« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
A Report on the Consultation Responses to Putting Our Communities First: A Strategy for tackling Anti- Social Behaviour
Appendix E: Findings from Quantitative Analysis of Written Responses
E.1 Introduction
This appendix details the findings from the quantitative analysis of written responses to the consultation document, drawing on the information provided by the tables in Appendix G. The coding frame used to construct these tables is presented in Appendix F. The purpose of this quantitative analysis is to enable readers to see overall patterns of relative support or dissent for a range of specific proposals outlined in the consultation document.
E.2 Details of the Analysis Process
The quantitative analysis comprised a number of stages:
1) The written responses were examined to identify which of these responses had provided answers to specific proposals in the consultation document. Where responses had provided more general comments on the overall anti-social behaviour strategy or did not specifically provide quantifiable details, these were removed from this stage of the analysis, although the points raised were taken into account in the qualitative analysis discussed in preceding chapters of this report. A total of 213 of the 342 written responses were included in the quantitative analysis.
2) Questions in the consultation document were examined to identify those which provided responses in terms of support or otherwise for a particular proposal. 39 of the 61 specific questions in the consultation document were identified as being suitable for such quantitative analysis. In addition, three further items, namely support for ASBOs for Under-16s, Restricted Liberty Orders and support for Parenting Orders, were not asked as specific questions in the consultation document, but are presented here to reflect the numbers of responses who offered broader views on their desirability. This gives a total of 42 items examined in the quantitative analysis.
3) A coding frame was developed to classify the responses and generate a numeric value to each response. For most questions, this involved a four-part classification in relation to each proposal: "Support", "Support with reservations", "Do not Support", "Neither or Other." For some questions, other response categories were developed to reflect the nature of the response options. A full description of the coding frame, listing the individual questions and the response options is given in Appendix F. These response categories are very broad and therefore offer only a crude characterisation of the details of a response.
4) The responses were classified as from individuals or from six organisational types. Again these classifications of organisational types are very broad and contain a number of different organisations within them.
5) Using SPSS software, a series of tables was generated displaying levels of support for specific proposals by individual/organisational type. These tables are presented in Appendix G. It should be noted that in many cases the total number of responses is relatively small, and that care should therefore be taken in interpreting the proportions of support or otherwise given below.
Levels of Support for Specific Proposals
E.3 Protecting and Empowering Communities
The largest group of respondents (45 percent) believed that registered social landlords (RSLs) should be given a statutory duty to participate in the preparation and implementation of anti-social behaviour strategies. One quarter of responses believed that this duty should apply to RSLs and other community planning partners. Amongst the category of respondents including housing organisations and tenants' groups, 37 percent supported the new duty, a quarter believed it should apply to RSLs and other community planning partners and eight percent were opposed to a new duty being established.
Two thirds of responses (65 percent) believed that Community Reparation Orders (CROs) should apply to individuals as well as groups. Almost seven in ten (69 percent) of responses were opposed to an upper age limit being imposed on CROs. However, a majority (59 percent) of responses from individuals were in favour of this age limit.
E.4 Preventing Anti-social Behaviour- Children and Families
Just over half (53 percent) of responses fully supported the wider use of Acceptable Behaviour Contracts (ABCs) whilst another 28 percent of responses supported ABCs with some reservations. Full support for ABCs was particularly strong amongst individuals (77 percent). In relation to ABCs, an equal proportion of local authorities (45 percent) fully supported them and supported them with reservations. The only category of organisations showing significant opposition to this measure were voluntary sector groups, charities and faith groups, and here only one in eight of these organisations were opposed.
Responses to the introduction of Anti-social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) for under-16s were fairly equally divided between those fully supporting (22 percent), those supporting with reservations (30 percent) and those opposed to this measure (31 percent). A majority (58 percent) of voluntary groups, charities and faith groups were opposed to this proposal. In contrast, the same proportion of individuals supported this measure without reservations. Police organisations, local authorities and Children's Hearing organisations supported this measure but with significant reservations. 71 percent of responses fully supported individual support orders linked to ASBOs for under-16s, with a further 8 percent supporting with reservations. Only 3 percent of responses were opposed to these individual support orders. Responses were divided on the suitability of the Youth Court model for dealing with breaches of ASBOs applying to under-16s. Whilst 41 percent of responses fully supported this proposal, and a further 7 percent supported this with reservations, 30 percent were opposed. The split between individuals and organisations was also apparent here. 100 percent of individual respondents supported this proposal, whilst a majority of Children's Hearings organisations (62 percent) and local authorities (52 percent) were opposed.
