« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
Chapter Seven: Conclusions
7.1 On first reading, the findings of this research appear to be ambiguous and contradictory. On the one hand, key agency stakeholders at local authority and neighbourhood levels consistently reported an improvement in agency performance and visible improvements to antisocial behaviour within local neighbourhoods since the 2004 Antisocial Behaviour etc. (Scotland) Act and the antisocial behaviour strategies, Outcome Agreements and Scottish Executive funding that arose from it. On the other hand, recorded incidents of antisocial behaviour had increased in the case study neighbourhoods, and there were very limited improvements in local residents' perceptions of antisocial behaviour and agency performance.
7.2 Part of this ambiguity reflects the limitations of the available data, performance indicators and the methodologies applied to this research. However, it is possible to disentangle some of the findings and to discern key patterns and themes emerging from this study. It is also the case that there was a remarkable degree of consistency and uniformity in the main issues and challenges facing all 8 of the case study neighbourhoods, although the scale of antisocial behaviour problems within them varied considerably.
7.3 A key theme to emerge was the difficulty in evaluating the impacts of local antisocial behaviour at the neighbourhood level given that the strategies were in their early stages of implementation. The organisational restructuring, new initiatives and funding had simply not been in place long enough to effect significant change at either neighbourhood or local authority levels. The question that arises from this is whether the confusion and uncertainty amongst agency officers and residents about new delivery mechanisms and their effectiveness was simply a consequence of this transitional phase, or whether it signifies inherent weaknesses in these approaches to tackling antisocial behaviour. Our assessment, whilst necessarily tentative at this stage, is that the strategies, delivery structures, deployment of resources and use of interventions were largely appropriate, as was the holistic PIER approach that underpins them. This had resulted in demonstrable improvements in agency working, even if much of this improvement was process-focused and therefore not readily visible to local residents. This also suggests that improvements in the levels and perceptions of antisocial behaviour and agency performance may be anticipated in the medium to long term. It also indicates that increasing incidents of antisocial behaviour being reported to local agencies may be interpreted positively at this stage in the strategies.
7.4 There were a number of factors driving these improvements. The additional funding made available by the Scottish Executive for local antisocial behaviour strategies had enabled a range of initiatives and interventions to be provided at local authority and neighbourhood levels. Many of these had, or were beginning to have, a positive impact at the neighbourhood level, particularly in tackling the most serious antisocial behaviour and the behaviour of the most problematic households. The role of specialised central antisocial behaviour units, investigation teams and projects working intensively with perpetrators had been particularly important contributors to these improvements. In terms of short-term neighbourhood impacts, interventions that had increased the visible presence of 'authority' figures (community police officers, community wardens and community concierges) and actions tackling environmental antisocial behaviour were effective in addressing incidents of antisocial behaviour. They also provided signifiers of the commitment and ability of local agencies to tackle the problems facing neighbourhoods. However, these were also the interventions that were most resource-intensive. The neighbourhood that appeared to have achieved the most significant improvements in the last 2 years had benefited from very substantial targeted resources; allied to robust and effective multi-agency partnership working. Given the resources available across local authorities, it is unlikely that such intensive targeting could be replicated in all of the neighbourhoods experiencing antisocial behaviour problems.
7.5 However, not all of the improvements to agency performance were attributable to additional funding, nor were resources the only barrier to improving the delivery of antisocial behaviour strategies at the neighbourhood level. The most significant factor behind the improvements in agency performance was the undoubted commitment to multi-agency partnership working. In all 4 local authority areas, it was evident that a growing range of partner organisations were engaging in the strategies at local authority and neighbourhood levels, and that this engagement was increasingly proactive and substantive. Importantly, these improved partnership processes were resulting in real improvements in tackling antisocial behaviour. A strong consensus has been reached amongst agencies about the appropriateness of the PIER approach, and this was combined with a growing awareness of the resources and skills that different agencies could contribute to antisocial behaviour strategies. This resulted in more effective, holistic interventions that addressed the 4 PIER pillars (prevention, early intervention, enforcement and rehabilitation), and in some cases began to tackle the underlying causes of antisocial behaviour rather than merely managing the symptoms. Many of the previous cultural or perceived practical and legal barriers to the sharing of information and joint responses have been overcome, and this has led to higher quality intelligence being available to a wider range of agencies, resulting in more effective operational decision-making. It has also improved the targeting, flexibility and mobility of available resources at local authority and neighbourhood levels. Partnerships were also being encouraged at the neighbourhood level, which had led to multi-agency interventions to address the specific needs and priorities of neighbourhoods.
