The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

Chapter Six: Public perceptions of agency performance

Introduction

6.1 This chapter provides an analysis of residents' perceptions of the performance of local agencies in addressing antisocial behaviour and utilises qualitative data to explore the interaction between residents and local agencies. The chapter begins by describing the impact that antisocial behaviour was reported as having on residents and neighbourhoods. It continues by exploring residents' views of local agency performance, including the views of victims and witnesses of antisocial behaviour. The chapter also discusses the under-reporting of antisocial behaviour incidents by residents to agencies and concludes by describing residents' perceptions of effectiveness, good practice and areas for improvement in agency responses to antisocial behaviour at the neighbourhood level.

The Impacts of Antisocial Behaviour

6.2 It was evident from our household survey that antisocial behaviour in their neighbourhoods had a considerable impact on residents. It is important to recognise that residents' reactions to antisocial behaviour were both nuanced and complex. For some residents, it was apparent that antisocial behaviour had a traumatic impact on their own wellbeing, their family relationships, and their attitudes to their neighbourhood. However, even amongst residents who have directly experienced antisocial behaviour as victims or witnesses, the distress caused by antisocial behaviour may be balanced by other positive aspects of their home, local neighbourhood and community. Three quarters of the 46 victims and witnesses that we interviewed reported that antisocial behaviour had a negative impact on their own lives, and this was also reflected in the resident's survey and the focus groups. In extreme cases, individuals had left their properties or had applied to be re-housed: in these cases there was particular anger that it was the victims, rather than the perpetrators, who were being forced to relocate: "Why should I have to move when I have done so much to this house?", "Two or 3 people have moved out because of that one family". Some owner-occupier victims were able to re-locate, but for social housing tenants, this could be more difficult: "I have been able to buy myself out of this situation. Other people are stuck in it. If I hadn't been able to move I think I would have felt trapped in this vicious circle of despair."

6.3 A third of the victims and witnesses we interviewed reported detrimental impacts to their health, including stress and mental health problems requiring medication, and in some cases victims had suffered serious depression. The experience of antisocial behaviour had also generated tensions within families: "It nearly split me and my husband up. It nearly destroyed our family." The majority of victims and witnesses also reported that their experiences had resulted in them feeling unsafe, even in their own homes, and having particular concerns for the safety of their children. This often translated into a reluctance to walk in certain areas of the neighbourhood, particularly local shopping centres, the avoidance of groups of people, and a reliance on cars or public transport to get about. Several residents spoke of keeping dogs as a form of protection. Finally, in the majority of cases, antisocial behaviour and the response of local agencies to the problem had reduced individuals' confidence in their neighbourhood and its future, and their faith in Councils, the police and other organisations.

6.4 There was however also evidence of resilience to antisocial behaviour within local communities. Even amongst the victims and witnesses we interviewed, almost as many reported their neighbourhood to be a good place to live as had an entirely negative view, whilst a third thought their neighbourhood had both good and bad aspects. Importantly, almost all the victims and witnesses distinguished between the majority of their 'good' neighbours and the small minority of individuals who were actually engaged in antisocial behaviour. Whilst many residents supported more effective enforcement action and punitive measures, several individuals - including some victims and witnesses of antisocial behaviour - also identified wider social causes that impacted in antisocial behaviour. These included the fragility of community relations and limited neighbourliness in contemporary society, the consequences of inappropriate parenting on the behaviour of some young people, and the personal problems underpinning the conduct of some individuals: "She [a perpetrator with mental health problems] needs help more than anything else. Social work and health have not helped her… she does not know how to live in the community." These views were reflected in the areas for improvement which were identified by residents in the case study neighbourhoods, and which are discussed below.

