« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
CHAPTER 7 PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS OF EFFECTIVENESS
7.1 In addition to interviews carried out with key individuals in each location e.g. stakeholders, business owners and main community activists; other local people were invited to attend focus groups in locally accessible venues. An external researcher was contracted to carry out this piece of work. The researcher liaised with the police to find out where the main "hot spot" areas of antisocial behaviour were within the designated areas. Residents and businesses adjacent to these areas were then invited to participate.
7.2 In these locations groups of typically 7-12 people discussed issues related to the local experiences of dispersal powers. The focus groups participants were asked about their experiences of antisocial behaviour before the dispersal powers were introduced, previous police methods to address the problems, their views on the enforcement of dispersal powers, what happened after the powers ended, and their views on alternative methods to tackle the problems.
7.3 This section also includes data from members of the public interviewed in other locations where focus groups were not carried out.
Impact of Dispersal Powers
7.4 Focus group participants in all areas reported a dramatic drop in the level of antisocial behaviour during the period of the dispersal powers. Almost all respondents considered the powers to have been effective as a short-term measure, providing respite.
"When the dispersal order came in it was fantastic, we were totally amazed." Focus group participant, Aberdeen
"Initially, it was like something was switched off - everything went quiet." Focus group participant, Mid Calder
"As soon as the dispersal order came in it stopped completely, it was like switching off a light. It went from being a huge problem to nothing at all." Resident, Moffat
7.5 Focus group participants claimed that the level of noise at night was much reduced and residents felt safe in their own homes and generally more at ease. One resident said his life completely changed during the dispersal period because it was so quiet and his door was not being constantly vandalised. Residents said they were able to walk out when it was dark without the fear of being intimidated by large congregations of people.
7.6 People welcomed the extra power given to the police and believed it redressed the balance between the young people and the police, which they said had recently been too much in favour of the young people causing disorder.
"The police had the ball-at-their-feet and they could say, "well this has come in, you're not allowed to do that anymore," …all of a sudden they had a bit of power. And the kids didn't like it." Focus group participant, Mid Calder
7.7 There were claims that the atmosphere lightened and that people felt more at ease. A couple who had recently bought a house in one of the locations said that the powers brought about the kind of atmosphere they were expecting when they moved into what they previously thought was a serene, leafy neighbourhood.
7.8 One of the most commented on features of the dispersal powers was the significant increase in police patrols. People now saw the police patrolling local areas regularly and not necessarily only in response to complaint calls. The police also made efforts to stop and speak to people they met in the designated zone boundaries while they were on patrol. Some residents believed this was part of a police strategy to advertise the powers and build relationships and goodwill but others perceived it as threatening and unwelcome.
7.9 One focus group respondent said that police approached her whilst she was outside a restaurant having a cigarette between courses. She said that the group of friends was laughing about it to begin with before they realised that the police were serious and they warned the group about the new powers. Some people said that they believed the police were occasionally over-zealous in their application of the powers.
7.10 Some members of the public interviewed believed that in certain locations, young people felt at risk of getting into trouble. There were reports of young people walking through dispersal areas in single file with gaps between them. Young people were evidently aware of the fact that the powers could only be used in circumstances where two or more individuals were thought to be causing antisocial behaviour so they broke into single units to protect themselves from police attention whilst they were travelling through dispersal areas.
7.11 One 15 year old took advantage of the "2 or more" part of the legislation to express his opposition to the police powers when he was alone. Local people were aware of repeated angry exchanges between the police and this person who believed that he was being unfairly targeted by the powers when he was with his friends.
7.12 There were mixed views from residents around whether they believed young people supported the use of the powers or not. Some people said that they thought that young people felt more protected because the problem was caused by groups of non-residents who congregated in public areas; the powers meant local young people did not now feel threatened. Other people said that parents were worried about the impact of their child getting into trouble with the police and made them stay indoors.
"I think a lot of people said you know, "look you are not going out because you'll get your name taken". Focus group participant, Mid Calder
7.13 The high visibility of the operations and the large increase in police patrol numbers provoked surprise in some of the people who witnessed it. The leader of a community council in a dispersal location, one of the main supporters of the powers, said he felt an unexpected sense of regret at the sight of the police patrols; there had traditionally never been the need for such a strong police presence.
7.14 In some of the areas, people commented on the effect of the dispersal powers in clearing people from the streets altogether. Some people welcomed this but others acknowledged that they were concerned about the restrictions on young people's freedom and the lack of support that went alongside the dispersal operations.