Introducing electronic monitoring for under-16s was narrowly supported overall, but mostly with reservations. 20 percent of responses fully supported the measure; a third (33 percent) supported with reservations and a similar proportion (31 percent) was opposed. Opposition was particularly strong amongst voluntary groups, charities and faith groups, where a majority (57 percent) opposed this measure.
Restricted Liberty Orders (RLOs) for under-16s were a contentious issue. While these were supported by half (53 percent) of respondent, 21 percent of these supported with reservations. A similar proportion (21 percent) of responses were opposed to this proposal. Thus, whilst an overall majority supported RLOs, those opposed had very strong reservations and those responses coded as 'others' also raised serious concerns about aspects of this proposal. Support for the proposal was strongest amongst individuals, Children's Hearings groups and local authorities.
The responses were very divided about the desirability of introducing Parenting Orders (POs). Whilst 44 percent supported their introduction, 23 percent of this support was with reservations and over a third (34 percent) of responses were opposed to this proposal, with the strongest opposition again coming from voluntary groups, charities and faith groups. However, the controversial nature of this proposal is demonstrated by the 50 percent in favour/ 40 percent against responses from individuals (who are found to be very supportive of most other proposals) and the lack of firm support or opposition amongst local authorities. The responses categorised as 'other' raised a number of concerns about the practical implications and effectiveness of POs.
Giving local authorities and Reporters the power to apply for a PO was fully supported by 73 percent of responses and opposed by 19 percent. The strongest support for these powers came from the police (though only 2 police responses are included here), individuals, housing organisations and crime and regeneration partnerships.
Whilst 43 percent of responses believed that Reporters should be able to apply to the courts for POs on their own initiative, a larger proportion of responses (48 percent) believed that this should only be done on the direction of a Children's Hearing. Children's Hearing organisations particularly strongly supported this later option. Whilst 47 percent of responses believed that courts should be able to apply for POs on their own initiative, and a further 20 percent supported this with reservations, this level of support is particularly attributable to responses from individuals. Half of responding local authorities; voluntary groups, charities and faith groups; and 40 percent of Children's Hearing groups were opposed to this option. Failure to ensure attendance at school being the grounds for a PO was supported by almost three quarters (72 percent) of responses (15 percent with reservations), and opposed by almost a quarter (23 percent) of responses. There were significant levels of reservations about, or opposition to, this proposal from local authorities and voluntary groups, charities and faith groups.
Whilst two thirds of responses (66 percent) believed it was desirable to ensure that local authorities complied with supervision requirements, a quarter of responses, and over half of local authorities, gave another answer, other than support/not support, to this question (linked to the issue of resources). Half of the responses (50 percent) fully supported Reporters being enabled to request Sheriff's to make an order enforcing supervision requirements, and a further 15 percent supported this option with reservations. Support for this proposal was much lower amongst local authorities than other organisations/individuals, and again almost half (46 percent) of local authorities and voluntary groups, charities and faith groups gave another answer to this question. Two thirds (67 percent) of responses supported Hearings and Reporters having a role in alerting Scottish Ministers to the failure of a Council to provide appropriate education for a child, 12 percent of these with reservations. 100 percent of individuals supported this measure. In contrast, the largest proportion of local authority responses that noted whether they for or against the proposal (35 percent) were opposed to this. 39 percent of local authorities and voluntary groups, charities and faith groups gave another answer to this question, again based around the issue of resources. Three quarters of Children's Hearings groups supported this option, one quarter of these with reservations.
E.5. Safe, Secure and Attractive Communities
41 percent of responses supported powers being given to the Police, but not community wardens, to issue Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs) for littering offences, whilst 36 percent of responses believed that this power should be extended to community wardens. Only 6 percent of responses were opposed to the introduction of FPNs for littering. Whilst half of respondents (50 percent) believed that local authorities did not have sufficient powers to tackle litter, 37 percent believed they did, and the remaining responses tended to suggest that powers were sufficient but not adequately used. A majority of local authorities (52 percent) did not believe they had sufficient powers.
Almost half of the responses (49 percent) did not believe that the scope of present regulations for removing vehicles causing an obstruction were sufficient, whilst a third (32 percent) of responses felt they were. Amongst local authorities, 41 percent felt the scope was sufficient, whilst 23 thought it was insufficient. The three police responses to this question all believed that the present scope was not sufficient.
An overwhelming majority of responses (94 percent, and 96 percent of local authorities, supported the proposal for local authorities to be given the power to examine waste transfer documents. Over three-quarters (78 percent) of responses also supported doubling the maximum fine for fly-tipping to 40,000.
