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:
- Repeat victims
- Illness and disability
- People who are at home for lengthy periods
- 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
Hello – are we all looking forward to Christmas? I know we are here in the offices of ReACT. In the run up to Christmas some people are out getting their gifts, others are frantically writing cards; we at ReACT are out and about installing and training on ReACT 4.
Posted by Mike 
The ReACT Blog 