IMPROVING THE PARTNERSHIP RESPONSE TO

ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR IN SOUTH WALES:An Assessment Of Processes And Outcomes

Universities’ Police Science InstituteSefydliad y Prifysgolion ar Wyddorau’r Heddlu

Improving the partnership response to Anti-Social Behaviour in South Wales:

an assessment of processes and outcomes

Trudy Lowe

Universities’ Police Science Institute

Improving the partnership response to Social Behaviour in South Wales:

an assessment of processes and outcomes

Final Report

(Amended 03/11/11)

Trudy Lowe, Helen Innes and Martin Innes

Universities’ Police Science Institute Cardiff University

November 2011

Improving the partnership response to Social Behaviour in South Wales:

an assessment of processes and outcomes

2 | P a g e

CONTENTS

Page

Background and Context...................................................................................

3

The South Wales Police Project........................................................................

4

Research Design................................................................................................

5

Process Assessment: Quantitative Findings......................................................

6

Process Assessment: Qualitative Findings........................................................

15

Outcome Assessment........................................................................................

22

Conclusions.......................................................................................................

24

Appendix 1: Common Minimum Standards.....................................................

27

3 | P a g e

BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT This document reports key findings from an assessment of the progress made by South Wales Police (SWP) and the seven Community Safety Partnerships (CSPs) across South Wales in improving their management of anti-social behaviour problems (ASB). The work reported on forms part of a wider series of field trials being overseen by the Home Office, which are collectively intended to develop innovation and good practice in terms of responding effectively and efficiently to such issues. The Home Office programme was itself partly a response to the findings of an inspection of the policing of ASB conducted by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) in 2010 which found, amongst other things, that:

• There were significant variations in the processes and systems being used in different parts of the country to respond to ASB;

• There were equally wide variations in terms of comparative performance across a range of indicators;

• Generally, there was a lack of victim and public focus in terms of how ASB was being managed.

More recently, these issues and the need to leverage improvement and reform have been provided with further impetus as the scale of the cuts in public service spending have become apparent. Given the overall volume of ASB incidents that occur, together with the harm that they do to quality of life and the resilience of neighbourhoods, it is becoming increasingly important to ensure that agency responses are targeted, impactive and effective. Set against this backdrop, Safer South Wales (SSW), an umbrella organisation comprising South Wales Police and the seven CSPs, sought to use their participation in the Home Office programme as an opportunity to introduce some fairly ambitious changes to their processes and systems. Specifically, the following aims were set for the project:

1) To introduce common minimum standards for all CSP partners in six key strategic areas of ASB service provision.

2) To support the above via the introduction of a new ASB database that will

provide improved data-sharing between partner agencies.

3) Through these reforms, to improve the quality of service provided to victims of ASB and the public.

As is detailed in the main body of the report, for a variety of reasons not all of these aims have been accomplished. However, there is some evidence to suggest that progress and improvement has resulted from the project. The explanation for this only partial success is the ambition and ‘stretch’ of the aspiration, and also the changed economic climate.

4 | P a g e

THE SOUTH WALES POLICE PROJECT

SWP are responsible for a large region of Wales comprising seven Local Authority areas:

• Cardiff

• Swansea

• Bridgend

• The Vale of Glamorgan (Glamorgan)

• Neath Port Talbot (NPT)

• Rhondda Cynon Taff (RCT)

• Merthyr Tydfil (Merthyr)

There are some stark contrasts in both the geography and communities in the different areas, from thriving urban centres, to the rural Welsh Valleys and both historical and contemporary industrial heartlands.

Following the review of the Fiona Pilkington case in Leicestershire, SSW began its own process of examining the comparative performance of each of the seven CSPs’ ASB Units and its findings were re-enforced by an HMIC inspection in 2010. Each unit is jointly staffed by police officers/civilians and Local Authority staff, although their size is variable and working practices have evolved separately, with each having different functional areas of strength and weakness. They concluded that, whilst it would be neither possible nor desirable to implement an identical structure within each unit, there was a need to identify and share effective best practice across the region and to implement common minimum standards. In short, ensuring a high level and consistent ASB service provision across the region should become a partnership priority.

SSW agreed six key strategic areas around which it needed to develop partnership ASB service delivery:

• Contact Management;

• Initial Response;

• ASB Units;

• Repeat and Vulnerable Victims;

• Hotspot Management;

• ASB Case Review Forums. The Safer South Wales Advisory Group (SSWAG) produced a partnership-wide ASB strategy and put in place a Delivery Group of ASB managers, chaired by a Chief Inspector from the SWP Communities and Partnership function. The group worked on identifying shared principles and standards which underpin the six key strategic areas and established a set of shared common minimum standards of delivery (Appendix 1). Each CSP carried out a gap analysis and put in place an action plan to implement the changes required. To aid improved practice, partners invested in a jointly owned, web hosted ASB database (“ASBIT”) to improve data sharing and case management across partner agencies.

5 | P a g e

RESEARCH DESIGN The original research design for this project was formulated around a multiple-methods strategy. It was envisaged that several empirical data sources could be drawn upon to inform the assessment at three points in time. First, a ‘baselining’ exercise would be conducted to draw a measure prior to any interventions. This was to be followed by a qualitative assessment of the process of implementing practical changes. Finally, the procedures associated with the baseline research would be repeated to determine what, if any, changes had taken place. Early on however it became apparent that this research design would require revision. It had originally been envisaged that the assessment would be informed by telephone survey data collected by SWP from ASB victims in relation to their experiences and perceptions. However, faced with unprecedented cuts to their budget, in June 2011 SWP took the decision to cease surveying ASB victims. Due to the very limited funding available to support data collection for the purposes of assessment, it was not possible to find an alternative source of empirical data on public satisfaction to support this ‘pre-post’ design. Therefore, it was agreed that the assessment process would have to be based upon data collected from CSP and police staff involved in ASB work. The views of these workers were collected through two methods:

• Semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted with key representatives from each of the CSP ASB Units. These interviews asked them: a series of questions about ASB problems in the local area; to self-assess the performance of their CSP; and to identify ways that the service provided to ASB victims and the public could be improved.

• In addition, a web-survey using structured response questions was designed with the link to the survey being distributed to all CSP staff via their management structures. This survey asked respondents to self-assess their CSP’s performance, where improvements could be made, and whether improvements had occurred under the auspices of the Home Office programme.