Residents' Views of Local Agency Performance

6.5 Perceptions of local agency performance varied considerably amongst local residents. Some residents were very positive, including individuals who had been victims and witnesses of antisocial behaviour: "The Council have been here often. I can't praise them enough"; "The police are fantastic". For another group of residents, the police and Councils were not viewed as always being effective, but this was attributed to factors outside these agencies' control. For example, there was a belief amongst many residents that even when the police, Council or other agencies were improving at a local level, they were "unable to do anything" about prolific offenders and that these offenders "know that they can get away with it" so there was "no point blaming the police". This perception of the impotence of local agencies still acted to corrode faith in the efficacy of reporting incidences of antisocial behaviour. However, the majority view appeared to be that the police, Council and other agencies were limited in their responses by the wider criminal justice system in Scotland. Similarly the considerable frustration amongst local residents about delayed police response times or the protracted processes for Councils or social landlords obtaining ASBOs or evictions was often tempered by recognition of limited resources or legal requirements respectively.

6.6 Some residents, although a minority, were more vehement in their criticisms of local agencies: "I have no respect for the Council or the police...they just don't care", "I wouldn't waste my energy with them...they do nothing." A minority of residents stated that the police "were scared of certain individuals" and therefore targeted less prolific offenders, whilst other residents believed that local agencies "took the side of the perpetrators and give them all the support and attention." It is important to unpick these criticisms and allegations in more detail. In doing so, it is apparent that whilst some of the alleged motivations behind the action or inaction of local agencies may be unjustified, the different perceptions and interpretations that residents have of local agency responses need to be better understood. More positively, providing more information to residents about what interventions are being put in place, about the challenges facing local agencies in taking action, and ensuring a more sympathetic interaction with victims and witnesses, are all measures that can be put in place without the need for substantial additional resources. This suggests that some improvements in residents' perceptions of agencies' performance may be achieved within existing funding arrangements.

6.7 Many residents were aware of an increased police presence in their neighbourhoods, which was important in providing reassurance and in symbolising local agencies' commitment to the neighbourhoods and their willingness to tackle antisocial behaviour. Perceptions of community police officers were particularly positive, especially when they operated in the same neighbourhood for a significant period of time, which enabled them to become on first name terms with many residents. However, residents' interpretation of an additional police officer presence varied, with some residents believing that this merely signified that particular individuals had been released from custody. Despite the recognition and general approval of increased police visibility in the local neighbourhood, there continued to be frustration about response times, and in particular the lack of a police or community warden presence in the evenings and weekends, when antisocial behaviour was perceived to occur most frequently. Several residents suggested that one mechanism for tackling this frustration was the provision of more information to local residents about the extent of policing that they could expect, and when additional police officers or community wardens would be in their neighbourhood. This would enable residents to be more informed in their assessment of the service that they were receiving.

6.8 Our research found a considerable understanding amongst local residents of the challenges facing local agencies in tackling antisocial behaviour, and the limited resources available for them to do so. However, what was more corrosive for agency-community relations was the perception that local agencies, or the Council or police at local authority levels 'did not care' about particular neighbourhoods. There are 2 important lessons to be drawn from this. Firstly, the initial reaction and support that residents receive from agencies when they make a complaint is in some senses almost as important to them as the efficacy of subsequent action taken to resolve the problem. A significant proportion of residents, including those who had reported incidents, believed that the police, Council or housing association were dismissive of their complaint or did not take it seriously, and this perception was strengthened when agencies did not provide further information to the complainant about what action was taken as a result of their complaint. Clearly this is not primarily a resources issue, but rather one underlines the importance of the interaction between residents and front line agency officers. Secondly, many residents in the case study neighbourhoods were acutely aware that their neighbourhood were often subject to considerable stigmatisation as 'problem areas.' Their concern was that this view could become shared by some agency officers, with the result that " they tar everyone with the same brush." Our evidence shows that the majority of antisocial behaviour is caused by a small number of individuals, and this was widely recognised by agency officers. However there is a need to ensure that this message is relayed to local communities, and that agencies counter any trend towards tolerating or accepting higher rates of antisocial behaviour as 'a fact' or 'way of life' in deprived neighbourhoods.

