Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilPublicationsCollection générale2023Taking part in the evaluation of ...

2023
181

Taking part in the evaluation of security and prevention policies. Trials of citizen participation in Brussels

Prendre part à l’évaluation des politiques de sécurité et de prévention. Essais de participation citoyenne à Bruxelles
Deelnemen aan de beoordeling van het veiligheids- en preventiebeleid. Tests met burgerparticipatie in Brussel
Valérie Caprasse
Traduction de Jane Corrigan
Cet article est une traduction de :
Prendre part à l’évaluation des politiques de sécurité et de prévention. Essais de participation citoyenne à Bruxelles [fr]
Autre(s) traduction(s) de cet article :
Deelnemen aan de beoordeling van het veiligheids- en preventiebeleid. Tests met burgerparticipatie in Brussel [nl]

Résumés

Au départ d’un matériau empirique constitué notamment de focus groupes menés avec des professionnels de l’évaluation des services de prévention communaux et avec des citoyens bruxellois, cet article revient sur certains enjeux de la participation citoyenne à l’évaluation des politiques de sécurité et de prévention en Région bruxelloise. D’une part, la nature même de ces politiques soulève des questions éthiques qui appellent, des vœux des acteurs professionnels, à des garanties procédurales. D’autre part, l’absence de certains profils de la population dans les dispositifs participatifs bruxellois interroge les acteurs professionnels et aboutit à la formulation de pistes, tant par les évaluateurs que par les citoyens rencontrés, pour tendre vers des processus plus inclusifs. Enfin, la production de nouvelles connaissances par la participation des citoyens se trouve également au cœur des enjeux identifiés.

Haut de page

Notes de la rédaction

In order to see the figures in a better resolution, go to the article online and click on “Original” below it.

Notes de l’auteur

This research is funded by the Anticipate-Prospective Research Programme of the Brussels-Capital Region – Innoviris.

Texte intégral

Introduction

  • 1 Through its public interest organisation Safe.brussels.

1Emblematic of the fight against urban insecurity and heirs to the first security contracts adopted at the beginning of the 1990s, the municipal prevention services – subsidised by the Brussels-Capital Region1 and for the most part by the Federal Public Service Interior – carry out their prevention missions through the action of numerous local services (urban stewards, street workers, conflict mediators, school mediators, technical prevention advisors, etc). These policies – which have existed for 30 years now – are marked by a desire to be close to citizens and could therefore provide an opportunity to test practices in terms of citizen participation. However, in the Brussels Region, while citizen participation is becoming more and more essential at local level, there still seems to be little investment in the field of security and prevention policies. This observation leads us to investigate a relationship which Christine Schaut already drew attention to in 2006 with the following question: Are citizen participation and public security a mismatched couple? [Schaut, 2006 ].

  • 2 Via the Anticipate - Prospective Research funding programme. V. CAPRASSE (Researcher), S. SMEETS (P (...)

2As part of a research project financed by the Brussels-Capital Region - Innoviris2, here we focus specifically on the issues which might arise when citizens are involved in the evaluation of these municipal prevention services. It should be noted here that as soon as these policies were put in place there was an evaluation issue, with the newly created role of internal evaluator within the municipalities. These professional stakeholders are responsible for the evaluation of the projects and actions implemented within the municipalities in the field of prevention for the subsidising authorities.

  • 3 We cannot present all of the results in a single article, which is why we have decided to focus on (...)

3While this research is made up of different stages which will lead to the realisation of a methodological guide for citizen participation in the development and evaluation of security and prevention projects and policies, this article focuses on part of the results3 which will contribute to the creation of this guide. What are the main issues identified by professionals in the evaluation of security and prevention policies? What are the means being considered to address potential difficulties? We shall examine the answers provided by the evaluators and citizens of Brussels who were interviewed in focus groups. While some issues appear to be specific to security and prevention policies, others are common to any attempt to involve citizens in the development or evaluation of policies.

