The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

Chapter Three: Reducing the incidence of antisocial behaviour

3.1 One of the 4 key objectives of the Scottish Executive's antisocial behaviour strategy and funding to local authorities is to bring about a reduction in the actual incidences of antisocial behaviour. The first part of the chapter identifies the main types of antisocial behaviour described by practitioners and residents, and their perceived causes. The second part of the chapter utilises 3 data sources to provide some evidence about the trends in the levels of officially recorded antisocial behaviour in the case study local authorities and neighbourhoods. A fuller account of these data sources and the methodological difficulties of interpreting them are provided in Annex 1.

3.2 Measuring antisocial behaviour quantitatively is problematic for a number of reasons. Firstly, until recently there has been no specific categorisation of offences that may be defined as antisocial behaviour. For example vandalism and breach of the peace were included in general crime statistics, rather than being classified as 'antisocial' offences. Secondly, many incidences of antisocial behaviour go unreported and, even where they are reported to agencies, they may not be officially recorded as an offence in, for example, police statistics. Thirdly, many surveys, including the Scottish Crime Survey and the Scottish Household Survey include questions on direct personal experience of anti-social behaviour as well as perceptions of anti-social behaviour, but it not possible to verify these figures from other sources, such as agency records. The chapter concludes with a brief summary of the perceptions of agency officers about changes in the form and extent of antisocial behaviour at the neighbourhood level.

The Location and Nature of Neighbourhood Antisocial Behaviour

3.3 The research found evidence of an extremely localised geography of antisocial behaviour. The quantitative data set out below reveals the extent of variation in antisocial behaviour between neighbourhoods. There is also considerable variation within sub-areas of neighbourhoods, including concentrations of problems in certain residential areas and particular public spaces, especially those with retail units.

3.4 There was also a seasonal pattern to antisocial behaviour. Problems relating to young people hanging about and the consumption of alcohol and drugs in public spaces escalated during the summer months as a result of extended light in the evenings. There were particular problems with fireworks and fire setting linked to Guy Fawkes celebrations in November, although there was a widely reported concern that the misuse of fireworks was becoming more prevalent at other times of the year. The Christmas and New Year period also resulted in an increase in antisocial behaviour linked to the misuse of alcohol and noise nuisance. Within these seasonal variations, there was a weekly pattern of escalating antisocial behaviour on weekend nights. Individual cases of antisocial behaviour varied from sudden flare ups and rapidly escalating incidents to protracted cases of sporadic lower level antisocial behaviour over a period of months, and in some instances, years.

3.5 There was a notable consistency amongst the research participants in all 8 case study neighbourhoods about both the main antisocial behaviour problems and the causes of these problems. The most prevalent antisocial behaviour was what may be defined as 'low level', although in its visibility and regularity it had a very significant impact on the lives of residents. The main forms of antisocial behaviour were:

• Drinking and drug taking in public spaces
• Disorder associated with groups of young people 'hanging about' in public spaces
• Vandalism and graffiti
• Noise nuisance from properties and groups congregating in public spaces

There were also 2 forms of very serious antisocial behaviour that were prevalent in some of the case study neighbourhoods: gang fighting and drug dealing. Whilst these were less frequent, they had a very negative impact on residents' perceptions of both their neighbourhood and the ability of local agencies to tackle antisocial behaviour effectively.

3.6 A common dynamic in the neighbourhoods was for groups of older children and young adults (aged 16 to 24) to be engaged in street drinking and sporadic gang fighting and for groups of younger children, mostly aged 13-15 but including some much younger members, to be involved in lower level antisocial behaviour. In our focus groups young people themselves admitted to engaging in antisocial behaviour including vandalism, graffiti, throwing stones or eggs at windows and cars, provoking the police into chases, 'giving cheek' to adults, running through gardens, stealing washing and consuming alcohol. However, many of the complaints about young people also related to noise arising from 'legitimate' activities such as playing football in the street.