6.9 It is important that neighbourhood antisocial behaviour strategies are not undermined by other policies. For example, the perceived allocation policies of Councils and housing associations appeared to have a considerable negative impact on the confidence residents had in local agencies' ability to tackle antisocial behaviour. There was a perception that allocation policies contributed to the concentration of antisocial behaviour within particular sub-areas of neighbourhoods and, more fundamentally, contributed to the decline of neighbourhoods. This was perceived by some residents to be symbolic of the neglect of these neighbourhoods by agencies, which undermined other initiatives and could reduce the resolve of some residents to co-operate with agencies in tackling antisocial behaviour. This concern was most acutely articulated in relation to alleged drug dealers. Several residents felt that Councils or housing associations were not putting appropriate systems in place to manage new tenants with a history of antisocial behaviour: "The Council are moving people in here next to us decent people. That is where the noise, swearing and fighting started."

6.10 Residents in a number of neighbourhoods reported that perceived agency inaction in tackling 'lower level' antisocial behaviour - and environmental offences in particular - reduced their confidence in local agencies capacity to tackle more serious problems. For example, where residents reported that their complaints about litter, graffiti, dogs, bins, unkempt gardens or broken close entry systems had not been addressed, they were less likely to report other forms of antisocial behaviour. It was evident that whilst serious offences had the most traumatic impact on individuals, these incidences affect relatively small number of households. In contrast, low-level but persistent antisocial behaviour impacted on the neighbourhood perceptions of larger proportions of the population, and the visible nature of its detrimental impact on the neighbourhood environment was often the most important determinant of residents' perceptions of antisocial behaviour and the performance of local agencies.

6.11 There was considerable variation between different residents' levels of awareness of initiatives and measures to tackle antisocial behaviour. Where residents were aware of initiatives - such as wardens, concierges and environmental hit squads - their assessment was usually very positive. They believed that these initiatives were effective and they were both reassured and empowered by their awareness of these initiatives. There were however residents in all of our case study neighbourhoods who were entirely unaware of the antisocial behaviour initiatives operating in their area. Similarly, there was a common sense of uncertainty amongst residents about which agencies they should report antisocial behaviour to, which telephone numbers they should use, what constituted an 'appropriate' complaint, and the procedures and actions that would follow. This confusion appeared to have been exacerbated to some extent by the reorganisation of services and the changing of contact telephone numbers. This lack of awareness extended to measures such as ASBOs, with residents being unsure which individuals were subject to them, what their conditions were, what role residents should play in monitoring these conditions, and to whom alleged breaches should be reported. Some residents reported that where they were aware of individuals being subject to ASBOs, these individuals were continuing to engage in antisocial behaviour. There is clearly a balance to be struck in how local agencies publicise their activities. Many residents welcomed information and were reassured by 'success stories' about evictions or ASBOs being used against perpetrators. However there is also a need to ensure that progress is not over-stated, in order to prevent a disjunction between what some residents termed 'propaganda' and the perception of residents about the continuing problems within their neighbourhoods. In several neighbourhoods, a small number of residents stated that they saw pictures of wardens or police officers in the local newspaper, but did not see them on the street.

6.12 One of the key challenges facing agencies was that of sustaining initiatives. A number of residents reported being frustrated that additional policing or youth projects were short-lived, and that when these initiatives ended antisocial behaviour problems returned to their previous levels. This in part reflects the issues of limited resources and staff retention that were discussed in the previous chapter. There was also a clear dynamic whereby residents became accustomed to increased levels of policing or wardens, which very quickly become the expected norm of service provision. This was evident in the widespread perception amongst residents that wardens were very visible when they were first introduced, but were no longer such a noticeable presence in local neighbourhoods. Despite this perception, the numbers of patrols had in fact usually remained constant. It is difficult to suggest how this can be easily countered, while any actual reduction in services would be likely to have a very detrimental impact on residents' views of the commitment being shown to their neighbourhood by local agencies. There are also 'hidden' additional management costs in the provision of new facilities. For example, whilst residents in 2 neighbourhoods welcomed the provision of new play areas or green spaces, it was recognised that these could become the site of antisocial behaviour and environmental degradation. It was important to residents that action was taken to address antisocial behaviour in these locations and to ensure a sense of community ownership. There was concern in one case study neighbourhood that a children's play area had been removed because of antisocial behaviour, which was regarded as an 'easy option' that represented a victory for the perpetrators.

