Scottish Government

CHAPTER THIRTEEN THE WARDENS' AND SCHEME MANAGERS' VIEWS ON IMPACT

Introduction

13.1 The earlier Chapters looked at a number of sources of statistical and survey evidence and concluded that the wardens seemed to be having some impact on crime and perceptions of crime. This Chapter deepens this analysis by considering the views of the wardens and the scheme managers as to the impact that they feel they are having on crime and antisocial behaviour. It starts by considering the results from the wardens' survey.

The Wardens

13.2 Respondents to the wardens' survey were asked to comment on what had gone particularly well during their time as a community warden. The most common answer related to community relations, and the fact that many of the wardens had built up good relationships with the communities in which they worked. Indeed, 70% of respondents mentioned this. Of these, 32% referred to their work with young people. Examples of comments received included:-

• "Building relationships and trust with local youths. Response from the community towards wardens";
• "Gaining the respect and trust of the community, working and listening to the youths";
• "The community are beginning to realise we are there for them":
• "Making a real difference on the street"; and
• "The local area is more noticeably cleaner";

13.3 Respondents were also asked what had not gone so well. A third of comments (33%) focused on the poor relationships that the warden service had with either the police, or council departments. For instance:-

• "Lack of communication with certain people in the council";
• "Our working relationships with the safer communities police and the youth action team police services";
• "Lack of help from other agencies which is becoming frustrating and not being able to use my own initiative"; and
• "We get very little help or support from police, at times they have not even turned up to 999 calls from us when we have been under attack."

13.4 Other comments were more varied, but issues such as poor management, and difficulties in breaking down barriers with local youths, were more commonly cited than others.

13.5 The wardens were asked to give their views on the types of antisocial behaviour that they felt they had made the greatest impact on. Eighty three respondents felt the biggest impact had been on Youth Disorder followed by 63 who each identified Graffiti and Fly-Tipping (Table 13.1). The lowest impact was felt to be on Crimes of Dishonesty (10 responses) and Assaults (7 responses), although this is not surprising given the low percentage that said they spent time dealing with these issues (Table 5.1). These are also the types of offences that fall within the remit of the police, rather than the wardens, given their limited powers.

TABLE 13.1 On What Areas Would You Say that you have had the Biggest Impact in your Time as a Warden/concierge?

13.6 Less than half of respondents (44%) felt that their impact had increased over time (Table 13.2). However, rather worryingly almost a third (29%) felt their impact over time had decreased. It is not clear from the survey why this should be. However, the case study fieldwork found that there was a view amongst some, particularly in the areas having the worst antisocial behaviour problems, that initially the wardens were able to have an impact. Young people, especially, were uncertain as to the wardens' powers and roles and therefore modified their behaviour. After a while they realised that the wardens had no, or limited, powers. Accordingly their behaviour reverted to what it had been before the wardens were introduced. Given that this theory was advanced in more than one case study area, it may be the correct explanation for this perception of diminishing impacts over time.

TABLE 13.2 Changes in Impact Over Time

The Scheme Managers

13.7 The managers were asked to identify their key achievements. A variety was cited, ranging from the general to the scheme specific. Looking across the schemes, the 3 main achievements of the wardens were felt to be:-

• Improving the quality of life for residents in wardened areas;
• Success in integrating with the community in a short period of time; and
• Progress with the wardens cementing their position within the wider partnerships set up to tackle antisocial behaviour and environmental issues.

13.8 The above 3 themes represent an amalgamation of the numerous achievements cited by individual scheme managers. Some specific examples of these were:-

• Dundee feeling that getting several diverse departments pulling together and working as a team was a major achievement;
• Dundee also felt that the Community Safety Wardens Advisory Group, which has 2 representatives from each of the sub-areas, was a very effective way of communicating with local communities and determining the direction and focus of the overall initiative;
• The wardens making a real difference in tackling antisocial behaviour in Inverclyde. This was evidenced by the fact that they have had over 60 citations to act as professional witnesses in court in 28 months;
• Improving the environment of the neighbourhoods patrolled in Perth and Kinross through the wardens monitoring property, streets and public spaces and taking action as necessary;
• Working in partnership in Edinburgh to tackle graffiti and littering; and
• Developing trust with local youths in South Lanarkshire.

13.9 In summary, scheme managers were broadly satisfied with the achievements of their schemes within the relatively short time they had been operating. There was general agreement that it had been difficult, at first, to find a natural home for the wardens and establish their credibility, given that other public services were well established and the community knew what they did. Initial teething problems had now been overcome, although there was recognition that there was still much work to be done in developing the service.

13.10 Despite the strides made by the wardens in integrating with the community, the majority of managers were frustrated by the fact that, generally, the wardens were not well understood by the general public. This refers to misunderstandings on a number of levels, such as:-

• Basic recognition and understanding that the community warden service was there to be used by the general public. The managers felt that there were still too many local residents putting up with antisocial behaviour and environmental problems rather than taking action by reporting these to the wardens;
• Getting the general public to understand that community wardens are not the police, are not a substitute for the police and are not "policing on the cheap"; and
• Getting the public to understand that wardens can only operate within the confines of their granted powers. They are not a panacea and they do not have the powers to deal with criminality.

13.11 It was recognised that developing this understanding amongst the public would take longer than the 2 to 3 years most schemes had been running. As such, this was seen as one of the key development priorities.

