« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
CHAPTER 4 PAST RESPONSES TO ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR
4.1 This chapter looks at responses to antisocial behaviour in the dispersal locations. One of the main challenges for this report was drawing general conclusions from locations that varied significantly in terms of topology, demographics, policing resources and the delivery of services around the community safety agenda. Though particular experiences differed, common themes often emerged through the recollections of typical experiences.
4.2 The Local Government Act (Scotland) 2003 provided a statutory basis for "Community Planning" to promote partnership working between communities and agencies. The Antisocial Behaviour etc. (Scotland) Act 2004 also initiated the requirement for police and local authorities to produce joint antisocial behaviour strategies and protocols for multi-agency information sharing. Following on from this legislation, agencies in many areas had been using "problem solving" methods to address antisocial behaviour. These methods involve local authorities, community groups and voluntary organisations together attempting to improve relations with perpetrators and to work out methods of improving the situations for all of the people involved. All of the locations however reported escalations of antisocial behaviour in spite of these efforts.
4.3 Police who were interviewed for this study spoke about typical responses before dispersal powers were used. These responses were developed in regular "tasking and coordinating" meetings where a large number of police officers (including police analysts, crime managers, CID officers, community police officers, community safety officers, sub-divisional managers and others) would meet to analyse command and control data gathered during relevant times and plan a response.
4.4 The response would be heavily influenced by the structure and resources available but typically it might include trying to increase visibility through extra foot patrols, increasing spending on overtime work, the deployment mobile CCTV units and working with partners on follow up actions. This included in many locations the use of parental contact cards where police would record the names of people they had stopped and they would follow this up with visits to the homes of the individuals concerned and their parents would be informed about the incidents.
4.5 Antisocial behaviour in dispersal locations often presented significant problems for the police. After attending the scene of a reported incident they might disperse a crowd and even arrest some individuals but would inevitably end up returning to the area throughout the course of the evening. Police characterised their response as "cat and mouse." The topography often made this problem worse and in many of the locations there were networks of paths or streets that enabled people to move away quickly once the police arrived.
4.6 There were significant amounts of frustration on the parts of police officers and they were aware of negative perceptions of their work.
"…as we arrived they ran away, occasionally we would arrest one or two people but invariably as we went away they came back and it gave the impression that the police were hopeless at what they were doing and they were just making a mockery of us and they were to a certain extent." Police Superintendent, Knightswood
"On a good day I will have 10 cops but that is only 10 cops covering that whole area and if they are getting tied up with custodies or if there are prisoners to be watched…it drains the resources…" Police Superintendent, Dennistoun
Problem Solving
4.7 In many of the dispersal locations police used problem-solving techniques to address the problems. These approaches included educational activities, increased partnership work and an added emphasis on tackling previously overlooked types of behaviour that might have contributed to a build up of antisocial behaviour.
4.8 In one location police visited schools with exhibition stands and attention-grabbing activities to make perceived perpetrators aware of the social effects of their behaviour. These types of police activities were often timed with council representatives' approaches towards perpetrators and attempts to offer services designed to divert problem behaviour away from residential areas.
4.9 In one the dispersal authorisation was preceded by 18 months of "Problem Solving Partnership" meetings. This partnership comprised of 20 partners including police and council representatives as well as people from local care organisations, residents and businesses. The aim of this group was to generate ideas for alternative solutions to the problems and to find a solution that would balance the interests of law enforcement and public wellbeing with the social needs of the group thought to be causing the problem. This group was disbanded when the behaviour continued in spite of its efforts and when it became apparent to the police that different representatives were struggling to agree on the best way to make progress.
4.10 The community response to these approaches was not always positive and some people felt that the format was not successful or that there were too many people invited.
"What I sensed in attending all these meetings was that they had an agenda…and I was last on the list so I was supposed to sit around while all these people talked and… I was being isolated." Business owner
…it became a 'get the stakeholders and let's not leave anybody out,' so whenever they had a meeting it became a talking shop. If you want to solve a problem you need a very small group." Voluntary organisation worker
Public Perceptions of Police Enforcement
4.11 One of the main themes running through focus group discussions in all of the locations was the insufficiency of police approaches before the dispersal powers were used. Residents said that they understood why the police were unable to deal with all of the problems that they faced and often attributed this to being overburdened or under-staffed. Despite a sympathetic understanding of the pressures that the police were under there was still a frustration of the means used to report antisocial behaviour and the measures used by the police to prevent it.
"It's just a negative response, 'We'll look into it'." Resident, Aberdeen
4.12 Residents said that they felt guilty for repeatedly phoning to report incidents; others reported their frustrations at the call centre system. One focus group participant said, "you feel like you've been put through to an empty office."
