Scottish Government

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. Dispersal powers were introduced in Scotland under the Antisocial Behaviour etc. (Scotland) Act 2004. Their introduction reflected the aim of the then Scottish Executive ¹ to address the antisocial behaviour of groups in public spaces. This had consistently been rated as one of the main concerns of communities in Scottish Crime Surveys.

2. Dispersal powers allow police to designate a "dispersal area" in a location where there has been a history of antisocial behaviour caused by groups congregating in public spaces. From this area, for a 3-month period, they can disperse groups of two or more individuals whose presence or behaviour, in the view of police officers, is causing or is likely to cause alarm or distress to members of the public. Dispersed individuals (who do not live in the dispersal area) are not allowed to return to the designated area for 24 hours. The breach of an order to disperse is a criminal offence and is liable on conviction to a maximum £2500 fine or imprisonment or to both.

The Review

3. Section 24 of the Act required Scottish Ministers to arrange a study into the operations of the powers and to lay this before the Scottish Parliament within 3 years of their introduction. This study was designed to consider a wide range of issues around the main questions of how dispersal powers have been administered and how far they represent an effective means of providing relief to communities affected by the antisocial behaviour of groups.

4. The research was carried out within the Scottish Government in the Justice Analytical Services Division.

• The following data was analysed:
• Police command and control statistics for use of the powers, individual dispersals, breaches and public complaints;
• Interviews with key professionals including representatives from the police, local authorities and social care organisations in all of the locations where dispersal powers have been authorised;
• Focus groups with residents of dispersal areas and representatives of businesses;
• Focus groups and semi-structured interviews with young people in 3 dispersal locations;
• Costs.

Focus groups and interviews with young people were undertaken by Dr Hannah Smithson and Leanne Monchuk of the Applied Criminology Centre, University of Huddersfield. Focus groups with residents were carried out by Louise Brown, an independent research consultant.

Dispersal Locations

5. Between October 2004 (when the powers were introduced) and the end of March 2007 dispersal powers were authorised for use on 14 occasions in 11 separate locations:

• Aberdeen (Beach Boulevard)
• Edinburgh (Hunter Square)
• Dingwall
• Mid Calder
• Dumfries (St Andrew's Church)
• Dumfries (St Michael's Church)
• Lockerbie (McJerrow Car Park)
• Moffat (Station Car Park)
• Knightswood
• Sauchie
• Dennistoun

6. They have been used once in 9 of the 11 locations. In Aberdeen, they were used twice and in Edinburgh Hunter Square, they were used 3 times. They were authorised 4 times in their first year, 10 times in the second year and none have been authorised, in the first 6 months of the third year (to the end of March 2007.) Fife Constabulary and Tayside Police are the only police force areas where dispersal powers have not been used.

7. In most cases, dispersal powers were used to address problems associated with groups of young people gathering in public spaces. The main types of behaviour residents had complained about were typically, alcohol misuse, fighting, intimidation, late night noise, litter, shouting, swearing, urination and vandalism of property. In Aberdeen, Lockerbie and Moffat the disorder was caused by groups of "boy racers." Although these people were gathered in and around parked vehicles rather than out on the street, many of the complaints were about noise, litter and intimidation as well road traffic offences.

8. In Edinburgh and Knightswood, the powers were used for slightly different purposes. In Edinburgh, they were used to disperse groups of street substance users in a busy part of the city centre and in Knightswood they were mainly used to disperse gangs of young people who gathered in Knightswood to fight with weapons.

9. Dispersal powers were not authorised in any of the most deprived parts ² of Scotland and some of designations were made in some of the least deprived areas (as ranked by the Scottish Indices of Multiple Deprivation, 2006.)

10. Dispersal areas appeared to share geographical and topographical features that were said to attract groups and encourage antisocial behaviour such as accessibility/centrality, the presence of unguarded spaces and certain local shops and services.

Past Responses

11. In most dispersal locations police characterised previous responses to disorder as "cat and mouse." They would receive a call about a disturbance but the group would move on before the police arrived. On other occasions the behaviour, although antisocial, was not serious enough for the police to take action using their traditional enforcement methods. Police would often return to an area repeatedly throughout the course of a day or evening.

12. Sometimes, limited staff resources meant that the police were unable to provide enough coverage to tackle the problems effectively. This aim was often frustrated by other police priorities such as dealing with other serious incidents and custodies.

13. Despite the difficulties, there were examples of "problem solving" activities in many areas where the police, local authority and other partners were involved in sharing intelligence, targeting main perpetrators, offering support through mediation and coordinating diversionary activities. The extent of this work was heavily dependent on local structures in dispersal locations and varied across all areas. There was an overall sense, despite these efforts, that police powers were not working to address the problems of group antisocial behaviour in public spaces.

