The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

CHAPTER FIVE TASKFORCE ACHIEVEMENTS

5.1 The findings of the evaluation on the impact of the Taskforce on ASB are somewhat complex, which may be an indication of the scale of the problems facing the Taskforce. However, in spite of the mixed nature of the findings, there is some evidence to suggest that Taskforce activity has had some early positive effects and the evaluation identifies areas where the Taskforce has demonstrated particular effectiveness. Findings suggest some degree of 'intermediate' impact is evident in terms of increased levels of reporting of ASB in those wards where the Taskforce intervention has been of greatest scale and duration. In addition, there are a number of areas where evidence is more mixed. Longer-term impacts, such as a reduction in ASB or a narrowing of the gap between levels of ASB in the wards targeted by the Taskforce and the rest of the city, are likely to require more than the 18-month period of the evaluation to emerge.

Willingness to report ASB has risen

5.2 Strathclyde Police incident data provides a possible proxy measure of willingness to report ASB. Information was requested for the target wards from April 2004 through to November 2006, to compare reporting trends for the year before the establishment of the Taskforce in April 2005 and the 18 months of Taskforce activities. There was evidence that willingness to report incidences of intimidation and harassment, acts of vandalism and noise nuisance increased during the period of Taskforce activities.

5.3 Table 5.1 provides information on intimidation and harassment data, which included complaints, disturbances, public drinking and assault. In March 2005, reported incident levels in the wards prioritised by the Taskforce had dropped to 74% of the April to July 2004 baseline, compared to a drop of only 79% in the comparator areas and 81% in all of Glasgow, indicating a possible seasonal variation in reporting levels. By the end of July 2005, reported incidents had climbed above their baseline figure in the comparator areas and Glasgow but were at 86% of this level in the 4 target wards. By November 2006 however, the reporting of incidents of intimidation and harassment by residents in the 4 Taskforce areas was markedly higher than it was a year previously, indicating for the first time that residents in the wards prioritised by the Taskforce appeared to be more willing to report incidents than were people living in the comparator areas.

Table 5.1: Intimidation and Harassment incident data as a % of April-July 2004 baseline

Notes to table
Strathclyde Police Incident Data - from STORM database covering the period April 2004 to November 2006

5.4 A similar trend emerges in terms of willingness to report acts of vandalism. From November 2004 through to July 2005, people living in the 4 Taskforce wards were less likely to report than those living in other areas. By July 2006 this gap had narrowed and by November 2006 reporting levels were higher than elsewhere.

5.5 The trend for calls reporting youth disorder is slightly less clear. Reported incident data for the priority wards was consistently below that of the comparator areas and Glasgow as a whole until the last half of 2006, where it outstrips reporting levels in the comparator areas and nears the reporting levels in the rest of the city. The trend is most marked, however, when noise nuisance is considered. Complaints regarding noise nuisance were consistently higher in the 4 target wards than in the rest of the city over the last 12 months.

Evidence of improvements in ASB affecting the built environment

5.6 It is difficult at this stage to identify reductions in levels of ASB or improvements in public perceptions of ASB affecting the built environment. There are however indications of success 'on the ground'.

5.7 Some household survey and case study respondents perceived reductions in levels of litter, vandalism and graffiti and dog fouling. 10-15% of those surveyed in hotspot areas said litter collection, graffiti removal and the removal of abandoned items were better than 12 months earlier. 23% of respondents said that litter collection had improved in Taskforce areas. Examples were given of how the Taskforce had been successful in reducing levels of ASB affecting the built environment, including the removal of graffiti and of unwanted items and of a reduction in fire hydrant vandalism. There was however little difference between the Taskforce and comparator respondents' views on improvements in litter collection, graffiti and the removal of abandoned items. It is promising that in the longer-established Taskforce areas improvements were perceived to be greater than in comparator areas.

5.8 The range of views about the impact of ASB on the environment identified by the household survey is also reflected in the case studies where a similar range of opinions were received. Although a number of respondents stated that responses to problems such as vandalism, graffiti, fly tipping and dog fouling have improved overall, alternative views were also expressed by some - notably children and young people - who believed that some of these issues were actually getting worse. However, in spite of these diverse viewpoints - and the feeling expressed by many that more could be done - a number of case study respondents believed that things were improving, largely due to specific initiatives and that the Taskforce was contributing to this improvement.

5.9 CSPOs were perceived to have had a limited impact on environmental issues. Just 14% of respondents in hotspots and 15% in other Taskforce areas said CSPOs had an impact on vandalism, graffiti and deliberate damage to property. Their perceived impact on litter was mixed, with 20% in non-hotspots, but just 8 % in hotspot areas saying that CSPOs had improved the situation. Although having seen less direct CSPO activity, 40% of those in comparator areas said they had reduced the levels of rubbish and litter and 26% said they had had a positive impact in reducing vandalism, graffiti and deliberate damage to property in the area.