In addition, there was significant slippage in relation to the timescales for the delivery of the ASBIT database. This meant that it did not become fully operational and thus available for partners usage until the trial period had nearly concluded. On these grounds the assessment conducted has been shaped to focus upon Aims 1 and 2 that were originally set for the project.

6 | P a g e

PROCESS ASSESSMENT: QUANTITATIVE FINDINGS

Sample The web survey yielded 83 responses in total. Figure 1 shows that half of the sample named their employer as being either Cardiff based (council, YOS, or Housing Association) or SWP. Just over 20 percent of the sample was employed by RCT CSP and approximately 1 in 10 replied that their employer was based in either NPT, Vale of Glamorgan or Swansea. Employers in Bridgend and Merthyr Tydfil were not well represented in this sample. Figure 1: Percentage of respondents by employer

Respondents were asked to give the title of their main job. Table 1 groups the responses into categories of ASB, PCSO or Police, community based work, operational work and other types of job. The table shows that more than one-third of respondents were working in the area of ASB, most commonly as a co-ordinator, case worker or officer. Twenty percent of respondents in the survey had an operational work role, for example being a project officer or manager, whilst 17 percent responded gave a job title focused on community based work such as engagement, safety or welfare. A further 17 percent were employed by the police as an officer or PCSO and the remainder of the sample had job titles in different areas including housing and schools. Figure 2 shows the CSP regions covered by respondents’ work role. Although only 1 percent named their employer as being based in Bridgend or Merthyr Tydfil (Figure 1), 6 percent in this survey did work covering these areas. The vast majority of respondents (90 percent) worked in a single CSP region, with 6 percent covering two regions and 2 percent working in five areas. The latter were both Cardiff based, working as an ASB co-ordinator or a housing manager.

6

10

24

27

9

1

21

1 1

Swansea City/ YOS

NPT/ NPT Homes

Cardiff Council/ YOS/ Newydd HA

SWP

VoG/ Safer Vale partnership

Bridgend

RCT

Caerphilly/ United Welsh

Merthyr Tydfil

7 | P a g e

Table 1: Categories of main job title

Main job N %

ASB 29 36

ASB co-ordinator 10 12

ASB case worker/officer 12 15

ASB case manager/ team leader 4 5

ASB admin 3 4

PCSO/ Police 14 17

PCSO 7 9

Police Officer 7 9

Community 14 17

Community engagement 4 5

Community safety/ welfare 8 10

Community enforcement 2 3

Operations 16 20

Operational manager 8 10

Operational info officer/ analyst 2 3

Project worker/ support officer 6 7

Other 8 10

Housing manager/ officer 2 3

Young people, education, schools 4 5

Senior practitioner restorative justice 1 1

Victim's Champion 1 1 Figure 2: CSP regions covered by work role (%)

6

39

615

27

8

15Bridgend

Cardiff

Merthyr

Neath/ Port Talbot

Rhondda Cynon Taf

Swansea

VoG

8 | P a g e

Table 2: Main function of work role N %

Management/ supervisory 29 35

Public facing service delivery 40 48

Administration / support 12 15

Data analysis 2 2

Nearly half of the respondents in the survey were in a public facing service delivery role, with a further 35 percent occupying a management or supervisory position (Table 2). A much smaller percentage was engaged in data analysis or administrative support. Only 2 people in this survey had worked for their employer for less than a year but 9 people had worked for their employer for 20 or more years. Managers and supervisors were most likely to have been with their employer for 10 or more years, with those in a public facing or administrative role most likely to have been with the same employer for shorter time (1-4 years).

Findings The survey asked respondents a series of attitudinal questions about their CSP, including their appraisals of its overall performance and its effectiveness on various tasks including anti-social behaviour. Where possible we report differences in attitudes by work role or place. However, these results should be interpreted with caution owing to the small numbers in the survey. Overall Performance over last twelve months

• The majority of respondents said that the overall performance of their local CSP had got better in the last year (Table 3).

Table 3: Overall CSP performance assessment

Overall performance %

Got better 55

Stayed same 31

Got worse 10

Don’t know 4

• Managers and supervisors were more likely to say performance had ‘got better’ (59 percent) compared with those in a public facing service delivery role (45 percent).

9 | P a g e

• Respondents whose job title indicated a community based role were much more likely to say that performance had ‘got better’ over the last year (86 percent) compared with those doing police work (57 percent) or working in anti-social behaviour (59 percent). Those in an operational role were least likely to give a positive view of performance with only 44 percent noting an improvement.

• Breaking down the overall findings by CSP (Table 4) showed that those whose work role covered Cardiff were least likely to say that overall performance had got better (44 percent). It should be noted that base survey response numbers from Swansea, Bridgend and Merthyr1 CSPs were very low and therefore it is not possible to draw any meaningful conclusions from the data. They are combined in this analysis as ‘Other’ for comparison only.

Table 4: % in each CSP region responding that overall performance had ‘got better’

Cardiff NPT VoG RCT Other

Got better (%)

44 67 58 55 53

N=

32 12 12 22 15

Respondents were also asked to indicate what they felt were the most significant factors underlying their assessment of overall CSP performance. Each individual was asked to choose up to three factors from a list presented in the survey: Table 5 shows the percentage of respondents who chose each one, arranged according to whether their overall performance assessment was ‘got better’, ‘got worse’ or ‘stayed the same’ (NB. As each respondent chose up to three factors in total, the percentage that chose each does not necessarily sum to 100). The most significant three factors in each case are highlighted but it is important to note the very small numbers in some categories meaning that the results are suggestive here rather than conclusive.

• Co-ordination between partners, the quality of analysis and a change of strategic focus were the three most cited factors underlying an improvement in CSP performance.

• Number of staff and personnel, financial resources and co-ordination between partners were most often cited by those who perceived overall performance has ‘stayed the same’.

• Service demand from other agencies, resources relating to staff, personnel and finance were highlighted by the smaller number of respondents who felt their CSP performance had ‘got worse’, along with the quality of management support.

1 Merthyr Tydfil CSP is small in comparison to the other six and therefore a lower survey response rate was not unexpected.

