antisocial behaviour matters
DESCRIPTION
Report produced by the Greater Manchester Police Authority scrutiny team examining best practice in how to tackle antisocial behaviour and protect vulnerable victims.TRANSCRIPT
ANTI- SOCIAL BEHAVIOURMATTERS
ConTEnTS
Foreword 2
Executive Summary 3
Background 3
Aim and Themes 4
Methodology 4
Performance Measures and Targets 5
Engagement Results 8
Governance 11
Definitions of anti-social behaviour 12
Recording of anti-social behaviour incidents 13
Summary of consultation with GMP Divisions, Local Authority Partners and Housing 14
More effective responses to anti-social behaviour consultation 18
Integrated Neighbourhood Management 24
Local communities tackling anti-social behaviour 27
Young People and anti-social behaviour 28
Vulnerability and victims 28
Greater Manchester Police Authority initiatives 30
Budgetary challenges 31
Recommendations 32
Conclusions 34
Bibliography and Sources 35
Acknowledgements 36
CHAIR’S FoREwoRd I would like to welcome you to the report of the GMPA Anti-Social Behaviour Scrutiny Commission.
Reducing anti-social behaviour and protecting vulnerable people are key priorities for the Police Authority and Greater Manchester Police.
Tragic events have shown that some people are more vulnerable to the effects of anti-social behaviour and are more likely to be harmed by it.
Part of the difficulty in reviewing anti-social behaviour is the difference in perceptions about anti-social behaviour and the link between anti-social behaviour, increased disorder and crime.
The review undertaken by the GMPA Anti-Social Behaviour Scrutiny Commission demonstrates that locally and nationally there has been a great deal of progress in identifying need and risk, case management and partnership delivery. There is now a greater focus on the service needs of the victim and a harm-based approach to tackling anti-social behaviour is becoming more evident.
This review makes recommendations in several areas which will be monitored to ensure that the Force and partners provide a better response to people who suffer and report anti-social behaviour.
Put simply, “anti-social behaviour matters”.
Lee RowbothamChair of the GMPA Anti-Social Behaviour Scrutiny Commission
2
ExECUTIVE SuMMARy
Greater Manchester Police Authority’s review of anti-social behaviour commenced in October 2010 and continued throughout 2011. Using a variety of research methods, data and evidence was gathered to provide the Scrutiny Commission with information in relation to anti-social behaviour and vulnerability. The review highlighted areas for improvement along with examples of good practice. The Commission Members have made a number of recommendations for consideration.
These recommendations focus on a number of key themes, including:
Reporting, recording of anti-social behaviour incidents;
Response to anti-social behaviour incidents;
Use of information technology and social media;
Training and guidance;
Information sharing and integrated neighbourhood management;
Budgetary challenges;
Use of restorative justice and out of court disposals.
BACkgROUNd
Reducing anti-social behaviour and protecting vulnerable people are strategic priorities for the Force and the Authority. The Greater Manchester Police Authority (GMPA) Scrutiny Commission work focused on anti-social behaviour affecting vulnerable victims and examined how different partner agencies, including Greater Manchester Police (GMP), work to understand and tackle anti-social behaviour.
The membership of the Commission was as follows:
Lee Rowbotham (Independent Member, Chair of the Commission)
Councillor Bernard Sharp (Elected Member for Trafford)
Councillor David Lancaster (Elected Member for Salford)
Councillor Pat Colclough (Elected Member for Rochdale)
Pamela Taylor (Independent Member)
Barry Dixon (Independent Member)
Assistant Chief Constable Garry Shewan (Head of Neighbourhoods, Confidence and Equality, GMP)
Superintendent Phil Unsworth (Greater Manchester Against Crime, Team Leader)
David Ottiwell (Association of Greater Manchester Authorities Public Protection Policy and Programme Manager)
David Walsh (Community Safety Senior Manager, Salford City Council)
GMPA Officer Support:
Russell Bernstein (Executive Director)
Roland Howard (Scrutiny Development Manager)
Annette Crowe (Strategic Support Officer)
Richard Whitehead (Engagement Officer)
Sam Frenz (Head of Scrutiny and Engagement)
3
AiM And ThEMES
The overall aim was to carry out a task and finish scrutiny commission examining partnership responses to anti-social behaviour, identifying areas of strength, good practice and making recommendations for improvement where appropriate.
Focusing on anti-social behaviour affecting vulnerable victims, the work of the Commission examined how different partner agencies, including GMP, work to understand and tackle anti-social behaviour. This was achieved through:
METhodology
The work involved a review of relevant literature, attendance at conferences, focus groups, site visits and interviews. Performance information was collated and community engagement was undertaken.
During the period of the review, a response was made to the Home Office proposals for more effective responses to anti-social behaviour.
Interviews were carried out with people identified as having key involvement in anti-social behaviour including: Claire Brown-Allan (GMP)
Inspector Jim Baker (West Mercia Police)
Philip Coope (Blackpool Council)
Assistant Chief Constable Simon Edens (West Mercia Police, ACPO Lead for Anti-social Behaviour)
James Gibbs (Voice UK)
Sarah Keen (Trafford Borough Council)
Inspector Jonathan Kelly (GMP)
Eamon Lynch (Social Landlords Crime and Nuisance Group)
Constable Damien Malone (GMP)
David McNulty (GMPTE)
Stuart Millington (GMAC)
Inspector Stuart Pemberton (GMP)
Assistant Chief Constable Garry Shewan (GMP)
Sylvia Simpson (Bolton at Home)
Carole Smith (Victim Support and Witness Services)
Michelle Smythe (Six Town Housing, Bury)
Inspector Jim Troisi (GMP)
David Walsh (Salford City Council)
Examining how the force, partners and other agencies fulfil their respective roles and responsibilities regarding anti-social behaviour including how vulnerable victims of anti-social behaviour are identified and dealt with.
Undertaking a review of anti-social behaviour and approaches to problem solving and local delivery.
Identifying good practice in tackling anti-social behaviour, in particular what works well in terms of the effectiveness of police and partners’ response to anti-social behaviour in meeting victims’ needs.
4
Run an operation to tackle street-level drug dealing on each policing division every week.
Anti-social behaviour incidents
A 4% reduction in the number of anti-social behaviour incidents for 2011-12 represented 6,448 fewer incidents than the previous year. Therefore the target was to record no more than 154,742 incidents.
Anti-social behaviour incidents include: street drinking, begging/vagrancy, prostitution related activity, animal problems, malicious/nuisance/inappropriate communications, hoax calls, abandoned vehicles (not stolen or causing obstruction), vehicle nuisance, noise, alarms, pubs and clubs, vehicle and other devices; littering / drug paraphernalia, inappropriate use/sale/possession of fireworks; rowdy inconsiderate behaviour, nuisance neighbours and trespass.
In the first two quarters of the year (to the end of September 2011), 83,721 anti-social behaviour incidents were recorded. This was 1.7% better than the year to date target and a 10% reduction compared to the same period in the previous year. This reduction represented 9,282 fewer incidents.
In the 12 months up to the end of September 2011, 152,321 anti-social behaviour incidents wererecorded, which was 1.6% better than the annual target of 154,742 incidents. This also represented a 19.9% reduction when compared to the previous year, with 37,794 fewer incidents. Graph 1 shows the reduction in anti-social behaviour incidents on a rolling 12 months basis.
Greater Manchester Police Authority set targets for Greater Manchester Police for reducing anti-social behaviour as part of the ‘Our Promises to You’ Greater Manchester Policing Plan in 2011-12. The targets were set at a level that represented an improvement on the performance achieved in 2010-11. Promises were also described to reduce anti-social behaviour. The targets and promises are detailed below.
Targets in relation to Anti-Social Behaviour, 2011-12
Reduce the number of anti-social behaviour incidents by 4%;
Reduce the perception of high levels of anti-social behaviour to 14%;
Reduce the perception of local drug dealing being a problem to 25%; and
Improve the perception that, together with local councils, GMP is dealing with the anti-social behaviour and crime issues that matter, to 54%.
Greater Manchester Policing Plan Promises, 2011-12
Run an operation to crack down on anti-social behaviour on each policing division every week;
Support the most vulnerable victims of anti-social behaviour and make it a daily priority to reduce repeat victimisation;
Tackle the top ten licensed premises on each policing division which cause the most problems, using our powers and working with other agencies; and
PERfORmANCE MEASuRES And TARgETS
5
Q3
2009
/10
Q4
2009
/10
Q1
2010
/11
Q2
2010
/11
Q3
2010
/11
Q4
2010
/11
Q1
2011
/12
Q2
2011
/12
Q3
2011
/12
Q4
2011
/12
12.00%
10.00%
8.00%
6.00%
4.00%
2.00%
0
Rolling 12 months 2011/2012 Target
Perceptions of anti-social behaviour
The percentage of people who perceive a high level of anti-social behaviour in their local area is now only measured through GMP Neighbourhood Surveys. The Home Office recently announced that the data gathered on the perception of high anti-social behaviour question, as measured through the British Crime Survey (BCS), would not be reliable at an individual force level. The target has been adjusted from 14% to 6.7%.
