Scottish Government

ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR ON BUSES

4.6 ATTITUDES TOWARDS ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR

Previous sections have dealt primarily with perceptions and experience of anti-social behaviour and bus travel and the nature of anti-social behaviour. However, attitudes towards anti-social behaviour also have a capacity to influence others' perceptions and there is a need to investigate the basic attitudes that individuals have towards anti-social behaviour on buses or at bus stops.

4.6.1 Attitudes of the General Public

An attitudinal grid containing a number of statements in relation to anti-social behaviour was included in the household survey, with each respondent being asked to give their opinion on each statement. Respondents were asked to rate the extent to which they agreed or disagreed, that is, agree strongly, tend to agree, tend to disagree or strongly disagree.

The charts show responses the household surveys showing both the mean or average score for each group (calculated by giving scores on a sliding scale from +4 for strongly agreeing to +1 for strongly disagreeing) and the percentage of the total sample agreeing strongly. Those who said they did not know were not given a score and were therefore removed from the calculation. Full charts showing the percentage giving each response are included in Table Annex 3.7.

The statements used covered the following statements:

• The problem of anti-social behaviour on public buses or at bus stops is exaggerated
• Most anti-social behaviour on public buses or at bus stops is caused by teenagers
• Bus companies don't do enough to deal with anti-social behaviour on public buses or at bus stops
• There are more important things to worry about than anti-social behaviour on buses or at public bus stops
• Anti-social behaviour is worse on buses than on other forms of public transport
• Most anti-social behaviour on buses or at bus stops happens at night
• Sometimes the behaviour of people standing at bus stops makes me feel frightened
• The law is too lenient on people who are anti-social on buses or at bus stops
• Anti-social behaviour on buses or at bus stops puts me off travelling by public buses
• Anti-social behaviour on buses or at bus stops is getting worse
• The government should be doing more to deal with anti-social behaviour on buses or at bus stops
• Anti-social behaviour on buses or at bus stops is committed more by males than by females

The main attitudes held by the representative sample (as ascertained by their responses to each statement) are detailed below:

• There was a strong feeling among the representative sample that most anti-social behaviour on buses or at bus stops was caused by teenagers, with a mean score of 3.23. In total, 45% agreed strongly with this statement and 32% agreed slightly.
• Respondents generally felt that most anti-social behaviour on buses or at bus stops happened at night (mean score of 3.01).
• Interviewees were relatively split over whether anti-social behaviour was committed more by males than females - with 48% agreeing overall and 40% disagreeing (giving a mean score of 2.54). This is in line with the findings reported earlier in this chapter.
• When asked if the behaviour of people standing at bus stops sometimes made them feel frightened, 33% agreed strongly, 32% agreed slightly, 16% disagreed slightly and 8% disagreed strongly (giving a mean score of 2.67).
• Interviewees were less likely to say that anti-social behaviour on buses or at bus stops put them off travelling by public buses (means score of 2.38).

Results for the additional sample mirrored those seen for the representative sample.

Chart 4.3
Attitudinal statements (part one)

The second chart shows respondents from the representative surveys opinions towards the overall levels of anti-social behaviour and the extent to which they feel that other bodies should do something about the problem.

• Representative sample respondents feel generally that anti-social behaviour on buses is a problem that is getting worse, with 37% agreeing slightly and 29% agreeing strongly (mean score 3.18).
• Respondents are fairly evenly split between agreeing and disagreeing that anti-social behaviour on buses was worse than on other forms of public transport (mean score 2.74) or that there are more important things to worry about (2.45). However, they did tend to disagree that the problem of anti-social behaviour on buses or at bus stops was exaggerated (mean score 1.91).
• There was a strong feeling that the law is too lenient on those who were anti-social on buses or at bus stops (3.45, with most feeling that the government should be doing more to deal with the issue (3.29).
• Opinion was marginally more split over whether bus companies don't do enough to deal with the problem on buses or at bus stops (2.82), although considerably more still agreed (55%) than disagreed (25%).

Attitudes among the additional sample differed slightly to those from the representative sample. They were generally:

• more likely to feel that the problem was getting worse (3.38) and
• less likely to agree that there were more important things to worry about (2.10) or that the problem was exaggerated (1.64).

This translated into a stronger feeling that the law was too lenient on those committing these acts (3.60) and that the government should be doing more to deal with the problem (3.47). As seen earlier, additional survey respondents were more likely than their representative sample counterparts to have experienced anti-social behaviour in the last 4 weeks on buses or at a bus stop.

