EHJ August 2004, pages 248-250
Published for the first time in EHJ, Peter Gibson of Encams reveals the findings of shocking new research, which underlines the true impact of graffiti on society

In Monty Python's the Life of Brian, praetorian guard John Cleese admonishes activist Michael Palin from the People's Front of Judea (or is that the Judean People's Front?), for daubing a wall with the slogan, "Romans go home!" It isn't the message that offends mind you, it's the fact that he has got his Latin all wrong and this mistake costs him a night spent copying out the phrase correctly - all over the walls of Jerusalem.

While this situation is plainly absurd, it does remind us that graffiti has been around for centuries. In fact, the word graffiti comes from the ancient Greek "graphien" (to write) and a lot of what we know about primitive man's way of life derives from crude etchings on cave walls. But one wonders if there's ever been an age where tags, cartoons and scrawl have ever been so prevalent as they are today.

From adverts for cars to Christina Aguillera videos, it has become a backdrop for mock urban environments. It has made its way into our most conservative institutions, with one exhibit at the Royal Horticultural Society's Chelsea Flower Show featuring plant pots painted with hip-hop images. Even those who profess to care for the planet are prepared to use it to back their cause (you can download a stencil from Greenpeace to spray their SaveOrDelete message wherever you choose). Meanwhile the Eden Project, which aims to promote sustainable development, has abandoned cars at its gate - covered in colourful graffiti.

But for organisations such as Encams, which believes that urban doodles cause nothing but grief and make neighbourhoods look squalid and unsafe, this graffiti epidemic is no laughing matter. Its belief is that graffiti is simply another environmental blight, in the same vein as litter, dog fouling, vandalism and flyposting - a far too familiar sight on Britain's streets which is stretching already tight council cleansing budgets to breaking point. And what's more, it reckons it's got the evidence to prove it.

To back a major campaign calling for a zero tolerance approach to graffiti (which includes a call for so called "legitimate graffiti walls" to be torn down), Encams' first step was to conduct the nation's largest ever survey to gauge the size of the problem.

By speaking to 135 councils across the country, encompassing large urban areas in London, the west Midlands and the northwest, as well as rural boroughs in places such as the southwest and the east of England, Encams discovered that 89 per cent of respondents rated graffiti as a problem. For 20 per cent of these local authorities, it was a major issue. Common areas included subways, student areas and at transport sites. The latter is not particularly surprising but it is disappointing because bus and train stations are often the first impression visitors get. We know from previous surveys that these are already a magnet for litter and other environmental problems. Now, graffiti can be added to the list. Is it any wonder then, that passengers are afraid to travel at night or that tourists get the perception that Britain is an unwelcoming, dirty and dangerous place to be?

Successive crime surveys in England and Wales have shown that 30-35 per cent of people are concerned about graffiti in their neck of the woods - making it a bigger worry than drunkenness, neighbour noise and even drug dealing. And as the Encams research shows, more than a few of these people are actually prepared to stand up and shout about it. In fact, only 4 per cent of councils did not respond to a complaint about graffiti last year, with the average number clocking in at 168 per local authority. For the vast majority (72 per cent), complaints ranged between 1-100 per annum but 11 per cent of councils were left to deal with over 400 calls in 2002-03. For one particularly beleaguered authority, the grand number of complaints about urban scrawl for the year stood at a staggering 4,312. Surveys on public awareness suggest that many people don't know who to talk to when they come across an environmental problem - so this figure could be significantly higher. Then there is the fear factor. While graffiti doesn't quite carry the gangster tag that flyposting does, violent messages promising to wreak vengeance on police grasses, discourage residents from reporting perpetrators.

A major impact of graffiti and one that mirrors residents' concerns is the cost of cleaning it up. On average, councils fork out over £75,000 per year to shift graffiti. One authority spent close on £1.4m. Although not all respondents kept records on how much they spend, a rough estimate of the overall national bill for local authorities, would be £27m. And councils are not alone in picking up this hefty bill. London Underground shells-out around £12.5m per annum with around 80 per cent of this resource used to replace damaged glass. Studies into vandalism reveal that each act of graffiti against a public sector or commercial building costs £890 to repair. And if you're still not convinced that the tab for cleaning graffiti up is a dear one, consider this: the British Transport Police recently prosecuted an 18-year-old graffiti artist who single-handedly inflicted £22,000 worth of damage.

