Scottish Government

A Report on the Consultation Responses to Putting Our Communities First: A Strategy for tackling Anti- Social Behaviour

Chapter Five The Views of Young People

5.1 One strand of the consultation involved consulting young people and their representative groups. This was carried out in two ways. First, children's groups carried out consultations within their own membership and provided reports back to the Executive. Second, a web-based consultation was carried out from which a total of 44 responses were gathered. Where these responses were identified as being from young people they are included in this analysis. From the wider youth consultation 8 organisational responses were produced from the following:

1. Youthlink Scotland (with attendees from Highland Youth Concern, NCH Easterhouse Foyer, Glasgow Youth Services East End, Glasgow Youth Services Maryhill, Glasgow Youth Services Springburn, Save the Children, Mayfield and Easthouses, East Renfrew Dialogue Youth, Stirling, Polmont YOI, Falkirk, Scottish Youth Parliament, Scottish Executive, Youth leaders, Edinburgh Youth Services, Children in Scotland, Advocate) 80 responses
2. Parkhead Youth Project, 10 responses
3. North Ayrshire Council - Youth Strategy Department, 60 responses
4. Children in Scotland (representing National Early Years Forum, Scottish Parenting Forum, Special Needs Forum, Enquire) 18 responses
5. Scottish Youth Parliament
6. Have a Blast/Citizen Y, Edinburgh
7. Scottish Socialist Youth
8. 8. NCH Scotland

5.2 The young people consulted generally felt that they were the often the victims of anti-social behaviour but, perhaps more importantly, they also felt that they were vilified and stereotyped by society as a significant problem. This was particularly linked to common social activities like hanging around in groups which were seen as responses to boredom and a general lack of facilities. In general the proposals were widely seen as promoting the further criminalisation and negative stereotyping of young people rather than dealing with a set of linked social problems to which anti-social behaviour was often an outcome. Proposals in the bill were seen by some to invoke a double-standard in which older anti-social people might be treated more leniently. In particular it was commonly felt that existing powers could be used more effectively and that the trend toward including younger age groups in the court process and in measures that attempted to correct behaviour was a mistaken direction for policy interventions to adopt.

5.3 In general young people felt strongly opposed to the majority of proposals in the consultation document. In particular powers of dispersal, tagging and the use of Anti- social Behaviour Orders for under-16s were singled out with particular forcefulness. Many young people found the bill punitive and unconstructive in dealing with a range of issues that were linked to a deeper set of social problems that were often linked to wider structural social problems such as unemployment, deprivation and particular family circumstances. However, some young people did feel that there was too much leniency by some organisations and that parenting skills were often problematic.

Nevertheless, they felt that support rather than coercion was the right response in these cases.

5.4 Tagging was often mentioned as a badge of honour and, for young people already in abusive homes, this was likely to make their situation worse. Tagging was also felt to be very much against the wider measures of the Scottish Executive encouraging better health and greater physical activity. While some young people felt that tagging was a good idea for serious crimes while others felt that it restricted the space for movement but not the range of behaviours that could be carried out. Overall tagging was viewed by the majority of young respondents as being wholly ineffective in its aims to control behaviour and problematic to administer.

5.5 Many young people related that they had been the victims of anti-social behaviour themselves, either experienced at home, or in the street. The majority of young people recognised that hanging around in groups could be intimidating and had sometimes seen groups intimidating people with disabilities or from ethnic minority groups. Others felt that this behaviour needed to be challenged and engaged with and their seemed strong support for greater contact by the more human face of community police officers and older people who, they felt, should be prepared to talk to rather than condemn groups of young people.

5.6 While parents were felt to be responsible for their children's behaviour, many young people suggested that parents often needed to be supported. Even where parents were willing to control their children they were not always able to do so, suggesting that measures like Parenting Orders would not be effective. Where relationships between parent and child were already poor it was commented that Parenting Orders would not help and it was considered unclear which parent (or whether both) would be responsible for a child's behaviour if they separated. The proposal that Anti-social Behaviour Orders might result in evictions was viewed as being very unfair and would simply lead to a displacement of the problem.

5.7 Graffiti was linked by young people to a lowering of respect for areas with low environmental quality. This was used to explain why more affluent areas were not targeted. Banning spray paint was seen to be potentially ineffective because other routes could be used to obtain it and much graffiti was carried out using pens and paint which could not be included in such a ban. Vandalism awareness education was proposed as a means of teaching young people about the implications of their actions. In addition it was suggested that designating 'graffiti walls' where graffiti was tolerated would be useful as an outlet, although hate graffiti would need to be monitored. More facilities were seen as one of the key ways to help young people engage in activities which were not seen to be anti-social. For example, there was strong support for bus-type shelters that could provide places to go in wet weather.

