Influential MPs urge guaranteed response if complaining more than 5 times?

Reviewing the draft ASB Bill the Home Affairs Committee said that how victims are dealt with should not be dependent on where they live. Also recommending naming those agencies that are failing.

Shadow home office minister has clearly said that “Too many people are still waiting too long for their anti-social behaviour complaints to be dealt with.

“The Home Secretary’s proposed community trigger is not the answer.

“Recommending that people have to wait until five complaints have been made before agencies have to act does not reflect the misery that can be caused by anti-social behaviour.”

Full details can be found here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21465951

What are your thoughts on the proposed new national Anti-Social Behaviour Forum?

Data Sharing Protocol

In my blog on the 7th June, headed “Information Sharing – Fact or Fiction,” I suggested that the problem is with the interpretation of data protection rules and I was not hopeful of any early action to address the issues. Well, I am happy to be proven wrong – whilst I cannot claim any credit whatsoever the newly published “Data Sharing Protocol” (DSP) by the Ministry of Justice appears to tackle the problem head on.

The Ministry of Justice oversees the overarching legislative and non-legislative framework for data sharing across Government and the DSP is guidance which aims to provide all government departments and other public sector bodies (including social housing landlords?) with information and practical help when they start new projects which may involve the sharing of personal data.

It is intended to be a high-level ‘starting point’ for organisations.  It is envisaged that departments will be able to use the guidance, and to change its format to suit their needs and the individual project.

The DSP is aimed at all those in the public sector who enter into data sharing arrangements with other public sector bodies.  It will be particularly helpful to those who have no or limited knowledge of data sharing, although it will be useful for all data sharing projects.

I feel sure that all ASB practioners will join me in expecting our partners, especially the police and maybe even social services, to read, understand and put into practice what is set out in the DSP.

For more information go to http://www.justice.gov.uk/guidance/freedom-and-rights/data-sharing.htm

By Mike Blomer, MBE

Taking action against ASB

Glasgow's community initiative to reduce violence (credit: Scottish Government)

Do you ever wonder how much is being done to tackle ASB? As you know, registered providers (RPs) hold a key part in delivering a balanced approach to taking action against ASB as well as preventative measures. According to a recent online survey carried out in partnership by the TSA and CIH, where RPs and local authorities were allowed to take part; priorities and creative ideas were seen to be key in making a difference.

These finding are being used to shape the work of the newly formed ASB Action Team. This team has been created to identify good practice and share those innovative ideas in taking action towards ASB. Over 300 ALMO’s, housing associations, voluntary housing agency, large housing groups and local authorities took part in the survey, reflecting the importance in sharing ideas and working with communities to overcome the challenges we face in society today.

At the CIH Housing Conference at Harrogate last week, I saw two brilliant examples of the effective work being carried out already – Glasgow Housing Association Community Initiative to Reduce Violence (CIRV), which helps tackle gang violence/knife crime in Glasgow’s East End and the Cobalt’s initiative ‘Making Waves’ aims to help turn the tide of crime and antisocial behaviour in the Croxteth area of Liverpool. Both share very strong messages and have tracked the successes of their programmes on  Vicinity’s website  and in GHA’s quarterly report

As we know, there are a wealth of ideas currently working to help tackle ASB and many more that will follow suit with the new ASB action team in place. By working together,  I’m sure we will continue to see positive changes.  

For further information about the new ASB team visit www.cih.org/asbactionteam

By Kate Hill

New responsibilities for private landlords?

These days, social landlords do not just offer accommodation. They often provide a raft of other services as well, from information services to regular clubs and events. Labour MP, Phil Wilson, is determined to bring private landlords up to the same standards, by giving them legal duties to follow and a register to sign. He tabled a private Bill in Parliament on Tuesday, appropriately named “Private Landlords (Register and Duties)”, aimed at bringing a new professionalism to the sector.

According to Mr. Wilson ““The private rented sector is rife with problems. Some 36% of Shelter advice queries come from private renters, more than double the proportion in the population at large. Satisfaction is lower, and accommodation is more likely to be of a poor standard.” This seems to be partially due to landlords who have “little or no experience, knowledge or understanding of their responsibilities and the complex legal framework of renting.”

Although the Bill is unlikely to become law, due to lack of parliamentary time, it does seem to address this problem, by making landlords sign up to register and contribute to the maintenance of their local communities. Mr. Wilson hopes this will help to tackle problem of anti-social behavior and fragmented community. “Over the past four years I have had numerous cases of private landlords who have neglected their properties and tenants. Anti-social behaviour has become a major problem in the affected areas, and some of the residents who have lived in the streets in question for years now do not feel part of the local community that they have known for a long time. The majority are amateurs without the skills and wherewithal to deal with being a private landlord. The buy-to-let market has led to a huge increase in such landlords.”