Chart 4.4
Attitudinal statements (part two)

4.7 CLUSTER ANALYSIS

Results from the representative sample were also used as a segmentation tool, with cluster analysis being run on all 665 respondents ⁶⁶. Cluster analysis is a simple tool which can be used to divide a number of respondents into groups depending on their attitudes, with respondents being grouped together if they have generally similar endorsements across a range of attitudinal statements. In this way it is possible to devise groups of individuals that have relatively similar viewpoints across a range of statements relating to an issue and we can use this tool to see how their attitudes impact on other dimensions covered in the study.

After running the cluster analysis, analysing the data and consulting with the client it was decided that a 4 cluster solution was the optimal one.

Cluster 2 was the largest cluster, accounting for just over a third of all respondents (35%), with clusters 1 (24%) and 3 (28%) both including approximately a quarter of the sample. Cluster 4 was the smallest cluster, comprising of 14% of representative respondents.

The demographic nature of each cluster was examined and is outlined in chart 3.5:

Chart 4.5
Demographic natures of attitudinal clusters

The profile of each cluster is noted in turn below:

Cluster 1 had an average profile in terms of gender and socio-economic grouping (SEG), but had the highest proportion of respondents aged 60 years and over (34%). Only 45% of respondents in this cluster had used a public bus at least once in the last month, the lowest proportion amongst any of the clusters, with a third (33%) stating they didn't use the bus. A fifth (20%) of those in this cluster who had used a bus in the last 4 weeks had experienced at least one form of anti-social behaviour in this time, a level below that seen for clusters 2 and 3 but above that seen for cluster 4. This cluster is characterised by elderly non-bus users, with limited experience of anti-social behaviour on buses.

Like Cluster 1, Cluster 2 had an average profile in terms of gender and socio-economic grouping. This cluster had the highest proportion of those aged between 12 and 24 (24%), with the highest proportion of 25-39 year olds (32%) as well. This younger age profile is reflected in the low numbers of those aged 40-59 (22%) and those aged 60 and over (22%). The cluster had generally average proportions of respondents using the bus once or more a month (60%) and not using the bus (24%), although amongst those who had used the bus in the last 4 weeks in this group, only cluster 3 had higher proportions of those experiencing anti-social behaviour in the last 4 weeks (cluster 2 at 32%). This cluster is characterised by young people with an average level of bus use, but with a higher than average experience of anti-social behaviour on buses.

Cluster 3 had an average profile in gender, socio-economic. This group had the highest level of bus usage, with 62% having used the bus in the last month, and, among those using the bus in the last 4 weeks, the highest proportion of those experiencing anti-social behaviour (35%). While having generally similar patterns of bus usage and experience of anti-social behaviour to Cluster 2, Cluster 3 differed from this group in its lower proportion of those aged 19-39. This cluster is somewhat similar to the previous cluster except that its members tend to be slightly older.

Cluster 4 had a relatively high proportion of males (54%) in comparison to females (46%), being the only cluster to show a meaningful difference in terms of this dimension. Its age profile was biased away from the younger age groups, with only 3% being 12-18 and 4% being 19-24 years old. High proportions of 40-59s (41%) were present. Bus usage in the last month was high (60%), with this cluster having the lowest percentage of non-bus users (20%). However, among those who had used the bus in the last 4 weeks, only 6% had experienced any type of anti-social behaviour. Therefore, this group is defined largely as having high usage of buses, but low actual experience of anti-social behaviour.

Each separate cluster could also be identified in terms of the responses it gave to the attitudinal statements themselves.

In line with the higher proportion of non-bus users in their sample, Cluster 1 respondents were the least likely to say that:

• people at bus stops frighten them,
• anti-social behaviour on buses was getting worse,
• anti-social behaviour was worse on buses than other forms of public transport and
• anti-social behaviour stopped them going by bus.

In addition, they tended to agree that the issue was exaggerated, while being the cluster most likely to disagree that the government could do more to deal with the issue and that bus companies didn't do enough with regards to anti-social behaviour on buses and at bus stops.

Cluster 2 was not only the largest cluster, but was the cluster which tended to show results most similar to the total sample responses, although they were slightly less likely to agree with each statement than the total sample. This is despite the fact that their actual experience of anti-social behaviour in the last 4 weeks (among those travelling in this period) was higher than that for Clusters 1 and 4.