Some evidence of improvements in relationships between communities and the police

5.10 There was some evidence from the household survey of 'bridge-building' between the police and the community as initiatives bedded in, with respondents in better established Taskforce areas more commonly saying they would report vandalism or graffiti to the police. Survey respondents in better established Taskforce areas were also more likely to report instances of graffiti and vandalism than respondents in less well-established areas. However respondents in the comparator areas felt that the police presence was better than did respondents in the Taskforce areas. The results of the survey indicate however that those in Taskforce areas (even in ASB hotspots) are either largely unaware of or otherwise reluctant to acknowledge improvements in levels of policing. Although they did not receive targeted policing through the Taskforce, a greater proportion of respondents in the comparator areas (21%) believed the police presence had improved than did those (10%) in Taskforce areas.

5.11 CSPOs had a strong profile with survey respondents, with around 70% of those in the Taskforce areas having heard of CSPOs. 43% of respondents in hotspot areas and 35% of those in other Taskforce areas recalled having seen a CSPO in the previous 12 months. Many respondents were positive about the work of CSPOs and some believed that they cut crime.

Some limited progress towards reducing ASB impacting on public space

5.12 In general, survey and case study respondents noticed little, if any change in ASB taking place in public spaces ( e.g. young people drinking and fighting). However, case study respondents directly involved in Taskforce funded diversionary activities felt that these activities had impacted positively on young people. Examples of successful initiatives include the Taskforce funded football project in Tollcross Park which succeeded in breaking down boundaries between different groups of young people, and the Alien 8 Project which was successful in engaging young people. More initiatives directed towards young women are needed. Success has also been tempered by disappointment that short term funding has meant that successful programmes cannot be sustained. CSPOs have had some isolated impact e.g. increased reporting of incidents to the police, and reducing under-age drinking in one area.

5.13 Overall, survey respondents expressed the view that initiatives targeting ASB taking place in public spaces showed limited impact, which was supported by data generated through the case studies. Less than 5% said there were better community activities, including activities for young people.

5.14 Only 6% of respondents in Taskforce areas said the open selling of drugs had improved in the previous 12 months and only 4% said they were aware of surveillance of drug dealers taking place. However, these are initiatives which inevitably work undercover and would be expected to have longer term impacts as the impact of arrests and convictions are felt. One group of case study respondents confirmed these perceptions, stating that they could clearly see drug dealing taking place on the street where they live and the majority of case study respondents believed that drug taking was getting worse.

5.15 Although not a central focus of CSPO activity, over 1 in 10 survey respondents in Taskforce areas said that CSPOs had had a positive impact on groups or individuals intimidating or harassing others and rowdy behaviour. In contrast, awareness of the midnight football and evening activities for young people was low, with only around 25-30% of those respondents living in Taskforce areas having heard of these.

Some limited progress towards tackling the root causes of youth ASB

5.16 Lack of alternative activities and nothing to do were given by young people as reasons why they perpetrate ASB, while many young people were unable to access youth provision and jobs due to territorial boundaries. The Taskforce has had modest success in providing greater opportunities and life chances for young people - specifically through education, employment and family support. There were some early indications that the diversionary activities commissioned by the Taskforce had resulted in a move away from ASB for a few participants. These early findings would benefit from greater research and tracking of youth programme beneficiaries over time.

Evidence of Effectiveness in Taskforce Management

5.17 The evaluation's findings suggest that in its first 2 years of operation, the Taskforce was effective in establishing and implementing a wide range of functions. The complexity of the Taskforce's operations was considerable and the extent of progress should not be underestimated.

Improved multi-agency partnership working.

5.18 Prior to the formation of the Taskforce information sharing was extremely limited, response times were slow and accountability and transparency were poor. Interviews from the partnership analysis suggested that approaches to ASBprior to the establishment of the Taskforce could be characterised as:

• Ad hoc - with limited systems through which to share information
• Lacking an information sharing ethic - some agencies were protective over information in their possession
• Partial - agencies tended to operate with a 'partial' picture of the communities they worked with
• Lacking accountability and transparency - even where individual contacts were good, an information request might be 'caught up' within an organisation
• Slow -responses could be lengthy and open-ended

5.19 Taskforce respondents both from case study areas and partner organisations working closely with the Taskforce reported that the Taskforce contributed to significantly improved levels of multi-agency partnership working and better internal information sharing processes. For example, one Community Development Officer described the information sharing between the Taskforce and the police as a " breath of fresh air". Respondents commented that much had been achieved within a relatively short time frame. Some of the advantages of a multi-agency approach emerged as the following:

• A broader range of partners shared information on common activities than was previously the case. The Taskforce has broadened out access to its data systems within the new structures of GCSS so that different teams will be able to access data and information on individuals, areas and interventions as appropriate.
• Greater transparency has resulted from the appointment of an identified Disclosure Officer who provided a 'visible' contact for partners seeking information on individuals which was previously lacking.
• Responses to information requests tended to be quicker than before and generally within 28 days.
• Client and area profiling became much more comprehensive than was previously the case, as the Taskforce drew on information from the Strathclyde Police, GHA, RSL Landlords, Social Work Department, CSPOs, schools and the Children's Reporter amongst others.
• A community perspective enabled improved intelligence - for example in Dennistoun, the area profile identified around 10 individuals at risk of involvement in ASB but subsequently increased to 22 because of information provided by local communities

The Victims and Vulnerables Team adds value

5.20 The Taskforce recognised a need to support victims of ASB and vulnerable residents in need of support, and the Victims and Vulnerables team was established for this purpose. The unique work of the Victims and Vulnerables team in improving profiling systems for individuals at risk of becoming victims of ASB was praised by Taskforce partner organisations. The interviews provide evidence that the Taskforce's approach to supporting individuals vulnerable to ASB was welcomed by partners and was seen to provide added value to existing service provision. Partners, including LHOs, commented on the unique form of support available through Victims and Vulnerables.