3.7 Almost all of the case study neighbourhoods had experienced problems with gangs and associated disorder, often involving large-scale disturbances and physical assaults. These gangs could comprise over 20 individuals. Although the majority of individuals involved in gang activities were reported to be aged 16 to 24, there was also a significant involvement of younger children (aged 8 upwards) and older adults. These gang disturbances were commonly reported to be cyclical as different generational 'waves' emerged or as existing gang members 'moved on' into adulthood. Such serious public disturbances had a very negative impact on residents' perceptions of their neighbourhoods and their confidence in local agencies.

3.8 Complaints about noise were very prominent in the case study neighbourhoods. These often related to loud music, parties and domestic disturbances within residential properties and were strongly linked to the misuse of drugs and alcohol, the behaviour of children and individuals with mental health problems. Noise nuisance often led to disputes between neighbours.

3.9 All of the case study neighbourhoods experienced significant environmental antisocial behaviour including vandalism, graffiti, littering, dog fouling and illegal tipping and this environmental degradation was evident to the research team during their visits to the neighbourhoods, despite some noticeable improvements over the course of the research.

The Causes of Neighbourhood Antisocial Behaviour

3.10 Problematic community dynamics were identified as a significant cause of both antisocial behaviour and the perception of antisocial behaviour in the case study neighbourhoods. There was a problematic relationship between long-term and new residents which was common to the neighbourhoods. Newcomers to the area were often blamed by established residents for antisocial behaviour and the 'decline' of the neighbourhoods. Conversely, new residents reported not being welcomed into local communities and that this on occasion extended to the victimisation of adults and children. This fault-line was most evident in one of the neighbourhoods where a new build development of owner-occupied housing had been located amidst Council properties, leading to considerable tensions about the use of access paths and vandalism. This divide between owner occupiers and tenants was also apparent in at least one other neighbourhood. These tensions are not conducive to facilitating a common sense of purpose amongst residents for negotiating conflict or co-operating with local agencies. Several long-term residents stated that, because they knew the area, or indeed had grown up in the area, they did not feel unsafe. However, this also made them less likely to report incidents to local agencies. In one case study neighbourhood there was a significant problem of intimidation towards students.

3.11 A fault-line between young people and adults - and by proxy the police - was evident and produced a pervasive, negative context within which agencies attempted to work with young people. This was most prominently manifested in disputed interpretations of young people congregating in public spaces. Young people in our focus groups were, for example, reluctant to acknowledge that 'hanging about at the shops' could be intimidating to (especially elderly) adults. To them, it was seen as a longstanding and legitimate tradition. Youth workers in the case study neighbourhoods confirmed the problematic relationship and lack of communication between adults and young people: "Young people just want respect. People have an impression of what young people are like." It is important to note that there were a range of views towards young people amongst victims and witnesses of antisocial behaviour. Whilst some individuals described young people as 'animals' or 'hooligans' causing 'havoc', others implicated adults in the problem: "We have little contact with young people, it is sad in this society. We need to understand each other better. We can't assume they are all bad. They are congregating because they want to be with their mates."

3.12 Finally, it was evident that the majority of serious antisocial behaviour in the case study neighbourhoods was caused by a small number of problematic households. However, these households were often linked to extended family networks in the localities. This could result in disputes between extended families escalating to involve large numbers of individuals and also contributed to the reluctance of some residents to make complaints about the behaviour of particular households. These close family groupings may also exacerbate the problems of integration into the local community experienced by new residents.

3.13 A key finding of the research was that, in all the case study neighbourhoods, the majority of antisocial behaviour was caused by a small minority of individuals. These were identified as different generations of 5 or 6 problematic families in each neighbourhood who, in addition to antisocial behaviour, were also engaged in serious criminality including drug dealing, burglary and the intimidation of neighbours. Similarly, antisocial behaviour involving young people was caused by a relatively small group, who were well known to local agencies and by other young people themselves. It was reported however that these individuals were more likely to be involved in antisocial behaviour in the context of 'gang' dynamics when they have congregated in numbers in a public space, rather than when they were by themselves or in smaller groups. Peer group pressure was highlighted as an important factor behind the antisocial behaviour of some young people. There was a common perception amongst residents and agency officers that parenting was a key issue, which linked the lack of respect of young people to the lack of supervision and responsibility within their families.