4First, we shall present the general methodology of our research and the data collection methods used (1). We shall then discuss the issues raised by the very nature of security and prevention policies (2). In the third section, we look at the profile of the participating populations and the resulting issues in terms of inclusion (3). Before concluding, we address the issue of knowledge production through this type of process (4).

1. A few details about the methodology

5The methodology used in our research is based on an empirical approach which relies mainly on qualitative data collection methods, through individual interviews and focus groups (group interviews). The writing of this article is based mainly on material from seven focus groups held between January and June 2021, with internal evaluators as well as with “ordinary” citizens. Interviews with both citizens and professional stakeholders are an integral part of our methodological approach: research on citizen participation could not do without the collection of data directly from citizens. The citizens were essentially asked questions regarding the preferred conditions and methods for their involvement in participatory approaches concerning security and prevention policies.

  • 4 We made sure to divide the thirteen participants from the thirteen out of nineteen municipalities r (...)
  • 5 As a matter of principle, we are specifying the profile of the composition of the panels, yet the r (...)

6Four of the focus groups were conducted with the internal evaluators of thirteen Brussels municipalities in two separate rounds (i.e. two focus groups, one with six evaluators and the other with seven, held twice each)4 in January and February 2021 (1st round) and in May 2021 (2nd round). They are referred to as “evaluator focus groups Nos 1, 2, 3 and 4” in the rest of this article. These focus groups were held by videoconference due to the health crisis. In addition, we also organised three focus groups with eighteen Brussels citizens. The first one (referred to as “citizen focus group No 1” in the rest of the article) was held with seven citizens who had taken part in a participatory forum organised by a municipality of Brussels where there is a pronounced socio-economic inequalities. This institutionalised body is an advisory council of citizens who are selected randomly and appointed for two years, and who discuss various issues of municipal interest among themselves. The first theme which was submitted to them by the local authorities was that of antisocial behaviour. It should be noted that this focus group was also organised in May 2021 as a videoconference, which was not new to the participants, as they had taken part in the citizens' council via a videoconference platform. A second focus group (referred to as “citizen focus group No 2”) was made up of six young people aged 15 to 19 living in the same neighbourhood of Brussels, and a third one (referred to as “citizen focus group No 3”) was organised with adults living in another neighbourhood of Brussels5. These two geographical areas are characterised by a high level of socio-economic vulnerability. The local residents who participated in these last two focus groups were recruited with the help of the sponsor of our research – a Brussels prevention service – and more specifically the street workers assigned to the neighbourhoods considered. People were invited personally to take part in these meetings on a voluntary basis, based on the criteria of age and main residence in the selected neighbourhoods, without being required to have past experience in a participatory process organised by the public authorities. The two focus groups were organised in June 2021 at the heart of each of the neighbourhoods, in a room made available by the prevention service. This local aspect was intended to facilitate the participation of citizens.

  • 6 These policies were chosen because of the closeness of their subjects to those of security and prev (...)

7In addition, it should be noted that this article is also based on some thirty semi-structured interviews conducted prior to the focus groups, with stakeholders involved in processes of citizen participation in the development or evaluation of security and prevention policies, urban policies and social cohesion policies6. These interviews were carried out to meet the requirements of the first part of our research, which aimed to provide an inventory of citizen participation processes and to understand their objectives, difficulties, resources and facilitating elements for their implementation. During these interviews, in addition to some internal evaluators from Brussels who then took part in the focus groups, we met administrative stakeholders in charge of participatory processes, local and regional political stakeholders and representatives of the subsidising authorities.

2. “Subjects” to be handled with caution: the apprehension of professionals and the dual (in)formative challenge

8Some of the internal evaluators share a certain apprehension about a “citizens' debate” on the issues of crime prevention and security: a “potentially stigmatising subject”; a “delicate subject” which concerns our model of society; and a subject which risks bringing out populist or extremist reactions. The fear of generating or publicising reactions in favour of measures categorised as more secure through citizens' debates is very prevalent among some of these professional stakeholders, which led one of the evaluators to say that he preferred not to embark on this adventure.

