Executive Summary
About the Research
1 Tackling antisocial behaviour is a key priority for the Scottish Executive. Funding has been made available to each Local Authority in Scotland to support the implementation and delivery of Antisocial Behaviour Outcome Agreements, which were a requirement of the Antisocial Behaviour etc. (Scotland) Act 2004. These strategies have established the nature and extent of antisocial behaviour in local authority areas and identified local areas experiencing antisocial behaviour problems in order to target resources towards them.
2 This research evaluated the implementation and impact of local antisocial behaviour strategies at the neighbourhood level in 4 selected Scottish local authorities. The research assessed the extent to which local antisocial behaviour strategies were reducing both antisocial behaviour and public perceptions of antisocial behaviour at the neighbourhood level. It also examined improvements in the performance of agencies in tackling antisocial behaviour, and explored the publics' perceptions of agencies' performance. An economic evaluation of twelve local antisocial behaviour initiatives was also conducted.
3 The research was conducted between March 2006 and March 2007 in 8 neighbourhoods in the City of Edinburgh, Fife, North Lanarkshire and the Scottish Borders. The research included a literature and document review; secondary analysis of police and local authority data; semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders at local authority and neighbourhood levels; focus groups with adult residents and young people; a random household survey of 200 residents in each neighbourhood; and semi-structured interviews with 46 victims and witnesses of antisocial behaviour.
Antisocial Behaviour Strategies and Neighbourhood Interventions
4 Each of the 4 local authorities had focused resources and initiatives at the neighbourhoods identified as having antisocial behaviour problems during the development of their antisocial behaviour strategies. Interventions operated at different scales, with the targeting of Local Authority-level specialist antisocial behaviour teams and services at specific neighbourhoods, and the establishment of neighbourhood-level delivery groups. This process involved multi-agency responses at local authority and neighbourhood levels, utilising Scottish Executive and other funding streams. At a local authority level, the delivery of the strategies was overseen by working groups which proactively involved most key agencies. At the local level, various models of neighbourhood and locality management structures were used. There was consensus about the need for a holistic PIER approach, based on the pillars of Prevention, (Early) Intervention, Enforcement and Rehabilitation of offenders, along with support for victims and witnesses. This was combined with an acknowledgement of the need for enhanced coordination at strategic levels. However, the significant organisational restructuring and the plethora of new initiatives aimed at tackling antisocial behaviour had resulted in some confusion and ambiguity about both the roles of individual agencies and the relationship between local authority level and neighbourhood level scales of intervention.
Reducing Incidents of Antisocial Behaviour
5 There was a general rise in the number of officially recorded incidents of antisocial behaviour across the 4 local authorities in the last 3 years, which was consistent with national trends. 7 of the case study neighbourhoods had also experienced a rise in recorded antisocial behaviour incidents, although there was a reduction in the number of incidents in Carfin in North Lanarkshire and the rates of recorded antisocial behaviour, and the rise in incidents, were lower in the 2 neighbourhoods in the Scottish Borders. The variations in reported rates of antisocial behaviour between the neighbourhoods we studied were not fully explained by the variations in the recorded rates of antisocial behaviour between the local authority areas in which they were located. This increase in recorded incidents contrasted with the general perception of local agency officers that antisocial behaviour had stabilised or reduced. However, agency officers also reported an increasing propensity amongst residents to report incidents which may be a contributory factor to the rise in recorded levels of antisocial behaviour.
Improvements in Agency Performance
6 There was evidence of improved agency performance in the case study neighbourhoods. The main factors behind this improvement were enhanced partnership working leading to more effective operational planning and resource deployment; increasingly holistic PIER-based interventions with individuals, households and communities; and growing effectiveness in utilising the range of available antisocial behaviour measures. The most significant improvements arose where significant resources had been targeted at relatively small geographical areas, allied to strong multi-agency partnership working. However, it was acknowledged that, given the early stages of the strategies and additional funding, many of the improvements were process-based and were therefore not yet fully apparent to local communities. There remained challenges in fully engaging all potential partners, including local residents, in neighbourhood antisocial behaviour strategies. There was also considerable scope for improvement in responding to the needs of victims and witnesses. Despite considerable methodological difficulties, the economic evaluation of initiatives found that community wardens schemes in the 4 local authorities and the Early Intervention Families Project in Edinburgh were demonstrably cost-effective. Mediation services in the 4 local authorities, the Safer Neighbourhoods Team (Fife), the freephone antisocial behaviour helpline (Scottish Borders) and the Night Noise Team (North Lanarkshire) had delivered improvements in tackling antisocial behaviour, but it was not possible to robustly determine the cost effectiveness of these improvements.
Public Perceptions of Antisocial Behaviour and Agency Performance
7 Significant proportions of residents in the case study neighbourhoods continued to perceive antisocial behaviour to be common and to have personally experienced antisocial behaviour. There was evidence of neighbourhood variations in residents' perceptions that were not fully explained by the socio-economic characteristics of each neighbourhood population. Only a minority of residents perceived antisocial behaviour and the performance of agencies to have improved in the previous twelve months. There was a major problem across all neighbourhoods with the under-reporting of incidents, and there was a general dissatisfaction with agency responses to complaints about antisocial behaviour. However residents did identify specific local initiatives that had been effective in tackling antisocial behaviour in their neighbourhoods. The priorities of residents for future action mirrored those of agencies and not all of these priorities had substantial resource implications.
Conclusions
8 The nature of the progress being made in tackling antisocial behaviour reflected the early stage of the implementation of local antisocial behaviour strategies and the increased, but limited, scale of funding. There was improved local agency performance in partnership working, operational targeting, holistic interventions and the use of different measures and tools. However, these improvements had not yet resulted in reductions in recorded or perceived levels of neighbourhood antisocial behaviour, while improvements in agency performance did not appear to be clear to most local residents. These headline findings may mask significant neighbourhood-level improvements, particularly in addressing the most serious forms of antisocial behaviour and beginning to increase the reporting rates of incidents. The interventions and practices being established may also result in reductions in antisocial behaviour in the longer term, but this is likely to be dependent on at least maintaining current resource levels.