Cluster 3 interviewees did have distinct results, in particular being the cluster viewing anti-social behaviour most seriously. This mirrors the fact that this cluster had the highest proportion of those travelling in the last 4 weeks who had experienced anti-social behaviour in that time frame. Not only were they the least likely to agree that :

• anti-social behaviour on buses was exaggerated
• there were more important things to deal with than anti-social behaviour on buses.

but they were the most likely to state that anti-social behaviour had serious effects. This was seen in their high likelihood to agree (compared with the total sample) that :

• people at bus stops frightened them,
• anti-social behaviour stopped them going by bus and
• anti-social behaviour was getting worse.

They were the cluster most likely to agree that the government should do more to deal with the issue, and also were relatively likely to state that bus companies didn't do enough to deal with the issue.

Cluster 4 was the smallest cluster and was made up of the respondents who were least likely to see anti-social behaviour as a serious issue, in line with this group's high bus usage but low experience of anti-social behaviour. They were most likely to say that the issue was exaggerated and that there were more important things to deal with. However, while they were less likely than the total sample to say that it stopped them going by bus or that it was getting worse, cluster 1 was even more likely to disagree with these statements. They were the most likely group to state that anti-social behaviour on buses was caused by teenagers, by males more than females and that it happened at night.

Chart 4.6
Definition of attitudinal clusters

4.8 PRIORITIES IN DEALING WITH ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR

Each in-home interviewee was shown a list of different types of anti-social behaviour and asked to state which four they would consider to be the biggest priorities to deal with.

Table 4.7
Four largest priorities to deal with

Three issues were mentioned as among the top four priorities by at least half the representative sample; that is physical assault of drivers (61%), physical assault of passengers (51%) and being rude/verbal abuse (50%). In addition, drunken behaviour was mentioned by 45%. Interestingly, these four issues were among the top five types of anti-social behaviour that drivers felt they should have more training on. Threatening behaviour in large groups at bus stops is noted by just under a third (32%) and throwing objects at the bus by 26%. No other issues were mentioned by over a quarter of the sample, with the least mentioned issues being graffiti (11%) and throwing objects in the bus (7%).

The major difference among additional survey interviewees was their increased likelihood to see throwing objects at the bus as a priority to be dealt with (41%), with physical assault of passengers (56%), being rude/verbal abuse (56%) and threatening behaviour in large groups at bus stops (37%) being endorsed at marginally higher levels. With the exception of threatening behaviour in large groups at bus stops, all these types of anti-social behaviour had been experienced more at any time by additional survey than representative survey interviewees. Less likely to be mentioned by additional respondents than by representative interviewees were drunken behaviour (37%) and graffiti (5%).

Each of the main demographic groups in the representative survey had the same types of anti-social behaviour among their four top priorities, namely physical assault of drivers, physical assault of passengers, rudeness/verbal abuse and drunken behaviour. Notable differences are stated below:

• Younger respondents were the least likely to mention physical assault of drivers (46% for 12-18 year olds, 53% for 19-24 year olds) or passengers (38% for 12-18 year olds 41% for 19-24 year olds). Most likely to mention these were 25-39 year olds (66% for drivers, 61% for passengers) and 40-59 year olds (68% for drivers, 60% for passengers).
• 12-18 year olds had the lowest proportion of mentions for drunken behaviour (31%) and threatening behaviour at bus stops (26%), but the highest level of mentions for throwing objects at the bus (40%) and smoking (34%). 19-24 year olds had the highest proportion of mentions for drunken behaviour (59%) and threatening behaviour (41%).
• Physical assault of drivers was a particular priority for ABC1s (70%) compared to C2DEs (57%).
• Urban interviewees prioritised physical assault of drivers (63% compared with 53%) and being rude/verbal abuse (51% versus 43%) more than their rural counterparts, but prioritised deliberate damage excluding graffiti (20% versus 33%) and smoking (17% versus 23%) less.
• Being rude/verbal abuse was noted more frequently by males (54%) than females (46%).
• Working interviewees tended to prioritise three options notably more than the non-working, namely physical assault of drivers (64% versus 58%) and passengers (57% versus 45%) and being rude/verbal abuse (53% versus 47%).

Drivers' perceptions on the priorities to tackle anti-social behaviour are detailed in a discussion about training needs in chapter 5.