"It sounds terrible, but you kind of feel that you're a pest to the police. I phoned 3 times one night because they were running riot throughout the scheme and I got to the point where I thought, "my God, they're bound to be sick to death of me". Resident, Mid Calder
4.13 Many residents shared examples of times when incidents had been reported and the police did not arrive to investigate or else provided a delayed response that meant that no action could be taken. One person spoke of being advised, by police, against taking matters into her own hands by following perpetrators, taking photographs of them or apprehending them in the act of an incidence of antisocial behaviour or crime. The perceived insufficiency of police approaches and the inability of victims to intervene in situations, commonly provoked feelings of frustration and powerlessness in residents.
4.14 In one of the locations, business owners said that antisocial behaviour had affected custom and prevented people from wanting to use outdoor seating areas at restaurants. Restaurants also experienced problems when front doors and windows were open in the summer and staff and customers were intimidated by shouting from outside. According to business owners, perpetrators abused staff and customers, entered the premises and begged customers for money and cigarettes.
4.15 Business owners believed that they were not receiving appropriate protection from the police and because of this they felt at risk of losing custom and at risk of becoming involved in confrontational situations with perpetrators. Some were concerned about being "pushed over the edge" and were worried about the consequences of injuring perpetrators if they physically intervened to defend themselves or their property.
"…if [one of the people standing around] gets a punch on the nose, you think "oh that's not serious, he only got a punch on the nose but there's blood all over the place"… for any of our businesses that is a very, very, serious consequence because our clients are fairly middle class." Restaurant Owner
"The guy who hit me, I pushed him back. He was so drunk he fell down, fortunately someone's foot got in the way of the step, otherwise he would have split his head open and I would have been done for assault." Bar owner
4.16 In some locations, people believed that the police approach was too sympathetic. This view, expressed in focus groups, was sometimes backed up by interviews with other stakeholders. In one location a councillor and youth-worker both said that they perceived a lack of effective police enforcement and attributed this to a police desire not to involve young people in the criminal justice system or "send them down the wrong path in life."
"When the kids are vandalising or drinking in the street they should be arrested but they weren't arrested for any of these things." Local Councillor
4.17 In many of the locations where they were receiving multiple complaints about group related antisocial behaviour, police felt limited in their ability to improve the situations with the use of their existing powers. The size of the groups, the topology of the problem areas and the restricted police resources meant that they were unable to attend to the scene of incidents and use existing powers sufficiently well enough to stop this type of behaviour.
4.18 Many of the police officers who were interviewed shared residents' views and said that they were often unable to take action after arriving at a location after an incident had been reported.
"…when we were attending an area before the dispersal order was in place, although there had been mayhem and people had been making calls about it, when we arrived they were on their best behaviour." Police Inspector
Diversionary Services
4.19 Representatives of local authorities as well as police, residents, voluntary organisations and businesses, acknowledged the role of local authorities in preventing antisocial behaviour through the provision of social clubs, leisure centres and other activities. This was highlighted especially in the areas where the problems were caused by young people hanging around the streets. Police often had a strong desire to see the local authority provide more activities designed to prevent antisocial behaviour.
4.20 Interviewees from police and local authorities were aware of existing services and local authority initiatives to provide youth clubs and recreation facilities but they also acknowledged that many of the young people did not want traditional services of this kind. Many people said that the local young people seemed simply to want to gather in groups and drink alcohol.
"It's not about putting youth groups on. They are not interested. They want to smoke, drink and have a laugh with their pals and we as a council can't provide that for them." Local Councillor
4.21 In Edinburgh, where the perceived perpetrators were street substance users, focus group participants and local businesses were critical of the inappropriate management of care services that led directly to antisocial behaviour problems in the city centre. Business owners said that the problem was caused by the high number of methadone dispensaries in the heart of the city centre. They believed that addicts arrived in the city centre in the early morning and then stayed there through the day.
4.22 Police did not always feel supported in their work by the local authority and sometimes believed that they were being expected to solve the problems through enforcement alone. In one case, the police felt that they had been relied upon too heavily for a number of years while there were few initiatives introduced to offer leisure and support services for the local people perceived as the perpetrators of antisocial behaviour. After the dispersal period ended they expressed regret that they had not used the powers as a "carrot" and taken the opportunity to get the council to sign up to an action plan of service provision for the targeted group.
4.23 A common theme emerged that local authorities found it difficult to engage (particularly) with young people responsible for disorder. This had become evident through the perceived failure of consultation exercises and initiatives aiming to get young people involved in local decision-making. Although the desire (and often funding) was there to provide more activities, in reality there was little understanding on the part of local authorities on the types of services that could be provided to help reduce disorder.
4.24 In one location there was an example given of funding of innovative methods towards the provision of diversionary services but this was an expensive project. In this location the local authority area has a "stuff bus" with high-tech equipment including computers. The bus tours areas accompanied with youth workers and the police. They also have a mobile football pitch which can be taken to separate locations. The resources are rotated around "hot spot" areas where there is evidence of antisocial behaviour. There is however significant competition for the services and they can only be present in an area on a semi-regular basis. There are also sometimes problems with the deployment of the services and resistance from local residents when they are used close to residential areas.