“If you consult people they say, 'We need to put gates at the entrance to the neighbourhood so that people don't come in.' Either you disappoint them or you go along with it. (...) Some issues are better suited to public consultation than others. In this case, we know that behind the issues related to prevention and security there are issues regarding a model of society. It should be handled with caution.” (Christophe, internal evaluator, excerpt from an interview).

9While these evaluators expressed more of a general fear related to the typicality of the subjects of these policies, two of them made a direct connection between their fears and a professional experience.

“No, in fact, it is really a feeling that we have during these meetings [with the mayor's office], where we realise that as soon as (...) the office receives a complaint, we try to figure out what we can do. And in fact, 100 % of people want cameras.” (Xavier, evaluator focus group No 1).

10However, it is important to emphasise here that this feeling is not related to organised citizen participation processes, but to individual questions raised by citizens in a specific emotional context following a recent situation of victimisation.

11Based on the expression of this fear, we can underline what other authors have already highlighted: public authorities generally tend to avoid the subject of security in participatory processes, considering it too sensitive to be discussed with citizens [Cossart and Talpin, 2015; Purenne and Balazard, 2020; Malochet, 2021]. And when a place is given to it, “these mechanisms rarely allow us (...) to go (at best) beyond consultation or simple institutional communication” [Purenne and Balazard, 2020: 206].

12In response to the ethical nature of security and prevention policies, and in order to reduce the risk of populist or extremist reactions, several evaluators emphasise the need to inform citizens about the issues in question – which can be done by experts and academics – and the importance of supporting these participants, and invite reflection on how to formulate questions which may point in the direction of security, while insisting on the imperative to allow time for these processes.

“Given the ethical burden of prevention and security issues, (...) it requires considerable clarification and therefore time, (...) with the intervention of independent experts, academics, etc, as well as associations (...) to avoid the risk of populism and self-centring” (Julie, evaluator focus group No 1).

13It should be noted that the participatory process dealing with antisocial behaviour (the one involving the participants from citizen focus group No 1) resulted in recommendations made by the citizens regarding the fight against antisocial behaviour, which falls within the scope of action of municipal prevention services in particular. At the end of this process – which took place over three days and was led by professional facilitators – the citizens' proposals mainly involved dimensions of social cohesion, such as initiatives aimed at getting to know one's neighbours better, creating possibilities for dialogue (a radio station, places for meetings and exchanges between citizens and political leaders, etc), and making the public space more inclusive. As this process took place during a health crisis, we can hypothesise that these proposals, with their connotations of social prevention, emerged during exceptional circumstances marked by drastic restrictions on social ties. The result – far from the apprehensions expressed by the evaluators – is nevertheless noteworthy.

14In a certain way, these results also echo the observations of a Brussels prevention official who coordinated a randomly selected citizen panel on radicalisation in 2017, initiated and supported by a private structure specialised in the design and implementation of participatory processes. He noted that, despite the relatively divisive theme, the proposals did not give rise to recommendations of a polarising nature.

“Researcher: In terms of the content during the day on radicalisation... you would think that the topic would be polarising...
François: Well, no... There was unanimity on the fact that we should forget about this concept. (...) I find that citizens' common sense has made things clear. Compromises can be found quite easily by listening to the public.” (Excerpt from an interview)

15This 2017 panel, which was facilitated by professional mediators and introduced by experts – academics in particular – was the subject of an evaluation by a university research centre. Based on questionnaires completed by participants before and after the process, the evaluation report notes that it is “quite remarkable” that participants found it easier to reach consensus in the end, given the “sensitive and divisive nature” of the topic [Pilet, 2017: 20].

16Finally, a majority of the evaluators find that they are not trained in participatory processes. They expressed their need for training in this area, and some of them, to be supported by professionals in participatory processes. We can also see that in the context of projects of a certain scope (participatory budget, creation of deliberative [local] citizen bodies, etc), institutions are relying more and more on external service providers with expertise in participatory design and in the implementation of so-called collective intelligence methods. In contrast, let us mention the reaction of an evaluator who considers it inappropriate to call upon external professionals – associations or private individuals – considering that they often have “different issues and agendas” and that “when it is a question of public policies, it is up to the public authorities to hold this debate”.