6.13 The young people we spoke to were generally critical of the performance of local agencies. The police were viewed as being 'out of touch' although neighbourhood wardens were perceived more favourably. Young people were resentful that the police were simultaneously unable to provide protection to young people, yet were felt to harass young people in public spaces. The complicated and at times contradictory attitudes of young people towards the police were summed up by one young person: "The police do hassle you... but I was also glad inside that the police were there." There was an almost universal feeling amongst young people that they would not report incidents to the police as this would be 'grassing'. Young people had an awareness of Antisocial Behaviour Orders ( ASBOs) and Acceptable Behaviour Contracts ( ABCs) and some young people had family members who were subject to these measures, although this awareness tended to be general rather than specific. There was a commonly-held perception that ASBOs and ABCs were not a deterrent to anti-social behaviour and that they were routinely broken or 'torn up' by individuals. In some cases this perception was based on the direct family experiences of the young people we spoke to.

6.14 One of the key dilemmas facing neighbourhood antisocial behaviour strategies was the balance to be struck between the responsibilities of local agencies and those of residents themselves. One resident said: "My concern is that more and more responsibility for the area is being taken away from us. Then some people feel they don't need to have any responsibility to look after the areas as someone else will come along and do it!" In this understanding, the increasing presence of concierges, wardens and community police replaces, rather than supplements, the role of local residents. This appeared to be particularly the case with the response to the behaviour of young people, as one local youth worker described:

"What happens is that adults retreat behind their closed doors and then complain about the kids outside kicking a football about. The police then arrive with flashing blue lights and then other adults see this and think there are frequent serious incidents, so they better not risk informally challenging kids. Therefore the kids' use of public space goes unchallenged. For their part, the young people get disaffected by the unwillingness of adults to communicate with them and perceive the police as unfairly harassing them… There is a need for adults to fill this public space again and to have the confidence to interact with young people in an appropriate manner."

Under-reporting

6.15 The under-reporting of incidents of antisocial behaviour was a major issue in all the case study neighbourhoods. Figure 6.1 shows the percentage of residents witnessing an act of antisocial behaviour who reported it to an agency. The findings show that, whilst a majority of residents reported an incident involving noisy neighbours, a minority reported all other forms of antisocial behaviour, and less than 2 in 10 residents reported incidences involving drugs. While 78 percent of residents indicated in our survey that they would be willing to report an incident of vandalism or graffiti to local agencies, the reality appears to be that considerably lower proportions of residents actually do so. These findings are similar to national level data from the 2003/2004 Scottish Household Survey which revealed that only 21 percent of witnesses or victims reported an incident to the police, and only 31 percent reported an incident to the Council.

Figure 6.1 - Percentage of survey respondents reporting incidents of antisocial behaviour

Base: Those experienced anti-social behaviour (Noisy neighbours: 295; Vandalism: 473; Rubbish: 382; Neighbour disputes: 125; Harassment: 413; Drugs: 204; Rowdy behaviour: 156; Setting fires/Burnt out cars: 79)
Source: Management Information Scotland Neighbourhood Survey June 2006.

6.16 Figure 6.2 provides a breakdown of which agencies those who do report an antisocial behaviour incident contact. For most types of antisocial behaviour, the police are the main reporting agency, although cases involving harassment and setting fires/burnt out cars are most commonly reported to the Council. Very few incidents appear to be reported to community wardens, private landlords or neighbourhood watch schemes. Across the entire sample of residents in our neighbourhood survey, just under half of the respondents (47%) indicated that they would be willing to act as a witness in a case of serious antisocial behaviour. There was however considerable variation in the levels of willingness to be a witness between the neighbourhoods. Almost 7 out of 10 respondents in the two case study neighbourhoods in North Lanarkshire were willing to act as witnesses, whilst only 3 in 10 respondents in Muirhouse were willing to act as witnesses. Although it is not possible to investigate in depth the factors behind the higher rates of willingness to act as witnesses in the 2 North Lanarkshire neighbourhoods, the high profile and well established presence of North Lanarkshire Council's Antisocial Behaviour Task Force may be an important factor.