Processes

14. The legislation requires senior police officers (Superintendent rank or above) in each location to follow a clearly defined process before authorising dispersal powers. This involves making a case based on evidence gathered in a location to show that the problem is "significant, persistent and serious." Police are then required to consult with the local authority and other interested parties. If the senior police officer decides to use dispersal powers, the police have to publish an authorisation notice and advertise the power in the local press. They also are required to place notices in the relevant locations to make local people aware of the dispersal powers.

15. Police in all dispersal areas showed a strong commitment to the preparatory stages of authorisation and often went beyond minimum requirements to ensure there was as much local agreement as possible. The perceived high profile nature of the powers and the lack of precedents meant that police took a cautious approach, often using the experience of other forces and involving a wide range of partners, such as council service departments and third party youth organisations in the lead up to the authorisation of the powers.

Use of the Powers

16. There have been 14 authorisations of dispersal powers in Scotland. They have been used much less frequently than the similar powers available in England and Wales where 809 authorisations were made in the first 18 months after the powers were introduced (Home Office, 2005.) In Scotland an additional legislative requirement means that in addition to evidence of significance and persistence, police also have to have evidence that the problems are "serious." This might partly explain the difference in usage but variation also depends heavily on local circumstances; the seriousness of the problems, the strength of local partnerships and the willingness of police forces to try a new approach which might be thought to raise public expectations and bring with it the attention of the media.

17. During the 14 authorisations, police gave directions to disperse on 867 occasions. There were 38 arrests for breaches including 5 arrests for under 16s. Provisional data shows that there have been 15 proved breaches. Court disposals for these included 7 prison sentences, 3 fines, 1 restriction of liberty order and 4 admonishments. All 7 prison sentences relate to breaches of dispersal powers in Hunter Square, Edinburgh. Fines were between £100-£150.

18. Dispersal powers had an immediate impact. Police in most locations found that they only had to disperse individuals on the first couple of weekends.

19. Police and residents in all locations said that, in their experience, disorder was dramatically reduced for the periods when the powers were enforced. This was reflected in police incident logs; most police forces experienced large reductions in complaint calls and in some locations this reduction was still noticeable after 6 months.

20. The powers, in contrast to traditional enforcement powers, allowed police to be proactive and manage problems as they developed. Instead of responding to complaints after a group had gathered, the police were able to disperse smaller groups throughout the course of a day or evening before a situation developed where disorder was likely to occur. The police also found that the involvement of other organisations in the preparatory stages encouraged local support for the operations. In some locations the process of using dispersal powers encouraged the development of community structures that then became the sources of community involvement in problem solving activities.

21. In some locations the antisocial behaviour returned to pre-dispersal levels immediately or soon after the dispersal period ended. Evidence suggests that these effects were more apparent in locations where the perpetrator groups were young drivers and street substance users and less apparent where the groups were young people hanging around. In these cases it seems that unique topographical features of the location suit the social behaviour of the groups well and there are few alternative locations for them to move to.

Young People

22. In the consultation stage of the Antisocial Behaviour Bill, the powers were proposed as a means of addressing disorder caused by groups of young people (under 16s.) In the final legislation the age limit was removed and police are able to use them to disperse groups of any age. Eleven of the 14 authorisations were made to address the problems caused mainly by groups of young people present in public spaces.

23. Research took place with young people (aged 12-18) in 3 of the locations where dispersal powers were most recently authorised. These were people who lived or socialised in the dispersal areas but not necessarily people who had been given directions to disperse in the dispersal periods. Some of these people suggested that, although they could understand and appreciate the effects of their behaviour, they did not conceive of themselves as intentionally trying to cause alarm or distress. Their view was that the powers were being used to prevent them from engaging in socialising activities.

24. There was a felt resentment towards the pro-active approach taken by police dispersing small groups of people based on provisions in the legislation that allow them to give individuals directions to disperse based on their presence as well as than their behaviour. The police can also direct individuals to disperse based on beliefs about how individuals are likely to behave as well as how they are currently behaving. Young people in dispersal areas ultimately believed the powers were unjustified and discriminatory.

25. Young people in 3 dispersal areas were asked about alternative places for them to go and they were often critical of the lack of, or poor quality of, youth services. In one of the areas there was support for most young people interviewed saw as a high-quality programme of activities.

Costs

26. In most locations the average cost, borne by police, of authorising dispersal powers was between £5,000-£7,500 for each authorisation of dispersal powers. This was calculated from the separate costs of statutory notices, newspaper adverts, leaflets and overtime costs. Extra staffing requirements were often covered by re-structuring shift patterns and by drawing in officers from other locations. There were hidden opportunity costs associated with the removal of officers from other locations.

27. In some of the locations the police operations were backed up with local authority support. In these areas the costs were not provided for the study but they included the staff costs for youth support teams and neighbourhood relations teams, the deployment of CCTV and community wardens. These were thought to represent a substantial amount of money and significant enough to place a limit on the number of dispersal authorisations that could be made in the police area.

Conclusions

28. In the locations where they have been authorised dispersal powers have been responsible for substantial reductions in antisocial behaviour for the period of their duration.

