AGENDA ITEM CITY AND COUNTY OF CARDIFF DINAS A SIR CAERDYDD COMMUNITY AND ADULT SERVICES SCRUTINY COMMITTEE

19th February 2013

The Structure and Approach of Cardiff Council in Tackling Anti-Social Behaviour - Report of the Task and Finish Group

Background At its meeting of 10th September 2012, the Community and Adult Services Scrutiny Committee agreed a Task & Finish group to investigate The Structure and Approach of Cardiff Council in Tackling Anti-Social Behaviour. This report provides background information about the Inquiry and outlines the next steps in the process.

1.

2.

The Committee agreed the following Terms of Reference for the task group:

To explore the approach taken by Cardiff Council to tackle anti-social behaviour in the city, by:

i.

Examining successful approaches used by other comparable local authorities and comparing this to the approach taken in Cardiff. This will involve examination of their practice, structures, resources, Community Safety Partnership arrangements and performance data.

ii. Evaluating the structure and approach to anti-social behaviour in Cardiff by: gaining an understanding of the Councils structure in relation to anti-social behaviour both historically and currently

gaining an understanding of the Community Safety Partnership structure in relation to anti-social behaviour both historically and currently

reviewing the resources allocated currently and in previous years understanding why changes have been made seeking the views of stakeholders, such as landlords and tenants, and partners such as the police, on the structure Cardiff has in place and their experiences engaging with the Council.

iii. Use the evidence collected above to make informed recommendations to the Cabinet and other relevant stakeholders.

iv. Report the findings of the Committee to the Cabinet and stakeholders.

3.

Members of the Task & Finish group were: Councillor Ramesh Patel (Chair) Councillor Daniel DeAth Councillor Joseph Carter

As part of this inquiry, desk-based research was undertaken by the Scrutiny Research Team to identify and outline good practices which have tackled anti-social behaviour in other local authorities. There was a particular focus on the organisational structures, partnerships and collaborative arrangements that local authorities have used to reduce levels of anti-social behaviour.

The task group Inquiry was informed by evidence from Councillor Lynda Thorne, Cabinet Member (Communities, Housing and Social Justice), Sarah McGill (Corporate Chief Officer - Communities) and various relevant officers, including officers from Partnerships & Citizen Focus, City Management, Regulatory & Supporting Services, Legal Services and Childrens Services.

The task group Inquiry also heard from the following external witnesses: Alun Michael - Police & Crime Commissioner for South Wales Chief Superintendent Alun Thomas - South Wales Police Superintendent Belinda Davies - South Wales Police Chief Inspector Stephen Murray - South Wales Police Douglas Haig - Chair, Cardiff Landlord Forum Sophie Packer - Association of Letting and Management Agencies John Priday - Charter Housing Jan Fox - Wales and West Housing Association Professor Gordon Hughes - Cardiff University Adam Edwards - Cardiff University John Fellows - Channel View Tenants & Residents Association Georgina Sammut SWLTRA Dr Simon Moore - Cardiff University

All of the above was used to identify suitable findings from the Inquiry and recommendations.

Way Forward 8 The draft report of the Task & Finish Group is attached at Appendix 1. Members attention is particularly drawn to the Key Findings section (pages 6-15) and the Recommendations section (pages 16-19). These are based on the evidence heard throughout the Task & Finish Group Inquiry.

Members may wish to consider the report, make any amendments and agree whether to approve the report to be considered by the Cabinet.

10

Provided the Community and Adult Services Scrutiny Committee approve the report, the Chair will present it to the Cabinet at the next available Cabinet Meeting. The Cabinet will then respond to the report

and their response will be brought back to this Committee for discussion.