Perception of a high level of anti-social behaviour is defined by the survey responses to the question:
Thinking about your local area, how much of a problem do you think the following are:
noisy neighbours or loud parties?
teenagers hanging around on the streets?
rubbish or litter lying around?
vandalism, graffiti and other deliberate damage to property or vehicles?
people using or dealing drugs?
people being drunk or rowdy in public places?
abandoned or burnt out cars?
The most up to date data available for this measure to the end of September 2011 shows that 4.4% of people perceive a high level of anti-social behaviour in their local area. This has improved every quarter since the current methodology was introduced in October 2009, reducing from 11% in the third quarter of 2009-10.
Nov
-09
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
Dec
-09
Jan-
10
Feb-
10
Mar
-10
Apr
-10
May
-10
Jun-
10
Jul-1
0
Aug
-10
Sep-
10
Oct
-10
Nov
-10
Dec
-10
Jan-
11
Feb-
11
Mar
-11
Apr
-11
May
-11
Jun-
11
Jul-1
1
Aug
-11
Sep-
11
Oct
-11
Nov
-11
Dec
-11
Rolling 12 months 2011/2012 Target
Graph 1. Performance Over Time (Rolling 12 Months) - Anti-Social Behaviour Reduction
Graph 2. Performance Over Time (Rolling 12 Months) - Perceptions of High Anti-Social Behaviour
6
Q3
200
9/10
Q4
200
9/10
Q1
201
0/11
Q2
201
0/11
Q3
201
0/11
Q4
201
0/11
Q1
201
1/12
Q2
201
1/12
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Graph 3 shows the reduction in perceptions of high anti-social behaviour across Greater Manchester, on a rolling 12-month basis to the end of September 2011. The arrows indicate the direction of performance and percentage point change compared to the previous year. All divisions have shown an improvement in performance, with reduction in perception of high anti-social behaviour.
Graph 4 shows on a rolling 12 months basis, the increase in the percentage of people who agree
Graph 4. Performance Over Time (Rolling 12 Months) - Police and Local Councils Dealing with Anti-Social Behaviour and Crime Issues
Graph 3. Performance Over Time (Rolling 12 Months) - Perceptions of High Anti-Social Behaviour by Division
(A) North Manchester, (B) Metropolitan Division, (C) South Manchester, (F) Salford, (G) Tameside, (J) Stockport, (K) Bolton, (L) Wigan, (M) Trafford, (N) Bury, (P) Rochdale, (Q) Oldham.
that the Police and Local Councils are dealing with anti-social behaviour and crime in their area.
At the end of September 2011, according to the British Crime Survey, 59% of people agreed that the police and local councils are dealing with anti-social behaviour and crime issues that matter. This is a statistically significant improvement from the previous year, ending September 2010.
-4.0% -4.9% -4.3%-6.2% -4.4% -3.8%-4.1% -1.6% -1.9%-2.8% -3.4% -3.6%-6.3%
GMP A CB F JG K ML N QP
8.4%
14.8%
8.6%
10.0%9.2%
6.4%6.4%6.1%
3.8%
8.3%
6.0%
9.4%
11.3%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
14.0%
16.0%
6.0%
4.0%
2.0%
0.0%
Current Change
7
The Authority consults with the people of Greater Manchester to identify their policing priorities seeking their views on policing, crime and disorder. Views on anti-social behaviour and priorities were sought at events across Greater Manchester throughout 2011. The results from this consultation are given below.
Graph 5 indicates that respondents to the survey believe that the police and parents should be responsible for tackling anti-social behaviour.
Over half of the respondents to the survey have been personally affected by rubbish and litter lying around. Over half of people also indicated that they had been personally affected by teenagers hanging around the streets.
Of the people who responded to the survey, 46% had experienced anti-social behaviour in the last six months. 65% of people who had experienced anti-social behaviour reported it to either the police or local authority.
gMPA EngAgEMEnT RESulTS
Graph 6. Have you been personally affected by any of the following types of anti-social behaviour?
Graph 5. Who do you think should be responsible for tackling anti-social behaviour?
80% 75%
62%
44%
16% 15% 14%
Social ServicesOtherLandlordLocal CouncilPolice Parents
60%
40%
20%
0%
58%55%
47%
40% 38%25%
14%
9%
People using or dealing
drugs
Abandoned or burnt out cars
OtherNoisy neighbours
or loud parties
Vandalism, graffiti
and other deliberate
damage to property
People being drunk or rowdy in public places
Rubbish and litter
lying around
Teenagers hanging around
the streets
60%
40%
20%
0%
8
Just over two-thirds of people felt fines for disorder offences were effective, followed by suspension of licences to sell alcohol and parenting orders. Just over half felt the use of behaviour orders, contracts and injunctions were effective.
Almost 5000 responses have been submitted to the ongoing Greater Manchester Police Authority consultation on policing priorities. The number of people who believe anti-social behaviour is a high priority was 3,439. This is more than the total who believe burglary and vehicle crime are a high priority but lower than the figure for tackling violent crime, domestic and child abuse, and organised crime and terrorism.
In 2011, Greater Manchester Police Authority also began a study across ten high schools across the whole of the conurbation involving more than two thousand pupils aged between 11 and 13. The longitudinal study over a three year period has been developed to find out how young people’s views on policing are shaped and influenced over time. The results showed some differences when compared to other consultation results.
When asked who should be responsible for tackling anti-social behaviour, a higher proportion of the young people felt that it was the responsibility of the police to tackle it. However, young people in the study felt that Social Services and Local Councils were more responsible for tackling anti-social behaviour than parents.
When asked about how they had been personally affected by anti-social behaviour, more people had been affected by people being drunk or rowdy in public places. Teenagers hanging around the streets was ranked below rubbish and litter lying around and noisy neighbours.
Young people felt that confiscation of alcohol from underage drinkers and parenting orders were the most effective initiatives to tackle anti-social behaviour.
The study indicated that young people felt that tackling anti-social behaviour was a lower priority than all categories except for reducing paperwork, improving road safety, community problems and working within schools.
Graph 7. Would you describe these initiatives to combat anti-social behaviour as either effective or very effective?
80%
68%
61% 61% 59% 58%
51% 51%
Fines for disorder offences
Suspension or revocation
of licenses
Allowing Police to designate areas where drinking
is forbidden
Confiscation of alcohol from
underage drinkers
Parenting orders
Use of behaviour orders, contracts and injunctions
Allowing Councils to
designate areas where drinking
is forbidden
60%
40%
20%
0%
9
Graph 8. Do you think the following should be a high, medium or low priority for the police? (number of responses)
Responding to emergency calls 70
Tackling violent crime
Detecting and arresting offenders
Tackling domestic and child abuse
Tackling organised crime and terrorism
Protecting witnesses
Tackling anti-social behaviour
More officers in the community
Keeping victims informed
Focusing on vehicle crime
Reducing paperwork
Working with schools
Providing crime prevention advice
Tackling community problems
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Improving road safety
Making better use of money and staff
Focusing on burglary
Targeting drug dealers
High priority Medium priority Low priority
3704539
784204477
785774353
875604334
875744270
2328533908
16712243573
15513733439
23512943437
13115543301
29715313121
26617612916
32821662473
57020362365
8481783 2329
47723032187
51824601973
88622511835
10
HMIC Inspection Findings, Anti-Social Behaviour, 2010
Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) carried out an inspection in 2010, identifying a number of issues in relation to anti-social behaviour and how this is dealt with. These included:
effective leadership and ownership;
knowledge and awareness of definitions of repeat callers and vulnerability;
inconsistent grading of incidents;
adoption and use of available analysis;
tracking and monitoring of problem-solving plans;
follow-up contact with complainants; and
formal recognition of good work.
The follow-up inspection in late 2010 confirmed that improvements had been made in many areas such as:
clear ownership at chief officer level;
introduction of the divisional hubs;
incidents of note and vulnerable victims being discussed at the divisional daily tasking meetings;
sharing of good practice as a more regular occurrence;
ASBRAC (Anti-Social Behaviour Risk Assessment Conferences) being held within the community safety partnerships;
effective partnership activity;
minimum standards introduced for anti-social behaviour related incidents and a toolkit being made available;
processes and systems in place to support staff in relation to repeat and vulnerable complainants;
the full definition with regards to vulnerability being available on the anti-social behaviour intranet site;
training having been given to divisional staff; and
training on the CRM Lite system used by call handlers to identify vulnerable and repeat callers.
However, at that time, several key issues were still required to be addressed including:
grading and coding of incidents;
mis-coding and failure to identify vulnerability may lead to risk of harm for individuals as support and reassurance may not have been provided;
accuracy of published performance data;
communication and ownership;
benchmarking remains an area for improvement; and
IT issues in relation to integration of systems.
Local Policing and Partnerships Committee
GMP presented a progress report in response to the HMIC inspection to the Local Policing and Partnerships Committee on 3rd March, 2011. Members of the Authority resolved that:
Members monitor and scrutinise the risk regarding how information from partners was sourced and used in anti-social behaviour work;
Members continue to monitor the coding work of the Force;
the website be utilised more and updated with information and advice on GMP’s and partners’ work regarding anti-social behaviour; and
Members work with the lead GMP officer for anti-social behaviour regarding how they can carry out reality checks and closer scrutiny of this issue.