13.12 Scheme specific disappointments included:-

• The local authority's unwillingness to fund wardens in Inverclyde. In light of the benefits that wardens were bringing to the area, it was thought that even a small number of wardens should have been mainstreamed by the council. To date, this has not happened; and
• Difficulties in accurately measuring the wardens' impact on antisocial behaviour in Edinburgh. Frustration was also expressed at wardens passing on information to the police and not receiving any feedback on whether there had been a successful outcome as a result.

13.13 On the whole, the managers were realistic enough to understand that, in attempting to implement a scheme of the size of the community wardens, there were always going to be disappointments. There was, however, unanimous agreement that the positives had outweighed the negatives.

13.14 In terms of the managers' views on the impact on crime and the fear of crime, without exception, all 9 case study managers felt that the wardens had been effective in reducing the fear of crime and antisocial behaviour in the neighbourhoods they patrolled, something backed up, to various degrees, by the evidence in Chapters 10, 11 and 12. Attendance at community meetings, informal chats with members of the community and letters of support from the general public were evidenced as backing up this interpretation. Making residents feel safer in their own areas was seen as the key strategic objective of wardens and all schemes' managers were agreed that this had been achieved.

13.15 In terms of the wardens' impact on levels of reported crime, the majority of scheme managers were unsurprised that levels of some incidences of crimes had increased over the life of the scheme. The explanation put forward was that residents were more willing to report crime and antisocial behaviour as they now knew that there was a dedicated service in place to deal with these issues. The managers felt that lower level crimes and antisocial behaviours would have previously gone unreported as residents felt that the police were too busy to deal with them, particularly on weekend nights. Now there were said to be many "repeat" users of the warden service. Residents, who had called the service once, were given a prompt and efficient response and as such have continued to use the service when needed.

13.16 Managers were cautious about drawing conclusions on the effectiveness of the wardens, based on reported crime and antisocial behaviour statistics. Several commented that rises and falls in statistics were notoriously difficult to make sense of and only told part of the story. It was argued that crime and antisocial behaviour reporting can be driven by a range of factors, many of which were beyond the control of wardens and even the police. As such any assessment of the effectiveness of the wardens must take account of the role they play in changing perceptions as well as the statistical changes.

13.17 The views of wardens as just "one piece of the jigsaw", when it comes to tackling crime, antisocial behaviour and environmental issues, came across strongly in the final interviews with the scheme managers. All managers were realistic enough to understand that, without the support and input of partner services (such as the police, fire and rescue and other council departments), the wardens would be ineffectual. The role of wardens as a conduit between partner services and the community was emphasised strongly by managers. Partner services were said not to have the resources to cope with the range of issues prevalent in scheme areas. Wardens were felt to fill this void by listening to residents' concerns, in their role as "the eyes and ears" of the community, and then linking in with the relevant partners to resolve these. Moreover, scheme managers firmly believed that partner services were able to achieve much more with the wardens than they otherwise would have been be able to do.

13.18 However, it was felt that more time was required for the full impact of the wardens to be realised. This would allow schemes to test whether the investment in developing relationships with their local communities had resulted in positive and long term behaviour modifications.

Displacement

13.19 Throughout the case study visits, displacement was not considered to be an issue by consultees. However, the final interviews with managers saw it raised by a small number. Targeted warden initiatives, on activities such as drinking alcohol in public or vandalism in children's play parks, were said to have driven perpetrators from wardened areas to non-wardened areas that were not always immediately adjacent to wardened areas. For example, those responsible may travel to the town centre, or to other less visible parts of town, to escape the attentions of the wardens.

13.20 Dealing with displacement was not an easy task according to the managers. The wardens' success was built on regular, high visibility patrols. Through this consistent tracking of "hot-spots", wardens could quickly extinguish unwanted activity as soon as it became evident. It was felt that this resulted in the perpetrators then moving to another location. However, if the new location was outside of the warden patrol areas then it might not be targeted and the disturbance could continue.

13.21 The majority of scheme managers used their wardens flexibly to some extent so that they could be used to target areas where antisocial activities had been displaced to. However, this flexibility usually consisted of wardens making courtesy visits to non-wardened areas in response to direct calls or requests. This was felt by managers to be too infrequent to make any lasting difference on the adjacent areas as well as diluting the impact wardens could have on their own designated patrol areas.

13.22 Despite these reports of displacement, it should be emphasised that this was not identified as a major issue by managers. The view was that relating any new bursts of antisocial behaviour in neighbouring areas causally to the presence of wardens was difficult to prove. There was also a belief that police activities had caused displacement before the wardens were introduced and this was still a factor in displacement (Paragraphs 15.44 to 15.49 present a longer discussion on displacement).

Conclusions

13.23 The wardens and the managers felt that they were having an impact. This was not always straightforward. For example, reported crime levels might increase as confidence in the wardens' abilities to initiate actions permeated the community. There was also recognised to be an issue with youth related incidents as over time the wardens became less effective as their limited powers were recognised.

13.24 Clearly the wardens and managers have vested interests in making such claims. Yet they do seem to be backed up to some extent by the statistical and survey evidence on recorded crimes and their perceptions. What is therefore beginning to emerge is a picture of Scotland's community wardens having a positive impact on the problems in the target areas. The next Chapter extends this analysis by considering the extent to which the communities in these areas ascribe impacts to the wardens and their interventions.