Legal Implications

11

The Scrutiny Committee is empowered to enquire, consider, review and recommend but not making policy decisions. As the

recommendations in this report are to consider and review matters there are no direct legal implications. However, legal implications may arise if and when the matters under review are implemented with or without any modifications. Any report with recommendations for decision that goes to Cabinet/Council will set out any legal implications arising from those recommendations. All decisions taken by or on behalf the Council must (a) be within the legal powers of the Council; (b) comply with any procedural requirement imposed by law; (c) be within the powers of the body or person exercising powers of behalf of the Council; (d) be undertaken in accordance with the procedural requirements imposed by the Council e.g. Scrutiny Procedure Rules; (e) be fully and properly informed; (f) be properly motivated; (g) be taken having regard to the Council's fiduciary duty to its taxpayers; and (h) be reasonable and proper in all the circumstances

Financial Implications

12

The Scrutiny Committee is empowered to enquire, consider, review and recommend but not making policy decisions. As the

recommendations in this report are to consider and review matters there are no direct financial implications at this stage in relation to any of the work programme. However, financial implications may arise if and when the matters under review are implemented with or without any modifications. Any report with recommendations for decision that goes to Cabinet/Council will set out any financial implications arising from those recommendations.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee is recommended to:

1. Consider the report of the Task and Finish Group

2. Endorse the report, subject to any comments the Committee wish to make, for submission to the Cabinet.

MIKE DAVIES Head of Democratic Services 13th February 2013

A Report of the Community & Adult Services Scrutiny Committee

The Structure and Approach of Cardiff Council in Tackling Anti-Social Behaviour

February 2013

Cardiff Council
1

CONTENTS CONTENTS ...................................................................... 2 CHAIRS FOREWORD ..................................................... 3 TERMS OF REFERENCE ................................................ 4 KEY FINDINGS................................................................. 6 RECOMMENDATIONS................................................... 16 EVIDENCE...................................................................... 20 INQUIRY METHODOLOGY............................................ 50 BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................................. 53 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS .......................................... 54 LEGAL IMPLICATIONS ................................................ .54 COMMITTEE TERMS OF REFERENCE....................... .55 COMMUNITY AND ADULT SERVICES SCRUTINY COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP ......................................... 56 APPENDIX A: Council Wide Community Safety.....57 APPENDIX B: Community Saftey Reporting Structure........................... 58 APPENDIX C: Briefing Paper Anti-Social Behavior Arrangements ..... 59

CHAIRS FOREWORD

Councillor Ramesh Patel Chair, Community & Adult Service Scrutiny Committee

TERMS OF REFERENCE
At their meeting on 10th September 2012, members of the Community and Adult Services Scrutiny Committee agreed to set up a Task and Finish Group to consider Cardiff Councils approach to anti-social behaviour as an issue for detailed scrutiny.

The task group had the following terms of reference:

To explore the approach taken by Cardiff Council to tackle anti-social behaviour in the city, by:

1. Examining successful approaches used by other comparable local authorities and comparing this to the approach taken in Cardiff. This will involve examination of their practice, structures, resources, Community Safety Partnership arrangements and performance data.

2. Evaluating the structure and approach to anti-social behaviour in Cardiff by: gaining an understanding of the Councils structure in relation to antisocial behaviour both historically and currently gaining an understanding of the Community Safety Partnership structure in relation to anti-social behaviour both historically and currently reviewing the resources allocated currently and in previous years. understanding why changes have been made seeking the views of stakeholders, such as landlords and tenants, and partners such as the police, on the structure Cardiff has in place and their experiences engaging with the Council.

3. Use the evidence collected above to make informed recommendations to the Cabinet and other relevant stakeholders.

4. Report the findings of the Committee to the Cabinet and stakeholders.

Members of the Task & Finish Group were: Councillor Ramesh Patel (Chair) Councillor Daniel DeAth Councillor Joseph Carter

KEY FINDINGS
KF1. Anti-social behaviour can be defined in a range of ways. Broadly, it is acting in a way that causes or is likely to cause alarm or distress to one or more people in another household. It is behaviour that lacks consideration for others and may cause damage to the society, whether intentionally or through negligence. The impact of anti-social behaviour can vary from person to person; one individual may be far more seriously affected by certain behaviour than another experiencing the same. For this reason anti-social behaviour cannot be given rigid labels and must be addressed with sensitivity.

KF2. Local Authorities in Wales are required to sit on Community Safety Partnerships with other responsible authorities. The Council has a number of statutory requirements in terms of Community Safety including; conducting Annual Strategic Assessments; consulting the community; publishing Partnership Plans; mainstreaming community safety across the various functions of organisations within the Partnership.

KF3. Analysis is undertaken through the Partnership to map the number of crime and anti-social behaviour incidents across the city. This allows for a citywide mapping of hotspots to be produced and resources can be targeted accordingly. Three key hotspots have been identified in Cardiff; these are the City Centre, Cardiff Bay and Caerau Lane, Ely. Neighbourhood Profiles are also produced, giving an overview of crime and anti-social behaviour at a localised level across the city.