Unlike social housing, the private sector is both heavily fragmented and expected to grow. Some legal responsibilities – such as the Tenancy Deposit Scheme – are already part of the sector whilst others (such as agreed standards for rental providers of student housing) are voluntary, but popular as a way to attract tenants. It will be interesting to see how the sector evolves and if it will end up with many of the duties shouldered by local housing associations.

With acknowledgements and thanks to upad.co.uk, where this news first appeared.

By Natalie Phillips 

Information Sharing – Fact or Fiction

Image via Wikipedia

The sharing of meaningful information between partner organisations about vulnerable people and victims of ASB continues to be a hot topic.

Despite what would appear to be clear guidance from the Home Office about more cooperation, the police seem to be largely carrying on as before. In many areas local arrangements work well with beat managers liaising closely with RSL`s and they are very aware of the contribution made by front line housing staff. Even the eight police pilots have differing procedures for sharing vital information about cases and the results of these pilots will make for very interesting reading.

Having listened to a number of presentations it obvious to me that the problem lies with the interpretation of data protection rules. Many police information managers continue to block the release of information by officers and PCSO`s, to the obvious detriment of victims. Unless and until clear instructions are given from the highest level in the police service will we see any change. Perhaps we will need to wait for Police and Crime Commissioners to be in post or for ACPO to wake up to the problem before a common approach is introduced.

The role of Social Services in ASB is also frequently raised as an issue but is, in my opinion, nothing new. As with many of the problems they are supposed to deal with social workers so often work in a bubble and, like many in the police service, seem to totally unaware of the success that social landlords consistently achieve in dealing with ASB and the contribution that can be made to cases that very often cross many boundaries. It’s high time that the other professions recognise exactly what housing staff can do and how they can help in so many cases where their ability and knowledge is ignored.

By

Mike Blomer MBE

Multi Agency work success in Newtownards – ASB reports driven down.

 

The council’s ASB team have set up a working partnership with local police to drive ASB complaints down; this initiative has been running for three years, with tenan reaping the benefits of this joint work. The team sits within the police station for two shifts a week and all weekend; the neighbourhood officers aren’t in uniform and respond to local residents calls of concerns, along with police action when needed. Even though the council’s ASB team and police work from different legislation and laws, everyone is still achieving their goal; to decrease ASB.

Let’s look at some stats– reports of ASB have fallen by nearly a third in Newtownards, County Durham since the initiative. In a local police partnership survey, 40% of people said ASB was their main concern. Over the past three years ASB reports have fallen by 28%, and 7% of that in last year.

Reportedly this has had a positive impact on the community and has been supported by local residents; both police and the neighbourhood officers have good rapport with groups of young people who hang about, this is a brilliant reflection of the partnership work and joint up thinking between agencies.

Once more, we’d love to hear how you are working together in your communities.

By Kate Hill

Review of the Respect standard

Would the brand by another name be as effective?

Since its introduction in 2006, the Respect Standard has played an important role in driving up performance around both preventing and effectively tackling anti-social behaviour (ASB). Over 500 signatories are a clear testimony of its success over the last 5 years.

ASB remains a key issue for both individuals and communities and will remain high on the government’s list of priorities going forward.

The housing sector has a fundamental role in developing and delivering excellent ASB services and deciding how these should be shaped in the future. To help this, the Housing Minister announced on 11^th January that the Chartered Institute of Housing will take on the ownership of the Respect Standard. Along with key partners Social Landlords Crime and Nuisance Group and HouseMark, CIH will actively work with the wider housing sector to create an ASB standard that reflects ongoing work and priorities in this area.

By the time that you read this blog the consultation period will have ended on 3^rd May and CIH and its partners will collate and consider all the feedback received and produce a further draft of the new standard. This will be re-submitted to the project’s Steering Group and circulated no later than 6th June with the aim of signing it off as soon as possible after that. CIH are still aiming to launch the revised standard at the annual conference in Harrogate in June.

My understanding is that the Minister would like the revised standard to be rebranded. Judging from the “chatter” at many recent meetings, conferences etc. there appears to be little or no appetite for this. Politicians, ASB practitioners and particularly tenants know what the Respect Standard is and what it stands for and, it is suggested by many, to rename it will dilute its impact and lessen its meaning. Cynics say that the Coalition Government is hell-bent on changing anything that was introduced by Tony Blair or Gordon Brown. However I shall sit on the fence for the time being and eagerly await what the recommendation is when the results of the review are published – I personally doubt it but it is always possible that someone has come up with an even better name.

Breaking down the findings of the HMIC ASB review

Over the past three years there have been several high-profile cases (Garry Newlove: Warrington, Fiona Pilkington: Leicester, David Askew: Manchester) where the failure to tackle anti-social behaviour (ASB) has led to tragic consequences. This has led to Her Majesties Inspectorate of Constabularies to review the defining of ASB.