3. An imperative of inclusion

17A majority of the professional stakeholders we met spoke of another problem which exists in many participatory approaches, namely a monopolisation by the regulars, or the “participation professionals”, who “always hold the floor”, while especially the most disadvantaged people, young people and people of foreign origin are among the absentees. Since the prevention services in Brussels are used much more in neighbourhoods marked by socio-economic insecurity, professionals are particularly concerned about this issue.

18What would seem to be an effect of (self-)exclusion should not be considered an intrinsic characteristic of participatory mechanisms, according to certain authors such as Blondiaux and Gourgues [Gourgues, 2013], as this observation demonstrates above all that “this form of political commitment is no more immune than others (such as elections or political or community activism) to the social logic which governs access to political participation” [Blondiaux, 2001: 47-48].

19Furthermore, one of the internal evaluators in the focus group feels that “we must get over the idea that everyone wants to participate”. On this basis, the analyses should also incorporate the motivations for participation, a key factor in understanding the profile of citizen participants. Some authors have thus highlighted different reasons for involvement or non-involvement [Talpin and Mazeaud, 2010; Jacquet, 2020]. The results of their work include reasons related to civic duty, social relations, knowledge development, self-(dis)empowerment (subjective (in)competence), focus on private life, availability and the lack of impact of the discussions for non-participants.

20Based on the finding that entire sections of the population were not participating, various approaches were suggested in focus groups. We shall discuss three in particular: how to “recruit” citizens and support them; the languages used; and the provision of childcare to allow parents to participate.

21In an attempt to reduce the effects of self-selection, which leads to the participation of the most educated and politically aware citizens, some evaluators and citizens are calling for more targeted recruitment which could be carried out in addition to a general call to the population or even replace it if necessary. This selection could be based on the work of stakeholders in the field (resource people in the neighbourhoods, community stakeholders and front-line stakeholders in the prevention services), and could take place via participation in an existing event, the organisation of an event as a pretext to meet, or even door-to-door canvassing. Letters and other written media, which are often part of the communication arsenal used by the political and administrative authorities, are often inadequate for reaching a segment of the population which is underprivileged and has very little involvement with the written culture. Therefore, this approach proposes a true movement to include citizens, as expressed by this citizen.

“As a citizen, we all need to open our mail. But really, as I have experienced it, it is by going out into the neighbourhood to meet the residents, as Arnaud said. (...) And door-to-door canvassing, which we have also tried. We find that it works well. Sometimes people are open towards us, sometimes not. (...) You give some of your time, and you get more participation. It leaves a mark, and people remember: 'they came to my door and everything'.” (Ilhem, citizen focus group No 3)

22Young people living in a disadvantaged area of Brussels who were interviewed during a focus group all drew attention to the need to establish an atmosphere of trust before approaching them, which in their opinion requires a recreational activity and/or a trusted person whom they know, and the need to insist on the important role that the street educator in their neighbourhood can play.

“As we have grown up in a neighbourhood, we are more comfortable in the street because we know the people, and when street workers go there, they are like friends.” (Enzo, citizen focus group No 2)

23One of the fundamental characteristics of prevention services is precisely their proximity to the population, in particular through stakeholders such as social workers in the streets or neighbourhood mediators, which in the eyes of some evaluators represents an advantage in terms of being able to contact citizens and invite them to participate. But this also led one of the evaluators to say that “it's a problem if you can't reach the public”. Moreover, once the least equipped populations become part of participatory mechanisms, “it really requires a lot of support”.

24Another method of selecting the public involves random selection, which favours a greater diversity of profiles without guaranteeing it.

