The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

CHAPTER FOUR THE ASB CHALLENGES FACING THE TASKFORCE

Residents' rating of neighbourhoods as areas to live is low

4.1 Compared with the SHS, the ASB survey respondents were less likely to rate the areas in which they lived as 'very' or 'fairly' good. 49% of survey respondents in hotspot areas, 71% in other Taskforce areas and 67% in comparator areas rated their areas as very or fairly good, compared to 86% of all respondents in Glasgow who rated their areas as very or fairly good in the 2005 SHS survey.

4.2 The perception of ASB in communities was measured in both the household survey and in interviews in the case study areas. The household survey found that those in hotspot areas were less likely to say their area was 'very' good and more likely to experience problems of ASB than other areas. This suggests that those in hotspots experienced particular difficulties with ASB and that the targeting of resources by the Taskforce was justified. Table 4.1 provides further information on the rating of neighbourhoods by area type.

Table 4.1: Rating of the neighbourhood as an area to live by area type (%)

Notes to table
Source: ASB Taskforce Household Survey, October 2006.

The impact of ASB varies across age and social groups

4.3 According to the ASB household survey, respondents in hotspot areas - particularly those living in modern tenement maisonettes and multi-storey flats - reported being most affected by ASB. In the hotspot areas, the proportion of respondents reporting that ASB had the most effect on their lives (on being asked to rate the effect on a scale of 1 to 10) did not appear to be related to age. However in both the non-hotspot and the comparator areas younger households in the lowest socio-economic groups were most likely to feel they were affected by ASB. The case study interviews found that refugees and asylum seekers, young people and elderly people were subject to higher levels of ASB.

Under-reporting of ASB

4.4 Evidence from the ASB household survey and case studies suggests that there are several barriers to reporting ASB. The main reasons for under-reporting were the fear of reprisals (23%) or a perception that agencies were either unwilling (17%) or unable (13%) to resolve the issue. Other reasons for under-reporting included 'someone else having complained', there being 'no point', the desire to maintain privacy and the feeling that it is not 'the done thing' to report people. A member of a pensioners' group stated that, "a lot of people are scared of going to the police" which was reflected by numerous respondents who suggested that reporting ASB to the police might lead to reprisals.

The Nature of ASB in Taskforce Areas

4.5 The most common ASB issues mentioned by survey respondents were teenagers or young people, followed by drinks or alcohol and then gangs or fighting. However, the survey found that there are marked differences between what ASB people believe is common and what they have actually experienced, with survey respondents being about half as likely to report having personally experienced ASB as they are to feel that ASB is common.

4.6 All case study respondents confirmed that a range of ASB issues affected their areas, including ASB in the built environment, with all case study respondents identifying graffiti, vandalism and dog fouling as key issues. Of particular concern for the majority of case study respondents was ASB that takes place in public spaces, especially youth disorder and gang fighting. Table 4.2 shows the percentage of survey respondents who reported that issues were 'very' or 'fairly' common in their neighbourhood. All forms of ASB were reported to be more common in hotspot areas, apart from fire setting which was part of a Taskforce intervention.

Table 4.2: % reporting issues as very or fairly common in their neighbourhood, by area type

Notes to table
Source: ASB Taskforce Household Survey, October 2006.

ASB in the Built Environment

4.7 Case study respondents identified four main issues that comprised ASB in the built environment: rubbish/fly tipping, vandalism, graffiti and vandalism. Examples of the impact of ASB in case study areas included the smashing of £23,000 worth of newly installed windows at Kingsway Court, Scotstoun, and repeated graffiti and vandalism, such as missile throwing at the Govan and Parkhead fire stations which in some instances resulted in personal injury. It was also felt that the result of ASB on the built environment affected the overall feel of the area and in some cases could lead to other forms of ASB. An elderly respondent in Govan described it as "lowering the tone... making it more frightening and intimidating".

4.8 The forms of ASB that survey respondents in Taskforce areas felt had the greatest impact on the built environment were rubbish and litter, closely followed by vandalism and graffiti. A slightly higher proportion of survey respondents in Taskforce hotspots said rubbish and litter were a problem (65%) than said vandalism and graffiti were (59%). The perception of these issues as common was far less prevalent in other non hotspot Taskforce areas and in the comparator areas, with around 40% of these respondents saying these issues were common.

ASB in Public Space

4.9 The most common and most serious type of ASB mentioned by case study respondents was ASB taking place in public spaces. This included drug and alcohol misuse and related noise pollution; fire setting and the attacking of fire service vehicles; and inter-ethnic conflict and racism. According to many respondents these incidents were mainly perpetrated by young people.

4.10 The most commonly-perceived form of ASB in public space that was identified by survey respondents was rowdy behaviour, with 45% of respondents in Taskforce hotspots, 35% in other Taskforce areas and 30% in comparator areas saying this was 'very' or 'fairly' common. Drug misuse was also identified as a common area of concern in hotspots, with 16% of respondents in hotspots saying drug misuse was very or fairly common, compared with 6% of respondents in other Taskforce areas and 13% of respondents in comparator areas.

Impacts of ASB affecting individuals and households

4.11 Many community and voluntary and community organisations ( VCOs) and case study respondents identified nuisance neighbours as a serious and problematic issue. Definitions of neighbour nuisance ranged from children and young people running amok without parental supervision, loud music, drug dealing and petty disputes, to more serious and ongoing victimisation.

4.12 The survey found a range of forms of ASB that affected individuals and households. 27% of respondents in hotspots and 20% in other Taskforce areas had experienced intimidation or harassment in the previous 12 months, compared with 9% of those in comparator areas. 14% in hotspots and 8% in other Taskforce areas and comparator areas had experienced noisy neighbours or parties. Neighbour disputes had been experienced by 8% of those in hotspots, 4% in other Taskforce areas and 5% in comparator areas.

4.13 35 case study respondents who participated in group exercises to identify how 'tolerable' they found different forms of ASB typically identified drugs and alcohol misuse, gang fighting, nuisance neighbours and vandalism as key issues. Some examples of the responses given can be seen in Figure 4.1.

Figure 4.1: Ranking of ASB by groups in Scotstoun, Tollcross and Govan

« Previous | Contents | Next »