HMIC said that the extent of ASB should not be underestimated and remains one of the public’s top concerns when it comes to crime and disorder. It is estimated that the public only report just over a quarter of incidents of ASB to the police – about 28%. Even this low reporting rate led to around 3.5 million calls to police in 2009-10. By the way of comparison, around 4.3 million crimes were recorded in the same period.

 Whilst the level of reported ASB varies around the country, it is a problem that has an impact everywhere. Through extensive research, supported by MORI and Cardiff University, HMIC has identified systemic problems which affect the current strategy for dealing with ASB. These include:

• A lack of understanding of the intensity of harm to communities and vulnerable individuals caused by ASB.
• The lack of a comprehensive knowledge base of ‘what works’ for police and partners in stopping this problem.
•  Uncertainty about what priority to give ASB and what the police are seeking to achieve.

Defining ASB

Anti social behaviour means different things to different people and organisations.

For victims of ASB, the experience tends to be a cumulative, corrosive issue that undermines their ability to live in peace. Those who suffer ASB experience varied levels of harm. But in nearly all cases, repeat victims experience far higher levels of impact, which is exacerbated again if they have a disability or ill-health.

For some agencies the problem is ASB’s lack of precise definition. For others, it is the confusing overlap of matters that clearly qualify as ASB, but also as crime, such as litter and vandalism.

The reality is that ASB is a mixed bag of crime and disorder with their precursor, rowdy behaviour, being the overwhelming majority of reported events.

The public draw no meaningful distinction between crime and ASB. They exist on the same spectrum of bad or very bad behaviour. The public find it immaterial that the most insidious incidents of ‘pestering’, ‘taunting’ or ‘targeting’ individuals – including the most vulnerable – may not qualify technically as “crimes” with a prospect of prosecution. They dislike ASB, worry about reporting it, and are intimidated in significant numbers when they do.

However, for some people in policing (and some outside), dealing with issues that qualify as crime is ‘real police work’. After all, for almost 20 years the police record of accomplishment and failure has been expressed strongly, in terms of crime statistics. Meanwhile, the “non-qualifying” ASB issue, and its variants, that signal lack of control on our streets, have grown and evolved in intensity and harm.

Risk

There are four factors, any one of which indicates significant risk when ASB is involved. If they appear together, considerable problems may be present.

They are:

1. Repeat victims
2. Illness and disability
3. People who are at home for lengthy periods
4. Areas of particular deprivation

Partnerships

In looking at partnerships, there were some worrying indications that some partnerships were much less effective than accepted wisdom would have it. Checks were undertaken on the progress of a number of cases in a sample of Community Safety Partnerships (CSPs) across the country. They appear to indicate:

• Standards of service were significantly variable, with some delivering only marginal benefits.
• Some partnerships were focussed on working together, not working for the public.
• Some focus on strategy rather than delivery.
• Many interventions took significant amounts of time to be delivered.
• An escalation of interventions, coupled with a culture of meetings, meant that some problems were not gripped and as a result victimization continued.
• The focus in many was on the strategy and process rather than the victim’s experience.
• There was little in the way of testing the value for money in approaches undertaken.

What HMIC perceived as working

• Identifying repeat and vulnerable victims
• Attending and taking any timely action
• Briefing appropriate staff on the nature and impact of problems
• Understanding and analysing the problem

What HMIC perceived as not working

• Being treated as low priority when making a call

• Long-term “partnership” solutions to problems that are causing harm now

What HMIC thinks should be done

• Publish accessible and comparable data on ASB
• Review Graded Response – especially where systems do not readily identify repeat callers
• Urgently review outcomes being achieved by CSPs for victims and the timeliness in which they act
• Focus on what works and what doesn’t
• Take account of the impact of slow or no action
• Early Intervention – focus on repeats

What ReACT is doing

ReACT have embraced these changes by releasing ReACT 3.5 which includes the ability to record the HMIC Case Definitions and also to record risk assessments to identify vulnerability. For further details, please contact the ReACT Team on 0121 384 2513

Information taken from HMIC’s ‘Stop the Rot’

By Paul Johns

Crown Prosecution Service Reporting on Crime

The Crown Prosecution Service’s (CPS) Third Annual Report on Hate Crime and Crimes Against Older People 2009/10 has been published. Whilst the statistics were pulled from the CPS’s administrative IT system, and therefore cannot be considered official Government statistics, it is still a useful snapshot of crime and anti-social behaviour throughout Britain.  