“This panel was also a bit of a Benetton advert. There was every style and every type of person, and nobody really had anything in common. I found that really interesting (...) One thing which ensues is that the panel of citizens represents a wide range of experiences.” (Guillaume, citizen focus group No 1)

  • 7 Let us note that today, this random selection is associated with citizen discussion forums and that (...)

25This technique7 is used more and more in the context of deliberative mini-public, which consists in gathering a random panel of citizens who are invited to discuss a public issue and make recommendations as a group after the debate. The participation of randomly selected individuals is facilitated as they “are contacted personally, their role is valued symbolically by the authorities and they receive a payment (...)” [Sintomer, 2007: 115]. However, some evaluators point out that the “invisible” or “silent” residents are not necessarily found on population registers or in other listings. This method alone therefore cannot meet the inclusion needs of the most vulnerable groups.

26The question of language as a factor of inclusion was also raised by some of the citizens we met and by several professionals, and is justified by the context in Brussels: many inhabitants with an immigrant background do not speak French or Dutch. By including other languages, some aspects of the feeling of subjective incompetence could be overcome, which is one of the reasons for non-participation. Faced with the costs which these linguistic adaptations may entail – often unaffordable for local entities – solutions have been proposed which demonstrate an ability to put together the available resources: make use of prevention service personnel who master the languages in question, build visual tools which are easily understood by all, and use the resources of a neighbourhood by paying residents for their linguistic services, which would allow them to find personal and financial value in using these skills in the service of a community.

27In addition, offering childcare solutions to parents through the organisation of children's workshops, for example, seems essential from the point of view of adult citizens from a more disadvantaged neighbourhood, as the processes involve face-to-face meetings. As one of the reasons for non-participation which is highlighted in the literature is precisely the lack of time, these solutions would make it possible to address one of the obstacles preventing citizens – in particular female citizens – from taking part in this type of experience. In this regard, we were also told that the organisation of this type of workshop is a way to reach more disadvantaged people.

“Instead of excluding children, we create an activity (...) So in fact it allows us to get more people to come. Because the mother is not going to come first to participate – excuse me for saying so – (...) but if she says to herself 'well, there is a little thing for my children, so I will put them there and do something else nearby – I don't mind' ” (Ilhem, citizen focus group No 3).

28According to this resident, because of a lack of entertainment for their children due to financial reasons or isolation, “mums” would see the participatory process with children's workshops as an opportunity to provide their children with enjoyable moments.

29Finally, the question of recognising the citizens who participate is also addressed, which can take different symbolic or financial forms. It is worth noting that the question of citizen remuneration was raised in particular by citizens from a disadvantaged neighbourhood.

4. Ways to hear citizens, ways to understand, ways to publicise or deconstruct problems

30While citizen participation in the evaluation of security and prevention policies gives rise to apprehensions, it is also considered by many internal evaluators as a way to broaden “knowledge”. On the one hand, it “sheds light on grey areas” and, on the other hand, it provides better knowledge of the impact of the actions taken. Thanks to the diversity of points of view, participatory processes represent a different way to understand a situation. In this context, the internal evaluators are driven by the objective to propose public action which is better adapted to the needs of the population.

“When we carry out an evaluation, it also reflects the citizens' feelings regarding the actions implemented, which can differ from the evaluation of the professionals. (...) Sometimes we think 'well, that action was a success', but in reality, among the citizens there is nothing, they have the impression that the situation has not changed and that the same problem still exists. It can lead to other perspectives of actions than those imagined at the outset” (Henri, evaluator focus group No 2).

31Due to their “practical” and “more familiar” knowledge which can be made available to the public sphere and which escapes “a more distanced knowledge of the case” [Damay and Mercenier, 2018: 17], citizens can help to “reduce blind spots”, according to a majority of internal evaluators. This knowledge is used especially in the paradigm of proximity – primarily geographical proximity – as “practical knowledge is mainly local or microsectoral” [Sintomer, 2008: 117]. Moreover, citizens also have other knowledge, from professional, activist or other areas.