10 | P a g e

• In RCT, 18 percent felt that the performance of the CSP had ‘got worse’ over the period, much higher than for any of the other CSP regions. But it is important to note that this equates to only 4 responses and it is difficult to interpret this assessment because of the low numbers involved. Descriptively, the significant factors identified by those who felt that the performance of the CSP had ‘got worse’ were in line with the factors identified by the total sample overall.

Table 5: Significant factors underlying overall CSP performance assessment

Assessment of overall CSP performance

Got better Got worse Stayed same

N % N % N %

Co-ordination between partners 44 96 1 13 18 69

Demand for services from other agencies 13 28 4 50 7 27

Demand for services from public 16 35 1 13 8 31

Number of staff and personnel 9 20 3 38 14 54

Quality of analysis 18 39 1 13 2 8

Financial resources 2 4 4 50 12 46

Quality of management support 11 24 3 38 9 35

Wider political environment 0 0 2 25 6 23

Change in performance management 3 7 1 13 1 4

Change of strategic focus 22 48 1 13 1 4

CSP Task Appraisal Respondents were asked to judge how well their local CSP managed key tasks. Table 6 shows the percentage judging tasks as ‘effective’, ‘adequate’ or ‘in need of improvement’.

• Approximately one quarter of respondents said that there was a need to improve how CSP’s establish expectations for the quality of service provided to the public.

• 2 out of 10 respondents did not know how effectively finance and budgets are managed by their CSP and only 22 percent rated this task as being done effectively.

• Working with vulnerable communities and identifying victim needs were viewed as being effectively handled by 39 percent and 41 percent respectively. Although appraised more positively than the other tasks in Table 6, it is notable that at least half of respondents were of the opinion that these key tasks are only performed adequately or are in need of improvement.

11 | P a g e

Table 6: Respondent attitudes towards key CSP tasks (%)

Effective Adequate Needs Improvement

Don’t know

%

Working with vulnerable victims/ communities

39 42 15 5 100

Establishing clear expectations for the quality of service to the public

32 31 26 12 100

Effective financial/ budgetary management

22 37 20 22 100

Identifying and responding to victim needs

41 29 21 10 100

The rating of CSP tasks as ‘effective’ varied by job type (Table 7).

• Those working in the area of ASB were most positive on tasks relating to vulnerable communities and victim needs, but were far less so where financial and budgetary management are concerned.

• The police workers were more likely than any other job type to see expectation management for the quality of public service as an ‘effective’ task achieved by CSP’s but only 2 in 10 viewed financial management as being effectively achieved.

• Workers in a community role had the most positive all-round appraisal of key CSP tasks, including financial management.

• The results suggest that operational workers, such as project workers and analysts are substantially less likely than other job types to endorse the work of CSP’s on key areas of work with vulnerable communities, identifying and responding to victim needs.

Table 7: Percentage appraising tasks as ‘effective’ by job type

ASB PCSO/ Police

Community Operational

Working with vulnerable victims/ communities

52 50 43 19

Establishing clear expectations for the quality of service to the public

24 50 43 27

Effective financial/ budgetary management

10 21 57 19

Identifying and responding to victim needs

52 43 50 25

12 | P a g e

• Over forty percent of respondents whose main role is public-facing service delivery judged their local CSP to be ‘effective’ at working with vulnerable victims/ communities, identifying and responding to victim needs. These percentages were lower for those in a management role at 31 percent and 38 percent respectively.

• One quarter of those in a managerial or supervisory role judged financial and budgetary management to be ‘effective’ compared with only 15 percent of public facing workers.

• Table 8 compares the four largest CSP regions in this survey (Cardiff, NPT, RCT and Vale of Glamorgan). It should be noted that base survey response numbers from Swansea, Bridgend and Merthyr CSPs were very low and therefore it is not possible to draw any meaningful conclusions from their data. They are combined in this analysis as ‘Other’ for comparison only.

Financial and budgetary management was more poorly appraised Cardiff and NPT and judged most effective by employees at Vale of Glamorgan. However, within the Vale area, tasks involving vulnerable communities and victim needs were seen by the vast majority as less than effective. In contrast, Cardiff and NPT were most positively judged on the same two tasks.

• For the sample as a whole, there was a strong positive correlation between attitudes concerning vulnerable communities and responding to victim needs (R2=.62, p<.001). That is, respondents who rate one of these tasks as ‘effective’ were more likely to rate the other task the same (and vice versa). There also existed a positive correlation between expectations for quality of public service and responding to victim needs (R2=.6, p<.001).

Table 8: Percentage in each CSP region who rate key tasks as ‘effective’.

Cardiff NPT RCT VoG Other

Working with vulnerable victims/ communities

44 50 27 8 40

Establishing clear expectations for the quality of service to the public

25 64 41 17 20

Effective financial/ budgetary management

13 17 29 42 20

Identifying and responding to victim needs

31 75 50 8 40

13 | P a g e

ASB Management The survey included a number of questions designed to probe attitudes towards anti-social behaviour. Responses to key attitude statements are given in Table 9 below.

• Approximately three quarters of all respondents agreed that their CSP is effective at problem solving ASB issues.

• There was majority agreement in the sample as a whole that CSP’s are actively seeking to work with community or third sector organisations, that common minimum standards in South Wales will improve inter-agency working and that there is an understanding of local public priorities around ASB.

Table 9: Respondent attitudes towards ASB (%)

ASB attitude Agree Neither Disagree %

The CSP’s I am involved with are effective at problem-solving ASB issues.

76 17 7 100

The CSP’s I am involved with are actively seeking to work with community / third sector organisations to help problem solve ASB issues.

54 33 13 100

The development of common minimum standards for ASB across the CSP’s of South Wales will improve our ability to work with other local agencies.

66 25 8 100

In order to manage ASB issues effectively, CSPs should focus most of their efforts upon repeat offenders.

43 42 15 100

The CSP’s I am involved with fully understand what are the local public priorities in respect of ASB.

61 29 10 100

• There was majority agreement in the sample as a whole that CSP’s are actively seeking to work with community or third sector organisations, that common minimum standards in South Wales will improve inter-agency working and that there is an understanding of local public priorities around ASB.

• Two thirds of respondents felt that common minimum standards for ASB will be beneficial to inter-agency working with only 8% feeling they would be detrimental.