3.14 Alcohol and drug misuse was a significant causal factor in antisocial behaviour within neighbourhoods. At the individual household level, alcohol and drug addiction amongst adults led directly to both antisocial behaviour, including noise nuisance and domestic disturbances, and to the inappropriate response of some residents to the perceived offensive behaviour of their neighbours. Addiction also has indirect consequences on the supervision of children and engagement with agencies and organisations working with perpetrators. At the neighbourhood level, the presence of large groups drinking and drug taking, combined with the environmental consequences of litter, broken bottles or discarded drugs paraphernalia and visible drug dealing all contributed to the perception of neighbourhood decline and lack of personal safety amongst residents and the consequent lack of confidence in local agencies. Many residents, including young people, reported that some retail outlets continued to supply alcohol to under-age drinkers and similar concerns were raised about the sale of fireworks to children.

3.15 The environment of local neighbourhoods had a significant influence on antisocial behaviour. There was a direct link between unsupervised or disputed public spaces and the presence of large groups of people and associated disorder. There was also a link between particular housing forms, low quality insulation and complaints about noise. There were also longer term indirect impacts, whereby the presence of graffiti, litter, unkempt gardens and abandoned properties created visible signifiers of neighbourhood disorder and decline. This resulted in a cyclical effect where residents retreated into the private spaces of their homes and lost confidence in local agencies, reducing the levels of formal and informal social control within local communities. This then triggered further acts of vandalism, graffiti, littering and illegal tipping.

3.16 Focus groups with young people revealed a common perception that there was little for them to do in their neighbourhoods. This generated boredom, which, especially when combined with alcohol consumption, was regarded as the main cause of young people's involvement in antisocial behaviour. A number of factors limited young peoples' participation in available initiatives. These included the limited access to popular activities such as youth clubs, which often had restricted opening times and were not available to all age groups. Secondly, some initiatives were viewed by some young people as being inaccessible because they were situated far away from their home, which meant transport was a problem, or because the territoriality within the neighbourhoods meant that young people felt unsafe travelling outside the immediate vicinity of their home. However a number of youth workers in the neighbourhoods argued that there were many facilities and activities available for young people, although these may not be engaging the young people involved in antisocial behaviour. In one focus group young people also reported a culture of conflict that occurred in and around school as well as within their neighbourhoods, linked to intimidation and generating incidences of violent retaliation for perceived insults or 'disrespect'.

3.17 Social housing allocation policies were widely perceived to contribute to the concentration of antisocial behaviour in specific streets or blocks of properties. This included antisocial behaviour problems linked to the tenancies of very young tenants, who were perceived to have limited control over their tenancies and their properties often became the locale for parties involving alcohol and drug consumption. There was also a widely reported perception that private rented tenancies could be problematic. In some of the case study neighbourhoods a cyclical process was evident, whereby the concentration of a small number of problematic households engaged in persistent and serious antisocial behaviour led to other residents seeking transfers, subsequent increasing residential turnover, void rates and empty properties. This had the dual effect of stigmatising the reputation of these streets, making the properties harder to let and subsequently resulting in these properties being used to house new vulnerable and problematic households, generating additional antisocial behaviour problems and re-enforcing the stigmatisation of the area.

3.18 Almost all of the practitioners that we spoke to highlighted that these immediate causes of antisocial behaviour were linked to wider economic, social and cultural processes impacting on the neighbourhoods. These included material poverty, third or fourth generational unemployment, negative attitudes towards and experience of education, and the poor condition of the built environment in some areas of the neighbourhoods. It is also important to note that some of these neighbourhoods have traditionally had a poor reputation for crime and antisocial behaviour within their wider locality and therefore the extent of antisocial behaviour that they were experiencing had a strong historical precedent rather than being a new phenomenon.