AGMA Anti-Social Behaviour Theme Group
Officers with a lead responsibility for anti-social behaviour from each of the Local Authorities within Greater Manchester, together with other key stakeholders meet regularly to share best practice, problem solve and take forward a strategic programme of work. The group reports to the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities (AGMA) Improving Public Confidence Group.
govERnAnCE
AGMA Anti-Social Behaviour Theme Group
11
dEfINITIONS Of AnTi-SoCiAl bEhAviouR
Anti-social behaviour was defined in the Crime and Disorder Act (1998) as acting ‘in a manner that caused or was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to one or more persons not of the same household as the perpetrator’.
A more appropriate definition of anti-social behaviour for NSIR is provided by the Housing Act (1996): ‘Engaging in or threatening to engage in conduct causing or likely to cause a nuisance or annoyance to persons engaged in lawful activities’.
A further definition of anti-social behaviour was provided by the Chartered Institute of Housing (1995): ‘Behaviour that unreasonably interferes with other people’s rights to the use and enjoyment of their home and community’.
In a response to the recent consultation on more effective responses to anti-social behaviour, the ACPO Anti-social Behaviour Portfolio recommends a ‘harm’ based approach to tackling anti-social behaviour.
The Home Office describe anti-social behaviour as any aggressive, intimidating or destructive activity that damages or destroys another person’s quality of life.
Definitions of anti-social behaviour are considered in the National Standard for Incident Recording (NSIR), Instructions for Police Forces in England and Wales, effective from 1 April, 2011. These definitions are:
12
RECORdINg Of AnTi-SoCiAl bEhAviouR inCidEnTS
The section below is also taken from the NSIR, 2011.
Anti-social behaviour in NSIR 2011 reflects a case management ethos rather than an incident-based approach. It considers the spectrum of harm, encourages the management of risk and emphasises problem-solving. It simplifies and rationalises police activity in every aspect from recording, investigating, risk assessing and analysing through to intervention and on to follow-up action.
The simplified categories change the emphasis from merely recording and responding to incidents to identifying those vulnerable individuals, communities and environments most at risk and therefore in need of a response before the problems escalate.
Failure to recognise the signs can result in the incidents becoming more violent or the anti-social behaviour continuing and causing feelings of helplessness and depression which, as several cases have shown, can result in tragic consequences.
As the emphasis has changed from categorising incidents to identifying vulnerability it is clear that the old anti-social behaviour categories cannot be mapped up to the new categories: e.g. fireworks could be set off to the annoyance of the community in general or they could be targeted at a particular household.
The new categories do not preclude the need to check whether the caller has made contact before or if there have been other complaints from the location about similar or other issues.
The three new categories are:
Personal - designed to identify incidents that the caller, call-handler or anyone else perceives as either deliberately targeted at an individual or group or having an impact on an individual or group rather than the community at large;
Nuisance - captures those incidents where an act, condition, thing or person causes trouble, annoyance, inconvenience, offence or suffering to the local community in general rather than to individual victims; and
Environmental - deals with the interface between people and places. It includes incidents where individuals and groups have an impact on their surroundings including natural, built and social environments.
To match these three categories, call-handlers at the first point of contact must have risk identification and assessment as a key part of their thinking and questioning process as none of the three categories is linked to a specific response grading.
There will be occasions where an immediate response to an anti-social behaviour incident is appropriate but there will also be occasions where a less urgent response is more suitable. The onus is on the call-handler to ensure the correct initial response is provided and for them to record their rationale.
There is a simple model consisting of three questions which will support the consideration of risk process:
What can go wrong?
How likely is it?
What are the consequences?
Effective risk management involves the identification, assessment and prioritisation of risks. It should lead to the appropriate use of resources to minimise, monitor and control the probability and/or impact of anti-social behaviour.
In GMP, a report from the force crime and incident registrar to the Force Audit Board put forward Home Office proposals for the re-coding of anti-social behaviour incident closure into the three new ‘grades’ which show the impact of the overall incident, Personal; Nuisance; and Environmental. However, the 14 existing codes have also been retained to provide additional information.
13
SUmmARy Of CONSULTATION wiTh gMP diviSionS, loCAl AuThoRiTy PARTnERS And houSing
Identifying need and risk
Operation Gabriel is the Force’s response to deal with incidents of anti-social behaviour, setting minimum standards that must be adhered to. Every Force Wide Incident Number (FWIN) allocated to an incident recorded on the Greater Manchester Police Integrated Computer System (GMPICS) must have a structured write up and officers follow a template to ensure they provide the correct information. This includes:
Victim(s) details and views obtained wherever possible by a personal visit.
Persons present at the scene (offender) and others to allow any appropriate interventions.
Circumstances of the incident to make informed decisions on the level of intervention and degree of urgency.
Action taken to avoid duplication of effort, leading to informed decision-making. This should include whether the victim or caller has been updated.
Each Neighbourhood Policing Team is informed of every anti-social behaviour incident and they must re-contact the victim within 48 hours. Part of this contact includes completion of a matrix designed to assess the vulnerability of the victim. The most vulnerable victims (scoring ‘amber’ or ‘red’) are then case managed. The neighbourhood management system tracks the progress of tasks set to address the issue.
The Vulnerability matrix used by GMP is shown opposite.
In Oldham, vulnerable victims are discussed at the Anti-Social Behaviour Risk Assessment Conference (ASBRAC) with partners. Amber and red victims may receive support from Community Safety Services through target hardening measures such as additional security measures and provision of CCTV. Vulnerable victims are assessed to determine what support they need, including the opportunity of referral to the Local Authority Anti-Social Behaviour ‘Victims Champion’.
Bolton Local Authority also has an Anti-Social Behaviour ‘Victims’ Champion’ who provides an overview of the service needs of the victim at ASBRAC meetings and provides a link to all agencies involved. The Victims’ Champion provides feedback to victims on a weekly basis and provides appropriate support depending on the level of vulnerability.
In Salford, the Community Cohesion Unit carries out a daily check for incidents of anti-social behaviour and any that carry a ‘hate marker’. If a person is subjected to two incidents of anti-social behaviour in a six month period this is used as a trigger to assess and monitor vulnerability on an ongoing basis.
Bolton took part in an evidence-based policing experiment with Cambridge University that looks at providing an increased dedicated resource to manage repeat callers of anti-social behaviour and help them resolve the issue.
Feedback was received from several partners working on behalf of victims, highlighting the need for the police to treat victims properly. Some critical comments were made in relation to the attitude and a perceived lack of skills in this area. James Gibbs, Voice UK cited a ‘Poor attitude, not compassionate or person centred’. Michael Hunt, Disability Hate Crime Outreach Worker for Breakthrough UK urged the police to ‘treat victims as people’ and that victims should ‘be respected and reassured, not intimidated’.
14
Vulnerability MatrixDate Scored: 20/02/2012
Persons Name:Nominal/SRN:
FWIN Reference:
Name of Input officer:PIN Number:
Impact Scores Summary:
Personal Risk Community HarmNumber of
incidents last 6 months
Victim view / How badly is it affecting
their life?
Other agencies involved Home life Added
factors Witness riskTotal for
Vulnerability Score
8 4 4 2 0 4 2 4 28#N/A = Selection required
Vulnerability Statements: #N/A = Selection required
Personal Risk 8 View Key
Community Harm 4 View Key
Number of Incidents Last 6 Months 4 View Key
Victim view / How badly is it affecting their life? 2 View Key
Other agencies involved
Home Life 4 View Key
Added Factors 2 View Key
Witness Risk 4 View Key
Vulnerability Statements Key:
Instructions:
Will support action but an isolated incident
Five - Ten
Beginning to feel affected
Victim capable of confrontation resulting in fatality/serious injury to any party or serious lifestyle concerns causing them to be targeted.
Limited Partner intervention
Settled address but living alone little or no family support
Minimal evidence of ASB identified in area
Please make a selection by clicking on the cell and using the down arrow to choose the appropriate statement
#N/A = Selection required
28
Significant consequences that cause harm in the community/other reports of ASB in community
Instructions: Please make a selection from the drop down menu where you see the symbol
Please enter details in to cells marked with the symbolif applicable
Grading
15
Case Management
Checks are carried out to ensure that previous incidents from repeat callers are recognised and taken into account through completion of the vulnerability matrix and through local tasking meetings, which also provides scrutiny and governance of actions taken. The performance management team at the Operational Communications Branch (OCB) regularly supplies information about repeat callers, which also includes information when a repeat caller moves from one division to another.
The introduction of Customer Relationship Management (CRM) Lite, a system which provides historical data relating to an address, telephone number or location has allowed early recognition of vulnerable and repeat victims and allows a raised priority response. Customer Service Desks update victims and callers of any progress and make appointments.
Minimum service standards across the Police, Council and Housing Partners have been agreed across Greater Manchester
Salford also search for repeat locations in respect of mental health, anti-social behaviour and hate incidents.
Bolton have co-located multi-agency teams who work together to assess cases to provide a complete picture of each case.