Three quarters (74 percent) of responses supported the proposal to ban the sale of spray paint to under-16s (22 percent of these responses supported this with reservations). 13 percent of responses were opposed to the ban.
62 percent of responses supported local authorities providing a night-time service to address noise nuisance. 43 percent believed that local authorities should be enabled to provide this service, whilst 19 percent (mainly individual responses) believed that local authorities should be required to operate such a service. Over half (52 percent) of responses fully supported extending this to a 24-hour service, and a further 20 percent supported this with reservations. 41 percent of local authorities fully supported this proposal, whilst a further 36 percent of local authorities supported it with reservations.
Almost two thirds (64 percent) of responses supported local authorities having a combination of regulation and sanction powers relating to anti-social behaviour in private-rented premises. Ten percent and nine percent of responses supported only the regulation or the sanctions option respectively. Amongst local authorities, half supported a combination of options, 21 percent supported a regulation option only and 17 percent supported a sanctions option only.
Views were divided over the appropriateness of tenant reward schemes. Similar proportions of respondents supported these schemes (40 percent, 18 percent with reservations) and opposed the schemes (39 percent). Amongst housing organisations and tenants groups, the proportions supporting, supporting with reservations and opposing were 32 percent, 21 percent and 34 percent respectively.
Overall, a small majority (55 percent) of responses supported provisions linking housing and homelessness legislation to breaches of ASBOs being applied to ASBOs involving under-16s (13 percent with reservations). A third (34 percent) of responses were opposed. However, these overall figures mask a real divide between the strong support for the link from individuals on the one hand and the opposition expressed by over 82 percent of voluntary groups, charities and faith groups and 80 percent of Children's Hearing groups.
E.6 Effective Enforcement
Almost three quarters of responses (73 percent, 18 percent with reservations) supported the police having additional powers to issue Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs) for lower-level anti-social behaviour offences. However, a majority of responses (62 percent) were opposed to these FPNs being imposed on under-16s, with only 28 percent in favour (the one exception being individuals, where 62 percent were in favour of FPNs applying to under-16s).
Over half of the responses (58 percent) were opposed to introducing further police powers in relation to the dispersal of groups of young people. A third of responses (33 percent, 7 percent with reservations) supported these proposals. Again, there was a divide between the small majority of individual respondents who supported this proposal and the majority opposition to these additional powers amongst all types of organisations, including police representative groups.
Two thirds (68 percent) of response supported the power to apply for an ASBO being limited to local authorities and registered social landlords, whilst a quarter (25 percent) believed that the power should be extended to others. Over nine in ten (93 percent) of responses supported the introduction of a statutory power of arrest for breach of an ASBO, and nine in ten responses (89 percent) also supported the power for courts to impose an ASBO for a criminal offence. 84 percent of responses also supported the imposing of ASBOs in related civil proceedings where there is evidence of persistent anti-social behaviour. 89 percent of responses supported extending ASBOs beyond individual local authority areas if circumstances required this.
There were very high levels of support for increasing police powers of entry to licences premises and for issuing closure notices to all licensed premises (89 and 86 percent support respectively). 71 percent of responses agreed that there should be continue to be no right for a license-holder to object to a closure notice. The strongest opposition to maintaining this lack of right of appeal came from local authorities. 84 percent of responses supported a clarification of police powers relating to closing premises where anti-social behaviour occurs within their vicinity.
Three quarters (76 percent) of responses supported powers to close down premises linked to anti-social behaviour. A majority (54 percent) of the responses believed these powers should apply to all premises, whilst a quarter (26 percent) believed they should be limited to non-residential premises and a further 20 percent gave other answers, many of which expressed concerns about extending powers to residential premises. Again, the strongest support for the power applying to all residential premises came from individual responses.
E.7 SUMMARY
- Broad overall levels of support were given to the majority of proposals analysed in this section, although there was opposition to, or high levels of disagreement with, several specific proposals.
- These overall levels of support mask a clear distinction between responses from individuals and organisations. Individuals are far more supportive of the proposals, whilst organisations are far more guarded in their responses. Given the equal weighting attached to individual and organisations in this analysis, this distinction is important in interpreting overall levels of support
- These patterns of opposition and support are only indicative of the general direction of responses, not the strength of opinion nor the detailed reasoning behind opinions.
- Care needs to be taken in interpreting these results. The total number of responses included in this analysis was 213. For many of the questions, far fewer responses were generated (in one case 65). Therefore undue significance should not be attached to the proportions presented here. The quantitative data is very much used in this report to provide a broad context for the qualitative analysis.
« Previous | Contents | Next »