4.9 Attitudes of Bus Drivers and Bus Company Managers

In order to help set the attitudes of bus drivers and bus company managers in context, it is worth examining how anti-social behaviour compares to other problems faced by bus drivers.

During the quantitative study, all bus drivers were asked to indicate from a list of options which they felt were the main problems they faced in doing their job. As can be seen in the following chart, just over one in two respondents (51%) identified anti-social behaviour on buses as one of the main problem in terms of doing their job, with anti-social behaviour at bus stops also being noted by a smaller proportion of drivers (15%). This is seen to have an impact on recruitment, as shown in the following quote:

"A few of my mates have left [their jobs as bus drivers]. They moved on to different jobs because they don't like the hassle of running about like an idiot and getting stressed because some idiot is going on arguing with you".

(Bus driver)

Issues relating to the daily running of their bus were also noted, with 42% mentioning concerns about keeping their bus on schedule, 32% heavy traffic or congestion and 19% roadworks slowing traffic down.

Chart 4.7
Main problem in terms of doing their job

A grid of different attitudinal statements was given to all bus driver and bus company respondents, with each respondent asked to state the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with each statement (again using a scale from agree strongly (+4) to disagree strongly (+1)). Table 3.12 shows the proportion of each group agreeing strongly with each statement and the overall mean (average) score which was calculated using the scale scores noted above and excluding any respondents who said they did not know or who did not answer the question. Tables showing the full distribution for each group are included in Table Annex 3.8 and 3.9.

A range of statements were included covering aspects connected to the policing of incidents of anti-social behaviour. These showed that respondents generally felt that the police did not react in sufficient numbers (mean of 2.17 for drivers, 2.04 for bus company staff) or sufficiently quickly (2.02 compared with 1.73) when incidents occurred. The feeling of drivers on this issue could be particularly strong, as in the following quote:

"If you contact the police it just involves a hell of a lot of paperwork and at the end of the day it does nothing. It's probably things that should be reported and you think 'huh, it doesn't have to be'. Unless someone's murdered or something like that, of course".

However, there was a recognition that this may be due to resources, with both drivers (3.42) and bus company staff (3.48) overwhelmingly agreeing strongly or tending to agree that the police do not have enough resources to deal with anti-social behaviour. There was a feeling that the reason for the negative perceptions of how quickly police arrive and in what numbers may be based on unreasonably high expectations among drivers, and that some training may be beneficial for dealing with this:

"It helps if they [the bus drivers] understand how we [the police] work. To reassure them that we do come and can't always come within 10 seconds of them dialling us… A lot of them don't realise that. A lot of them watch 'The Bill' and think it must be like that. But unfortunately not".

(Key stakeholder)

Despite this, there was still a feeling among both drivers (3.32) and company staff (3.25) that it would be beneficial to have more dedicated police officers in their local police force dealing specifically with issues related to anti-social behaviour on buses.

Three statements dealt with the actions of bus companies themselves. From the results, both drivers (2.26) and companies (2.38) are more likely to disagree than agree that there are no measures that could be introduced by bus companies that would have a long-term effect on stopping anti-social behaviour. In terms of working with other organisations, bus drivers were equally likely to favour companies working with local schools (3.43) as with local councils (3.45) to help stop anti-social behaviour on buses. Bus company interviewees, however, were more likely to state it was necessary for them to work with local schools (3.42) than local councils (3.00). In connection with education, there was a very strong opinion among both groups that all school pupils should carry clear ID when travelling by bus (3.70 for drivers and 3.42 for companies). There was also a feeling among drivers that certain schools did not do as much as others to deal with the problem:

"It's the same with every school though… Once those kids are on your bus the teachers aren't interested. They could be wrecking the bus by the time you go round the corner. You go back to school - no, they're not their problem, they're your problem".

Respondents were also asked two questions concerning legal issues connected with anti-social behaviour on buses or at bus stops. Drivers and companies both had strong feelings that increasing the number of prosecutions would act as a deterrent (3.42 for drivers compared with 3.29 for companies). A different emphasis was seen when asked how much they agreed or disagreed that people who were charged with anti-social behaviour were given sufficient sentences by the courts. Bus drivers were more likely to agree with the statement (mean score of 2.94) although they could not be said to agree overwhelmingly, while company staff were more likely to disagree (mean score of 2.21) suggesting that this group would be more likely to favour increased sentences for offenders. A particular legal issue mentioned both by drivers and bus company managers was the understanding that the legal system did not take into account offences committed when defendants were under 16:

"If they are under 16 they cannot be prosecuted and once they get to 16 anything that they have done before, you go before a children's panel up here and anything that was on that children's panel, once they hit 16 they have got a clean record".