29. Evidence shows that this reduction in antisocial behaviour was due to the ways in which dispersal powers allow police to intervene in situations they were not able to previously. Police said that the high levels of compliance with directions to disperse were due to the perceived severity of the penalties for breach.

30. The powers allowed police to disperse individuals believed to be likely perpetrators of antisocial behaviour. In contrast to previous experience where the police were responding to problems once they had developed, the powers allowed the police to be proactive and prevent the disorder from occurring in the first place.

31. Reductions in antisocial behaviour typically lasted for the duration of the powers. In some locations, the powers appeared to break established patterns of behaviour and this relief continued when the powers ended. In other locations the antisocial behaviour came back almost immediately.

32. The return of antisocial behaviour appeared to be more common in locations where the problems were closely associated with perceived weaknesses in design or the physical environment. In the locations where this effect was most apparent (Aberdeen, Edinburgh, Lockerbie and Moffat) residents and business owners valued the respite that they received for the three months of the dispersal powers but they ultimately saw the solution in the "designing out" of the problem, through layout changes and with other powers rather than through additional dispersal designations.

33. Alcohol was also considered a contributing factor to the problems in dispersal areas and many contributors to the research commented on the necessity of addressing this as part of a long-term strategy to tackle antisocial behaviour.

34. Authorisations of dispersal powers have been high profile and have been the subject of local and national media coverage. Police said this extra scrutiny brought a greater degree of pressure on them.

35. There were police concerns that the authorisation of the dispersal powers could be misunderstood to represent a draconian last resort or an admission of failure unless members of the public understand the reasons for the authorisation of the powers and what the police hope to achieve by using them.

36. The requirement to consult with other agencies and community members represents a substantial amount of preparatory work for authorising officers. Partners' have also offered useful support to police through the provision of other parallel services in dispersal locations such as mediation services, diversionary activity and mobile CCTV. There were mixed levels of partnership work but dispersal powers were regarded as being most effectively used as part of a wider partnership strategy rather than on their own.

37. In some locations, residents and police attributed the success of the operations to the ways in which problems have been addressed with the involvement of residents creating new lines of communication, and involving local authority representatives from other areas such as culture, leisure and health.

38. Official guidance says that the powers should not be used to disperse groups who are meeting socially and peacefully. The guidance also says in another section that the powers can be used to disperse individuals where the police believe that there is a risk of alarm or distress to members of the public. This police often came upon situation that satisfied both sets of criteria: groups meeting for social purposes that were nevertheless perceived as threatening. On these occasions the groups were often dispersed. Research with young people showed that some participants resented being given directions to disperse on occasions when they were simply associating with their friends.

39. Analysis of command and control data was carried out by police in most locations to see if there was any displacement of antisocial behaviour. Most forces found no significant evidence of this. In one location where there were reports of increased antisocial behaviour in a neighbouring area the police found that this was caused by residents of the area in question who were no longer able to travel to the dispersal location in the evenings. Police often said they believed that individuals were congregating in smaller groups in their home locations rather than travelling to the dispersal locations where they had previously travelled to gather. The police did not identify displacement as a significant issue for them on a wider operational level in command and control systems.

40. The powers have been used infrequently compared to England and Wales where they were authorised on 809 occasions in the first 18 months of their introduction (Home Office, 2005.) Some of the possible reasons for this are police reservations about the short-term nature of the powers, the raised public expectations and the possibility of false perceptions that police are moving away from problem solving and prevention work towards enforcement strategies.

Recommendations

41. The following recommendations are suggested as issues for consideration by practitioners and policy makers following on from the report's main findings.

• Dispersal powers should be regarded as a short-term means for authorities' to "get a grip" on a problem by breaking established patterns of behaviour and offering a period of relief to communities whilst other longer-term solutions are considered.
• Environmental features should be considered as possible contributing factors to antisocial behaviour. Dispersal powers may have a limited effect on breaking patterns of behaviour if the problems are ultimately caused or aggravated by the layout of the physical environment. The "designing out" of antisocial behaviour through lighting, road design, provision of seating and surveillance may provide more satisfactory solutions for the longer-term.
• A summary of evidence, from partners involved, of the data used to support the authorisation of dispersal powers allows the community and perpetrators to be aware of the precise reasons for the authorisation of dispersal powers.
• Official guidance should be revised to clarify the occasions on when police can give directions to disperse to groups believed to have benign intentions but who nevertheless are causing or are likely to cause alarm or distress by their presence.
• A programme of diversionary activity directed at the perpetrator group should be arranged to work alongside the dispersal powers to explore alternative locations for them to gather after the dispersal period ends. This also might limit the possible damage caused to the relationship between the police and the perpetrator group by highlighting the balanced approach towards improving the quality of life for all members of the public.
• The investment of time in preparatory stages of dispersal power authorisations allows community safety partners' and members of the public the opportunity to share a common understanding of the aims and progress of dispersal operations. Collective contributions towards the costs of dispersal powers also allow the financial burden to be shared among agencies and this acknowledges the joint responsibility for improving community safety.