7.15 Many people thought that the three-month designation period was too short and should have been longer. Other people believed that the police should have the use of dispersal powers indefinitely.
After the Dispersal Powers
7.16 Respondents in most areas noticed that the antisocial behaviour started again immediately after the end of the dispersal period. This effect was most dramatic in Edinburgh and Aberdeen. People in a few of the locations noticed an extended period of quiet after the powers ended.
7.17 During the dispersal authorisation in Edinburgh, business owners had noticed the police dispersing people until they eventually stopped congregating on the square. According to one business owner, the situation remained quiet for a short time after the powers had finished. When the local evening newspaper reported the end of the authorisation period (approximately 2 weeks after the powers had finished) a group of around 15 people returned the next day. According to the same person, the problems returned to previous levels quickly after this time and businesses asked police to consider another dispersal authorisation.
7.18 In Aberdeen a chairperson of the tenants association said that although the dispersal powers were effective, the problems were worse after the end of the three months than they were before (police incident logs also show an increase.) The interviews and focus groups took place with residents and tenants approximately 14 months after the end of the second dispersal authorisation and the consensus view was that the behaviour was as bad as it had ever been.
"The dispersal order is only effective for its duration. I'm not blaming the police… I just don't think they have got the resources for all the things they have to attend to." Focus group participant, Aberdeen
7.19 There was variation in the long-term success of the methods. In some areas, mainly the areas where the perceived perpetrators were young people, it seemed to have made more permanent differences. In other locations the behaviour came back straight away after the powers ended and members of the public, although they appreciated the respite, said they wanted longer-term solutions. This was especially true in Hunter Square and Aberdeen.
"During those 3 months, to begin with they made a tremendous difference…after the 6 month period we are back to square one." Focus group participant, Aberdeen
7.20 There was some discussion in focus groups as to whether or not the dispersal powers had made any difference to perpetrators' awareness of the effects of their behaviour. Some people believed that the perceived seriousness of the powers made perpetrators more aware of the effects of their behaviour on residents. Some participants believed that, in some cases, perpetrators' behaviour was borne out of simple thoughtlessness. These people became more reflective about their behaviour when they realised that the community was taking their behaviour more seriously.
7.21 Some respondents agreed with the view of police, councillors and youth workers, that publicity surrounding the introduction and operation of the dispersal powers made parents more aware of the problems caused by their teenagers. They believed parents exercised more control over their sons and daughters' movements.
7.22 In some areas, the dispersal powers helped bring about greater amounts of participation in the local community. In Dingwall, a residents' association was formed as an effect of the introduction of the powers and a police representative now attends these meetings. The association circulates regular newsletters to households, which includes information about antisocial behaviour. This was seen by members of the association to be one of the main beneficial effects of the dispersal operation. It enabled local people to meet each other and recognise that a wider group of people in the community felt the problems. The residents association improved communication with the police and the council.
The dispersal order brought to head a bigger issue. There's a bigger voice there [now] - a committee of people." Focus group participant, Dingwall
"I think what the dispersal order has done; because the association has formed…people have taken more of an interest in where they live. And because of that there have been improvements." Focus group participant, Dingwall
7.23 The community council in Mid Calder had been operational prior to the authorisation and since the end of the powers has been involved in discussing potential longer-term solutions to the antisocial behaviour problems with the local councillor, the antisocial behaviour team and other local organisations.
7.24 In all of the areas focus group participants felt that the dispersal powers helped bring about more open channels of communication between the local community and the authorities (police and council) for discussion of solutions to the antisocial behaviour problems and of the need for general improvements to the area. The increased forms of community participation were acknowledged in areas even where the powers had only a short-term effect. Many residents considered that the authorities were now listening to their views and attempting to respond to them.
Long Term Solutions
7.25 In some locations, the benefits of the dispersal powers were maintained in the period following their use. As well as the effects on perpetrators of antisocial behaviour, the powers often encouraged a new level of impetus in community involvement, diversionary activity and problem solving methods more generally.
7.26 In Edinburgh and Aberdeen, and to a lesser extent Lockerbie and Moffat, interviewees said that whilst they appreciated the respite given to them by the dispersal powers, there was little or no long-term change to the behaviour of groups after the powers ended. Most respondents believed that other methods were required to bring longer-term relief to their problems. In these locations, when asked about alternative solutions, interviewees had clear ideas about what they believed would solve the problems more permanently.
7.27 In Edinburgh, local businesses and residents were campaigning for a drinking by-law that would prevent any public drinking in the square. One business owner stated that from their point of view, this would solve the problem immediately.