5.8 The proposals were not perceived to address the concerns of young people. Tagging and dispersal were largely seen as being against the rights of young people to move about freely and there was a wider and deeper sense that the measures in the bill were 'making kids grow up too early' through the lowering of age limits on the range of measures being proposed for younger age groups. Respondents also mentioned that children as young as twelve would not understand Anti-social Behaviour Orders or their own rights, and that being subject to such an order would have an effect on job prospects and future behaviour. The proposals for dispersal were thought to aggravate problems rather than resolve them with all of the young people commenting that there was nothing wrong with hanging around. Dispersal was also seen to be problematic, having the possible effect of pushing young people into different local territories that might make it appear as if they were seeking confrontation with other young people.

5.9 The police were generally viewed as 'part of the problem' with several young people mentioning their stereotyping and abusive behaviour, for example, being called 'schemies'. Much more positively favoured were the approaches of community police officers whose greater contact was seen as being very important. Turning to the proposals on neighbourhood wardens it was thought important that they should be controlled by the local authority rather than by the police to ensure a more community-based focus. Overall there was a high degree of support for the idea of community wardens.

5.10 The theme of restorative justice was widely welcomed but subject to some concerns about the practicality of implementation where victims might be too traumatised for this approach to be appropriate. Reparation was also seen as useful but potentially difficult, for example, repairing a damaged car mirror. Overall there was a feeling that intervention should be matched with a greater degree of support, both for victims and for families who experienced a range of pressures and problems. Other suggestions included an anonymous 24-hour phone number for witnesses and more use of mediation and victim support.

5.11 Media sensationalism was often blamed out for provoking older people to feel more threatened by the young. It was also felt that there was a need to celebrate the good in young people and show praise where this was appropriate, many young people felt that the message relating to them was one of criminality and problematic behaviour based on the actions of a relative few.

5.12 Many consultees felt that existing provisions existed which served adequately or could be used where necessary, rather than introducing new measures, such as the powers for police dispersal and Acceptable Behaviour Contracts. In the case of the latter these were felt to be very similar to existing school behaviour contracts which were already not seen to be very effective. Other respondents commented that the idea of a contract enshrined in ABCs implied a two-way set of duties with both children and other agencies having a set of responsibilities. As it stood many people felt that placing a duty only on the holder of an ABC would be both ineffective and unfair. More widely a large number of young people recommended that any children under 16 engaged in anti-social behaviour should be dealt with only under the Children's Hearing System rather than through the courts which would not be sensitive to children's needs and would inevitably treat them as adults.

5.13 The overall proposals was generally viewed by young respondents and their representative organisations as being blind to many of the problems of young people that were linked to material deprivation, poor quality neighbourhood environments and a more general lack of facilities. In this respect the need for affordable leisure options was seen as a vital aspect of diversion and social development. Many young people wanted to see what they felt should be a more balanced approach and felt that the proposals criminalised young people either by restricting or extending some of the proposals to young people. It was also mentioned that many very young people would find it difficult understand the immediate and longer-term impacts of, for example, extending Anti-social Behaviour Orders to under-16s. Overall young people felt excluded from the consultation and viewed the proposals in the bill very negatively. They also found it hard to understand much of the language and the proposals contained in the consultation while the tight timescale for responses prevented further clarification and discussion.

5.14 SUMMARY

• Young people felt that they were wrongly seen as a problem by society and that boredom and hanging around were not anti-social and did not require what they saw as a punitive response in the proposals.
• Tagging was seen as ineffective and difficult to administer.
• Proposals for lowering the age-limits on interventions like Anti- Social Behaviour Orders were considered unfair and would introduce the formal legal process to very young children with little comprehension of the future impacts of such processes.
• Many young people felt they were the victims of anti-social behaviour themselves and wanted to see more support for young people as well as victims and families living in difficult circumstances.
• There was a preference for community-based methods of control and policing with strong support for community police and neighbourhood wardens who they felt were more approachable and effective than the mainstream police service.
• Parenting Orders were viewed as being difficult to implement and unfair on potentially willing parents whose children were hard to control.
• Banning spray paint sales to under 16s was seen as being largely ineffective with more stress placed on education and acceptable outlets for graffiti.
• Young people felt strongly that the use of Acceptable Behaviour Contracts would be ineffective and that extending Anti-social Behaviour Orders to under-16s was wrong. There was a strongly expressed desire for more activities and better quality environments for young people to live in. The need for affordable and effective diversionary activities was seen as being of paramount importance.
• The police were thought to be unhelpful in matters of youth disorder but wardens and community police were identified and supported as more friendly faces that were more effective in dealing with problems.