1. Scottish Action Framework on Antisocial Behaviour: the evidence Dr Isobel Anderson Firm Analytical Foundations Conference, 22 April 2008

2. Outline Background to the Action Framework and its development The process approach to tackling ASB Prevention and Intervention – what is ‘known’ or ‘not known’ Policy Review – Implications from the current evidence base – Suggestions for further research & evaluation

3. The Scottish Action Framework Adapted from Nixon & Hunter (2006) – guidance for social landlords Revised for Scottish legislative, policy and practice context Drew on available evidence – no new research Scottish focus, but wider where needed/appropriate

4. Process Approach: 7 core tasks 1. Identifying the nature of the problem 2. Recording, monitoring and reviewing 3. Preventive measures and supportive intervention 4. Multi-agency partnerships 5. Specialist support and training 6. Investigations, intervention, witness support 7. Legal action

5. Approaching the problem? The social landlord role? Widening? Strategic role – housing / corporate ? Context: 2005-2008 Strategic framework and guidance – Some evaluation in Flint et al (2007) Costs of ASB for budgeting – Not well known? Out of date?

6. Evidence: prevention & early intervention Family support – reasonable evidence base, reasonable success Incentive schemes – reasonable evidence base, inconclusive about success Diversionary activities – minimal evaluative evidence, perception of success (common sense?) Community wardens – patchy evidence?

7. Evidence: Community Wardens Fife local study (2006) – 3 year evaluation. Evidence of impact across localities and time National study (Hayton et al, 2007) - ‘no really coherent or consistent picture of the impact of community wardens due to weaknesses in monitoring’ ASB strategies at neighbourhood level (Flint et al 2007) – ‘demonstrably cost effective’

8. Evidence: Mediation ‘Pre-legal’ Intervention Brown et al 2003 – Mediation cost effective compared to legal measures Flint et al 2007 – ‘delivered improvements, but not possible to robustly determine cost effectiveness’ – Also applied to Safe Neighbourhoods Team, freephone helpline & Night Noise Team

9. Evidence: Legal Intervention National, 3 year study ((DTZ & Heriot Watt University) Focus on ASBOs Some comparative data on NSPs, Evictions, SSSTs Method does not link to/compare with preventive measures

10. Using the action framework Evidence based examples for staff, residents, board/committee members Guidance, fact sheets, questions & activities – internal development and review Emphasises – equal opportunities issues; performance monitoring/self-assessment; information sharing/joint working protocols Awareness of changing environment

11. Policy review: gaps in evidence Up to date data on costs of antisocial behaviour Up to date cost/benefit analysis of activities/interventions Improved links between evaluation of prevention and intervention activities – Methodological issues? – National level data, with comparisons – Track changes over time Allocations policy and practice – more guidance sought (Britain et al 2007)

12. Policy Review: gaps in evidence Structures for service delivery/training – Role/knowledge of secondees from local government – Evaluation of Glasgow ASB Task Force No comparison with other approaches? Partnership working – Some positive evidence from Flint et al (2007) – No national picture – Role of housing and other professions? – Scope for comparison with other types of partnerships

13. Policy Review: some conclusions Housing – leading/widening role? Limits? Lots of guidance/activity – has implementation met strategic objectives? (national and local levels) Need to continue/enhance both routine/local monitoring and independent/national evaluation Need to link to ‘positive’ social justice and community cohesion agendas (Paradigm shift?) [Detailed critique – end July 08]