14 | P a g e

• For the sample as a whole, there was a moderate positive correlation between attitudes concerning problem solving ASB issues and understanding local public priorities (R2=.5, p<.001). That is, respondents who agreed with one statement are more likely to appraise the other attitude the same (and vice versa). There also existed a positive correlation between problem solving ASB issues and working with community/ third sector organisations (R2=.47, p<.01).

15 | P a g e

PROCESS ASSESSMENT: QUALITATIVE FINDINGS

Sample Qualitative interviews with one or more key members of staff in each of the seven CSP ASB Units were undertaken during the first two weeks of September 2011. The data collected represents a more in-depth view of the implementation of the SWP project by those directly responsible for ASB service delivery across the region, creating a ‘richer’ picture than that provided by the survey data alone. Using this dataset it is possible to explore: the existing processes in place within different CSPs prior to project implementation; initial reactions to the project from different ASB Units and the developing impact of its implementation over the field trial period; and the enablers and inhibitors for the its ongoing success in improving outcomes for the management of ASB in South Wales.

Findings During the trial period, a number of themes emerged within the views of practitioners that had a direct impact upon the successful implementation of the project. These can be aggregated into four key areas as follows:

• A shift in focus – ‘Harm and Hotspots’

• The importance of data management – ‘Definitions and Databases’

• Achieving and measuring outcomes – ‘Partners and Performance’

• Attaining and maintaining adequate resources – ‘Function and Funding’

In order to evaluate the impact of the project to date, this section of the report will discuss each of these themes in turn, using direct quotations from practitioner interviews to illustrate the findings.

Harm and Hotspots

Across the seven CSP’s there was universal agreement that the management of ASB had become substantially more victim-focused as a result of the project and the recent Home Office guidance that informed it. In some instances this has been a significant shift away from a perpetrator, enforcement-focused service and whilst this was generally welcomed, there are some indications that that there have been operational difficulties with the transition, particularly where staff are fulfilling a duel ASB/Persistent Prolific Offender role. Nevertheless, there was good recognition of the social, as well as personal harm that ASB can generate within communities and the potential benefits of such an approach are starting to be recognised;

16 | P a g e

“What we’ve put in place over the last 18 months to 2 years is now working....as far as the youth annoyance and the gangs there’s a decrease.... I don’t have the specific perpetrators coming through that are high end anymore...When it gets to the third referral that comes in that’s when I case manage....on a week to week basis 70 referrals were coming in, first time offenders...I can tell you now 95%, of them never went on to re-offend... That caused a lot of increased workload in the office, but the positive side of that is my re-offenders are very low” (SWP_ASB_002)

The new ASBIT database has provided the means by which a victim-driven approach to incident recording can be managed, with incidents attached to records for individual victims rather than relying on the use of name and address flags on the SWP Incident Record Management system (Niche) systems. This has been particularly important when identifying repeat and/or vulnerable victims. Common minimum standards for initial response times and subsequent contact management have had varying impact on the Units. For some, standards have changed little but others have needed to change working practices a lot. Where there are dedicated victim support/caseworker roles within the team enhanced contact management has been easier to manage. Other teams are relying heavily on local Neighbourhood Policing Teams to provide the victim-facing contact function. The availability of CSP-driven 24hr public reporting lines appears the biggest potential inhibitor to improving victim contact. Few CSP’s have this service in full; whilst some are able to offer a dedicated office-hours service within the ASB Unit, others rely upon multi-functional local authority contact centres and some have no direct public reporting options at all, with all referrals via the SWP Single Non-Emergency Number (SNEN). Whilst all Units have engaged with public advertising of reporting options there is widespread concern that victims are still being asked to differentiate an incident as “police” or “council” responsibility before deciding where and how to report it;

“There’s a 24 hour police reporting line... the council have got a contact centre, but they work Monday to Fridays, days...and the majority of our work would generate out of hours, overnight. We are hoping we are going to have a council 24 hour contact centre in the near future, but we are still asking people to separate, is it a police or a council [matter] – well sometimes it’s both. That’s very frustrating” (SWP_ASB_001)

No more acutely is this felt than in the Cardiff CSP, where funding for a successful, borough-wide dedicated reporting line for ASB (‘101’) was withdrawn by Cardiff City Council and the service has not been directly replaced. Whilst the 101 was subsequently taken on by SWP as its force-wide SNEN and is thus still available to Cardiff residents, its larger geographical and functional remit is considered a backwards step in prioritising ASB by the local Unit.

17 | P a g e

As well as victim-focus, the SSW strategy also prioritises the identification and active management of ASB hotspots. In this area the CSP’s have generally fared less well during the early stages of project implementation. Despite being one of the six key strategic areas, the new ASBIT database is currently not conducive to hotspot identification and where Units have focused on this aspect of ASB management they have generally done so separately, using different systems such as Niche. The increased use of ‘waymarkers’ on SWP’s patrol pattern geo-mapping system IRC+ has also been very helpful in some areas, but overall this is something that most Units recognise needs to be focused upon more closely in the future.

“Hotspot management needs...a clearer process and more buy-in I think, from the agencies...Rather than the police or neighbourhood wardens just driving past and saying “no, nothing was happening” and it just being knocked on the head as a hotspot, we need to be managing those far better than we are...We are with hot-spotting where we were with victims, gut feelings rather than it being certain criteria” (SWP_ASB_003)

The Rhondda Cynon Taff (RCT) CSP leads the field in this regard however, with the implementation of Multi-Agency Projects in targeted areas. Unit staff work Friday night shifts along with other partner agencies to provide diversionary activity within the community for (predominately) young people in problem areas;

“We go in as multi-agency teams to these hotspot areas...so it’s rather than just going there and doing enforcement work we also go alongside substance –misuse workers, youth offending service, detached youth workers, the British Transport Police, whoever really could have a role in help to resolving the issues in the areas we’re targeting” (SWP_ASB_005)

Definitions and Databases The agreement of common minimum standards for defining repeat victims (RVs) and vulnerable victims (VVs) have had arguably the most significant impact upon ASB Units across the region. Whilst the standard of three reports of ASB within a three month period (‘3 in 3’) was agreed by all stakeholders as a desirable definition for RVs and has generally been welcomed, it has led to a substantial increase in workload for some already overstretched units. The issue at hand appears to be not so much that the number of genuine RV increases by the application of this definition, but rather that the number of potential RVs does. The route of the issue appears to be two fold. Firstly the number of potential RVs using this definition who on closer inspection have reported issues which, whilst correctly classified as ASB, have had no directly harmful impact upon the reporter or wider community and/or are unrelated to each other;