32It is also their “common sense” and “non-systematic knowledge which tends to be disinterested ('judging without strong feelings')” [Sintomer, 2008: 119], which can be used to justify the legitimacy of recourse to citizen participation by certain stakeholders, and which is often called upon today in the implementation of deliberative mini-public. Or, on the contrary, this knowledge may be questioned by certain internal evaluators when they consider that citizens are not able to take a step back from the subjects of prevention, which may be too emotionally charged.

33While there seems to be a form of consensus on the possibilities of building new knowledge through processes of citizen participation, some internal evaluators question the capacity of citizens to consider the public interest. These doubts may be part of a more general scepticism regarding participatory democracy, whereby residents and associations are perceived as seeking “to defend their private interests and not as potential partners in a collective construction of general interest,” with the argument that representative democracy allows coherent policies to be implemented “while allowing citizens to sanction decisions at the time of elections” [Carrel, 2013: 61].

34In addition, we feel that it is important to mention a consequence of this knowledge production issue, namely the publicisation or deconstruction of a problematic situation. While “social problems do not exist in themselves as a set of objective social conditions, but (...) are fundamentally the products of a process of collective definition” [Blumer and Riot, 2004: 189] referred to as a constructivist perspective, citizen participation can be seen as a potential process of publicising social problems. With the elements brought to light through these processes, new problems can thus appear at the forefront of the public scene and can possibly be included on the political agenda. Conversely, citizen participation is also a way of deconstructing an issue which has been highlighted disproportionately by a politician or even by the media, as described by one evaluator.

“Another strength is what I call relativism. So sometimes politicians can question us regarding subjects which, according to them, are major problems or very serious subjects, for which [we must] get moving immediately and find an immediate solution... And when we dig a little deeper with the field workers and conduct citizen surveys – so in fact we question the citizens and make diagnoses – it turns out that it was not so serious and that it is something more minimal (...)” (Iris, evaluator focus group No 2).

35It is above all in their practice of local security diagnoses that the Brussels evaluators consider the involvement of citizens to be the most relevant in the framework of evaluation: identifying and understanding problematic situations related to security and social cohesion thanks to the citizens, and developing courses of action with them to respond to the problems identified. This is essentially in keeping with what Callon et al. highlight: the confrontation between specialists (in this case, internal evaluators) and laymen (in this case, “ordinary” citizens), each of whom has specific knowledge, would deepen knowledge and allow an exploration of options not yet considered [Callon, Lascoumes and Barthe, 2001].

Conclusion

36While for some internal evaluators, the pairing of “citizen participation” and “security and prevention policies” should be avoided due to themes which they consider to be too sensitive, for others, this union is conceivable provided that certain procedural guarantees are respected, namely time, informed processes and professionals sufficiently trained in collective intelligence methods. These professionals see the benefit of citizen participation in the evaluation of security and prevention policies especially in terms of their ability to shed light on grey areas and to build new knowledge.

37While municipal prevention services are implemented especially in the more socio-economically vulnerable neighbourhoods of Brussels, according to the professionals interviewed, the involvement of citizens in the evaluation of security and prevention projects and policies requires special attention to be paid to the “silent” and “invisible” residents, which must not, however, become a form of injunction to participate. In an attempt to fight against the effects of the “hidden disenfranchisement” [Gaxie, 1978] and to dismantle these mechanisms of (self-) exclusion from opportunities for political participation – whatever they may be – which are directly linked to socio-cultural capital, concrete ideas are explored, not only by these professionals but also by citizens from underprivileged neighbourhoods. These ideas reveal the ability of stakeholders to show ingenuity in the art of using the resources at their disposal. The proposals formulated by citizens from disadvantaged neighbourhoods to improve the inclusiveness of these processes are intended to value the residents by integrating them into the organisation of the participatory measure itself. In doing so, they lead to a rethinking of the usually top-down configuration of these measures and tend towards more collaborative processes.