Under Operation Quasar in Rochdale, officers maintain a link with communications staff to ensure all calls for anti-social behaviour are resourced and victims contacted with a response supervisor assigned on a daily basis.
Tackling anti-social behaviour
All Community Safety Teams and Neighbourhood Policing Teams across Greater Manchester work together to problem-solve and risk-assess vulnerability with an emphasis on victims of anti-social behaviour .
Working with partners, interventions include warning letters, Acceptable Behaviour Contracts (ABCs), Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) and Anti-Social Behaviour Orders on conviction. Other examples of measures to address anti-social behaviour include test purchasing of alcohol, public place orders, use of closure powers, dispersal orders, restorative justice, diversionary activity and publicity campaigns.
In Salford, SNAP weeks (Sustainable Neighbourhood Action Projects) are run by police and partners in order to improve public confidence by dealing with anti-social behaviour. Operation Brocade continues to target hotspot areas on Friday and Saturday evenings, providing a visible and robust presence, seizing alcohol and ensuring that young people’s details are recorded so follow-up action can be pursued by the local authority. Operation Staysafe focuses on the removal of young people to a place of safety.
Bury Anti-Social Behaviour Team and Bury East Local Area Policing Team worked closely to secure the first Anti-Social Behaviour Closure in Greater Manchester which was applied to a Leaving Care Semi Independent Unit in October 2010. The entire process from when the initial complaints were received to securing the closure took only four months during which repeated attempts were made by agencies to improve the situation prior to closure.
In Bury, ‘Bsafe, BCool’ is an annual initiative providing workshops to 2000 school pupils. The ‘Bsafe, Bcool’ project encourages young people to act responsibly in the community, through a series of interactive workshops.
In Manchester, Operation Synergy is run each Friday night using dedicated resources on each Neighbourhood Policing Team. Vulnerable people are informed prior to the operation and provided with contact details should they suffer from anti-social behaviour. Operation Synergy also includes visits to the licensed premises to provide support to licensees.
Safe4summer is a Greater Manchester wide partnership-based approach aimed at keeping people of all ages safe, addressing concerns about youth related crime and anti-social behaviour during the summer months. Safe4summer is designed to offer young people the opportunity to experience fun and exciting activities in their local areas. It also offers advice about personal safety and promotes social responsibility messages. Partners include Health, Fire and Rescue Services, Probation, Police, Local Authorities, Trading Standards, Transport for Greater Manchester and the Voluntary sector. Operation Treacle is a Greater Manchester partnership- based approach aimed at preventing, tackling and protecting against anti-social behaviour, sale of fireworks to underage customers, criminal damage, secondary fires and harm reduction during the Halloween and Bonfire period.
Case Management
16
The Force held a ‘Good Ideas Day’ on 19th November, 2010 for Neighbourhood Teams. Assistant Chief Constable Garry Shewan said ‘Anti-Social Behaviour is a priority for GMP, more importantly it is a priority for the people of Greater Manchester’. The purpose of the day was to share good ideas about effective ways of tackling anti-social behaviour.
When interviewed as part of the (GMPA) Scrutiny Commission, Assistant Chief Constable Garry Shewan described anti-social behaviour as ‘a shared responsibility between the police and the public’, also stating that ‘transforming the experience of victims needs to be a higher priority’.
Partnership Delivery
As part of the consultation, GMP Divisions, Local Authority, and Housing partners described the joint activity they were involved in.
Information sharing protocols are in place across Greater Manchester which contain confidentiality clauses to allow a full exchange of information between partner agencies.
Another example of effective partnership working involves joint analytical teams where GMAC (Greater Manchester Against Crime) and Police Analysts work together and produce documents such as problem profiles in partnership. Simple 2 Start is a partnership-based approach to problem solving at street level across Greater Manchester. The process provides a basis for problem-orientated action by applying a systematic review process and tackling repeat victimisation. This makes day-to-day management more effective, irrespective of changing priorities.
Operation Liquorice in Bolton was developed through work undertaken to identify chronic hotspots of anti-social behaviour. It is a local operation to co-ordinate and focus partnership resources to review and manage anti-social behaviour, providing reassurance and enforcement.
There are several examples of co-located resources to deal with anti-social behaviour within Greater Manchester. There are co-located teams in Salford East and Salford Central and as part of the ‘Life Chances’ project offering support to specific families in the area to reduce costs to services.
GMP Divisions have highlighted improved integrated Information Technology (IT) systems as opportunities to do things more efficiently in relation to tackling anti-social behaviour but also indicate that the potential barriers to achieving this are capacity and cost. Some divisions have cited the reduction of unnecessary bureaucracy as an opportunity to streamline processes.
Consultation with Arms Length Management Associations (ALMOs) and Registered Social Landlords (RSLs) highlighted the importance of housing organisations in dealing with anti-social behaviour, particularly in relation to identifying risk and vulnerability. Eamon Lynch of the Social Landlords Crime and Nuisance Group stated that ‘landlords are in the position of having personal contact with tenants’ and ‘landlords know what works and how to deliver on anti-social behaviour’.
17
mORE EffECTIVE RESPONSES TO AnTi-SoCiAl bEhAviouR ConSulTATion
In early 2011, The Home Office announced a consultation exercise asking for opinions on government plans to streamline the toolkit used to tackle anti-social behaviour, so that the police and partners have access to tools they can use more flexibly and quickly. The consultation highlighted that reducing anti-social behaviour is a government priority and should also be a priority for police and other agencies, particularly where it is criminal or targeted at vulnerable victims.
The specific proposals in the consultation were:
repealing the existing Anti-Social Behaviour Order (ASBO) and other court orders and replacing them with new tools that bring together restrictions on future behaviour and support to address underlying problems;
ensuring there are powerful incentives on perpetrators to stop behaving anti-socially;
bringing together existing police dispersal powers for anti-social behaviour into a single police power;
making the informal and out-of-court tools for dealing with anti-social behaviour more rehabilitative and restorative; and
introducing a ‘Community Trigger’ that gives victims and communities the right to require agencies to deal with persistent anti-social behaviour.
In general the Commission welcomed the principle of streamlining the toolkit and merging the existing powers into new orders.
However, the Commission would maintain that changes need to be explained thoroughly and supported by effective guidance and explanation of the impact of the changes, for both practitioners and the courts.
The Commission supported the proposals to introduce positive requirements and supportive elements into some of the orders but would emphasise that the effectiveness of these changes is dependent on the availability and capacity of services and resources.
Comprehensive training materials should also be made available for practitioners when the new powers are introduced. It is suggested that this may include a list of key comparators between existing and proposed legislation together with process flow charts highlighting realistic examples for practitioners.
Communication of the changes is extremely important so that the public understand the implications of the new or merged powers, and it is suggested that simplified guidance material could become a component to the Personal, Social and Health Education (PSHE) Key Stage 2 curriculum, and above. Schools-based police officers could play an active part in this process.
The proposals do not appear to address the perception that young people are responsible for the majority of anti-social behaviour. This perception could be exacerbated with the introduction of the Community Trigger and Directions Power. There could also be risks in relation to criminalising young people unnecessarily.
Criminal Behaviour Orders
The introduction of the Criminal Behaviour Order (CBO) would potentially provide a much welcomed boost to the seemingly tainted public image of current Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (applications are currently in decline in Greater Manchester) and agree that this measure should be applied in addition to a sentence and not as a substitute for it.
If the positive requirements are to work, there needs to be appropriate schemes available, along with sufficient capacity and coordination between agencies. Currently there is a considerable concern amongst partners that the reduction in funding for youth services and diversionary activities may inadvertently contribute to a disproportionate rise in applications for such Orders.
The inclusion of reports on family circumstances would be necessary and would bring the Criminal Behaviour Order in line with Family Intervention Projects.
Supportive measures within such Orders should be emphasised together with the obligation of local commerce and communities to contribute to an availability of positive life options for such individuals, such as training, apprenticeships, further education and work experience.
18
Restorative Justice and Out of Court Disposals
Restorative Justice (RJ) should be considered and reparation should be considered as part of the revised anti-social behaviour legislative tools and communities given the opportunity to define the extent of such ‘restoration’ and ‘reparation’. Further civil orders could be incorporated into the Criminal Behaviour Order depending on the circumstances. Much of anti-social behaviour is of a long-term nature and sustained by the same perpetrators. Restorative Justice can be effective in resolving long term and ongoing issues such as neighbour disputes and repeat incidents.
The GMPA Anti-Social Behaviour Scrutiny Commission supports the use of informal tools and out of court disposals in dealing with anti-social behaviour in a proportionate way for first time or low level incidents as early intervention is key in reducing future offending.
Crime Prevention Injunctions
The Commission cautiously welcomes the creation of a civil order and is fully supportive of the positive requirements including restorative justice, voluntary work or alcohol or drug treatment.
Community Protection Orders
Although the principle of bringing together existing tools for dealing with persistent place-related anti-social behaviour into a single Community Protection Order is sound, there are practical implications which might cause concern. Instead of combining closure orders and the streamlining of powers for social and private accommodation, it may be easier to retain the existing tools as they currently appear to work well, with little overlap or duplication.