Recorded Crime Statistics

3.19 The Scottish framework for recording criminal offences includes the categories of 'vandalism' and 'fire-raising'. Both of these offences have been identified by this research as comprising an important component of antisocial behaviour in local neighbourhoods. Analysis of national level data (Scottish Executive 2006 Statistical Bulletin- Criminal Justice series CrJ/2006/6) shows that that in 2005/06 there were 123,000 recorded vandalism offences and 5,000 fire-raising offences. Collectively, these figures have risen 49-percent between 2000/01 and 2005/06. This increase is partly, but not entirely, explained by the introduction of the National Crime Reporting Standard ( NCRS) in 2004/05. This increase co-exists with a trend of no overall growth in all criminal offences over the same period. Figure 3.1 shows the trends in vandalism and fire-raising offences in the case study local authorities and Scotland (standardised for population) and reveals that these local authorities mirror the national rise. However, there is some variation, with lower incidences in the Scottish Borders, a small rise in Edinburgh (which may almost entirely be due to the introduction of the NCRS) and a sharp increase in Fife (of 79 percent).

Figure 3.1 - Trend in recorded crimes of vandalism and fire raising: Case study LAs compared to Scotland-wide norm

Sources: Scottish Executive; Fife; Lothian and Borders; and Strathclyde Police Forces.
Note: Figures for Scottish Borders, Edinburgh and Fife are for calendar years.

3.20 The following figures show the trends for recorded vandalism and fire-raising offences in the case study neighbourhoods. It should be noted that the Fife and North Lanarkshire figures show aggregated data zone level data for our case study neighbourhoods from Scottish Neighbourhood Statistics, whilst the data in the Edinburgh and Scottish Borders figures were collected for Police beats which are larger than the case study neighbourhoods. In Edinburgh (Figure 3.2) there was a stark contrast between the 2 case study neighbourhoods. Muirhouse experienced a steep rise from 2000/01 when recorded offences were close to the city average, to 2005/06 where offences were twice the city average (though there was a reduction between 2004/05 and 2005/06). In Broomhouse there was an overall, though not consistent, reduction between 2000/01 and 2005/06 from 3 times to 2 times the city average.

Figure 3.2 - Trend in recorded crimes of vandalism and fire raising: Edinburgh case study neighbourhoods

Sources: Scottish Executive and Lothian and Borders Police.
Note: Figures for Edinburgh are for calendar years.

3.21 In Fife (Figure 3.3) recorded offences rose substantially in both Abbeyview and particularly in Methil where rates of offences were similar to the local authority average in 2000/01 but were twice this average by 2005/06. As with Edinburgh, there was a reduction in both of these neighbourhoods between 2004/05 and 2005/06.

Figure 3.3 - Trend in recorded crimes of vandalism and fire raising: Fife case study neighbourhoods

Sources: Scottish Executive and Fife Police.
Note: Figures for Fife are for calendar years.

3.22 In North Lanarkshire (Figure 3.4) trends for Carfin were inconsistent. A steep reduction between 2004/05 and 2005/06 brought the rates of recorded offences back to the local authority average, which was the case in 2000/2001. Conversely, Whinhall had diverged from the local authority average since 2000/01 and now had an offences rate that is twice that of the local authority, largely as a result of a steep increase since 2003/04.

Figure 3.4 - Trend in recorded crimes of vandalism and fire raising: North Lanarkshire case study neighbourhoods

Sources: Scottish Executive and Strathclyde Police.

3.23 The rates of offences in the Scottish Borders neighbourhoods (Figure 3.5) were above the local authority average, but considerably lower than the other neighbourhoods in this study. In addition, the trends in recorded offences in the Scottish Borders were more stable over the selected time period.

Figure 3.5 - Trend in recorded crimes of vandalism and fire raising: Scottish Borders case study neighbourhoods

Sources: Scottish Executive and Lothian and Borders Police.
Note: Figures for Scottish Borders are for calendar years.

3.24 Although methodological issues limit the weight that may be placed on these findings, there are 4 conclusions that may be tentatively drawn from this analysis. Firstly, rates of recorded offences are lower in the Scottish Borders case study neighbourhoods, which are located in small towns in a rural local authority. Secondly, there has been an underlying increase in the rate of recorded vandalism and fire-raising offences in the case study local authorities with the exception of Edinburgh. Thirdly, there are variations between the trends at neighbourhood case-study level and trends at local authority level, and neighbourhood trends are not solely explained by the changes in trends in the wider local authority areas. In Abbeyview, Methil, Muirhouse and Whinhall recorded offences have risen more sharply than in the local authority, whilst higher neighbourhood rates in Broomhouse Burnfoot and Carfin in 2000/01 have now moved closer to their local authority trends as a result of reductions in the rates of offences in Broomhouse and Carfin and stability (overall since 2001) in Burnfoot, combined with increases in local authority rates over this period. Finally, in most case study neighbourhoods there has been a neutral or downward trend in recorded offences since 2004/05.