Figure 6.2 - Percentage of survey respondents reporting to different agencies by type of antisocial behaviour

Source: Management Information Scotland Neighbourhood Survey, June 2006.
Base: Those experienced anti-social behaviour and reported it (Noisy neighbours: 153; Vandalism: 192; Rubbish: 80; Neighbour disputes: 58; Harassment: 122; Drugs: 37; Rowdy behaviour: 156; Setting fires/Burnt out cars: 24)
Source: Household Survey June 2006

6.17 There were 4 key factors underpinning this under-reporting problem. The first was a perception that "nothing can be done" or that local agencies "are not interested" and that "when you report something you get the brush off and excuses" or that "the police have better things to be getting on with". This was exacerbated by the experiences of some residents of delayed police response times to their calls, or a perceived failure to subsequently act against alleged perpetrators. Secondly, there was concern amongst residents that reporting an incident would "upset my neighbours" or "just make things even worse". Thirdly, there was clearly a widespread fear of retaliation arising from either directly confronting alleged perpetrators or reporting incidents: for example residents expressed concerns that "my house will get done if I say anything" or "you don't want to get on the wrong side of them, for your safety." Whilst many residents were willing to make anonymous complaints, a much smaller proportion were willing to act as formal witnesses in evidence-gathering actions by local agencies. This was particularly the case in incidents involving drug dealing, and indeed many residents in the survey, interviews and focus groups during this research were reluctant to discuss drug dealing issues. Parents were specifically concerned about the potential repercussions for their children if they reported incidents. Although such retaliation may be rare, there was evidence of some residents being subjected to direct intimidation, including verbal assaults and sustained incidences of damage to the property, and knowledge of these incidences happening to neighbours: "I know a lady a few doors down, she reported them and she just got grief, they vandalised her garden" Finally, there was a deep-rooted culture of "keeping yourself to yourself" which in some cases was linked to a distrust and non-co-operation with the police and a reluctance to 'grass' to the police about other residents, which resulted in residents attempting to resolve problems themselves. There is a paradox here where many long term residents reported that whilst they experienced antisocial behaviour, this was 'normal' or 'the way it has always been round here', but they felt relatively safe personally due to their local knowledge and were therefore unlikely to report incidences. This resulted in a higher tolerance level towards antisocial behaviour. For example one resident described how his bicycle had been stolen and set on fire but that this: "was no big deal: it's just one of these things" whilst another resident stated: " There isn't much you can do, you just need to learn to live with it… even though I do get scared." There were also 'myths' that make residents less likely to report incidences. For example, a number of residents in different neighbourhoods believed that perpetrators could tune their radios into police frequencies and therefore identify complainants. It was also evident that the responses of other neighbours could be an important factor shaping residents willingness to report incidents. Where residents perceived that others would also make complaints, this could lead to a reaffirming dynamic of action: "Other people in the street are reporting them too, not just me. That makes it easier. I talk to my neighbours about it"; "We all know one of us [neighbours] will report it." Conversely, there was considerable frustration amongst some witnesses about the unwillingness of their neighbours to become involved: "I wanted to make a complaint… but no-one else would give evidence", "Most people are too afraid to report anything: they just keep their mouths shut."

The Views of Victims and Witnesses

6.18 Thirty-six of the 46 victims and witnesses that we interviewed had reported a specific incident of antisocial behaviour. The majority (27) of these individuals reported the incident immediately, although some individuals had waited for a period of time in the hope that the antisocial behaviour would cease or "until I could not put up with it any longer". The majority of complaints were made to the police, council or specialist antisocial behaviour teams. Victims and witnesses' satisfaction with the immediate agency response they received was divided evenly between those who were satisfied, those who were dissatisfied and those who were both satisfied and dissatisfied with different aspects of how their complaint was managed. There was no clear pattern in levels of satisfaction or dissatisfaction between different agencies.

6.19 There were 3 key elements which interviewees felt underpinned a satisfactory initial response. The first of these was the speedy response to a complaint. The second element was the sympathetic treatment of their complaint, and the provision of reassurance and offers of support by agency officers. The third element was keeping complainants informed of developments with their complaint. Conversely, the 2 main reasons for dissatisfaction were delays in agency responses, and a lack of information about what action could and would be taken following the complaint.