38In the Brussels Region, the current flurry of new participatory mechanisms (participatory budgets, citizens' councils, mixed deliberative commissions, etc.), which are increasingly institutionalised at local and regional levels, certainly testifies to a context which is favourable to the development of participatory processes for evaluation. In fact, if citizen participation in the evaluation of security and prevention policies raises questions, it is certainly because it goes beyond the usual monopolies of knowledge production and political representation, while adding a very unique ethical dimension. In other words, this is because it is at the crossroads of power and knowledge issues.

Haut de page

Bibliographie

BLONDIAUX, Loïc, 2001. Démocratie locale et participation citoyenne: la promesse et le piège. In: Mouvements. 11-12/2001, vol. 5, no 18, pp. 44-51. Available at: https://www.cairn.info/revue-mouvements-2001-5-page-44.htm

BLUMER, Herbet and RIOT, Laurent, 2004, Les problèmes sociaux comme comportements collectifs In: Politix. 07/2004, vol. 17, no 67, pp. 185-199. Available at: https://www.persee.fr/doc/polix_0295-2319_2004_num_17_67_1630

CALLON, Michel and LASCOUMES, Pierre and BARTHE, Yannick, 2001. Agir dans un monde incertain. Essai sur la démocratie technique. Paris: Editions du Seuil.

CARREL, Marion, 2013. Faire participer les habitants. Citoyenneté et pouvoir d’agir dans les quartiers populaires. Lyon: ESN Editions.

COSSART, Paula and TALPIN, Julien, 2015. Lutte urbaine. Participation et démocratie d’interpellation à l’Alma-Gare. Vulaines-sur-Seine: Editions du Croquant.

DAMAY, Ludivine and MERCENIER, Chloé, 2018. Démocratie participative. Quelques éclairages sur les enjeux. In: Mouvement communal. 01/2018. No 924, pp. 12-22.

GAXIE, Daniel, 1978. Le cens caché. Inégalités culturelles et ségrégation politique. Paris: Seuil.

GOURGUES, Guillaume, 2013. Les politiques de démocratie participative. Grenoble: Presses universitaires de Grenoble.

JACQUET, Vincent, 2020. Comprendre la non-participation. Les citoyens face aux dispositifs délibératifs tirés au sort. Brussels: Peter Lang.

LASCOUMES, Pierre, LE GALÈS, Patrick, 2007. Sociologie de l’action publique. Paris: Armand Colin.

MALOCHET, Virginie, 2021. La sécurité est-elle vraiment « l’affaire de tous » ? Les limites de la participation citoyenne en France dans un domaine typiquement régalien. In: Participations. vol. 1, No 29, pp. 41-71. Available at: https://www.cairn.info/revue-participations-2021-1-page-41.htm

MAZEAUD, Alice and TALPIN, Julien, 2010. Participer pour quoi faire ? Esquisse d’une sociologie de l’engagement dans les budgets participatifs. In: Sociologie. vol. 1, No 3, pp. 357-374. Available at: https://www.cairn.info/revue-sociologie-2010-3-page-357.htm

MAZEAUD, Alice, 2012. L’instrumentation participative de l’action publique: logiques et effets. Une approche comparée des dispositifs participatifs conduits par la région Poitou-Charents. In: Participations. vol. 1, No 2, pp. 53-77. Available at: https://www.cairn.info/revue-participations-2012-1-page-53.htm

MINCKE, Christophe, SMEETS, Sybille and ENHUS, Els, 2009. La sécurité à Bruxelles. In: Brussels Studies, Synopsis, CFB No 2, 05/01/2009. Available at: https://journals.openedition.org/brussels/882

PILET, Jean-Benoît, 2017. Rapport d’évaluation scientifique We Are Molenbeek/WAM 1080. Brussels: Université libre de Bruxelles.

PURENNE, Anaïk and BALAZARD, Hélène, 2020. Les tensions entre police et citoyens sont-elles solubles dans la démocratie délibérative ? L’exemple d’un dispositif participatif à Vaulx-en-Velin. In: Lien Social et Politiques. 2020, no 84, pp. 204-222.

