defines the objectives to be achieved Preconditons : Actions needed to be taken Outputs (which may be middle-term goals necessary to be reached) Preconditons : Actions needed to be taken Outputs (which may be middle-term goals necessary to be reached)

Objective – goal to achieve Actions to take Resources to use Patricipants to engage Outcomes and outputs (middle – term goals) SME-city Share My European City Project number: HOME/2011/ISEC/AG/

What did we want to change? Decrease in the number of anti-social behaviours in public spaces Raised awareness od sharing of public spaces Project activities SME-city Share My European City Project number: HOME/2011/ISEC/AG/

Expected change Goals/ objective ActivitiesOutcomesOutputsIndicators SME-city Share My European City Project number: HOME/2011/ISEC/AG/

Why did we choose Theory of Change? SME-city Share My European City Project number: HOME/2011/ISEC/AG/ Applying theory of change also gives an opportunity to evaluate every single stadium of the initiative by verifying if the expected outputs and outcomes have been achieved.

How to use Theory of Change? SME-city Share My European City Project number: HOME/2011/ISEC/AG/ Set of outcomes, identified or planned changes should be put in logical and chronological order to prove why one outcome is a condition for another one.

How did we want to change it? Decrease in the number of anti- social behaviours in public spaces Raised awareness od sharing of public spaces Wide range of project activities SME-city Share My European City Project number: HOME/2011/ISEC/AG/ Carefully precised Rigorously evaluated

DIVERSITY IN SME-CITY PROJECT AREAS Part two SME-city Share My European City Project number: HOME/2011/ISEC/AG/

SME-city Share My European City Project number: HOME/2011/ISEC/AG/ Three cities Valladolid in Spain Perugia in Italy London in United Kingdom Three main problems Public drinking in Valladolid Drug dealing and consumption in Perugia High level of ASB in night economy areas in London Three expected changes New use of urban areas devoted to drinking and ASB in Valladolid Regaining influence on the way public spaces are used in Perugia Spaces in Hackney’s night time areas more open and shared in London

SME-city Share My European City Project number: HOME/2011/ISEC/AG/ Different problems Different acitivities Different approaches Different experience Different ideas Different timing

Sharing ideas Sharing materials Sharing opinions Sharing experience Sharing knowledge SME-city Share My European City Project number: HOME/2011/ISEC/AG/

COMMON INDICATORS FOR THREE PROJECT AREAS Part three SME-city Share My European City Project number: HOME/2011/ISEC/AG/

One common expected change SME-city Share My European City Project number: HOME/2011/ISEC/AG/

SME-city Share My European City Project number: HOME/2011/ISEC/AG/ Rapid Appraisal Focus/Discussion Groups Research Cultural events Traingins/workshop Action Website Final Conference Dissemination

PROJECT EVENTS PATRICIPATION (number, socio- demographical profile) ACTION RESULTS (participants’ reactions, opinions, cooperation) OUTCOMES (material output, stakeholders’ intiatives) SME-city Share My European City Project number: HOME/2011/ISEC/AG/

RESULTS OVERVIEW Part four SME-city Share My European City Project number: HOME/2011/ISEC/AG/

PARTICIPATION SME-city Share My European City Project number: HOME/2011/ISEC/AG/ PERUGIAVALLADOLIDLONDON Number of participants in events Luoghi Comuni – free press distributed in more than 1000 numbers focus groups organized byThe Editorial Board: 30 participants Festival Strange Events: 60 organisations, 160 persons who helped in the organisation, over 4000 participants Facebook page: over 1000 contacts Awareness workshops: 240 adolescents. Cultural street activities: around 700 (including organizers and publics) ‘Hackney 1’/‘Mixology’:, around 1000 participants ‘Something Different’ around 1200 participants

PARTICIPATION SME-city Share My European City Project number: HOME/2011/ISEC/AG/ PERUGIAVALLADOLIDLONDON Observed diversity in socio- demographic al profile of participants To be determinedCultural street activities had mainly participation of young people and families with children. Participants in different age, from diverse backgrounds, with around half the audience reporting they were from black and ethnic backgrounds

ACTION SME-city Share My European City Project number: HOME/2011/ISEC/AG/ PERUGIAVALLADOLIDLONDON Participants ’ reactions observed Increased participatory attitude was observed during all the three kinds of action Active participation Enjoyment Communicative attitudes Observed active positive behaviour - interaction between family groups from different backgrounds within the play area. Activities allowed people to participate with people they had never met. Very few incidents of anti- social behaviour were observed –a number of street drinkers ultimately got engaged in the event in a positive way.

ACTION SME-city Share My European City Project number: HOME/2011/ISEC/AG/ PERUGIAVALLADOLIDLONDON Stakeholder s’ initiatives during the events (bottom- up) The Organisation of Strange events promoted cooperation between stakeholders were in order to be assigned a small fund for the organisation of the event. Collaboration in the organization of activities. Some of them proposed directly by them and supported by the project (Cantarranas day and collective graffiti, i.e.) All stakeholders were actively engaged in the activities as a result of using an ‘action research’ model, i.e. they were involved in research, activity design, activity implementation and evaluation

ACTION SME-city Share My European City Project number: HOME/2011/ISEC/AG/ PERUGIAVALLADOLIDLONDON Stakeholder s’ opinion given during and right after events Extremely positive feedback, as regard to the fact that people evaluated positively the experiences in relation to Increasing level of discussion and reflection on urban security. General satisfaction with the events. The collaboration with other groups in has discovered each other. Feeling of vicinity. Over 50% of audience found the events very interesting, attention grabbing and enjoyable. Over 40% of the audience said the event got them emotionally involved and stimulated them to learn something new. 30% said the event had made them feel a lot more involved in their community and 30% said the event had made them feel very much more involved in their community.

OUTCOMES SME-city Share My European City Project number: HOME/2011/ISEC/AG/ PERUGIAVALLADOLIDLONDON Symptoms of cooperation between different groups observed after events Co-participation and collaboration to the activities Participation to the Network for Friendly Places Groups engaged in events are planning of future events. The Municipality is programming more cultural events in the areas in collaboration with some of the groups (neighbour and youth associations, business in the areas, etc.) New partnerships formed between institutional actors, intermediaries New training programme developed for intermediaries

OUTCOMES SME-city Share My European City Project number: HOME/2011/ISEC/AG/ PERUGIAVALLADOLIDLONDON Stakeholders’ opinion given after Positive evaluation of Luoghi Comuni in relation to increasing level of discussion and reflection on urban security, responding to problems linked to antisocial behaviours and insecurity, increasing capacity to co-desing the use of public spaces Positive evaluation of Strange Events the events positively in relation to solving problems linked to misuse of public spaces Positive evaluation of Community Gatekeeping in relation to rendering the area more safe, clean, reducing antisocial behaviour, iIncrease cultural initiatives in the area Public areas can be shared by different groups. They feel safe in the area most of the times. Hope cultural events will continue. They hope (but they do not very sure) ABS will be reduced This kind of collaboration makes easy to interact with other groups Over 90% of respondents said that: participating in the events had made them feel part of a community; it felt good to mix with people they wouldn’t normally mix with and share streets and public spaces with other; event showed that public spaces can be shared by more people; said that taking part in the event makes people more tolerant. over 80% said taking part in the events made them more aware of the diversity of the community. All of the respondents said the events had encouraged people to explore new ways of doing things; 85% of respondents said they thought the events were a way of reducing anti- social behaviour. 98% declared they would attend in similar event in the future.