PREVENTING AND TACKLING ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR WORKSHOPS David Clarke Head, Anti-social Behaviour Unit Home Office & Louise Arnold Group Director - Community Safety ENCAMS

Tackling anti-social behaviour is a national priority Government’s priorities, set out in Public Service Agreements PSA Delivery Agreement 23 sets out the Government’s priority actions for tackling crime and anti-social behaviour

National priority  Priority Action 3 is to tackle the crime, disorder and anti-social behaviour issues of greatest importance in each locality, increasing public confidence in the local agencies involved in dealing with these issues  Two indicators under Priority Action 3: Indicator 3  Public confidence in local agencies dealing with the ASB and crime issues that matter to people in their local area Indicator 4  Perceptions of anti-social behaviour

Why do perceptions matter? It creates a negative cycle: perceptions affect confidence, confidence affects fear, fear affects personal behaviour and engagement It affects personal behaviour and the capacity of communities to maintain safety and order (less willing to report crime, give evidence or challenge wrong doing) Affects quality of life: 37% of the public say fear of crime has a high or moderate impact on their quality of life

Anti-social behaviour covers a wide range of local agencies’ work Seven strands that drive perceptions Not just Teenagers hanging around on the streets People using or dealing drugs People being drunk or rowdy in public places Also covers Noisy neighbours or loud parties Rubbish or litter lying around Vandalism, graffiti and other deliberate damage to property Abandoned or burnt out cars

What do we know? We know that: performance data is heavily influenced by local agencies performance on communications addressing issues of greatest priority in a local area is strongly associated with confidence a key factor is indirect experience which means local media are vital to building public confidence in the responsiveness of local agencies to tackling crime and ASB; and perceptions are heavily influenced by direct personal experience of agencies’ responses to crime and ASB, which can be best managed by agencies meeting the needs of victims and witnesses Identify the problem, deal with it, tell people what you’ve done

Q On the whole, do you think that over the past year these anti-social behaviour problems have got better or worse in your area, or have they not changed? People who feel informed about how ASB being tackled People who do not feel informed about how ASB being tackled % Worse % Better Net Communications matter Source: Ipsos MORI 17% 26% 22% 10%

Confidence in Police.. % Confident % Not confident Confidence in Local Authority.. People who feel informed about how ASB being tackled People who do not feel informed about how ASB being tackled People who feel informed about how ASB being tackled People who do not feel informed about how ASB being tackled Net Source: Ipsos MORI 32% 56% 41% 67% 65% 41% 54% 28%

Where are we on anti-social behaviour? Tackling perceptions of anti-social behaviour Continued commitment to the use of anti-social behaviour tools and powers Support and challenge to local agencies

Tackling perceptions of anti-social behaviour Greater focus across the seven strands of anti-social behaviour Funding for pilot areas to raise public awareness of action to tackle anti-social behaviour Multi agency activity High visibility police operations Community events Communications

Continued commitment to tools and powers MPs pack Launching the online tools and powers ‘portal’ Raising public awareness

Support and challenge to local agencies Anti-social behaviour Actionline - advice on how to implement legislation, support and advice on difficult cases and promoting good practice ( ) Anti-social behaviour website - advice on tools and powers, case studies and information on guidance ( ASB Focus newsletter The Anti-social Behaviour Squad

Research Aims to understand the factors which affect public satisfaction with cleanliness across London to establish links between actual standards of local environmental quality and public perception of, and satisfaction with, standards.

Methodology 2407 on street, face to face interviews with residents Stratified sample - aim to achieve at least 60 interviews with residents of each of the 33 boroughs Broad representative quotas based on the demographic data of each London borough was set. The survey lasted approximately 10 minutes and was conducted over weekends, weekdays and evenings to ensure a representative sample

Importance for Spend

Rating of Problem

Expectation v Reality

Appearance of the Area and Feelings of Safety - Satisfaction A greater proportion of residents of boroughs in IMD quartile 1 (least deprived) were satisfied to some extent (55%) with how their area looked in comparison to residents of boroughs in IMD quartile 4 (most deprived, 44%).

Appearance v Feelings of Safety Most satisfied with how safe they feel, most satisfied with how the area looksLeast satisfied with how safe they feel, least satisfied with how the area looks

Feelings of Safety in Home A greater proportion of residents from IMD Q1 and Q2 boroughs felt very safe in their own home (77% and 74%) when compared to residents of Q3 and Q4 boroughs (63%.and 61%) A greater proportion of residents from ‘on the ground’ Q1 and Q2 (75% and 72%) stated that they felt very safe in their own home in comparison to residents of Q3 and Q4 boroughs (66% and 61%). Men 72% Women 65%

Feelings of Safety After Dark A lower proportion of residents from boroughs in IMD quartile 4 (most deprived) answered that they felt ‘very safe’ in their street after dark or ‘very safe’ in their area after dark when compared with quartiles 2,3 and 4.

Interest in Getting Involved

Overall Satisfaction Those in the most deprived quartile of local authorities (Q4) were the least satisfied overall with their area as a place to live (56% satisfied to some extent) compared with quartiles 1,2 and 3 (74%, 73% and 73% respectively)