(Bus driver)

The remaining statement dealt with the extent to which anti-social behaviour on buses was an issue that existed in isolation from society. Both groups agreed relatively strongly that anti-social behaviour on buses or at bus stops could only be stopped by stopping anti-social behaviour in society as a whole, although opinions were stronger among bus drivers (3.40) than bus company (3.12) interviewees. This was summed up by one bus driver:

"Anti-social behaviour in general is getting worse. It's getting worse and we're just getting… that proportion rise".

(Bus driver)

Table 4.8
Attitudes of bus drivers and bus company managers

4.10 IMPACT OF ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR ON BUS USE

It had been hypothesised that anti-social behaviour might act as a deterrent to using buses as a mode of travel. During the household survey, all respondents were asked to say what had been the effect of any anti-social behaviour that had been experienced in the last four weeks on their bus usage.

We noted earlier that a significant proportion of bus users have little choice available to them in terms of modes of travel. Thus, it is not surprising to note that two in five respondents participating in the representative survey claim that anti-social behaviour has no effect on their likelihood to travel by bus (40%) or that they have to travel by bus (44%). For those participating in the additional survey, 27% claim anti-social behaviour has no effect on their likelihood to travel by bus and over one in two (55%) claim they have no alternative.

However, anti-social behaviour clearly has some impact on bus users, with 9% of the representative survey and 18% of the additional survey claiming that they are less likely to travel by bus. Among the representative sample those aged 12-18 (13%) and 40-59 (15%) were particularly likely to say they were less likely to travel as were females (15%). Those aged 25-39, 60 or over or who were male (all 4%) were the least likely to state that the types of anti-social behaviour they experienced made them less likely to travel by bus. Thus, this data shows that there is a minority of respondents who could be encouraged to travel by bus if there were no anti-social behaviour.

Table 4.9
Effect of current levels of anti-social behaviour

With the exception of gender - which suggest anti-social behaviour on buses has a greater impact on females than on males, there are no noticeable differences between different demographic groups. Females are more likely to say that the types of anti-social behaviour they experience made them less likely to travel by bus (14% versus 5%) compared to males.

Due to the small base sizes involved it was difficult to tell if one type of anti-social behaviour was particularly likely to make respondents less likely to travel by bus. Physical assault of passengers was the type most likely to make people less likely to travel (32% of the 8 respondents stating this), with threatening behaviour in large groups at bus stops (23% of 13 respondents) also having a negative effect. None of the 18 people who had experienced objects being thrown at the bus or the 8 respondents stating they had experienced deliberate damage to the bus (not graffiti) said their experience of these types of behaviour made them less likely to travel by bus.

All respondents participating in the household survey were then asked what the impact would be on the frequency with which they use buses if there was no anti-social behaviour on buses or at bus stops at all.

As shown in table 4.2, responses from the representative and additional surveys were broadly similar, with just under one in two claiming that this would have no effect on their likelihood to travel by bus (cited by 48% of representative survey and 45% of the additional survey). Almost two in five (37% of representative survey and 39% of the additional survey) claimed that they have to travel by bus. A minority (13% of representative survey and 15% of the additional survey) claimed that no anti-social behaviour on buses or at bus stops would make them more likely to travel by bus. It should be noted, however, that removing anti-social behaviour from buses, thereby enabling this minority to travel by bus, could have an impact on helping to reduce congestion levels in certain areas.

Table 4.10
Effect on bus travel if were no related anti-social behaviour

The quantitative data provides some suggestion that there is a correlation between when anti-social behaviour is experienced and the declared outcome in terms of future travel by bus. So, the proportion of those claiming that an experience of anti-social behaviour would have no effect on their propensity to travel by bus, increases in line with how long ago respondents last travelled by bus, with those who travelled by bus longest ago being the most likely to say it would have no effect on their propensity to travel ( see table 4.3).

This table shows that those who have travelled by bus within the last 6 months are more likely than those who last travelled more than half a year ago to state that the complete cessation of anti-social behaviour on buses would make them more likely to travel by bus. More frequent users are the most likely to say that they travel by bus as they have to go by bus.

