« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
Chapter Two: Antisocial behaviour strategies at local authority and neighbourhood level
2.1 This chapter summarises the development of antisocial behaviour strategies and delivery structures in the 4 case study local authorities and how neighbourhood-level interventions have been established within them.
Neighbourhood Interventions within Antisocial Behaviour Strategies
2.2 Each of the 4 selected local authorities had developed antisocial behaviour strategies and Outcome Agreements as required by the Scottish Executive. The Scottish Executive antisocial behaviour funding allocation for 2004-2008 to each of the authorities was: City of Edinburgh: £8,138,950; Fife: £4,228,550; North Lanarkshire: £8,138,950 and Scottish Borders: £1,178,750. The local authorities complemented this funding with resources from a range of other funding streams. These included Scottish Executive financial allocations through the Building Strong Safe and Attractive Communities, Quality of Life, Supporting People, Changing Children's Services, Youth Justice, Community Regeneration and the Community Safety Partnership Award funds. Although it was not possible to disaggregate and quantify exact funding amounts, local authorities also contributed directly to their antisocial behaviour strategies through 'in kind' provision (staff time and premises) and through funding specific initiatives including: CCTV; wardens; additional police officers; legal services; antisocial behaviour investigation teams; mediation; victim and witness support; environmental services; education services; and youth services. Funding was also provided by partners including the police, Fire and Rescue Services, NHS Trusts, registered social landlords and public transport companies.
2.3 Developing a strategic and multi-agency approach to addressing antisocial behaviour was clearly a main priority for each of the 4 local authorities and their partner agencies, most notably the police. Progress had been made in each of the local authorities towards ensuring that antisocial behaviour strategies were mainstreamed and co-ordinated with other local authority strategic partnerships and strategies, including Community Safety, Community Planning and Youth Justice. A more detailed evaluation of partnership working is given in Chapter 4.
2.4 Within each of the local authorities' antisocial behaviour strategies, neighbourhood-level interventions had been addressed in 3 main ways. Firstly, as required by the 2004 Antisocial Behaviour etc. (Scotland) Act, consultation had taken place in neighbourhoods experiencing antisocial behaviour problems. This had included the commissioning of residents' perceptions surveys to establish the extent of antisocial behaviour and key priorities for local people. Secondly, each local authority had undertaken an assessment of antisocial behaviour in its area to identify the nature of antisocial behaviour, emerging trends and the local areas where antisocial behaviour problems were most extensive. The local authorities used various indicators, measurements and methodologies in undertaking this exercise. In all 4 cases, the analysis was robust and led to the identification of specific localities where antisocial behaviour was a problem. For example, the research underpinning Scottish Borders Council's antisocial behaviour strategy established that the towns of Galashiels and Hawick accounted for between 25 and 49-percent of the antisocial behaviour incidents analysed. In Fife, both the Methil/Methilhill and Abbeyview wards were identified as having the highest levels of antisocial behaviour in their respective Council sub-areas. Thirdly, the local authorities had targeted resources and interventions at the neighbourhoods with the most extensive antisocial behaviour problems, including our case study neighbourhoods. However, all of the strategies were also explicit in stating that antisocial behaviour would be addressed in all localities where it occurred. This issue of targeting is returned to in Chapter 4.
Local Authority and Neighbourhood Level Structures
2.5 In each of the local authorities, a multi-agency working group oversees the implementation and delivery of the antisocial behaviour strategies. In all 4 authorities, these antisocial behaviour working groups were located within the auspices of Community Safety Partnerships or Forums, which in turn sat within the Local Community Planning Partnerships. As Chapter 4 describes, the membership of the antisocial behaviour working groups included all the relevant key stakeholder agencies and enhanced partnership working at a strategic level was evident in all 4 local authorities. There had been major reorganisation of policy and delivery structures in some of the local authorities. In Edinburgh, citywide initiatives including the CCTV unit and the Antisocial Behaviour Investigation and Neighbourhood Response Teams had been relocated to the Antisocial Behaviour Division, whilst in North Lanarkshire the antisocial behaviour strategy was relocated to a new Community Regeneration Unit.
2.6 In the 4 local authorities a range of antisocial behaviour services and initiatives were provided on an authority-wide basis. These included: CCTV and environmental and noise nuisance response units; dedicated specialist Antisocial Investigation Teams; intensive family support projects (in Edinburgh and Fife) and mediation and victim support services. Community wardens and concierges operated in targeted defined neighbourhoods, but wardens in particular were increasingly being deployed on a more mobile basis in other areas of the local authorities.
2.7 In each of the local authorities, specific initiatives or functions were devolved to the neighbourhood level. In Edinburgh, antisocial behaviour within local neighbourhoods was addressed through Neighbourhood Support Teams and Police Safer Communities Units (operating in the areas where higher levels of antisocial behaviour have been identified) and Problem Solving Partnerships. Interventions were based on a case management approach within a decentralised neighbourhood management model. In Fife, the Safer Neighbourhoods Operations Team was deployed on a 'hotspot' basis to tackle localised problems and neighbourhood delivery was overseen by locality managers and area community safety working groups. In North Lanarkshire neighbourhood delivery was overseen by 6 local area teams operating in each of the local authority's defined community areas. In the Scottish Borders most of delivery of the antisocial behaviour strategy was located at the local authority level. This perhaps signifies the difficulties in devolving antisocial behaviour delivery teams in a rural authority with a dispersed population and smaller residential settlements which limits the capacity to achieve economies of scale through deploying larger numbers of officers in individual neighbourhoods.
2.8 It was evident that restructuring processes were in early or developmental stages and this had led to some confusion and tension about the roles of different agencies and the distribution of responsibilities and functions between central and localised antisocial behaviour teams. It should be expected that the clarity of processes and coordination mechanisms should improve as the strategies develop and reorganised structures become more established. More details about how the strategies have continued to evolve are presented in the epilogue in Chapter 8.
« Previous | Contents | Next »