Detailed guidance on suggested support and assistance to vulnerable victims of persistent anti-social behaviour needs to be included in any guidance documentation.
Direction Power
If the Direction Power is introduced, both Police Officers and PCSOs (if the power is made available to them) will need to be provided with proper training in relation to its use in order to avoid inconsistency in its application. Also, the current IT software and hardware resources of many Constabularies cannot support the capture of photographic imagery required to support the application of this power.
There is a concern that the requirement for partnership involvement (which is currently required in some of the existing powers), appears to have been removed. Such a power should consequently engage partners in diversionary, health related or educational processes (i.e. visits to schools in the area); also to define the level of responsibility from parents / guardians, i.e. ABCs, parental contracts etc. The requirement to specify a designated area is also missing. This has implications for the officer in defining the area and also for enforcement purposes. Additionally, the resulting displacement of individuals to surrounding neighbourhoods has (anecdotally) caused unrest in neighbourhoods which otherwise suffered no previous concerns.
The Direction Power could have a disproportionate impact on young people as many frequently meet and gather in public areas. In terms of young people who breach the direction power, it would be preferable for the young person to be referred to youth offending, alcohol, drugs, and mental health related services and be considered for restorative interventions, rather than making it a criminal offence. As aforementioned, the reduction in funding for many youth-based diversionary activities may well exacerbate the use of such powers.
Consequently, the introduction of this power may cause a rise in complaints and have a negative impact on public confidence in the Police.
The Commission particularly welcomed the inclusion of the ability to return home, unaccompanied young people under the age of 16, as long as the proper safeguards are in place.
19
Community Trigger
The Community Trigger is an intriguing concept but raises several questions about how it would actually work and whether it would cause problems, if implemented. The most obvious problem is that the power has the potential to be used maliciously or encourage vexatious and persistent complaints.
The Commission would maintain that the criteria for the trigger appears to be completely arbitrary, with a minimum of three reports of anti-social behaviour having to be made or five individuals complaining of a problem where no action has been taken.
It is difficult to see how the Community Trigger would enable victims to demand swift action to resolve a problem. There are risks in relation to raising people’s expectations and the Commission questioned whether the people most affected by persistent anti-social behaviour would be able to obtain the response they require.
There is the possibility that the Community Trigger could have the potential to increase community tensions, escalate neighbourhood disputes and this could disadvantage vulnerable groups in a disproportionate way.
Anti-social Behaviour Pilots
Eight police force areas have trialled a new approach for handling complaints of anti-social behaviour. The pilots have run from January to July 2011 in Avon and Somerset, Cambridgeshire, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, London, South Wales, Sussex and West Mercia.
The areas have piloted a new approach based on five key principles tailored to each area:
creating an effective call handling system where each individual has a log of complaints created from the very first call;
introducing risk assessment tools to quickly identify the most vulnerable victims;
installing off-the-shelf IT systems to share information on cases between agencies, removing the need for meetings;
agreeing a protocol across all local agencies setting out how they will manage cases; and
engaging with the community to clearly set out the issues which are causing the most harm to individuals and neighbourhoods, and detailing how the police, other local agencies and the public can work together to address them.
20
Telford and Wrekin, West Mercia - In the trials in Telford and Wrekin, West Mercia, a co-located team of police and partners have adapted the use of a risk assessment matrix, due to the length of time involved. The matrix has been replaced and improved, with ten questions for contact management staff, including front enquiry officers and partners. Four of the questions are about the incident and six of these are about diversity and victim impact. The result of this assessment informs the response – standard / medium / high. An aide-memoire using the mnemonic AEIOU has been adopted to guide staff through the action to be taken at the scene.
Attend and assess Engage with all parties
Investigate Organisational memory Update systems
Officers can raise or lower the risk assessment based upon their judgement when they attend. Neighbourhood Policing Teams complete the full individual risk assessment for those victims assessed as high / medium and this results in an individual care plan being agreed with partners and the victim.
West Mercia Police have produced a short video to promote this approach which can be viewed using the following link: http://www.sparkdev.co.uk/showcase/show/tackling-anti-social-behaviour
The AEIOU of ASB
It is essential that anti-social behaviour is dealt with in a professional and thorough manner. Use this aide-memoir to ensure you don’t forget something!
A – Attend and Assess. Attend the scene – police have been called for a reason. Assess the situation paying particular attention to the victim/caller – are they vulnerable in any way? Consider age, disability, hate crime, etc, and how this may increase a person’s vulnerability to ASB.
E – Engage with all parties – this includes the caller, victim, offenders, and witnesses. Use this opportunity to provide reassurance. Can other agencies or departments help you? Is the Local Policing Team aware?
I – Investigate as if it were a crime. Consider all lines of enquiry – witnesses, CCTV, house to house, etc. Can you take positive action? Arrest, CR, PND, Report for summons, etc.
O – Organisational Memory – have police attended this address/location before? What happened last time? Have you asked for VPI? Is there any information that could assist you – an offender with an ASBO for example.
U – Update Systems. Submit appropriate paperwork (CO1, NIR, full update on OIS, etc) – this will help us in the future. ‘ASNT’ (or ‘ATNS’!) is no longer acceptable. Remember to record the victim, location and any offenders or suspects. If you require a letter sent to a suspect please tag OIS or Encounter with ‘ASB’.
Risk Assessment questions
Prompts for Call Centre Staff - Police/Council General Questions about the incident
1. What exactly is happening?
2. Is it happening now?
3. Do you know who is involved, their names and where they live? (Check details of offenders/named perpetrators on Police Systems, violent or history of intimidation = DESPATCH)
If No
4. Numbers and descriptions?
Questions below relate to the Vulnerability of the victim
5. Have you or your family had problems like this before (Y/N)
6. If Yes How often (and are they linked?)
7. Why do you think this is happening to you or your family? – Prompt. Do you think it is because of you or your family’s faith (any), ethnicity, sexuality, age, disability, health issues or any other reason? – (Yes, MANDATORY attendance)
8. How have you or your family been affected by this?
9. Is there anyone that you can contact to support you at this time?
10. Have you been in contact with any other agencies?
21
Risk Assessments are based upon the mnemonic FIVER:Virtual Ward Panels are “engaging with” young people, the Muslim community and emerging communities. Evaluation of the pilot will focus on anti-social behaviour satisfaction. West Mercia Police invested £3000 to commission postgraduate students to evaluate the impact of care plans. The evaluation will also include practitioner interviews to assess the impact of the new approach on both staff attitudes to anti-social behaviour, victims and vulnerability. Benefits have included better identification of harassment, intimidation and hate crimes due to the change in approach and incident categorisation. There has been a reduction in calls reporting anti-social behaviour, contributed to by the use of care plans.
Sussex - The pilot in Sussex also involved replacing use of the National Risk Assessment template with questions at the initial contact stage about: Vulnerability; Repeat status; and Impact designed to flag up critical incidents early and either take action to prevent the incident from escalating or allow internal escalation where necessary. The new National Standard of Incident Recording (NSIR) categories have been linked to the risk assessment and helped the force to focus on incidents that are classified as Personal Impact. This is also being extended to repeat crime victims. New technology is also being trialled.
South Wales - South Wales Police again found that the National Risk Assessment takes too long to complete and have replaced it with an initial assessment against: Threat, Risk, and Harm. The result of the assessment informs the priority of the response e.g. immediate priority (within the hour); scheduled (could be telephone contact as opposed to physical attendance). For high-risk victims, a process that replicates the MARAC (Multi Agency Risk Assessment Conference) approach is being held. A partnership database has been developed by Cardiff Council and a data sharing protocol involving seven local authorities has been agreed.
Avon and Somerset - In Avon and Somerset, the main aim is to achieve a change of culture in primary attendance staff. There are Victim Advocates in Safer Neighbourhood Teams who ask detailed risk assessment questions. It is a progressive process of risk assessment with each stage building on results of previous one(s), dependent upon levels of risk identified.
Keep the victim safe
Economic issues
Equality and discrimination
Personal circumstances
Sickness/disability
Available support
Family circumstances and
Environmental issues
Staff use just three risk assessment questions at the call handling stage.
Cambridgeshire - The Cambridgeshire pilot in the Fenland Basic Command Unit (BCU) has an overarching aim of culture change – to create a more victim-centred approach. They are also using technology to allow virtual case conferences between partners. They have produced guidance for frontline staff, call takers and partners in identifying vulnerability and victim impact with the aim of creating more quality conversations between staff and victims and empowering staff to make their own judgements. Corporate training for all staff is being provided.
The mnemonic KEEPSAFE has been adopted to identify factors affecting vulnerability.
Frequency
Impact
Vulnerability
Expectations
Risk
Minimum investigation standards for anti-social behaviour have been set as the same as if were a crime.
A public website ‘Shape your Place‘, for the Wisbech area allows for the use of social media and is planned to be rolled out across Fenland to improve community engagement: http://www.wisbech.shapeyourplace.org
22
London - In London the pilot is taking place in five boroughs: Hackney, Lambeth, Tower Hamlets, Richmond and Harrow. Lambeth are also piloting a new structure of response policing with a number of officers being freed up to form new local policing teams to support the borough in a number of ways including neighbourhood policing. A script for call handlers has been produced. Potential high risk victims are identified at the call handling stage and the call then graded for the most appropriate response.