18 | P a g e

“Initially [the 3 in 3 standard increased the number of potential repeat victims] quite a lot but then obviously you can weed the ones out that are just calling....to report motorbike annoyance rather than the ones that are being targeted by behaviour. So initial yes, it did increase it quite a lot...[but we are now] managing the ones who aren’t being targeted and the ones who are being targeted and then grading them accordingly” (SWP_ASB_003)

Secondly and more significantly, are the number of potential RVs identified as a result of reporting incidents incorrectly classified as ASB by call handlers at SWP Contact Management Centres. There is universal concern and irritation regarding this problem among ASB Units, whose only recourse is to manually review every recorded incident with an opening classification of ASB in every 24hr period, a very labour intensive activity;

“Locally [3 in 3] is causing us problems...when the initial call comes into the police a very, very high, a worryingly high percentage of those calls have been graded incorrectly as ASB by the call handlers and then you’ve got a situation then of ...the police officer in our department sat there going through all these cases....it’s hours and hours” (SWP_ASB_005)

The extent of the problem was confirmed by an internal SWP inspection conducted in May 2011, which found that a little over 20% of calls had been incorrectly classified. Examples included:

Occurrence 1: This was a report of a grass fire in an area in Northern BCU. The initial call identified that the fire service was in attendance and that there was no suggestion of deliberate ignition. There were no persons seen in the area. Despite this the NSPIS incident was created as an anti-social behaviour call. Occurrence 2: The occurrence was again determined as ASB and the text was as follows: ‘Vehicle parked in an odd location outside [Caller’s] address, at location since Friday evening, no damage, unknown if taxed. [Caller] is concerned as vehicles are not usually left at this location’. This was clearly not ASB but a unit was resourced to deal as such.

In response to the inspection the project management team have recently created a detailed briefing guide for call handlers with examples of good and poor practice and direction to consult ASB Unit staff for guidance in the event that the correct course of action is unclear. It is as yet too soon to assess whether this guidance will address the concerns of ASB Unit staff. The introduction of the new ASBIT database has been, as previously discussed, a significant advance in the ability of CSPs and other agencies to record and manage ASB in their areas, with a focus on victims. Notwithstanding this advance however, there have emerged a number of technical issues that need to be addressed and further functionality that would be helpful. Most significant among these is the ability to link to other databases where information is held on incidents of ASB, most notably the SWP Incident Record Management system, Niche. The current process requires all incidents of ASB recorded on Niche to be keyed a second time onto ASBIT which,

19 | P a g e

with upwards of 180 referrals per month per area is a significant resource requirement on ASB Unit staff, preventing time being better spent on more victim-facing activity;

“I think it’s a really significant issue...it’s a huge waste of the resource that we have...considering its ...a high priority for our CSP, the amount of resource that’s put into it and then the duplication that we are forced to do, it doesn’t really add up...I support admin where it’s appropriate but I think that there’s unnecessary levels because the decisions are made by senior officers that possibly don’t understand the grass roots processes” (SWP_ASB_006)

It should be noted that the ability to link ASBIT to Niche was identified as desirable in the initial design specification and this functionality has always been planned for the second phase of development. These findings re-enforce the need to follow through with this plan as soon as possible and highlight an upgrade as essential if limited resources are to be most effectively employed in the future without jeopardising the benefits of full and accurate record management. Partners and Performance

The success of managing such a wide ranging issue as ASB depends upon proactive multi-agency collaboration at its core. The data indicate that all the CSPs in South Wales are generally functioning well in relation to partnership working and data sharing, and the strong strategic direction of SSW augers well for this to continue to develop. That said, the management of ASB across the region is clearly still very much police-led and differences in the culture and routine working practices of the emergency services and local authority departments is still apparent in the data, highlighting that the remnants of a ‘them and us’ relationship still exist;

“For us as the police, we’re accountable... an organisation of discipline and when you are told to do something you have to do it...The problem is, and this is where the common minimum standards come in, the other agencies have to do the same. And the importance of ASB, what it is, because that’s still way down the list of importance...its changing attitudes towards it in other agencies” (SWP_ASB_002) “You can’t drag local authorities kicking and screaming into one way of doing things and the police try to do that...the police are very good at getting things done and perhaps not so good at consulting their partners... Local Authorities are very, very slow at getting things done but perhaps get it right in the long term.” (SWP_ASB_004)

Within the ASB Units themselves, partnership working is very effective and is being significantly enhanced by the co-location of multi-agency staff. Attendance of key partners and other co-opted agencies at Case Review Forums is also generally working well on a regular basis, although some CSPs have indicated some difficulty in prescribing attendance, particularly in emergency situations.

20 | P a g e

Another common theme to emerge is ensuring relevant agencies and partner departments are engaged with the importance of ASB alongside the other priorities of their day jobs. One ASB Unit staff member suggested a ‘virtual team’ approach, whereby every agency and local authority department has an ASB champion, may be worthy of consideration to improve communication and information sharing still further. What was particularly apparent in the process of performing this assessment was the willingness of the wider CSP workforce to consider ASB the reserve of the ASB Unit. The quantitative survey was designed to be completed by all CSP staff whose role in anyway involved ASB management and wide ranging completion was requested. Nevertheless, after the initial period for completion only a small number of respondents had completed the survey, all of whom worked directly within ASB Units. Data collected for this qualitative analysis suggested that in many cases, other staff had merely delegated the responsibility to Unit staff, completely missing the point that the knowledge and opinions of all CSP members, regardless of function were crucial to understanding the multi-functional management of ASB in their area. Without doubt the data show a strong commitment to the project from all areas but were a little more unforthcoming when it came to its potential to improve ASB outcomes over the coming twelve months. Much of respondents’ reticence to predict outcomes arises from concern over how performance will be measured in a more victim-focused environment. Whilst some CSP’s appeared to have begun the process of engaging with communities to measure satisfaction and obtain feedback on their services, others have yet to focus on this aspect;

“If they are to performance manage under the new approach, so look at what is actually relevant i.e. a drop in victimisation; a drop in calls; victim satisfaction; reduction in the repeat offenders, which I feel are the really important things coming out of the trial, then I definitely see an improvement and we’ve seen a huge improvement already since May... I think that people focus on what they think they should be focusing on in ASB when they don’t actually understand it, so they’ll just report to senior officers the number of ASB calls we’re receiving and ...that’s not something we can necessarily be in control of as a whole and the important thing is to focus on the individuals involved” (SWP_ASB_006)

The current suspension of centralised ASB victim satisfaction surveys at SWP is a worry in this regard and it is recommended that this position be reviewed in light of the importance being attached to ASB management force wide. Function and Funding Perhaps unsurprisingly in the current climate of budget cuts across the police service and local government, the final theme to emerge from the qualitative data is one of adequate and continued resourcing of the ASB Units themselves. There is already a variation in FTE resourcing across the seven units and whilst the differing size and scope of their geographical remit might reasonably account for this, it is clear that every Unit is overstretched to a greater or lesser degree.

