1. Session One: Policy and Practice Overview Expensive mistakes in tackling ASB and how to avoid them - Judy Nixon, Principal Lecturer in ASB Studies, Sheffield Hallam University

2. What do we know about ASB? The cost of dealing with ASB is in excess of £3.4 billion per year The vast majority of incidents are relatively minor and can be dealt with effectively using informal visits, warning letters or ABCs 93% of people stop ASB after three pre legal warnings International research evidence confirms that preventive programmes are cost effective

3. Which families are most likely to be the subject of complaints? In 80% of families referred to FIPs at least one adult suffered from mental or physical health problems or some form of substance abuse Family violence was also prevalent with 47% of women suffering from either a history of, or currently subject to, intimate partner violence and/or intergenerational violence involving physical, mental or sexual abuse

4. Which families are most likely to be the subject of complaints? In addition to being ‘perpetrators’ of ASB, in 60% of families one of more member of the household was also a ‘victim’ of ASB Young people committing ASB are more likely than the general population to suffer from mental health problems and/or learning difficulties Data source: Nixon, J., Hunter, C., Parr, S., Myers, S., Whittle, S. & Sanderson, D. (2006) Anti-Social Behaviour Intensive Family Support Projects: An evaluation of six pioneering projects

5. What goes wrong? Failure to engage in preventative measures Difficulty in engaging with partners Lack of training and confidence by staff Taking steps only when problems have escalated Focus on enforcement solutions Failure to thoroughly investigate Failure to identify if a perpetrator has a disability Lack of awareness of developments in case law or statute

6. Case study 1: Jane Following a family argument Jane, a 18 year old was nominated for a flat in a block occupied predominantly by people over 55. Complaints about noise nuisance started the day she moved in and within a week she was informed that there would be an expedited court hearing for possession at which an outright order was granted Jane subsequently lodged an appeal which was upheld with the appeal judge severely criticised the landlord and commenting that what has happened was 'a wholly unreasonable exercise of discretion, a breach of natural justice and plainly wrong'. The landlord was asked to consider transferring Jane to alternative accommodation but this option was declined and in the end Jane was rehoused by the LA.

7. The direct and indirect costs Direct costs of tenancy failure Legal costs, witness support measures and staff time incurred by the landlord in taking possession action: £6,500 - £9,000 plus the costs of the appeal process Opportunity costs in terms of staff resources Rental loss - average void turn around - 39 days @ £65 per week rent = £362 Temporary homelessness accommodation based on a average length of stay of 6 months = £23,400 Total direct costs £30,262-£32,762 Indirect costs of tenancy failure Loss of confidence and goodwill amongst partner agencies Increase in staff stress-related illness Poor reputation Anxiety and distress to existing tenants many of whom were elderly The costs of social exclusion for young people are high: up to £70,019 for those with conduct disorder and £24,324 for conduct problems – ten times higher than for young people with no problems Costs of being 'NEET' when 16-18 are also very high – up to £5,802 (male) and £10,072 (female) per annum

8. Case Study 2: Moat Housing Group V Hartless and Harris At 9 pm on 29th Oct 2004 Susan Hartless was putting her four Children aged 6-14 to bed when her landlord, accompanied by the police and a TV camera crew, served her with a without notice ASB injunction requiring her to immediately vacate her home. The police advised Susan to contact a solicitor who discovered that the majority of the evidence related to a quite different family. An immediate order to stay the effect of the injunction was made over the telephone by a High Court Judge. Susan Hartless was subsequently granted leave to appeal the ASB injunction. In the meantime however, Moat HG had applied for and been granted a possession order and an ASBO which also formed the subject of a Court of Appeal hearing in March 2005. The Court of Appeal found that in this case an injunction without notice was neither necessary not proportionate, a suspended rather than outright possession order was granted and the ASBO was set aside