Table 4.11
Effect on bus travel if there were no related anti-social behaviour by how long ago last travelled on bus (representative survey)

As well as being asked about the impact of anti-social behaviour upon themselves personally, respondents were also asked to state which age group of individuals they perceived were most affected by anti-social behaviour on buses or at bus stops.

As shown in table 4.4, respondents participating in the household survey perceived the elderly to be the most affected by anti-social behaviour (75% of those in the representative survey and 83% of the additional survey). This perception contrasts with the data provided earlier (at section 3.6.1) that showed that while those aged 60 and over were the least likely (among those using a public bus in the last 4 weeks) to have experienced anti-social behaviour, there is clearly a perception they are the most affected age group.

Table 4.12
Perceived age group most affected by anti-social behaviour

When we examine sub-groups within the sample, each individual age group tends to be most likely to state that anti-social behaviour affects the over 60s more than any other group. With the exception of the 60+ age group, each other age group was endorsed more by those within that age group than by any other age group, e.g. more 25-39 year olds perceived that 25-39 year olds were one of the age groups most affected.

Each respondent participating in the household survey was then asked to give the gender of individuals they perceived were most likely to be affected by anti-social behaviour on buses.

As shown in summary table 4.5, data from both the representative survey and the additional survey was broadly in line, with the greatest proportion perceiving that those most affected by anti-social behaviour are equally likely to be males and females.

Table 4.13
Perceived gender most affected by anti-social behaviour

Having examined perceptions and experience of anti-social behaviour, it is important to understand the impact of this from a cost perspective. This section examines the cost of anti-social behaviour in terms of the direct and indirect costs of dealing with actual occurrences. This angle is particularly important as this provides figures on the financial impact that anti-social behaviour has on bus companies. The cost of implementing measures to deal with the issue of anti-social behaviour is dealt with in a later chapter of this report.

4.11 DIRECT COSTS OF DEALING WITH ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR

All bus company managers were asked to say how much their company had spent, in connection with anti-social behaviour on buses or at bus stops, across a number of different categories. It needs to be noted that some bus companies responding to this survey were not able to provide figures relating to specific elements of the cost of anti-social behaviour to their company. Results have been detailed in text only due to the low number of respondents giving information for most options. Where bus company managers were able to provide costs in relation to anti-social behaviour, these tended to relate to tangible rather than intangible costs. Thus, some bus companies had information readily at hand in relation to the cost of seat or window repairs but most could not provide any details on the costs associated with loss of workdays through sickness or costs in relation to the recruitment and retention of staff.

The repair of vehicles due to broken windows, deliberately torn or ripped seats or other forms of damage account for relatively high proportions of the costs. Where bus company managers were able to provide details of the costs of anti-social behaviour, these range considerably, and generally relate to the size of the bus company (the larger the company, the higher the levels of expenditure in relation to anti-social behaviour). So, for example, where costs were provided, the range of costs attributed to repair of windows ranged from £1,000 to £700,000; the range of costs attributed to repair of seats was between £3,500 and £300,000.

After repairs to windows and seats, the next most costly element was the cost of operating extra vehicles to cover for out of service vehicles damaged by anti-social behaviour. Cleaning costs were another element of expenditure for some companies.

Only a small number of bus company managers were able to provide any information in relation to the less tangible impact of anti-social behaviour such as additional staff costs due to staff illness or the additional cost of recruiting individuals due to high staff turnover.

While a small number of bus company managers claimed to have had increased insurance premiums as a result of anti-social behaviour, one respondent participating in the qualitative research claimed that his company no longer insured their property against anti-social behaviour as the costs of the insurance premiums outweighed the cost of repairs.

The literature review was able to provide some data in relation to the costs of anti-social behaviour, although the amount and depth of information available is relatively restricted. However, in Glasgow, First Bus group estimated malicious damage to its vehicles amounted to £1 million in 2002 ⁶⁷ and in the Dunfermline area, the cost of bus vandalism during a six month period in 2003 was estimated at £14,500 by Stagecoach East of Scotland. ⁶⁸

The qualitative research showed that some costs that might be related to the impact of anti-social behaviour did not have direct associations with anti-social behaviour. For example, none of the bus company managers to whom we spoke were able to provide detailed information on the numbers of bus drivers leaving employment as a direct result of experience of anti-social behaviour, or on the number of driver days lost to sickness as a direct result of anti-social behaviour. Many bus operators management information systems were not set up to provide this depth of information and thus, for many bus operators, it was difficult to assess the full impact of the cost of dealing with anti-social behaviour.