6.20 Only 13 of the 36 victims and witnesses who had made a complaint indicated that they had been offered any advice or support. This included advice on reporting future incidents; contact numbers, advice on avoiding the alleged perpetrator, advice on home security, and information about mediation and victim support services. For some individuals this advice and support was very important and reassuring. Two of the individuals subsequently utilised the mediation or victim support services and both found them very useful. However, it is important to note that 7 individuals claimed that they did not need support from agencies and did not wish to be regarded as 'a victim.'

6.21 A range of actions were taken by agencies in response to the complaints from our sample of victims and witnesses (Table 6.1). 16 of the 36 victims and witnesses who reported an incident were requested to maintain diaries or incident sheets. Only 3 individuals had reservations about doing this; 2 were concerned about potential retribution from the perpetrator and one witness did not see the point in the diaries. Of the 36 cases of complaints, 21 were reported to have resulted in an improvement in the immediate situation, although this improvement was not always sustained and the antisocial behaviour could re-occur on subsequent occasions. There was no discernable link between the different forms of actions taken by agencies and the perceived outcome of the case.

Table 6.1 - Action taken and outcome of case

Base = 36 reported cases.

6.22 The victims and witnesses identified 4 main ways in which the service they received could be improved. Firstly, responses should be quicker: "Police should come out quicker and take action. They can't prove anything if they don't." Secondly, due weight and importance should be given to the complaint by agencies. Support should be provided, including referrals to victim support and mediation services, and intensive support is required by some witnesses where cases result in court action. Thirdly, it is important that complainants are kept informed about future actions and developments relating to their complaints. Only half of our sample reported being kept informed of further developments and actions and this was a source of considerable frustration: "I found out from the neighbour I reported that he had an ASBO", " I think some got ASBOs and some have gone to prison. It's just what I read in the papers." In contrast, those who had been kept informed felt reassured: "It is important to be kept updated. I felt better that I wasn't the only one affected, it eased the fear that they might come back." Finally, there is a need to ensure that subsequent enforcement action is effective: "They need to take action to enforce the ASBO. There needed to be more collaboration between authorities to respond to the behaviour."

Effective Interventions and Good Practice

6.23 Although this chapter has identified a series of residents concerns and on-going challenges facing the local agencies operating in their neighbourhoods, it is important to state that a number of specific initiatives were perceived by residents to have been very effective. There are 4 key themes to emerge from this. Firstly, it was evident that one neighbourhood in particular, Broomhouse in Edinburgh, had experienced positive improvement in the perceptions of its residents of levels of antisocial behaviour and of agency performance. More specifically, the Broomhouse residents that we spoke to reported a considerable reduction in drug taking and dealing, even if this was possibly due to the problem being displaced into an adjacent neighbourhood. The main explanations for this general improvement in Broomhouse have been set out in the previous chapter. Secondly, initiatives that had increased the visible presence of 'official' authority within neighbourhoods were strongly supported by local residents. These included the expansion of CCTV, which was reported by residents to have reduced the numbers of people congregating in previously problematic public spaces, although there were issues with displacement and 'blind spots'. Concierges were also very positively regarded by residents in providing reassurance, particularly when they undertook environmental maintenance and clean up activities: "They do a great job of trying to keep the area tidy." Similarly, additional community police officers and community wardens were generally perceived by residents to have made a positive impact in the case study neighbourhoods. The third theme was the importance residents gave to early and rapid responses to environmental antisocial behaviour by concierges, community wardens and specialist environmental hit squads. Finally, at least 3 schemes aimed at reducing antisocial behaviour involving young people were positively assessed by local residents. These included the bottle-marking initiative in the Scottish Borders, which aimed to identify the sources of alcohol sales to young people, and which was perceived by both adults and young people to have reduced underage drinking in public spaces; the 'junior' concierge programme in Broomhouse which involves young people in environmental clean up activities linked to rewards including away days; and a similar 'junior' community wardens project in Abbeyview in Fife.