Other Methods for Tackling Antisocial Behaviour
4.25 Before the 2004 Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act local agencies were able to apply for Antisocial Behaviour Orders ( ASBOs) for over 16s and to initiate Acceptable Behaviour Contracts ( ABCs) for people of any age. These powers were extended in 2004 to include ASBOs for under-16s and other methods were introduced such as parenting orders and dispersal powers.
4.26 ASBOs and ABCs had been used for individual behaviour in some of the locations prior to the use of the dispersal powers but they had not been used specifically as a means for tackling problems of antisocial group behaviour. Police and local authority representatives believed that this was a different kind of problem that ASBOs and ABCs were not designed to address. The difficulties were brought about by the sheer mass of individuals and would not, they believed, be stopped by placing restrictions on only a few supposed ringleaders. Additionally it was felt that there were problems producing sufficient evidence of ringleaders' antisocial behaviour to present to the Sheriff in an ASBO application or to identify in an ABC.
4.27 Some of the residents who attended focus groups for this research said that there were definite ringleaders and prominent individuals who they felt brought the groups together. There was support from some individuals for greater use of ASBOs or ABCs to restrict the movements and behaviour of the main organisers of the groups.
4.28 In Aberdeen, Lockerbie and Moffat the antisocial behaviour was generated by groups of "boy racers." Part 10 of the Antisocial Behaviour etc (Scotland) Act 2004 gave the police the ability to follow a process of actions leading to a seizure of vehicles on occasions when they were being driven in an antisocial manner. These powers however only relate to occasions when the cars are being driven and were of limited use for the 3 problem areas where the problems were mostly about the noise of car stereos and revving engines. The provisions around seizure of vehicles also require the identification of individual drivers. In contrast, dispersal powers provide the police to authorise a blanket power over a geographical area rather than over individuals and were thus seen as potentially more effective.
4.29 The 2004 Antisocial Behaviour (Scotland) Act gave local authorities and police new powers and required them to agree a strategy for tackling antisocial behaviour. In many of the areas where research was carried out, local authorities' antisocial behaviour strategies were becoming more ingrained in the normal way of working. There was an acknowledgement of increasing opportunities to use and combine different methods to tackle antisocial behaviour as local authorities were becoming more experienced in using the new methods in partnership with other agencies.
Community Involvement
4.30 Community attempts at addressing antisocial behaviour before dispersal powers focused on highlighting the problems to the authorities, offering intelligence and feeding into problem solving partnership work. The communities often, however, felt unable to deal with the problems directly and this was one of the reported frustrations.
4.31 Community councils and residents associations offered support to problem solving groups and were often consulted by local authorities, councillors and police on potential solutions. These groups often acted as representative voices for many people in the areas who felt unable to express their concerns. Tenants and residents in some areas expressed their concerns to nominated individuals who then passed it on to the authorities. This was important in some locations where elderly people were unable to come to meetings or where individuals were unwilling to become involved due to fear of reprisals.
4.32 Councillors were often important links in this chain and had been in close contact with community groups, police and council officials throughout the problem solving processes. Sometimes this would mean writing to constituents and meeting up with residents to hear complaints, in other places the local councillor took the lead in co-ordinating meetings and appeals to council members, officials and police for new strategies to be used.
4.33 In some locations, community involvement in problem solving strategies was frustrated by the fact that many people became disheartened if strategies were not working. Community representatives interviewed said that they knew people who, after an extended period of activity, had withdrawn from activity because they had lost faith in the possibility of any change or believed that their elected representatives and authorities were not interested in helping them find a permanent solution to the problems.
Summary
4.34 There was evidence in all locations that police had been proactive and attempted to address the problems through preventative approaches: educational visits to schools, engagement with the perpetrators and attempts to provide alternative facilities. There was also evidence of a willingness to offer support to victims by regular meetings with councillors, community representatives and residents. Many of the complainants said that they did not blame the police for the problems and acknowledged the difficulties they faced tackling antisocial behaviour problems. In many cases the main complainers had strong working relationships with the police officers involved.
4.35 Feelings of powerlessness were commonly described by police when talking about past approaches towards dealing with group behaviour. It was clear that they felt that they were unable to deal with the problems they were facing to their own satisfaction and to the satisfaction of the local community. Dispersal powers appealed to police and communities precisely because they were seen as a way of increasing police power and redressing the perceived imbalance between the perpetrators of antisocial behaviour and the officials responsible for dealing with it.
4.36 Police and members of the public said that they were attracted to the idea of dispersal powers initially because they had used so many other methods and had limited or no success. Interviewees described how their interest in dispersal powers as a new mechanism for dealing with disorder grew out from the failures of past approaches. The new powers, it was hoped, would give police more of a proactive role in preventing disorder and send a stronger message to perpetrators that behaviour was not accepted by the wider community.
« Previous | Contents | Next »