KF4. Anti-social behaviour is consistently highlighted as a concern for the people in Cardiff through the Ask Cardiff Survey. Figures show that the levels of concern, and what form of anti-social behaviour is of most concern, differ across the six neighbourhood management areas. This

underlines the importance of locality-based approaches to anti-social behaviour rather than a one size fits all approach across the city.

KF5. Working in partnership is recognised by senior management within both the Council and Police as essential in addressing anti-social behaviour in the city. Organisations and specific services cannot be left to tackle issues in isolation. The Police & Crime Commissioner for South Wales stated that partnership is not an add on to the daily work of services but rather it is integral to the future of addressing community safety.

KF6. There are a number of good examples of the Council working in partnership with the Police and other responsible authorities on specific initiatives that address anti-social behaviour and make Cardiff a safer place. These include the Alcohol Treatment Centre in the city centre; the StaySafe project; glass clearing undertaken by individuals on Community Payback; motor cycle nuisance initiatives; the Youth Offending Service Anti-Social Behaviour Project; and the CCTV control room monitoring citywide cameras.

KF7. The Housing and Neighbourhood Renewal Service within the Council has a partnership approach within its every day practices. The service has a co-located Police Officer and a co-located Victim Support Officer, with problem solving meetings held between the local Police, Youth Service, Housing Associations and other service areas and partners as required.

KF8. While the commitment to partnership working exists at the highest level of organisations within the Community Safety Partnership, it is recognised that this is still work in progress at a delivery level and that further improvements can still be made for the Council and other responsible authorities to work in the most effective way. A number of external witnesses stressed that improvements can also be made in the way organisations within the Community Safety Partnership 7

engage with external organisations and individuals such as housing associations and private landlords to improve the citywide approach to tackling anti-social behaviour.

KF9. The Night-Time Noise Service is a team set up within Regulatory and Supporting Services specifically to deal with late night noise complaints from Thursday to Sunday. It is an example of where the Council is using its legislative powers to address and prevent anti-social behaviour. This service was welcomed by external witnesses to the inquiry, although however concerns were voiced that noise disturbances also occur outside this Thursday to Sunday window. It was felt that there could be improvements in the service received through 101 at times that are out of hours for the Noise Pollution and Night Time Noise Service.

KF10. Issues such as dog fouling may be considered at the lower scale of anti-social behaviour; however this kind of behaviour shows a clear lack of consideration for others and can cause distress to individuals. The members of this Inquiry were made aware of the Litter in Cardiff Inquiry that was undertaken by the Environmental Scrutiny Committee and supports the recommendations that were made with regards to addressing dog fouling in the city.

KF11. Academics from Cardiff University Centre for Crime, Law and Justice informed the Members of the Inquiry that there could be a risk that coordination between services within the local authority and from other responsible authorities within a partnership gets lost through what appears to be the mainstreaming of Community Safety. This is especially important if it is accepted that many problems of community safety are multi-faceted and require a multi-agency response which, in itself, needs to be co-ordinated. There is a risk that particular services (Education, Housing, Youth Services, Adult and Childrens Social Services) could adopt their own approaches which may only address

particular aspects of community safety problems or, at worst, contradict one another.

KF12. The Member Enquiry System has been developed as a means for Elected Members to track issues they have reported to the Council, providing a unique reference number, a status indicator, the ability to track which service area is dealing with the enquiry and any additional comments added by officers. The Inquiry members were informed that it is hoped this system will be rolled out for use by the general public to track enquiries to the Council following a pilot period for Elected Members only. The Members of the Inquiry were concerned that in their experience this system was little more that a data base of incidents recorded and did not provide enough information about which officer to contact for updates. It was felt that in its current form, it would not be the answer to allowing members of the public to track incidents and issues that they have reported.

KF13. Data, statistics and local views are an important tool in making decisions on the allocation of resources or allocation of Licenses for premises. The members of the inquiry were concerned to hear that it seems sometimes information is available to inform these decisions but is not used. An example was given to the Inquiry where complaint logs from local individuals were submitted to the Council but were not included within the papers for the Licensing decisions. Also, an Academic from Cardiff University stated, that as a responsible authority of the Community Safety Partnership, data from Health should be included and representation given at Licensing Committees. However, to the knowledge of the members of the Inquiry, Health data has never been included.