6.24 Although some of these initiatives are in their early stages and are yet to be fully evaluated, the fact that their impacts have been viewed so positively by local residents suggests that they may provide examples of good practice for other local authorities. In summary the specific initiatives identified and positively regarded by residents in our study were:

• The bottle-marking project in the Scottish Borders neighbourhoods and Abbeyview
• The environmental 'Hit Squad' in Broomhouse and a similar service in Methil
• Concierges in Broomhouse
• The junior concierge project in Broomhouse
• The proposed junior warden scheme in Abbeyview
• The community policing initiative in Methil
• Community wardens in Langlee and Abbeyview

Areas of Improvement

6.25 During the course of our research with local residents, a number of recommendations and suggested areas of improvement were identified. These included:

• Focusing on the 'root' causes of antisocial behaviour at both individual household and neighbourhood levels, for example addressing alcohol or drug addiction; treating mental health problems; providing parenting support; managing allocation policies sensitively and tackling poverty and poor physical environments.
• Greater provision of educational and diversionary projects, specifically for younger people and parents with younger children, and allied with more interventions with the parents of young people engaged in antisocial behaviour.
• Awareness-raising amongst local communities about the issues involved in antisocial behaviour, coupled with greater support for the establishment and maintenance of residents neighbourhood groups.
• Extending the presence of community police officers, community wardens and concierges in order to facilitate more evening patrols and to reduce agency response times. This should be combined with the targeting of extra resources to known 'hotspots'.
• Undertaking environmental improvements which prioritise security and which contribute to a sense of pride and respect in local neighbourhoods.
• Improving initial responses to complaints about antisocial behaviour, including the collation of evidence and the provision of information about victim and witness support services.
• More education about the different types of measures available to local authorities, the police and registered social landlords along with explicit information about the required actions of local residents in reporting incidents or engaging with neighbourhood interventions and realistic timescales required for enforcement action to be taken.
• Providing greater publicity about the scope for residents to report incidents anonymously and the support and protection that may be provided to victims and residents.
• Taking action against any local retailers providing alcohol or fireworks to underage children or young people.
• Providing clear service standards for responding to reports of antisocial behaviour, which should apply consistently across the various agencies involved in tackling antisocial behaviour. Maximising the provision of information to complainants about the progress of their case should be one of the main service standards.

6.26 This list of suggestions largely mirrors the actions already being put in place by local authorities and their partner agencies to tackle antisocial behaviour. It is clear though that there is evidence of a lack of awareness of some of these improvement activities amongst local residents. Whilst some of these suggestions have considerable resource implications, particularly those relating to increased police and warden numbers or environmental improvements, it is striking that residents regularly identified a series of measures that are not limited to a greater authority presence or extended enforcement activity. In addition, some of these suggestions address problems in the culture and interaction between agencies and residents that may be realistically addressed without substantial increases in budgets.

Chapter Summary

6.27 This chapter has identified that antisocial behaviour has a significant negative impact on the quality of life of residents in the case study neighbourhoods. Residents often did not perceive any imporvments in the performance of agencies in addressing antisocial behaviour, although the most significant improvements that were identified did involve tackling the most prevalent forms of antisocial behaviour in the neighbourhoods we examined. Evidence from our case studies and household survey identified a major problem of under-reporting of antisocial behaviour within these neighbourhoods, and only a minority of the residents who did report an incident of antisocial behaviour were satisfied with the response that they received. Despite these levels of dissatisfaction, residents did identify some improvements in agency performance, including identifying specific initiatives which were believed to have been particularly effective.

6.28 The research revealed the varied and complex responses of residents to antisocial behaviour and their nuanced perceptions of agency performance. It was evident that more appropriate initial responses to complaints, the provision of better information, and enhancing the effectiveness of interventions were priorities for local residents. Although residents wished to see increasing numbers of police officers and wardens, they also made recommendations for improvements which have less substantial resources implications, and their priorities for future action largely mirror the approaches being put in place at local authority and neighbourhood levels.

« Previous | Contents | Next »