21 | P a g e

The most notable difference between the ASB Units in terms of team functionality is the inclusion (or not) of a dedicated victim support role. In those teams where such a role currently exists there is recognition that the change to a victim- focused service would have been difficult without this functionality. The ever-present threat of loss of funding for these roles is a constant source of worry.

“.....I know the police always struggle and say “everybody reports to the police” – well no, they don’t! If we have got somebody who comes to light who doesn’t want to report for whatever reason, then [the victim support staff will] pick those up as well... and they’ll work with them to try and gain trust with an agency...or they’ll become their point of contact....so that’s an absolutely fantastic resource, I can’t say that strongly enough really” (SWP_ASB_001)

Those ASB Units who do not currently have such a role are clearly disadvantaged, relying heavily on police officers both within the Unit and in local Neighbourhood Teams to fulfil the vital victim-facing function. All are investigating options around the use of volunteers and third-sector workers to fulfil the role but it is unclear whether this is a likely or indeed desirable solution.

In some Units, the individual fulfilling the key ASB Co-ordinator role is also responsible for co-ordinating the CSPs management of Persistent Prolific Offenders. Whilst this dual function is in many ways complimentary, the data suggest that it has led to some problems in prioritisation of workload and the transition to a more victim-focused service;

“We felt snowed under with the amount of work that we had with perpetrators alone...and then when they said we would be prioritising victims as well... I failed to understand how we would manage. And I would say that our targeting of perpetrators has definitely decreased, although I can fully see the benefits now. Because identification of victims then passes us onto them]... however, there’s also perpetrators ...who don’t have any specific victims, [it] tends to be more the community...and that perpetrator is still prolific and a repeat offender...so they still need targeting and addressing” (SWP_ASB_006)

Although administrative resource is more consistent across the Units, the data suggest that the project has impacted greatly upon these individuals, most notably as a result of double-keying data entry for ASBIT. Investment in further development of the system to minimise direct data entry, as previously discussed, would greatly enhance the administrative burden in the Units - freeing up individuals to focus on more substantive victim-facing tasks.

Issues of funding are uppermost in the minds of all Units and this is particularly complicated in some as a result of the diversity of funding streams currently being utilised: permanent and temporary SWP postings; permanent and fixed term local authority staff from different departments, including housing; Registered Social Landlord employees; and third-sector employees, to name just a few. As available funding will only diminish in the coming years, maintaining an adequately resourced team in each area would appear to be the major challenge ahead for the success of the project and the management of social harm resulting from ASB across South Wales.

22 | P a g e

OUTCOME ASSESSMENT As discussed in the introduction to this report, an assessment of quantifiable outcomes for victims and the public consequent on the SWP project has not been possible, predominantly because of a lack of victim satisfaction data and changes in the counting procedures for ASB incidents at the beginning of 2011. Nevertheless, it has been possible to partially quantify the success of the project in terms of its main aim to introduce common minimum standards for all CSP partners with reference to the self-rated gap analysis carried out at the end of the trial period. For each common minimum standard identified by the SSW Delivery Group in the early stages of the trial period, ASB Units were asked to self-assess their level of adherence using a traffic light system green (full adherence), amber (partial adherence) or red (no current adherence). By allocating a score of 3 for each standard assessed as green, 2 for amber and 1 for red we have been able to quantify adherence to standards contained within each of the six strategic areas of focus at the outset of the project. Figure 3 overleaf shows the results of this analysis and illustrates that all seven CSPs have, overall, been able to absorb the new and challenging working practices set by the project, achieving upwards of 85% adherence to the minimum standards they set themselves overall. Whilst there is variation in performance between each of the key strategic areas within the different teams and it is clear that some teams are struggling more in specific areas than others, these findings suggest that these are evening out and the minimum standards are bringing consistency across the region. Generally this finding reflects respondents’ views in both the quantitative and qualitative process assessments, although there is some discrepancy with regard to how well Units feel they are meeting the common minimum standards for hotspot management. When considering these findings, it should be noted that the common minimum standards developed and agreed by the Delivery Group at the outset of the project have not yet been formally adopted. In agreeing to work towards them for the purposes of the project, the Group acknowledged that in some areas the ability to fully achieve compliance may require process and resourcing changes outside the remit of CSPs themselves.

Figure 3: Common Minimum Standard Gap Analysis by CSP Area

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

RCT Cardiff Merthyr Swansea NPT Glamorgan Bridgend Contact Management 83% 89% 83% 94% 100% 83% 78%Initial Response 83% 89% 100% 94% 94% 94% 94%ASB Units 100% 94% 83% 78% 100% 72% 72%Repeat and Vulnerable Victims 67% 81% 100% 100% 95% 100% 95%Hotspot Management 83% 100% 100% 100% 92% 100% 75%ASB Case Review Forum 94% 100% 89% 94% 78% 100% 100%AVERAGE 85% 92% 93% 94% 93% 92% 86%