KF14. A number of witnesses to the Inquiry, both internal and external to the Council, commented that improvements are needed in the communication and information provided to individuals engaged with the Council in relation to anti-social behaviour. Individuals should be 9

made aware of clear timescales for dealing with their issues and the processes involved should also be explained. This will mean individuals do not expect their issues to be dealt with overnight and will have realistic expectations of the service they will receive. The Council also needs to proactively inform individuals when their cases have been resolved or closed and the outcomes that have been achieved. Having completed one case, understandably officers will look to move onto the next case as soon as possible, but this final contact with the individual reporting it is an important stage in closing a case that is being neglected.

KF15. Specifically in relation to Housing, a number of witnesses commented that improvements in communication and engagement could be made. Council officers informed the Inquiry members that a Good Neighbour Guide is being developed to inform tenants what behaviour is and is not acceptable. The need for improvement was also acknowledged in terms of feedback to victims and publicising action that has been taken against offenders where appropriate. This practice was also put forward by housing association witnesses, who informed the Inquiry Members that they proactively publicise successes in dealing with problem tenants.

KF16. Representatives from Tenants & Residents Associations in Cardiff commented that communication could be improved by providing a main point of contact for their accommodation, and that there should be a dedicated officer that relationships can be built with. One Tenants & Resident Association provided the Members of the Inquiry with their newsletter, containing direct contact information of local Elected Members and local Police Community Support Officers. While a standard number to contact anti-social behaviour officers was included, it was felt that direct names and numbers would be far more effective. The importance of building relationships was stressed; not only does constant interaction show the Council is proactive and interested in an area, it should allow Housing officers to deal with incidents early before 10

they escalate into larger issues that will be more resource and time intensive.

KF17. Representatives of the Cardiff Landlord Forum and the Association of Letting and Management Agencies informed the Members of the Inquiry that some landlords are wary of engaging with the Council because a perception exists that a landlord who engages with the Council will be laden with regulations and conditions. This discourages some landlords from engaging in terms of getting advice in dealing with problem tenants. Improvements could be made in the way the Council interacts with landlords, setting out clear expectations the Council has for landlords, developing a partnership approach to put pressure on problem tenants and providing a single point of contact landlords can use for advice and assistance.

KF18. The Landlord Accreditation Scheme was highlighted as a way of raising awareness and building links with landlords, although there are many property owners within the city who may not recognise themselves as landlords. To help these individuals, easy to access advice and information should be available through the Council website.

KF19. A number of nationwide groups exist for the purpose of sharing good practice, knowledge and expertise and to build relationships amongst housing associations and providers of social housing. The Inquiry members were informed of the All Wales Good Practice Group and the All Wales ASB Coordinator Group, which are open to local authority Housing officers but were rarely attended by officers from Cardiff. A representative from a Cardiff based housing association commented that the perception of Cardiff Council officers is that they could be more dynamic and are poor at working in partnership with Housing Associations.

11

KF20. Wales and West Housing Association (WWHA) informed the Members of the Inquiry that there is a willingness to engage with the Council, to develop relationships and share good practice to provide a coordinated and consistent approach to tenants of social housing in Cardiff. The members were told that while the Police were proactive in undertaking joint visits to problem tenants, there seems to be reluctance from Council officers to join housing association officers when there are incidents between housing association and Council housing tenants. An offer was made by the WWHA representative to meet with Cardiff Council Housing officers to discuss the potential for developing closer working relationships and standardised processes.

KF21. The Director of the Cardiff University Centre for Crime, Law and Justice stressed the importance of having robust data collection and analysis in place for all initiatives undertaken to improve community safety. This view was supported by a representative of the Cardiff University Violence & Society Research Group, who stated that the Councils Senior Partnership Analyst is already undertaking good work in analysing data from the Council, Police and University Health Board.

KF22. Members of the Inquiry were informed that the Cardiff University Centre for Crime, Law and Justice would be open to working with and supporting the data collection and analysis that is already undertaken by the Council and its partners. It was also suggested that postgraduate students and researchers could contribute to any analysis work through their ability to analyse non-sensitive and anonymous data, such as crime patterns, revealing spikes and hotspots of problems which can then assist responsible authorities, including the Council. The University would welcome the opportunity for students to be able to get real experience, to work on current data sets and make real recommendations, while the Council could benefit through increased resources for analysis.