7.28 In Aberdeen, Lockerbie and Moffat local people and sometimes councillors and police were campaigning for physical changes to limit access to the areas where "boy racers" parked their cars. In Aberdeen, they were asking the council to close a stretch of Beach Boulevard where the local groups congregated, for part of the late evening and early morning as well as speed bumps and cameras. In Moffat and Lockerbie, they were asking for alternative solutions such as evening-barriers on car parks, the introduction of parking charges, speed bumps and cameras. In all of these locations, interviewees commonly said they would not object if the police authorised further dispersal operations (they appreciated the relief) but that they saw the ultimate solutions to their problems in other forms.
7.29 In the other locations where there was a greater sense that the dispersal powers had broken the patterns of behaviour, local people were still concerned that further attention would be given to possible longer-term solutions. There was a perceived lack of progress felt towards this ambition and a fear that eventually the behaviour would return. Extra provision of diversionary activities and more fundamental approaches towards preventing underage drinking were mentioned as issues that needed to be addressed to prevent the behaviour in the long term.
7.30 In Glasgow there has recently been a re-structuring of community safety functions within the local authority area around a partnership model where police, council, housing organisations and youth services are all coordinated under one umbrella using police intelligence and analysis and a "problem solving" approach. This possibly represents a new opportunity to deal with the problems that had been caused in dispersal locations.
7.31 The representatives interviewed for this research spoke favourably about the new structure and developments and the success of the dispersal powers was largely attributed to the support that the local authority and other organisations were able to give to the police throughout the operations. Community safety managers said that they are able to respond to problems identified by the police in a much faster and more effective manner. This is mainly because they are aware of what the problems are as the police identify them.
Other Organisations
7.32 Representatives from youth and social care organisations acknowledged that dispersal powers had provided a period of respite for affected communities. There were however, general concerns among organisations interviewed about the effects of the powers on the perceived perpetrators and the change in approach from a problem solving philosophy towards, as they saw it, an enforcement strategy.
7.33 In interviews, representatives from these organisations said that they could understand that group disorder was causing distress to members of the public. They did not always have strong objection to the use of dispersal powers but they were concerned about long-term provision of support services for young people and a feeling that there was an emerging sense of intolerance towards certain social groups from residents and authorities. There was some criticism that the powers worked against the social inclusion agenda.
7.34 Some people believed that the voluntary sector should have a greater place in resolving these issues. Examples were given of times when organisations had worked with groups where underlying issues of social inclusion were addressed and where the problem group's behaviour was altered through focused work. One of these examples was of an outdoor shopping centre where there had been complaints about the behaviour of "street drinkers" who gathered during the day. A voluntary organisation began to work with the group, on a model of relationship building and support for their addictions taken from a successful project in Brighton. Local people began to see effects of this on antisocial behaviour and the police were apparently satisfied that for present the situation was being managed and that dispersal powers were not necessary. Another example was given where the same organisation was working with a group of young people on Acceptable Behaviour Contracts who had renovated a property into a community flat that was used for community meetings and youth events.
7.35 One of the most important concerns was noted in relation to the Hunter Square dispersal zone where the group targeted with the powers had methadone and alcohol addictions. An organisation working in this location was worried about the way that the powers had been applied and the way in which individuals had been drawn into the criminal justice system through their behaviour.
"I think there have been a catalogue of unjust results particularly at Hunter Square…one of our clients plead guilty [to a breach] and got three months in jail which is longer than someone [might] get for aggravated assault." Voluntary organisation worker
Summary
7.36 There was widespread acknowledgement in all locations from members of the public, residents, business owners and representatives of other organisations, that the powers were effective at providing relief from disorder for 3 months.
7.37 Sometimes they provided an extended period of relief by breaking patterns of behaviour; after the powers ended residents noticed smaller sized groups of people congregating and they believed the problem group had moved to other locations.
7.38 In the areas where they were used to address the behaviour of groups of young people, residents believed they had encouraged a greater amount of parental responsibility. They also enabled new forms of community engagement with authorities and communication between local people and the police.
7.39 The successes of the dispersal powers was also partly attributable in some locations to the support provided by the local authority and other partners who helped to fund and provide services to assist with the enforcement of the powers. This often included mediation with perpetrators and diversionary activities for local people.
7.40 In Aberdeen, Edinburgh, Lockerbie and Moffat, the benefits seemed to be less permanent. In these locations the groups came back soon or immediately after the end of the powers. In these locations, topographical factors were thought to exacerbate the problems and local people believed that their problems would be more successfully addressed in the long term by environmental modifications.
« Previous | Contents | Next »