SCHAUT, Christine, 2006. Participation citoyenne et sécurité publique: un couple mal assorti ? In: SMEETS, Sybille and SERON, Vincent. Participation citoyenne et sécurité publique. Enjeux émergents et expériences locales. Brussels: Politeia, pp. 121-140.

SINTOMER, Yves, 2007. Le pouvoir au peuple. Jurys citoyens, tirage au sort et démocratie participative. Paris: La Découverte.

SINTOMER, Yves, 2008. Du savoir d’usage au métier de citoyen ? In: Raisons politiques. 08/2008. vol. 3, no 31, pp. 115-133. Available at: https://www.cairn.info/revue-raisons-politiques-2008-3-page-115.htm

SMEETS, Sybille, 2009. L’évaluation des politiques de sécurité et de prévention en Belgique. In: ROBERT, Philippe (ed.), L'évaluation des politiques de sécurité et de prévention de la délinquance en Europe. Paris: L'Harmattan. pp. 47-68.

TALPIN, Julien, 2019. Le tirage au sort démocratise-t-il la démocratie ? Ou comment la démocratie délibérative a dépolitisé une proposition radicale, In: Participations. 2019, Hors Série, pp. 453 - 473. Available at: https://www.cairn.info/revue-participations-2019-HS-page-453.html

Haut de page

Notes

1 Through its public interest organisation Safe.brussels.

2 Via the Anticipate - Prospective Research funding programme. V. CAPRASSE (Researcher), S. SMEETS (Promoter, CRPSD ULB), C. TANGE (Co-Promoter, INCC), “La participation citoyenne à l’évaluation des dispositifs de sécurité et de prévention de la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale”, December 2019 - December 2023.

3 We cannot present all of the results in a single article, which is why we have decided to focus on some of them.

4 We made sure to divide the thirteen participants from the thirteen out of nineteen municipalities represented, into two groups of a certain uniformity in terms of the profile of the municipalities. In order to determine the profile of the municipalities, we used a classification based on their local socio-economic context (income level and socio-professional status of the population, demographic evolution, level of urbanisation, etc) proposed by Belfius, the main funder of local governments. The advantage of this typology is that it leads to the establishment of five clusters for the Brussels municipalities, facilitating a division of the internal evaluators into two groups with relatively similar socio-economic realities within their municipalities. See https://research.belfius.be/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Typologie-des-communes-FR_tcm_78-150618.pdf.

5 As a matter of principle, we are specifying the profile of the composition of the panels, yet the results presented in this article are not necessarily discriminating according to this profile. They are, however, for other practical aspects of our research, which are not the focus of this article.

6 These policies were chosen because of the closeness of their subjects to those of security and prevention policies and because they offer more fields of investigation for citizen participation processes than security and prevention policies.

7 Let us note that today, this random selection is associated with citizen discussion forums and that as such, this association has almost become an automatic part of the procedure, which was notably initiated within the framework of the experiments of deliberative democracy theorists. See in particular Julien Talpin's article on the origin of the association between deliberative practices and random selection, as well as its widespread use [Talpin, 2019].

Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence électronique

Valérie Caprasse, « Taking part in the evaluation of security and prevention policies. Trials of citizen participation in Brussels »Brussels Studies [En ligne], Collection générale, n° 181, mis en ligne le 11 juin 2023, consulté le 13 juillet 2024. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/brussels/6855 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/brussels.6855

Haut de page

Auteur

Valérie Caprasse

Valérie Caprasse is a researcher in criminology at the Centre de recherches Pénalité, Sécurité & Déviances at Université Libre de Bruxelles. Her work focuses on security and prevention policies, for which she has worked as a project manager. She co-edited a book entitled Résister ! De l'adaptation à la dissidence en terrains criminologiques which will be published at the end of 2023 by Editions de l'Université de Bruxelles.


valerie.caprasse[at]ulb.be

Haut de page

Financement

Innoviris

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

CC-BY-4.0

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search