Leicestershire - In Leicestershire, partners are involved in a project to share relevant data and manage appropriate cases through the use of a Case Management System. The force is launching a community messaging system that allows a two-way dialogue between members (agencies and citizens) about news and pertinent information. This system is also used in Nottinghamshire, Lincolnshire and Cumbria.
Leicestershire is also a pilot area for community budgeting, and also operates an array of schemes for families with complex needs. These projects have significant crossovers, both at local, and at national level. It would be reassuring to see acknowledgment of this within the national platforms.
Lincolnshire - The Lincolnshire pilot work is county wide and incorporates seven districts, the County Council, three Registered Social Landlords, Fire and Rescue and the Police. Call takers now use an Aide Memoire to establish high risk, vulnerable or repeat victims and will deploy as appropriate. Opportunities for having ‘virtual’ risk assessment meetings are being explored.
The current national anti-social behaviour pilots have trialled a ‘harm-based’ approach to tackling anti-social behaviour. Learning from these pilot areas needs to be incorporated and considered in any new approaches to tackling anti-social behaviour.
23
INTEgRATEd nEighbouRhood MAnAgEMEnT
An integrated neighbourhood management approach has been developed within Greater Manchester, together with initiatives such as ‘Early Years’ and ‘Life Chances’. Pilot sites have adopted innovative and flexible ways of shared working at neighbourhood level. Integrated neighbourhood management is driven by joint intelligence on the people and places that bring the highest demand and thus cost to neighbourhoods. As well as chaotic families dependent upon a lifestyle of welfare and public service provision, the focus could equally be persistent offenders or the most vulnerable within that community. Integrated neighbourhood management could have clear benefits in reducing anti-social behaviour.
Bury East
In Bury East, partners are working with specific families to break the dependency on public service support and reduce high demand for services. It was identified that certain families in Bury East have a disproportionate demand on services which costs between £250,000 and £330,000 each year. A single case management process has been designed and implemented to provide a fully integrated response to issues. The process focuses on high risk, high cost individuals, families and locations. Projected savings of £161,094 for just one complex family from an original cost of £273,565 have been identified. An advanced ‘cost calculator’ has been developed to track and evaluate the benefits of working together and provide evidence of cost savings. The costing model informs agencies of the costs incurred whilst working with families with diverse needs. The information can be used to facilitate timely decisions about the type, costs and success of interventions.
Together with a realignment of resources and service delivery arrangements, daily tasking now takes place through Six Town Housing with a single line of leadership structure. Daily tasking involves Housing Officers, Anti-Social Behaviour Case Workers, Area Officers, Police Officers and Police Community Support Officers, Children’s Services and Offender Management. This provides a comprehensive and efficient means of sharing information.
Better Life Chances Daily Tasking Meeting
Point Blue, Six Town Housing
•Actionsfrompreviousmeeting
•Offenders(localoffenders/ arrests / bail conditions / prison releases)
•Crime/ASB/Incidents&Threats/Stop&Accounts
•VulnerablePeople/Missingfrom Home – repeats/Hate Crime/GMFR home check requests
•Cohortoffamilies
•Events/Operations/DiaryDates
•RecapActions/Summary
•AOB
Daily Tasking
* Input from
agencies i.e. latest incidents
Update Tasking ActionSheet
DailyTaskingMeeting
Furtherinformation
fromagenciesto add?
Agree bestcourse
of action
Service delivery problem?
Refer toNeighbourhood
• Recommend ServiceDelivery review
• Resources• Commissioning
review
Is this a reoccurring
individual / family?
Does this meetcriteria for ICM
Refer to CaseManagement
Panel
• Action plan• Lead Agency• Engagement
Develop case history and
apply
Monitor against setYes
Yes
Reviewoutstanding
Single lineof leadership
to taskappropriante
Result
Transforming Services Board
/ Partner Agencies
* Source:• Intergrated
Neighbourhood Team Inbox
• PACE SETTER• Community• IOM
24
Little Hulton, Salford
The Little Hulton ‘Life Chances’ pilot has involved partnership work between GMP, Health Improvement, Job Centre Plus, Neighbourhood Management, Children’s Services (including Connexions and Youth Offending), Probation, Greater Manchester West Mental Health Services, Salford Drug and Alcohol Services, City West Housing Trust and Skills and Work Services. The pilot has also focused on complex families. It has been demonstrated that, for example, one family costs more than £200,000 per year on top of normal costs for public services, with more than 250 interventions from agencies including the council, police, housing and health service. These interventions included 109 hours of police officer time, 58 call outs, five arrests and children being placed on supervision orders. There were also five occasions of hospitalisation and two housing injunctions taken out against the family. A more proactive approach has helped the family and reduced the impact on public resources. The reduced cost for this family was a saving of more than two thirds of the original £200,000 of reactive costs.
Partington, Trafford
The Life Chances and the Early Years pilots in Partington have provided much stronger local management through improved and mainstreamed partnership delivery arrangements. This has been achieved through creating a targeted multi-agency, ‘one team’ approach to issues affecting the neighbourhood, families and individuals in Partington in order to reduce dependency and help improve people’s life chances.
The pilot specifically references key contact points at an early years stage, barriers to employment and the detrimental effect of anti-social behaviour on a community. The pilot tests how this integrated public service delivery team can task and coordinate delivery on key drivers of deprivation and challenge current ways of working to create efficiencies in service delivery through personalisation of services.
Activity so far has seen a focus on worklessness through an action plan concentrating on health, well being and supporting residents of Partington in returning to the work place.
Residents/Individuals reporting an incident
RegisteredSocial
Landlords
ReactSystem
PartingtonParish
Council
CommunityMembers
TraffordCouncillor
TraffordControlRoom
ASB/Community
Safety
TrackingSystem OPUS ABS
Tracker
YOIS
UMIS
TrackingSystem
Police999Calls
Police5050Calls
VictimSupport
YouthOffendingServices
BroadoakSchool
Trafford Watch
Partington ASB Model
Actions by partnersDevelop points of contacts
Targeting complexfamilies
Location OffendersVictims
Intelligence Hub Predictivemapping Database tasking
Triage Approach - Central IT real-time system
Tiered Approach Assessment
System/Process Re-engineering Partington customer journey - Reporting an ASB incident
25
The pilot has also seen successes with its changes to delivery in relation to anti-social behaviour, enabling partners to get more from the joint working arrangements and improve outcomes for local people. The Housing Association now has oversight of incidents which they were previously unaware of, enabling them to take appropriate tenancy action.
A spreadsheet for sharing information has been developed with a view to developing it into a tailored IT solution. A central IT recording system would ensure that all divisional partners have access to relevant data on incidents of anti-social behaviour and can task each other accordingly.
26
LOCAL COmmUNITIES TACkling AnTi-SoCiAl bEhAviouR
The report by Baroness Newlove, ‘Our vision for safe and active communities’ outlines recommendations to government, local agencies and communities to help to make safe and happy communities a reality.
Offerton in Stockport is one of seven areas highlighted in the report. ‘You Say, We Pay’ community funding enabled a number of community projects to become a reality. These have included theatre workshops with local young people on issues such as anti-social behaviour and domestic violence.
A Neighbourhood Agreement is being developed in Offerton, through discussion about the environment and anti-social behaviour. Communication on the estate has been improved through the use of social media and a Facebook page has been set up.
GMPA Officers carried out consultation on anti-social behaviour and policing priorities with attendees at the second ‘You Say, We Pay’ community budgeting event. The Chair of the Police Authority and the Local Authority Member were also present at the participatory budgeting event along with a representative from the Home Office.
Sale Moor in Trafford is also included as a case study in the report as an example where crime has been cut and confidence in the police has improved.
In July 2011, the Home Office announced two new funds totalling £14 million to the voluntary sector to empower communities to take action against crime and anti-social behaviour. The two funds are the ‘Community Action Against Crime: Innovation Fund’ to bring together active citizens and encourage new and creative ways of working within communities to tackle crime; and the ‘Choices Fund’, to support the development of local solutions to reduce substance misuse and offending by young people.
Other initiatives have also been announced including social impact bonds, a form of outcomes-based contract in which public sector commissioners commit to pay for significant improvement in social outcomes. Through a Social Impact Bond, private investment is used to pay for interventions, which are delivered by service providers with a proven track record. Financial returns to investors are made by the public sector on the basis of improved social outcomes. If outcomes do not improve, then investors do not recover their investment.
Anti-social behaviour in Prestwich, Bury
At the GMPA Local Policing and Partnerships Committee on 3rd March, 2011, there was a discussion about the Home Office Consultation on the proposals to provide more effective responses to anti-social behaviour including the ‘Community Trigger’ designed to provide victims and communities with the right to require agencies to deal with persistent anti-social behaviour. An elected member on the Committee (and also Member of the Scrutiny Commission) raised the issue of a number of letters from several residents that had been received in relation to numerous complaints of anti-social behaviour in a neighbouring address on their estate. The letters largely related to an apparent lack of action by partners in dealing with the tenant from late 2008 onwards.