The report also examined how resources are spent. Under half of the respondents provided a hotline for residents to report graffiti, while just 47 per cent employed staff to specifically deal with the problem.

The inconsistencies were also present when councils were asked how quickly they responded to complaints. Sixty nine per cent set themselves a designated response time to shift racist or offensive scrawl with 89 per cent promising to do so within a day. However, they were much slower off the mark when it came to other forms of graffiti. Sixty one per cent were unable to say how long it would take them to remove graffiti. Of those who could, less than half promised to shift it in within a week. Worse still, 4 per cent of those who gave a limit, reckoned it would be over a fortnight before the graffiti was finally gone.

A lack of time and resources also meant that just over a quarter of councils were prepared to remove graffiti from private land. Of these, 54 per cent did so free of charge, with a further 39 per cent offering to do so occasionally. This left 34 per cent who confined their graffiti removal to public land only. In deference to councils, the problem with removing graffiti from private property has less to do with cleaning it off and more to do with tracing the landowner.

One way to stop graffiti is to prevent it being sprayed there in the first place. By their own admission, many councils struggle to market effective local environmental messages to their residents. Still, it was disappointing to find that 56 per cent hadn't run any public awareness campaigns on the problem or indeed taken proactive steps to involve former offenders in cleaning up and educating potential artists. Even more disturbing was the fact that this figure rose to 60 per cent when it came to racist graffiti. So, while local authorities were keen to shift it with haste, they weren't prepared to stick their head above the parapet and send a powerful message out to their community that offensive scrawl won't be tolerated.

All of which could leave the anti-graffiti camp rather depressed. However, at least in their quest to curb the problem they do have the support of some very proactive councils, which suggests all is not lost. One of the most prominent is Southampton Council, which has compiled a database of tags, carried out joint operations with the police to catch graffiti writers, got ex-offenders involved in cleaning-up scrawl, given training and handed out environmentally friendly kits to community groups, and even assisted construction companies in the design of new buildings with anti-graffiti coating. This has resulted in 4,000m2 of protection being applied to vulnerable surfaces and 29,000m2 of graffiti being removed.

Edinburgh Council recently ran a major campaign that was triggered by a rise in scrawl on historic buildings while Rochdale MDC has won many plaudits for its graffiti drives. Encams recently rewarded Kingston LBC for its holistic and innovative approach. This included working with the probation service to regularly patrol and maintain over a dozen damaged public alleyways each month. Youth offending teams have also adopted and painted out graffiti at parks, pavilions and walls and the borough's trading standards team has drawn up a code of practice for retailers, encouraging them not to sell marker pens and spray cans to under-18s.

And if any council believes that graffiti is an insurmountable problem, they ought to take a look at one of the most important local environmental projects seen in decades - the Great Shankill Road clean up in Belfast. Here, the city council worked with community groups to shift 27 sectarian murals and 7,000m of kerbstone paint portraying Unionist colours. Before the clean up began, Belfast Council consulted schools, residents and crucially, the paramilitary groups themselves to ensure that anyone who scrubbed away graffiti would be safe. Since the campaign began, none of the slogans have re-appeared and the general sense of unease in this most notorious Belfast suburb has dissipated.

Encams has also been encouraged by the support it has been given by the government and by politicians of all persuasions. Over 120 MPs (including the prime minister and senior figures from the opposition) recently signed up to an agreement to do all they can to rid their constituencies of graffiti. Defra's new clean neighbourhoods consultation document also spelt out a number of anti-graffiti proposals, including a plan to issue on the spot fines for offenders, which could become legislation soon.

But while all of this backing is vital, Encams chief executive Alan Woods reckons that what is really needed is a change of attitude towards graffiti. "As a society, we have become far too tolerant of it and some have even begun to accept graffiti as an inevitable part of the urban environment. Those who celebrate it as an art form have a lot to answer for - though I somehow doubt it is ever daubed on their property."

Mr Woods says Encams' research suggests graffiti is causing real harm within the most needy neighbourhoods, costing a huge amount to clean up and adding to their general squalid and unsafe nature. "The case histories from councils, the support of government and the backing of the vast majority of the public do at least illustrate that we can beat the problem," he says. "And for the sake of all of those whose boroughs are blighted with this mess, it's high time we drew a line in the sand and wiped away graffiti, forever."

Peter Gibson is media manager at Encams