Common Minimum Standard Gap Analysis

24 | P a g e

CONCLUSIONS This assessment set out to explore the progress made by the SSW partnership during the initial stages of an ambitious project aimed at improving the quality of ASB management services provided to the public throughout the region. Given the short assessment timeframe and lack of reliable victim satisfaction data before and after the project trial period, the research has focused on the assessment of processes and practitioner attitudes rather than outcomes. In general, the findings from the web based survey of CSP personnel and the more nuanced qualitative data from interviews with specialist ASB Unit practitioners are consistent. Where differences are evident, it is important to bear in mind that the survey included CSP employees engaged in a range of different work roles, not only ASB practitioners. We draw three central conclusions from the research as a whole. 1. Partnership Working Involvement in the project appears to have gone some way towards improving working relationships and practice between partner agencies in the multi-agency management of ASB. This emerges as the most significant reason underlying an improvement in CSP performance according to survey respondents. There is good project buy-in from members of the delivery group and a sense of joint ownership of the common minimum standards has motivated performance. Data sharing has been enhanced by the development of the web-based ASBIT database accessible by all partners, and by the co-location of multi-agency staff in ASB Units - of vital importance if this close working relationship is to continue. That said, there is still room for improvement. The very myriad of problems covered by the term ‘ASB’ requires potential input from a considerable number of different departments within agencies. This makes attaining coherent communication channels a constant challenge. Cultural issues also appear to have an impact here – the expediency and accountability inherent in police activity are not always evident in councils’ working practices, for example. Indeed, the remnants of a ‘them and us’ relationship are still noticeable between multi-agency ASB Unit staff and other departments within councils. Although multi-agency case conferences appear to be running smoothly on a routine basis, there is less confidence that any unexpected ad-hoc or emergency meetings will be easily achieved and frustration that all required agencies cannot be compelled to attend under current reporting structures. Looking forward, the continued development of partnership working across all of agencies is vital to the successful management of ASB and the breaking down of any remaining barriers that inhibit this should be a key priority. 2. Victim Focus One of the key aims of the project was to shift the focus of ASB problem management throughout the region onto the public generally and victims specifically. By and large, this seems to have been achieved. The change has been effected via a number of process improvements, most notably the creation of a set of common

25 | P a g e

minimum standards around issues associated with of repeat and/or vulnerable victims and the creation of the new ASBIT database. The latter has allowed the central record to change from the incident to the victim, such that a measure of the social harm generated by ASB becomes the key focus, rather than the problem or perpetrator. Whilst the qualitative data obtained from ASB unit practitioners was overwhelmingly supportive of this change and its likely effectiveness in terms of victim satisfaction, the quantitative data from a range of CSP employees suggests that this view is reflective of only a significant minority. Over half of all survey respondents believed work with victims was still only just ‘adequate’ or ‘needs improvement’. This variability appears to be dependent on the nature of the role an individual fulfils, with operational project workers and analysts far less likely to endorse their CSP’s effectiveness in this area than those in more managerial roles. This interesting finding may be worthy of more in-depth exploration alongside actual victim satisfaction data at a later date to determine how representative the opinions of ASB Unit staff are of the CSP as a whole. One possible explanation for this variation may be the current position of the different CSPs with regard to the provision of a dedicated, direct public reporting line. Four of the seven CSPs have been unable to meet this common minimum standard agreed by the delivery group to be important and this is a constant frustration to them. Whilst in most areas the majority of reports are still via the police SNEN 101 or more generic council contact centres, it is concerning that little movement appears to have been made towards achieving this standard. 3. Resources The survey results showed that one of the most important factors underlying a poor assessment of the effectiveness of a CSP is a perceived lack of resources, not just financial but also the number of staff and personnel. Public facing workers in particular were much less likely to endorse the financial and budgetary management of their CSP than managers. Within ASB units, this impacts on their ability to meet common minimum standards and improve their service. Coupled with concerns about the current economic climate, there is a general worry that resources will continue to decline. In light of the amount of labour intensive work currently involved in assessing and recording ASB incidents and victim data, it is perhaps understandable that the Units feel somewhat overwhelmed. Of notable import here is the volume of data entry work required for the set up and maintenance of the ASBIT database, particularly as this is effectively ‘double-keying’ information already held on other databases such as SWP’s Force Record System (Niche). Similarly, the manual incident review requirement is exacerbated as a result of miscoding by call-handlers and together the administrative burden on professional staff amounts to a considerable workload. Improvements in the functionality of ASBIT to maximise automatic transfer of data from Niche would generate a significant resource saving, as would investment in the training of call-handlers about what constitutes ‘antisocial behaviour’. Data obtained from those CSPs fortunate enough to have secured funding for dedicated victim support/liaison roles suggest that this is a vital function in the move

26 | P a g e

to focusing ASB problem management on the victim. Whilst this function is listed as one required under the common minimum standards, there is a suggestion that this will be adapted to make it a more flexible standard in the future, which will allow a worrying inconsistency between CSPs to develop. Those without this role are currently being hindered in their efforts to develop victim-facing services and ultimately a victim focus which is likely, in time, to be reflected in their victim satisfaction data. Overall, the project has achieved significant results in a relatively short timescale, at least in terms of bringing together seven quite diverse organisations to work towards consistency across the region. This assessment highlights a number of positive enablers for continued development of the service, but also a number of potential inhibitors. It remains to be seen whether the process of implementing change will be sustainable in the longer term with regard to both resource allocation and public perceptions.

27 | P a g e

Appendix 1: Common Minimum Standards Strategic Area: Contact Management

1. Over and above the Police single non-emergency number, each Local Authority should advertise a 24/7 contact number and an e-mail address that can be used by the public to report ASB matters to the Local Authority.

2. Each ASB Unit will ensure that Police and Local Authority contact centres

and all agencies that make ASB referrals have current information concerning how to contact the unit by telephone and e-mail and are aware of the hours of business worked within the unit. (Hours of business may extend beyond normal office hours, but will start no later than 0900 and end no sooner than 1600).

3. ASB Unit staff will view and decide on an appropriate response to a referral

within 3 working days.

4. If it is unclear whether the reporting party has been re-contacted by the agency to which ASB was reported, a member of the ASB Unit will make contact with them within 3 working days.

5. ASB unit staff will ensure that repeat and vulnerable victims of ASB and

relevant partners are kept up to date with case progress.

6. Partner agencies within the CSP will share information between relevant agencies in accordance with current data sharing protocols, through use of and access to the partnership ASB database and through disclosure of relevant data at partnership ASB forums.

Strategic Area: Initial Response

1. When required all police referrals to be passed to the appropriate agency for action within 48 hours of receipt at the ASB Unit.

2. All actions and interventions undertaken by ASB Unit staff will be undertaken

on behalf of the CSP and all communication and information materials will bear the CSP branding.