Police Command and Control Data

3.25 In order to provide some further quantitative trends data on incidences of antisocial behaviour in the case study neighbourhoods, Command and Control data was accessed from each of the 3 relevant Police Forces: Lothian and Borders (covering Edinburgh and the Scottish Borders), Fife, and Strathclyde (covering North Lanarkshire). Police command and control data is useful as it records the reports that the police receive from members of the public about incidents that may be classified as antisocial behaviour but may not lead to an offence being recorded or to a prosecution being pursued. Conversely, not all of these complaints may be verified as actual incidents of antisocial behaviour. It should be noted that different police forces use different recording systems, there is no specific antisocial behaviour category per se, and in some cases the classifications of incidents have been changed between 2003 and 2006. In addition, the data for the Edinburgh and Scottish Borders neighbourhoods is based on police beats whilst data for the Fife and North Lanarkshire neighbourhoods is based on aggregated Scottish Neighbourhood Statistics data zones used to define our case study neighbourhoods. Therefore the data is most useful for identifying increases at the individual neighbourhood level, rather than for comparing rates across local authorities and police forces.

Table 3.1 - Antisocial behaviour incidents in Edinburgh and Scottish Borders neighbourhoods 2003-2006

Source: Lothian and Borders Police (1) Figures from 1 January 2006- 30 November 2006.

Table 3.2 - Antisocial behaviour incidents in North Lanarkshire neighbourhoods 2003-2006

Source: Strathclyde Police (1). These figures are based on the total number of incidents coded by the police as involving damage to property, complaints and disturbance.

Table 3.3 - Antisocial behaviour incidents in Fife neighbourhoods 2003-2006

Source: Fife Police (1). The reduction between 2003/04 and 2004/05 is almost entirely explained by a reduction in incidents in one data zone area of Methil, rather than a reduction in specific types of incident across the entire neighbourhood (2) The figures for 2003/04 and 2004/05 are based on the total number of incidents coded by the police as including abandoned vehicles, disturbances, domestic incident, loud music, nuisance and nuisance phone calls. On April 1 2005 a new set of codes specifically grouping antisocial behaviour incidents was introduced which reclassified the above incident types and the added new codes of vehicle nuisance, substance abuse, animal -related antisocial behaviour and miscellaneous.

3.26 The figures reveal considerable variation between the volumes of reported incidents between the neighbourhoods. In the Edinburgh and Scottish Borders neighbourhoods (Table 3.1) there is a common and consistent pattern of rising numbers of incidents involving youths (but reducing numbers of incidents related to public disorder). The figures for North Lanarkshire (Table 3.2) and Fife (Table 3.3) are less consistent, with a reduction in the number of reported incidents in Carfin and a steep rise in the number of reported incidents in Whinhall. In Fife, the figures for Abbeyview show an initial rise and then decline in reported incidents. Conversely, there has been a reduction and then steep rise in incidents in Methil. Interpreting these figures is difficult, given the methodological problems with the data and also because increases may indicate an enhanced willingness to report incidents, rather than reflecting growing incidences of antisocial behaviour. However it is clear that between 2003 and 2006, 6 of the 8 case study neighbourhoods had experienced growing numbers of reports to the police from residents about antisocial behaviour.

Cases Referred to North Lanarkshire Council Antisocial Behaviour Task Force

3.27 More detailed information about the types of antisocial cases being referred to local agencies has been provided by North Lanarkshire Antisocial Behaviour Task Force. Table 3.4 shows that noise is the most common complaint, accounting for almost 50 percent of cases, whilst harassment and gangs are the other most frequent types of antisocial behaviour. The figures also reveal a trend of increasing numbers of referred cases between January 2004 and October 2005, with the exception of drugs, children and racial harassment. Further information provided by the Task Force shows that over half of these cases relate to North Lanarkshire Council properties (808 in 2004 and 875 in 2005) whilst a fifth involve owner occupiers (332 in 2004 and 330 in 2005). One in 10 cases related to housing association or private sector tenants: this pattern has remained constant between 2004 and 2005. These figures are for only one of our case study local authority areas for a limited period of time, but they do provide more fine-grained evidence that the numbers of complaints that local agencies are receiving about anti-social behaviour appears to be increasing. Again, this raises the key question of whether this reflects rising incidences of antisocial behaviour, or increasing rates of reporting.