12

KF23. 101 is the Police non-emergency number for individuals to report crimes or incidents that do not require an emergency response. Calls to 101 (from both landlines and mobile networks) cost 15 pence per call, no matter what time of day the call is made and no matter what the call duration is. The 15p cost of the call goes to the telephony providers to cover the cost of carrying the calls. The police and government receive no money from calls to 101. Calls made to 101 from BT telephone boxes are currently free of charge.

KF24. Within the Police Service Centre where 101 calls are received, all operators are trained to signpost members of the public to the relevant Council department where the issue can be dealt with through Council services. Witnesses to the Inquiry felt that the Police could be more proactive in responding to these issues, particularly in relation to noise complaints made at times when the Council services are not in operation.

KF25. A number of witnesses expressed their concerns and frustrations relating to the 101 Non Emergency Number; experiences that were also shared by the Members of the Inquiry and their constituents. One witness stated that he was unaware that calling the number would incur a charge until he received his phone bill and that often he was left in the dark about whether his call was dealt with or if any action was undertaken as a result. He had learned to request a reference number for the call, allowing him to track it at a later date, but felt that this should be provided as a matter of course rather than having to request it. The Members of the Inquiry agreed with this issue, commenting that in the past they have been unable to track their constituents issues as they were not provided with a reference number.

KF26. The Police & Crime Commissioner for South Wales stated that in his view there are two essential knowledge bases at a local level; Police Community Support Officers and local Councillors. The Chief Superintendant for Cardiff Base Command Unit supported this view 13

stating that Elected Members should in their view be more involved in local decision making. Neighbourhood Management Programme Board meetings, which involve local inspectors, GPs, head teachers and Council officers, were highlighted as a meeting that Elected Members should be involved in, given the large amount of data considered and the critical local decisions that are made. It was also felt that members should receive the Neighbourhood Profiles that are shared across the partnership which give an overview of crime and anti-social behaviour incidents at a local level.

KF27. As part of their personal engagement plans, Inspectors in Cardiff are required to engage with local Councillors. The members of the Inquiry felt that in their experience there was an inconsistent approach from Inspectors and Sergeants in engaging with Councillors. Relationships and links with the police could collapse overnight if the officer designated to an area changed to another officer with a totally different approach. Representatives of Cardiff Base Command Unit expressed a willingness to work with the Council and its Elected Members to review the process of engagement that is used and to develop a terms of reference for improvements and consistency.

KF28. The Police & Crime Commissioner for South Wales informed the Members of the Inquiry that it is his intention to meet with locally Elected Members at least once a year and that he will be regularly engaging with the Cabinet and Leader of the Council.

KF29. Throughout the Inquiry the importance of early intervention was stressed as a key way to reduce anti-social behaviour across the city, addressing small issues before they escalate into incidents of antisocial behaviour or crime. A representative of Wales & West Housing Association informed the Members of the Inquiry that analysis was undertaken of all the court cases the association had been involved with in relation to anti-social behaviour. The majority of these cases started out as noise complaints that were not addressed and were 14

allowed to grow into more serious cases. A representative of Charter Housing supported this view, citing a case where a noise complaint had been ignored. Within a few weeks it was a case of grievous bodily harm between the same individuals, requiring police involvement. This view was echoed by a Cardiff University professor who informed the Inquiry Members that a preventative approach is important, with issues being nipped in the bud in their infancy before they grow into incidents of anti-social behaviour.

KF30. Improvements within Housing could be made in order to prevent antisocial behaviour from occurring. A number of witnesses informed the Inquiry Members that the upkeep and appearance of an area will contribute to anti-social behaviour, when an area is allowed to decline, so will its atmosphere and problems tend to follow. The Inquiry Members were also informed that there seems to be inconsistency in the Councils Housing allocation policy at times, with an example given of a young individual being housed in a block where all other residents are over 50 years old.