Hate crime: overall key findings

• In the four years ending March 2010, more than 53,600 defendants were prosecuted for hate crimes
• The conviction rate rose from 77% in 2006-07 to 82% in 2009-10
• Guilty pleas increased from 64% to 70%
• The proportion of cases failing due to key reasons such as victim issues, acquittals after trial and essential legal element missing increased from 63% to 67% of all unsuccessful outcomes

• The majority of defendants across the hate crime strands were men
• Data on victim demographics are less complete and remain under development. However, where gender is known, men formed the largest proportion of victims across all strands, at 68% of the total.

• The most commonly prosecuted offences were those against the person and public order offences (43% and 40% of the total respectively)
• 75% of hate crime defendants were identified as belonging to the White British category, and 79% were categorised as White
• 50% of defendants were aged between 25-59 and 30% between 18-24.

Racist and religious crime: key findings

• In the four years ending March 2010, more than 48,400 defendants were prosecuted for crimes involving racist or religious crime
• Convictions rose from 77% in 2006-07 to more than 82% in 2009-10
• Guilty pleas increased from 64% to 70%
• The most common reasons for unsuccessful outcomes included acquittals and victim non attendance at court. Cases failing due to victim issues including victim retraction, and those cases where the evidence of victims did not support the case increased from 20% to 22%
• The majority of defendants were men at 83%
• Offences against the person and public order offences were the most common (83%)
• In 2009-10, 75% of racially and religiously aggravated crime defendants were identified as belonging to the White British category
• 50% of defendants were aged between 25-59 and 30% between 18-24.

Homophobic and transphobic crime: key findings

• In the four years ending in March 2010, more than 3,900 defendants were prosecuted for homophobic or transphobic crimes
• Over the same period, convictions rose from 74% to 81%
• Guilty pleas increased from 58% to 68%
• Acquittals, conflicts of evidence and where the evidence of the victim did not support the case accounted for the majority of unsuccessful outcomes
• The number and proportion of unsuccessful outcomes due to victim difficulties increased from 06-07 to 09-10
• The majority of defendants were men (85%)
• Offences against the person were the most common offences
• 75% of defendants were identified as belonging to the White British category
• 45% of defendants were aged between 25-59 years and 31% between 18-24.

Disability hate crime: key findings

• In the three years ending March 2010, 1,200 defendants were prosecuted for disability hate crime
• 76% of cases resulted in a conviction
• The guilty plea rate was 66%
• Acquittals after trial and an essential legal element missing accounted for more unsuccessful outcomes than victim issues
• 83% of defendants prosecuted were men
• Offences against the person were the most common offences. Public order, theft and handling were also common
• 72% of defendants were identified as belonging to the White British category
• 51% of defendants were aged between 25-59 and 24% between 18-24.

Crimes against an older person: key findings

• 2009-10 is the second year that performance information on crimes committed against older people have been captured
• In the two years ending March 2010, 2,997 defendants were prosecuted for crimes against an older person
• 82% of cases resulted in a conviction
• The guilty plea rate was 72%
• 16% of unsuccessful outcomes were due to victim issues
• 79% of defendants prosecuted were men
• Offences against property (including the categories theft, robbery, burglary and forgery) were the most common offences
• Offences against the person was the largest single category
• 63% of defendants were aged between 25-59 and 22% between 18-24
• 76% of defendants were identified as belonging to the White British categories

Further information

The full report containing regional data (by CPS region) is available from the CPS website http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/equality/ and via the following links:

Hate crime and crimes against older people report 2009-2010 – English PDF
Hate crime and crimes against older people report 2009-2010 – Welsh PDF

With thanks to Eamon Lynch of the Social Landlords Crime & Nuisance Group for this information. This article first appeared in SLCNG Bulletin 300. For more information, please visit: www.slcng.org.uk

 

---

 

[1] The CPS data is drawn from the CPS’s administrative IT system, and is used for internal performance management. Therefore, this data should not be considered as official Government statistics.

ReACT and the ASB Review: see the video

We had a thought-provoking webinar on Monday, covering the implications of the ASB Review with Peter Jackson from Social Landlords Crime & Nusiance Group. In just under an hour, Peter set out the history and reasoning behind the review, together with the likely outcomes and impact on the housing sector. We also had the chance to hear about the future of the Respect Standard – something our audience voted overwhelmingly to keep! It was an excellent session, as one of our delegates, Clive Ledner, commented afterwards:

“I attend a lot of briefings and seminars on the subject of ASB and am highly conscious of the amount of time I’m away from the office (and the cost involved in travel). To be able to attend an informative briefing like this, without having to leave the comfort of my desk, is invaluable.

I had previously only scanned over the proposals after reading the bullet points. After hearing more detail from Peter Jackson on the implications of some of the new tools, e.g. losing the power of arrest and link to ‘interfering with the management function’ proposals for Crime Prevention Injunctions, it’s made me look at the proposals more closely with a view to feeding back on the Government consultation.” Clive Ledner, Accent Foundation

You can view our recording of “ReACT and the ASB Review”  or download the slides, free of charge.