7.6 There were some weaknesses in the delivery of local antisocial behaviour strategies at the neighbourhood level, not all of which were funding-based. Although 'core' neighbourhood partnerships involving local authority housing officers, community police officers, community wardens, concierges (in some areas), registered social landlords and environmental officers were increasingly robust, a number of agencies and organisations remained on the periphery. These included both social work and education officers, youth workers, local businesses and counselling and addiction support services. This was partly a function of previous partnership working, which was primarily focused on enforcement action. As these strategies increase the prioritisation of prevention, early intervention and rehabilitation it will be essential to fully engage these organisations, whose main strengths and focus lie in these areas. Enabling residents - including young people - to distinguish between the different roles that these organisations and individuals play within the PIER approach is important in building engagement and confidence with local residents, including the perpetrators of antisocial behaviour.
7.7 There was a limited engagement amongst local residents with antisocial behaviour strategies, which was one of the factors behind the 'perception gap' between residents and agency officers about improving conditions and agency performance in neighbourhoods. There is a need to address the considerable confusion amongst local residents about the changing responsibilities and powers of local agencies; when, where and how interventions are being deployed; and what role residents are expected to play. One of the areas where agency performance appears to be poor is the initial response and support provided to victims and witnesses. This is not simply about providing more specialised services, although these are increasingly available. Rather it is about ensuring that all agencies treat complaints seriously, update residents about progress, and provide full and realistic information about the feasibility, timescales and consequences of actions and interventions. There are 2 fundamental issues which underpin the need for this approach. Firstly, the low rates of reporting, which is a national rather than local problem, create a cycle where it is difficult for agencies to take action and this lack of action breeds further frustration and disengagement amongst residents. Secondly, there is a need to develop the sense of empowerment and ownership towards tackling antisocial behaviour within neighbourhoods. This means ensuring that the knowledge and skills in the use of interventions is retained amongst front line officers and not confined to central local authority specialist teams. It also necessitates a focus upon improving relations and confidence amongst residents within neighbourhoods. This is especially the case for young people and adult residents. Generating tolerance of diverse lifestyles and building confidence in dispute resolution are essential if the increased visible presence of community police and wardens is going to enhance, rather than simply replace, informal social control. Continuity and the building of trust are central to the relationship between formal and informal mechanisms of social control, and the relatively high turnover of agency staff has not assisted this process. A similar effect was evident in the high residential turnover in some of the worst affected sub-areas of neighbourhoods.
7.8 The good practice lessons of this research involve key principles, working practices and specific initiatives. The key principles are: enabling holistic PIER-based interventions based on the engagement of as wide a range of agencies as possible; empowering residents through the provision of more comprehensive, detailed and realistic information about the antisocial behaviour interventions in their neighbourhoods and how residents can actively contribute to these interventions; and facilitating the autonomy of front line agency officers to develop partnerships and new ways of working. The key working practices are: the development, pooling and utilisation of more fine-grained information; clarifying processes, roles and responsibilities between agencies and different geographical scales of operation; facilitating flexibility and responsiveness in the deployment of resources; and ensuring that knowledge and ownership of interventions is retained at the neighbourhood as well as local authority level. A number of innovative projects and initiatives had been established in the case study neighbourhoods, including: youth diversionary activities; schemes to tackle under-age drinking; environmental improvement and maintenance programmes; and 'junior' wardens and concierge projects. These were all positively perceived by agency officers and residents, although they had not been the focus of longer-term evaluations.
7.9 It is important to acknowledge that not all of the improvements and challenges within neighbourhoods are attributable to the new local antisocial behaviour strategies. In the 4 local authorities action to tackle antisocial behaviour predates 2004, resources are generated from a range of funding streams other than the Scottish Executive's Anti-social Behaviour etc. Act allocations, while detailed knowledge of the local authority's antisocial behaviour strategy is often limited amongst front line practitioners at the neighbourhood level. It is also the case that the dynamics of antisocial behaviour problems in neighbourhoods are affected by wider social, economic and historical factors, including population change, inter-generational poverty, substance addiction, poor mental health and long-standing cultural norms - for example attitudes to reporting incidents to local agencies. This necessitates a realistic assessment of what may be achieved by local antisocial behaviour strategies. It also highlights the perceived scale of the problem of antisocial behaviour, and the types and scales of interventions required to address it. The economic evaluation has found that the community warden schemes in all 4 case study local authorities and the intensive family intervention project in Edinburgh were demonstrably cost-effective. Whilst the other evaluated initiatives in the case study local authorities, including mediation services, had delivered benefits to local neighbourhoods, methodological and data limitations prevented a robust quantification of their cost effectiveness. This suggests the need for more comprehensive and disaggregated data to be collated about specific antisocial behaviour initiatives to determine their cost effectiveness in future evaluations. Funding is also a key issue. In the short-term, the fragility of funding horizons impacts on the effectiveness of local organisations and projects. In the longer term it is clear that levels of funding will need to be maintained if the developing momentum towards tackling antisocial behaviour is to be sustained.
« Previous | Contents | Next »