• Victims and Vulnerables supported referred clients vulnerable to involvement in ASB - the emphasis was on support rather than enforcement and broadened the appeal of the Taskforce and allowed it to engage with some partners e.g. Social Work and Victim Support, which might otherwise be wary of involvement.
• Victims and Vulnerables drew on intelligence available on profiled individuals - including information made available through CSPOs, police and other sources - to understand what support might be appropriate.
• Support packages for clients could be sustained over time and part of the Victims and Vulnerables role was to ensure that partner organisations continued to provide the support agreed.
• The Taskforce offered a range of solutions for vulnerable individuals - if these failed there was then an informed recourse to enforcement alternatives and the means to select the most appropriate option because of the Taskforce's links to police and landlords.

5.21 The value of the Victims and Vulnerables approach was that it formed part of a suite of options available to those responding to ASB while retaining a clear and distinct profile from that of other teams within and connected to the Taskforce. If support was not having the desired effect then enforcement measures could be implemented. The individuals involved were therefore offered a choice between engaging with service providers, or facing enforcement measures such as Acceptable Behaviour Contracts or an ASBO as a last resort.

Delivery of innovative youth diversionary activities

5.22 The Taskforce commissioned a number of youth diversionary activity projects with specialist voluntary sector providers. This raised the quality and delivery of such services and demonstrated what could be achieved. The Taskforce's information systems and regular reviews through its Tactical Assessment approach ¹ allowed it to intervene more rapidly in those areas where ASB incidents were on the increase.

5.23 Case study respondents directly involved in the provision of Taskforce funded diversionary activities for young people believed that these activities had some success in addressing the range of ASB carried out by young people in public spaces. Case study respondents involved in the delivery of a Taskforce funded football project in Tollcross Park suggested that it had been effective at breaking down gang boundaries. However this can be contrasted to the majority of case study respondents who, in general, had not noticed any substantial improvements to the behaviour of young people in their areas.

Neighbourhood Management informing action

5.24 Neighbourhood management succeeded in bringing about positive change in local communities such as Govan and Springburn where the Taskforce work was most developed. Prior to the establishment of the Taskforce, attempts to engage communities in identifying local priorities and solutions were rare, ad hoc and often limited in scope. The Taskforce sought to bring about a much more strategic and systematic approach to community involvement through action planning ².

5.25 Longer-term change in communities was delivered through the work of the Neighbourhood Management Team. 6 'Action Plan' processes were implemented in Shettleston; Tollcross Park; Springburn; Barlanark; Govan and a smaller piece of work in Scotstoun.

5.26 The Neighbourhood Management Team realised that there is no standardised approach to working with local communities and that work in different areas required customised approaches and different levels of input. However, common components of the work programme included:

• working with other teams and partners in the Taskforce to scope the local area and understand local conditions
• building up a picture of the area, the nature of ASB and those involved
• identifying partners in terms of service providers and local communities
• working with the service providers and local communities to begin to identify appropriate solutions.

5.27 The Neighbourhood Management Team built on existing structures where possible, such as local Community Safety Forums, Community Councils and tenants and residents groups. Workshops were held as a means of bringing communities and service providers together to explore priorities and solutions. Over 100 people attended a workshop in Shettleston and Tollcross in May 2005 while 60 attended a similar event in Springburn. The Neighbourhood Management team supported local forums, such as the Springburn forum, regularly attended by 25 to 30 individuals.

5.28 The lack of 'embeddedness' in local infrastructures was identified as a weakness in the Taskforce's diversionary activity programme. Action planning could hold the key to developing links to the wider set of partners needed to sustain the higher profile, but often short-term, interventions of the Taskforce. The decision to bolster this element through GCSS by the inclusion of City Council staff working with Community Safety Forums is a positive step. We feel that the move to locality working also offers opportunities for stronger links to be forged and action plan processes to be sustained.

Working with Schools has been successful

5.29 The Taskforce undertook an educational approach through its Young Peoples Services Team and worked with primary schools, almost all of those in target areas, providing 2 one-hour sessions on citizenship delivered to P6/7 children - as well as delivering sessions in Drumchapel High School to S2 pupils. Early feedback from children was positive with satisfaction levels of 97% from a survey of over 500 children. The work of the Schools Liaison Team was extremely varied and a great deal was achieved by a small team. The work of the Team is viewed positively by partners although our review indicates that the mechanisms for allowing educational staff to feed back and comment on the influence of support could be strengthened.

« Previous | Contents | Next »