An initial meeting with residents to hear their concerns was also attended by representatives from Salix Homes, the organisation that manages the estate. A follow-up meeting to discuss future arrangements was convened several weeks later during which time possession of the property was granted and the tenant was evicted. The follow-up meeting was attended by neighbourhood police officers and agreement was eventually reached on a way forward.
It was agreed that a regular monthly meeting take place involving the local police officer and Salix Homes, at which a representative from the tenants’ group can attend and raise any concerns. The meeting would cover: actions from the previous meeting; new or emerging problems; agreement of an action plan and joint leaflets to be produced after every meeting to update residents.
Anti-social behaviour in Prestwich, Bury
27
yOUNg PEOPLE And AnTi-SoCiAl bEhAviouR
The report ‘Time for a Fresh Start’ was discussed in the House of Lords on 30th March, 2011. The report was produced by the Independent Commission on Youth Crime and Anti-social Behaviour, which was set up by the Police Foundation in 2008 with funding from the Nuffield Foundation. This was supplemented with additional funding from the Paul Hamlyn Foundation for a youth engagement exercise which ensured that the commission received direct input from young people. During the debate in the House of Lords, GMP was cited in relation to a positive example of restorative justice.
The Independent Commission recommended a greater emphasis on prevention and early intervention to help communities and institutions such as schools and care homes. It also welcomed the use of restorative, problem solving approaches within such organisations working with young people.
VULNERABILITy And viCTiMS
The HMIC report, ‘Re-thinking the policing of anti-social behaviour’, 2010 indicates that some individuals and groups are more vulnerable to the effects of anti-social behaviour and are more likely to be harmed by exposure to it.
Analysis of relevant results from the British Crime Survey would indicate that:
Young people are just as likely as older people to identify anti-social behaviour as a local problem;
Individuals living in urban and particularly less affluent urban areas are more likely to be repeat victims and perceive that their area has high levels of anti-social behaviour;
These patterns are reinforced and amplified for those living in the social rented housing sector, when compared with residents in the private rented sector and home owners;
Households with children are more likely to report multiple repeat exposures to anti-social behaviour compared with those who don’t have children;
People who have a disability or a long-term health condition are far more likely to report that anti-social behaviour has a high impact on their quality of life; and
People with a disability have less confidence in the police compared with people who do not self-define as having a disability.
28
The report also states that analysis of the drivers of vulnerability has a practical relevance and provides a way for police to quickly risk assess members of the public reporting anti-social behaviour in order to establish the likelihood of them being particularly vulnerable.
Effectively, the police need to establish two pieces of information at the point of report:
Has the person experienced this or other anti-social behaviour previously?
Are they currently in ill health, or do they consider themselves disabled?
The Code of Practice for Victims of Crime describes vulnerable victims as all vulnerable victims under 17 years old or whose quality of evidence is likely to be reduced because they have a mental disorder or learning disability or a physical disability or disorder. It highlights intimidated victims, as victims whose quality of evidence is likely to be reduced because they are in fear or distress about giving evidence. The code of practice does not currently apply to vulnerable or intimidated victims of anti-social behaviour, only to victims of crime.
The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) has produced its final investigation report into the review of the response from Greater Manchester Police to repeat calls from David Askew (deceased) and his family regarding anti-social behaviour. Greater Manchester Police accepted all ten of the recommendations made in the Individual Management Report. Greater Manchester Police is addressing the recommendations of the report and, in addition to an input given to all divisions on hate crime, a bespoke training package is being developed which will focus on this key issue.
Recommendations made by the IPCC in the final investigation report into the contact between Fiona Pilkington and Leicestershire Constabulary 2004-2007 included:
the need to record a result before an incident is closed;
improved information sharing regarding issues and people in local areas;
the need for any definition of a vulnerable person to reflect a person’s circumstances as well as them as an individual;
the need to provide clearer guidelines outlining the difference between anti-social behaviour and harassment; and
needs to be considered when any analytical work is undertaken around reported incidents.
In their Hate Crime Research Report, ‘Don’t stand by’, Mencap claim that ‘many police services are still failing to take hate crime against people with a learning disability seriously’ and call for the police to make similar improvements in the approach to disability hate crime as have been made in the approach to racist incidents.
Mencap also refer to continued reports of incidents being dismissed as ‘only anti-social behaviour’ with little or no real action being taken and highlight the ‘massive impact’ that so called ’low-level’ incidents have on the quality of people’s lives, making some people with a disability afraid to leave their homes and afraid to take part in the everyday activities that other people take for granted.
The report makes many recommendations, which are summarised as follows:
clear structures for dealing with disability hate crime including management and accountability arrangements;
dedicated officers with responsibility for dealing with hate crime;
careful consideration in building trust and engagement with people with a learning disability;
build partnerships with disabled people’s organisations;
review hate crime policies and guidance on dealing with hate crime;
practical training and awareness of hate crime;
consistent and systematic recording of hate crime;
routine analysis of intelligence and data;
encouragement of wider third party reporting; and
police services to work with relevant agencies to improve conviction and prosecution rates.
GMP held a Disability Hate Crime Event on 20th June, 2011 with speakers including Chief Superintendent Zoe Sheard (Tameside Divisional Commander), Kathryn Stone (Chief Executive of Voice UK), Alison Mutch of the Crown Prosecution Service and Superintendent Paul Giannasi from the Ministry of Justice / Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO). The event was interactive and allowed people to contribute using laptops throughout the proceedings. The event was attended by police officers and staff from across Greater Manchester and the region. Members of the GMPA Anti-Social Behaviour Scrutiny Commission were also invited. Progress of this work will continue to be monitored by the Authority.
29
gREATER mANCHESTER PoliCE AuThoRiTy iniTiATivES
The Authority has developed a number of initiatives to provide activities and opportunities for young people. In June 2010, Greater Manchester Police Authority approached GreaterSport to explore opportunities to work together and provide support to enhance the quality and quantity of Greater Manchester athletes and coaches. ‘Quality coaching enhances health and well being, promotes fair play and builds social cohesion and self esteem. Throughout the UK, great coaches help to develop leadership and teamwork, change individual behaviour and improve quality of life, Sports Coach UK (2008). In the UK there are more than one million adults providing coaching to an estimated five million sports participants per week. Coaches are vital for sport and it’s clear that effective coaching plays an essential role in developing, sustaining and increasing participation in sport.
An agreement was reached in January 2011 between the Police Authority and Manchester Football Association to develop football in Manchester and use the power of football to contribute positively to GMPA objectives. This has involved part-funding activities for developing young referees and volunteers, training in relation to volunteers and parents working with disability teams, education linked to the RESPECT campaign and social inclusion activity with the Refugee World Cup.
The Police Property Act Fund is made up of monies received by the police from property confiscated by order of court and then sold. The Police Authority administers the fund and considers applications from voluntary organisations and community groups within the Greater Manchester area. The main aim of the fund is to support local projects undertaken by voluntary and charitable organisations that benefit the communities of Greater Manchester, especially those which have a positive impact in reducing crime and disorder at a local level.
In the report ‘Hidden in plain sight: Inquiry into disability-related harassment’ the Equality and Human Rights Commission reinforce the fact that disabled people are disproportionately affected by anti-social behaviour and are more likely to experience it than non-disabled people and more likely to be harmed by it. It also highlights that anti-social behaviour and crime may be dismissed as motiveless rather than investigated as potentially disability-related.
The following key areas are set out for the police:
Increase reporting of harassment;
Investigate, recognise and record harassment as disability related;
Provide better support for disabled victims;
Recognise that disability-related motivation may exist alongside other motives;
Improve investigation and evidence gathering;
Intervene effectively to prevent escalation; and
Improve communication with other agencies.
In 2011, Greater Manchester Police Authority carried out a comprehensive scrutiny review of Victim Satisfaction. The review stemmed from recognition that victim satisfaction was a key threat to performance. The main issues covered in the review were:
The vision for customer service in GMP;
Barriers to improving victim satisfaction;
Performance relating to victim satisfaction;
Victim satisfaction improvement plans and the customer service strategy;
Use of information to improve service delivery to victims;
The development and implementation of customer service desks;
Other work designed to improve victim satisfaction; and
The feasibility and desirability of streamlining survey work around victim satisfaction.
30
BUdgETARy ChAllEngES
The comprehensive spending review has presented funding challenges for all partners in relation to crime prevention and reduction. Estimated budget cuts faced by Greater Manchester Police and local authorities in 2011-12 exceed £85 million. The impact of these cuts may affect crime, victims and demands on the Force and partners.
Cuts in Youth Services and reduction in youth provision could lead to an increased risk of anti-social behaviour and young people involved in crime and gang related activity.
Reforms of the Housing Benefit system which came into effect in April, 2011, could place increase financial pressure on tenants, migration to low rent areas and place additional demand on services involved in the management of families with complex needs.