3. ASB Units will adopt and follow Home Office guidelines in relation to ASB.

4. To ensure a robust response, all referrals that have been correctly classified as

ASB will be recorded on the partnership ASB database.

5. In order to have access to data included on the partnership ASB database, agencies will be expected to share appropriate information and intelligence in line with the database agreement and current data sharing protocols.

28 | P a g e

6. ASB Unit staff will ensure that all Repeat and Vulnerable victims will be flagged to all involved agencies. This will normally be done at partnership meetings but may be circulated sooner than this if necessary. In all cases this will occur within one month of the victim being identified as Repeat or Vulnerable.

Strategic Area: ASB Units

1. Each CSP will ensure that a dedicated co – located ASB unit is in place and that as a minimum its staffing will include: 1 x ASB Co-ordinator 1 x ASB Police Officer 1 x Victim Support / caseworker (may be a volunteer). Administrative support Staff within the ASB Unit will (subject to vetting agreements) have access to the Partnership ASB database and SWP Command & Control and Record Management databases.

2. Each ASB Unit will act within the priorities set within Safer South Wales Partnership ASB Strategy, which reflects our shared understanding of the need to fully understand the degree of harm that ASB is causing within our communities and to provide an effective partnership response.

3. Clearly defined roles and responsibilities to be drafted and agreed to improve

relationships and to achieve a clear understanding of practices and principles between agencies who need to work together to achieve clear outcomes.

4. Each ASB Unit will be committed to the use and future development of the

partnership ASB database so as to ensure that it remains an effective tool and fully fit for purpose in monitoring repeat victimisation, ASB perpetrators and hotspot locations.

5. Each ASB unit agrees to adopt shared terminology for the partnership ASB

database.

6. Each ASB Unit will have in place a process whereby they will have access to legal advocacy within 5 working days of the ASB Case Review Forum making a decision on legal proceedings.

Strategic Area: Repeat and Vulnerable Victims

1. Each CSP will adopt the definitions of repeat or vulnerable victims included within the Safer South Wales Partnership ASB Strategy i.e. 3 reports in 3 months (there will be on-going dialogue about the appropriateness of this definition).

29 | P a g e

2. The decision to classify a person as a repeat and vulnerable victim will be made only by staff within the ASB Unit. Other staff may raise concerns about whether an individual might fit these criteria for consideration by Unit staff. If there are conflicting views on this matter the ultimate decision will rest with a manager within the ASB Unit. Each ASB Unit will identify the manager who will hold this responsibility.

3. Each CSP ASB Unit will be responsible for the case management of repeat

and vulnerable victims. This will be carried out via a Single Point of Contact who works within the unit.

4. The agreed standardised risk assessment form will utilised by each ASB Unit.

It will be completed and returned to the ASB Unit within 5 working days by whichever agency undertakes to carry out the risk assessment.

5. ASB cases involving high and medium risk repeat and vulnerable victims will

be formally reviewed on a weekly basis by the ASB Unit.

6. Appropriate SWP Command & Control and Record Management database warning markers will be placed against the victim and their address by an appropriate member of staff working within the ASB Unit.

Strategic Area: Hotspots

1. Each CSP ASB Unit will seek to gather information from as many appropriate sources as possible. ASB Units will monitor the extent to which agencies commit to this process and ensure that there is on-going dialogue about the extent, timeliness and quality of the supply of ASB information received by the Unit.

2. Each CSP ASB Unit will utilise the partnership ASB database to identify ASB

hotspot locations within its current capacity to capture this information. Unit representatives will collaborate over future development of the partnership ASB database to include problem location updates.

3. An ASB Hotspot will be defined as a location where the level of threat, risk or

harm to the area, or an individual is determined by the ASB Case Review Forum to be having a significant impact on the quality of life of individuals residing in and/or using the area, or the community as a whole and is not responding to normal interventions.

4. Members of each CSP ASB Unit will update a multi-agency Case Review

Forum in relation to identified hot spot locations. Agencies will identify emerging hotspot locations to the ASB Unit prior to meetings.

30 | P a g e

5. Hot spot locations will be agreed through discussion at multi-agency Case Review Forum meetings. During meetings the group will decide upon the most appropriate agency to lead on tackling the hot spot. The ASB Unit will play a supporting and co-ordinating role in relation to subsequent planned activity.

6. All relevant partners & agencies should provide resources to tackle hot spot

locations; the extent to which this occurs will be reviewed and discussed during the ASB Case Review Forum meetings.

7. Crime Reduction Tactical Advisors should be utilised to advise the Case

Review Forum on problem solving hot spots when appropriate.

8. Where appropriate ASB Unit staff will request that consideration is given to the placing of a police "waymarker" on ASB hotspot locations and will have in place a mechanism for making such requests and reporting on the findings to the ASB Case Review Forum.

Strategic Area: ASB Case Review Forum

1. ASB Case Review Forums will be held on a monthly basis. They will be arranged by the CSP ASB Unit and will have multi-agency attendance. CSPs may choose to manage Repeat and Vulnerable Victims, Offenders and Hotspot Locations under separate meetings, or may combine these elements into a single meeting.

2. Each CSP must have the ability to call an emergency meeting of the ASB

Case Review Forum within 24 hours.

3. All members attending the Case Review Forum will operate within information sharing policy and protocols.

4. In order to tackle ASB effectively through the ASB Case Review Forum the

following agencies should attend the meetings: Local Authority; South Wales Police; Registered Social Landlords; Health; Social Services; Children’s Services; YOS; Vulnerable Persons teams; Voluntary Sector; Probation. Attendees should be empowered to make decisions and commit their agency resources at the meeting.

5. The Case Review Forum must have the ability to co-opt other agencies into

the group as and when necessary. These agencies may include: British Transport Police; Environmental Health; Licensing Department; Mediation Services; Victim Support; Neighbourhood Watch; Charities; Schools Liaison Officers; Youth Organisations; Witness Care; Crown Prosecution Service; Parks Department; Vehicle and Operator Services Agency.

6. The Chair of the Case Review Forum meeting will be locally determined. The

Chair will monitor attendance take up from agencies and where appropriate feedback any concerns or issues re: attendance to the Head of the CSP.

© Universities’ Police Science Institute, Cardiff University