9. The direct and indirect costs Direct costs of legal action Five court hearings: –ASBI @ £1,600 (without notice is likely to be more expensive) –Possession @ £6,500 - £9,000 –ASBO @ £3,100 Direct legal costs £15,000- £20,000 –Costs of ASB consultant £250 -£300 per day –Housing officer costs –Police officer costs Total direct costs a minimum of £30,000 Indirect costs and consequence Loss of l/l's reputation Increase in staff stress- related illness Loss of confidence by staff as to what action to take Poor reputation of the estate and possible loss of rental income Anxiety and distress to existing tenants many of whom were elderly Loss of confidence and goodwill affecting both residents and partner agencies Costs associated with rebuilding community confidence

10. 1. What went wrong in this case? Failure to address the underlying causes of the problems –complaints started in 2001 when the estate was being constructed and was in part still a building site with no play areas –the area quickly developed a poor reputation - known locally as 'Beirut' –a new estate but no community capacity building was undertaken –allegations of racism and victimisation of a travelling family were not investigated –no action to address underlying problems such as parenting or anger management

11. 2. What else went wrong? Failure to engage in preventative measures –failure to adhere to stated procedures and policy –no diversionary activities for children or young people were provided –no offer of mediation or mentoring –no support for Ms Hartless a single mother with 4 young children –no investigation of the health and welfare of the children –no partnership work with local schools, youth workers or social care agencies

12. 3. Further problems Lack of training of staff and failure to investigate properly –no letters, warnings or direct contact was made with the alleged perpetrators –little investigation - decisions were based on rumour and conjecture –failure to support witnesses - witness diary sheets issued in June 2001 but action was only taken when problems had escalated –local residents advised to collect photographic evidence this fed fears of paedophilia –failure to involve partner agencies or call a case conference (no contact with social services) –failure of the landlord to present a clear and considered view –reliance on an 'expert' with no knowledge of the local area

13. 4. And yet more problems Lack of knowledge of legal procedure –Ouster injunctions were sought without any emergency accommodation arrangements being made –The evidence was confused with the majority of complaints relating to another family –Double hearsay was employed in witness statements –Little reference was made to witness diary sheets or alternative contemporaneous evidence –No evidence was sought or provided about the welfare or health of the children

14. How robust is your practice? Does your organisation have comprehensive, clear and accessible statements of policies and procedures on anti-social behavior that are reviewed regularly? Do you have a rolling programme of training to ensure that all staff are confident in their knowledge and ability to deal with ASB complaints in a holistic manner? How robust are your partnership arrangements particularly with social care agencies and third sector groups?

15. How robust is your practice? Do your recording and monitoring systems enable you to identify emerging hot spots and provide you with sufficient information to develop early intervention strategies? Are complainants provided with support and information to ensure they feel safe and secure in their home and neighborhood? Are perpetrators provided with the support needed to address underlying causes and bring about a lasting change in their behaviour, with or without the use of enforcement measures?

16. Measures to help prevent ASB Prevention –creation of physical and social environments where ASB is less likely to arise –dealing swiftly with the first sign of vandalism and graffiti –provision of services that help young people avoid getting drawn into ASB –building community cohesion and collective efficacy

17. Measures to help prevent ASB Early intervention and diversion –employment of a range of diversionary activities including accessible and affordable leisure facilities for young people –share information for early identification of problems both in relation to individuals and communities –work with other agencies to target interventions –enforcement of tenancy agreements

18. Sources of further information on the costs and cost consequences of ASB Pawson, H. et al (2005) The Use of Possession Actions and Evictions by Social Landlords; London: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/housing/203568 http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/housing/203568 Scott, S., Knapp, M., Henderson, J. & Maughan, B. (2001) 'Financial cost of social exclusion: follow up study of antisocial children into adulthood', British Medical Journal, 323; 191-4 Godfrey, C., Hutton, S., Bradshaw, J., Coles, B., Craig, G. & Johnson, J. (2002). Estimating the Cost of Being “Not in Education, Employment or Training” at age 16-18; Department for Education and Skills, Research Report RR346 Whitehead, C., Stockdale, J. & Razzu, G. (2003) The Economic and Social Costs of Antisocial Behaviour: A Review, London: London School of Economics Margo, J. (2008) Make Me a Criminal: Preventing youth crime; London: Institute for Public Policy Research. National Audit Office (2005) The Home Office: Tackling anti-social behaviour, Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, HC 99 Session 2006-2007.