The Family Pathfinder programme launched in 2007 to develop responses to the needs of families who face multiple and complex social, economic, health and child problems. 27 local authorities took part in the project. The final evaluation was published in 2011. Results showed significant improvement in outcomes for nearly half (46%) of families supported by the Family Pathfinders and nearly a third (31%) of the families supported by the Young Carer Pathfinders. Areas were able to demonstrate savings to local partners, so that for every £1 spent, the Family Pathfinders generated a financial return of £1.90. On entry to support, concerns relating to anti-social behaviour existed for 6% of all family members. The evidence suggests that concerns in relation to anti-social behaviour were reduced by 48% on exit from Pathfinder support.
31
REPORT RECoMMEndATionS
32
The Greater Manchester Police Authority Scrutiny Commission would urge the Force to continue the work to ensure consistent grading and correct coding of incidents. This will help the Force and partners to provide a better, more appropriate response to people who suffer and report anti-social behaviour.
1
It is recommended that any training of staff and officers in dealing with victims of anti-social behaviour, harassment and disability hate crime should fully consider the needs of the victim. This should include full recognition of the need to provide reassurance and acknowledge the impact that such incidents can have on people’s quality of life.
2
Improvements in recording anti-social behaviour incidents will also provide more accurate performance information and analysis. The Authority would also encourage the Force and partners to make better use of available analysis and analytical products in tackling anti-social behaviour.
3
The Scrutiny Commission recommends that where appropriate, Restorative Justice and reparation should be considered as part of the revised anti-social behaviour legislative tools. We would also encourage the continued use of victim-focused, restorative, problem-solving approaches within organisations working with young people.
4
The Scrutiny Commission endorses the use of informal tools and out-of-court disposals in dealing with anti-social behaviour incidents. We recognise fully that early intervention can be key in reducing future offending.
5
The Scrutiny Commission recommends that comprehensive and appropriate training materials be made available for practitioners when new powers to tackle anti-social behaviour are introduced.
6
The Scrutiny Commission would emphasise that effective communication of the changes is extremely important in order that the public understand the implications of the new or revised powers.
7
The Scrutiny Commission supports, in principle, the proposals to introduce positive requirements and supportive elements into anti-social behaviour legislative tools. However, we would emphasise that the effectiveness of such measures is dependent on the availability and capacity of appropriate services and resources.
8
Integrated Neighbourhood Management and various pilot studies have demonstrated clear benefits of shared working at neighbourhood level in tackling issues including anti-social behaviour. The Scrutiny Commission would urge GMP to ensure it makes full use of any learning that emerges from the pilots.
9
The Scrutiny Commission would stress that all partners should recognise fully that working with complex families, early intervention and preventative work can result in large savings in reactive costs and reduce the impact on public resources. The Force should ensure that this consideration is taken into account in future work focusing on tackling anti-social behaviour.
10
The Scrutiny Commission recognises that the national Anti-Social Behaviour Pilots will provide learning on the assessment of risk, identification of vulnerability and the use of technology, and would urge the Force to ensure it applies such learning to best effect.
11
The Scrutiny Commission would urge the Force, Authority and partners to continue to seek opportunities to use technology and social media in engaging with communities on relevant issues such as anti-social behaviour.
12
The current Code of Practice for Victims of Crime should be amended to include specific provision for vulnerable and intimidated victims of anti-social behaviour.13
Consideration should be given to developing a new Code of Practice which caters for the particular needs of vulnerable victims of crime and anti-social behaviour.14
ConCluSionS
Part of the difficulty in reviewing anti-social behaviour is the difference in perceptions about anti-social behaviour and the link between anti-social behaviour, increased disorder and crime. The GMPA Anti-Social Behaviour Scrutiny Commission has explored the definition of anti-social behaviour during the review. The definitions considered in the National Standard of Incident Recording are outlined in the report together with the new categories of incidents which are linked to identifying vulnerability.
The number of anti-social behaviour incidents recorded by Greater Manchester Police has reduced by more than a quarter when compared to the previous year. This represents almost 38,000 fewer incidents. Neighbourhood surveys show a continued improvement in the perception of high levels of anti-social behaviour since the current methodology was introduced. More than half the people surveyed agree that police and local authorities are dealing with anti-social behaviour and crime issues that matter.
Accurate recording and consistent grading of anti-social behaviour incidents will help the force and partners to provide a better, more appropriate response to people who suffer and report anti-social behaviour. Improvements in recording anti-social behaviour incidents will also provide more accurate performance information and analysis.
Locally and nationally there has been a great deal of progress in identifying need and risk, case management and partnership delivery. Greater focus is now made on the service needs of the victim and a harm-based approach to tackling anti-social behaviour is becoming more evident.
Any training of staff and officers in dealing with victims of anti-social behaviour, harassment and disability hate crime should fully consider the needs of the victim, recognising the need to provide reassurance and acknowledge the impact incidents have on people’s quality of life.
The benefits of joint working and effective methods of sharing information between partners is clearly demonstrated in the highlighted examples of integrated
neighbourhood management. The work in Salford and Bury in the Life Chances pilots provided evidence of massive savings that can be achieved through working with high risk, high cost individuals and families.
Government proposals contained in the consultation on more effective responses to anti-social are largely welcomed by the GMPA Anti-Social Behaviour Scrutiny Commission. However, comprehensive training materials should also be made available for practitioners when new powers to tackle anti-social behaviour are introduced. Communication of the changes is extremely important so that the public may understand the implications of the new or revised powers.
The GMPA Anti-Social Behaviour Scrutiny Commission supports the proposals to introduce positive requirements and supportive elements into anti-social behaviour legislative tools but would emphasise that the effectiveness of these measures is dependent on the availability and capacity of services and resources.
The recent comprehensive spending review has presented funding challenges for all partners in relation to crime prevention and reduction. Estimates of budget cuts faced by Greater Manchester Police and local authorities in 2011-12 exceed £85 million. The impact of these cuts will affect crime, victims and the demands on the force and partners.
The Scrutiny Commission recommends that where appropriate, Restorative Justice and reparation should be considered as part of the revised anti-social behaviour legislative tools. We would also encourage the use of victim-focused, restorative, problem-solving approaches within organisations working with young people.
The Commission supports the use of informal tools and out-of-court disposals in dealing with anti-social behaviour in a proportionate way, as early intervention is key in reducing future offending.
The Code of Practice for Victims of crime should not simply relate to crime but also to the level of risk and harm (or perceived harm). The Commission believes that any new victims’ code should also include provision for vulnerable and intimidated victims of anti-social behaviour.
34
BIBLIOgRAPHy And SouRCES
ACPO (2011) Anti-Social Behaviour Portfolio response to ‘More Effective Responses to Anti-Social Behaviour’
AGMA Public Protection Commission (2011) Integrated Management, Update Report
CJS (2009) The Code of Practice for Victims of Crime – A guide for victims
DFE (2011) Turning around the lives of families with multiple problems – an evaluation of the family and Young Carer Pathfinders Programme
EHRC (2011) Hidden in plain sight, Inquiry into disability-related harassment
GMPA (2011) Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) Inspection Report, Report of the Chief Constable to the Local Policing and Partnerships Committee, 3rd March, 2011
GMPA Anti-Social Behaviour Scrutiny Commission (2011) Response To Home Office Consultation, More Effective Responses To Anti-Social Behaviour
GMPA Scrutiny Review of Victim Satisfaction (2011)
HMIC (2010) Greater Manchester Police Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB)
HMIC (2010) Greater Manchester Police Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) Revisit December 2010
Home Office (2011) More Effective Responses to Anti-Social Behaviour
Innes, M. and Weston, N. (2010) Re-thinking the policing of anti-social behaviour, a report prepared for HMIC
Independent Commission on Youth Crime and Anti-Social Behaviour (2010) Time for a fresh start
IPCC (2009) Report into the contact between Fiona Pilkington and Leicestershire Constabulary 2004-2007
IPCC (2010) Mr David Askew (Deceased) Contact with Greater Manchester Police
Mencap (2011) Don’t Stand By, Hate crime research report
Newlove, Baroness H, (2011) Our vision for safe and active communities
NPIA (2011) The National Standard for Incident Recording NSIR 2011 Incorporating the National Incident Category List Instructions for Police Forces in England and Wales Effective from 1 April 2011
Sports Coach UK (2008) Annual Report 2007-08
35
ACknowlEdgEMEnTS
Inspector Jim Baker (West Mercia Police)
Claire Brown-Allan (GMP)
Philip Coope (Blackpool Council)
Assistant Chief Constable Simon Edens (West Mercia Police, ACPO Lead for Anti-social Behaviour)
James Gibbs (Voice UK)
Sarah Keen (Trafford Borough Council)
Lorraine Kenny (Oldham Borough Council)
Inspector Jonathan Kelly (GMP)
Eamon Lynch (Social Landlords Crime and Nuisance Group)
Constable Damien Malone (GMP)
David McNulty (GMPTE)
Stuart Millington (GMAC)
Inspector Stuart Pemberton (GMP)
Assistant Chief Constable Garry Shewan
Sylvia Simpson (Bolton at Home)
Carole Smith (Victim Support and Witness Services)
Michelle Smythe (Six Town Housing, Bury)
Inspector Jim Troisi (GMP)
David Walsh (Salford City Council)
AGMA ASB Theme Group
GMP Divisional Commanders
Salix Homes
36