15

RECOMMENDATIONS
Following the completion of this Inquiry, the Community & Adult Services Scrutiny Committee recommends that the Cabinet task officers to:

R1. Within six months, develop a Communication Strategy across all services relating to Community Safety, which ensures that extensive improvements are made in providing the public with clear and accurate information on incidents they have reported. This should include informing individuals of the timescales and processes involved in their case, regular progress updates and contacting individuals as a matter of course to inform them a case has been resolved/closed and the outcomes from it. Supported by Key Findings 12, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 19

R2. In conjunction with Recommendation R1 and its timescale, improve the information available to Council tenants through the development of a Good Neighbour Guide, ensuring that Elected Members are given the opportunity to contribute to this through the Scrutiny Process. Supported by Key Findings 14 and 15

R3. In conjunction with Recommendation R1 and its timescale, ensure that tenants of social housing are provided with a dedicated housing officer(s) and clear contact information in order to report issues in their area. Supported by Key Findings 14 and 17

R4. Include local Councillors on the Neighbourhood Management Programme Boards relevant to their constituency, allowing democratically elected Members to contribute to critical local decision making and priority setting; with immediate effect. Supported by Key Finding 26

16

R5. Provide local Councillors with the Council-produced Neighbourhood Profiles that give an overview of crime and anti-social behaviour incidents in their constituency, at the same time that they are shared with Police and Council officers; with immediate effect. Supported by Key Finding 26

R6. Within six months, work with the Cardiff Landlord Forum and Association of Letting and Management Agencies to: develop an engagement plan for working with landlords within the city, providing a single point of contact for advice on anti-social tenants within private rented properties develop standardised processes and documentation to work in partnership to address anti-social individuals in private rented properties. Supported by Key Findings 17, 18

R7. Enable Housing officers to review and advance their working practices by: becoming actively engaged in national groups such as the All Wales Good Practice Group and the All Wales Anti-Social Behaviour Coordinator Group, within three months. working specifically, but not exclusively, with Wales & West Housing Association, to share good practice and develop a consistent approach to social housing tenants in Cardiff within six months. This includes undertaking shared visits as a matter of course where incidents have been reported between Council tenants and nonCouncil tenants in social housing. Supported by Key Findings 19 and 20

R8. Within three months, explore opportunities to work in partnership with the Cardiff University Centre for Crime, Law and Justice in order to support an evidence-based and problem-orientated approach to allocation of resources and initiatives. This should include exploring the use of

17

Postgraduate students to work on non-sensitive, anonymous data such as crime patterns to assist responsible authorities in targeting resources and establishing the impact of interventions. Supported by Key Findings 21 and 22

R9. Review the processes involved in providing information for Licensing decisions, ensuring that all available Health data, public views and information provided by Elected Members is included in Committee papers; with immediate effect. Supported by Key Finding 13

R10. Within three months, ensure that Police are proactive in addressing noise nuisance complaints received through 101 during out of hours periods for the Councils Noise Nuisance and Noise Pollution teams. Supported by Key Findings 9 and 24

R11. Within six months, work with the Police and other responsible authorities to develop an advertising campaign for the 101 service, as the nonemergency number for reporting incidents such as anti-social behaviour. This should include information on the standard charge from a landline and mobile phone and raise awareness of the fact that calls are free from public phone boxes. Supported by Key Findings 24 and 25

R12. Within three months, work with the Police and Elected Members to develop terms of reference and standard working practices for local inspectors and sergeants, providing a consistent approach to engaging with local Councillors. Supported by Key Finding 27

R13. The Committee gives support to Recommendation 2 of the Environmental Scrutiny Committee Litter in Cardiff Report in relation to dog fouling and in particular recommends that the Council:

18

Create a clear strategy for how it deals with dog fouling in Cardiff. This policy should be appended to (or become part of) a wider litter or waste management policy.

Support the Control of Dogs (Wales) Bill which is being considered by the Welsh Government. The Committee would ask the Cabinet Member for the Environment to write to the Welsh Government setting out the Councils support for the Bill.

Publicise the dangers created by dog fouling through the use of shock-driven or controversial dog fouling posters and signs. These posters and signs should be placed in key locations, for example, schools, libraries and surgeries. The publicity should include initial short-term intensive promotion.

Develop an effective way to record all reported dog fouling incidents. Once this is achieved then a performance indicator should be created to report on how quickly the dog mess is removed and the volume of reported instances.

Subject to the success of the Police Community Support Officer (PCSO) and Urban Park Ranger trials, the Committee would encourage the Council to extend these powers to all wards.