Table 3.4 - Antisocial behaviour cases referred to North Lanarkshire Antisocial Behaviour Task Force, 2004-2005

Source: North Lanarkshire Council Antisocial Behaviour Task Force.

The Perceptions of Agency Officers

3.28 Contrary to our analysis of quantitative data, the majority of agency officers interviewed in the 4 local authorities and the 8 case study neighbourhoods believed that antisocial behaviour had stabilised, and that some forms of antisocial behaviour had reduced in the last 2 years. Many officers also took a longer term historical perspective, and suggested that antisocial behaviour problems in their neighbourhoods were less extensive than had been the case a decade ago. However, these views were framed within an understanding that it was too early to identify the longer term impacts of recent antisocial behaviour strategies. Officers recognised that there were considerable challenges still facing their neighbourhoods, and that some of the improvements were due to factors other than improved agency performance (these are discussed in the following chapter). In addition, Chapters 5 and 6 identify a perception gap between the improvements reported by agency officers and the views of local residents. It was also evident that the scale of improvements reported by officers varied, with Whinhall in North Lanarkshire and Broomhouse in Edinburgh reportedly achieving the most positive progress, whilst Muirhouse in Edinburgh and Methil in Fife continued to have serious problems, a perception confirmed to some extent by the resident survey.

3.29 One form of antisocial behaviour which was commonly perceived by agency officers to have improved was serious gang fighting within neighbourhoods. These activities had involved groups of up to 30 individuals, including adults, engaging in physical assaults including the use of weapons. These gang fights were reported by one agency officer to "be intimidating even to the police and left the area looking like a building site." The second area of improvement was reported to be environmental antisocial behaviour, due to the rapid responses to graffiti and vandalism and the environmental activities of community wardens. However, environmental degradation was still evident to the researchers in some of the case study neighbourhoods and poor housing quality remained an issue. It was also suggested by some agency officers that effective measures were beginning to reduce the prevalence of street drinking and drug taking, although this was disputed by residents. A final area of noticeable improvement was interventions with the small minority of problematic families responsible for the majority of antisocial behaviour. The efficacy of individual measures is discussed in the following chapter. Finally, a large number of officers from different agencies suggested that the fact that the complaints they received were increasingly about low level antisocial behaviour signified some success in dealing with the more serious forms of antisocial behaviour, and that antisocial behaviour in general was less serious, intensive and sustained in the neighbourhoods than was the case previously.

Chapter Summary

3.30 The findings presented in this chapter based on recorded crime statistics need to be treated with some caution given the methodological limitations of the data. However, 5 key messages emerge from our analysis. Firstly, there appears to be a general rise in the number of recorded incidences of antisocial behaviour across the case study local authorities and the case study neighbourhoods. Secondly, there is some variation in the trends of antisocial behaviour incidences between individual neighbourhoods, and this variation does not appear to be explained by the local authority within which the neighbourhoods are located. Six of the case study neighbourhoods have experienced a rise in recorded levels of antisocial behaviour: whether this rise is explained by actual increases in antisocial behaviour incidences or by rising reporting levels is examined in the following chapter. Thirdly, rates of recorded antisocial behaviour are lower in the Scottish Borders neighbourhoods. Fourthly, the majority of recorded incidents of antisocial behaviour appear to relate to noise, harassment and the behaviour of groups (including some adults but mostly young people), which supports the qualitative findings of this research. Finally, the increases in recorded offences contrasted with the general perception of agency officers that antisocial behaviour has stabilised in the last 2 years and indeed that there had been a reduction in some of the most serious forms of antisocial behaviour at the neighbourhood level.

« Previous | Contents | Next »