Supported by Key Finding 10

19

EVIDENCE

Overview
1. There is no single precise definition of what anti-social behaviour is. The Draft Anti-Social Behaviour Bill (December 2012) describes it as everyday nuisance, disorder and crime that has a huge impact on victims quality of life. While the Crime and Disorder Act (1998) describes it 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.

2. Throughout the Inquiry, Members have been informed that anti-social behaviour cannot be given rigid parameters as it can affect different individuals in different ways. Actions that may seriously distress one individual may not affect or bother another individual at all. This is reflected in the online information provided by the Citizen Advice Bureau. It states that;

Broadly, [anti-social behaviour] is acting in a way that causes or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress.

There may be a fine line between anti-social behaviour and disputes between neighbours over relatively minor inconveniences, although these may, if persistent, become anti-social behaviour. Anti-social behaviour can include: intimidation of neighbours and others through threats or actual violence harassment, including racial harassment verbal abuse homophobic behaviour systematic bullying of children in public recreation grounds, on the way to school or even on school grounds, if normal school disciplinary procedures do not stop the behaviour

20

abusive behaviour aimed at causing distress or fear to certain people, for example, elderly or disabled people noise dumping rubbish animal nuisance, including dog fouling vandalism, property damage and graffiti1

3. Anti-social behaviour is highlighted as a key concern to the residents of Cardiff through the Ask Cardiff survey. Ask Cardiff is a bi-annual survey undertaken by Cardiff Council Research Centre, to consult citizens of Cardiff on a wide range of issues and services provided in the city. Figure A shows that across the six neighbourhood management areas in Cardiff, different types of anti-social behaviour are of particular concern to the residents.

Figure A Ask Cardiff Results 2012

4. Comparison with the Ask Cardiff results from 2011 (Figure B) would suggest that the level of concern around issues that could be considered
1

Citizen Advice Bureau (www.adviceguide.org.uk/wales) What is Anti Social Behaviour

21

anti-social behaviour has fallen in Cardiff in the past year. The percentage of respondents finding issues a very big or fairly big problem is generally higher across all the six localities in 2011.

Figure B Ask Cardiff Results 2011 [please note columns are displayed in a different order to 2012 results]

5. Anti-social behaviour cannot be given rigid labels and must be addressed with sensitivity given that it affects different individuals in different ways, and given that different types of anti-social behaviour are of particular concern in different neighbourhoods. This is reflected in the Home Office White Paper, Putting Victims First, More Effective Responses to AntiSocial Behaviour. It states that anti-social behaviour is a local problem, that looks and feels different in every area and to every victim. A single, central model is not appropriate for tackling this most local of problems, although a strong message that it has to be taken seriously can come from the centre.2

Home Office; Putting Victims First, More Effective Responses to Anti-Social Behaviour, May 2012

22

6. Analysis of crime and anti-social behaviour incidents across the city is undertaken by the Council and Police, which is used to support decisions to undertake initiatives and target the allocation of resources in Cardiff. Three hotspot areas exist in the city; the City Centre; Cardiff Bay; and Caerau Lane, Ely. Figure C shows this mapping of incidents across the city for the period January June 2012.

Figure C Anti Social Behaviour in Cardiff: Hotspots

Caerau Lane

City Centre Cardiff Bay

Community Safety
7. It is recognised that local authorities play an important role in reducing crime, disorder and anti-social behaviour, with a number of statutory requirements existing for the Council in relation to community safety. The Crime and Disorder Act (1998), as amended by the Police Reform Act (2002), is guided by the recognition that crime cannot be impacted upon by the Police working alone. Local authorities in Wales are required to sit on Community Safety Partnerships with other responsible authorities,

23

including the Police Authority, Health Board, Probation Trust and Fire Authority.

8. As part of these statutory requirements the local authority is required to undertake the following; conduct Annual Strategic Assessments; consult the community; mainstream community safety across partners; and publish Partnership Plans. This mainstreaming of Community Safety is a legal duty placed on agencies through Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act. It states that Without prejudice to any other obligations imposed upon it, it shall be the duty of each Authority to exercise its various functions with due regard to the likely effect of the exercise of those functions on, and the need to do all it reasonably can to prevent crime and disorder anti social behaviour, behaviour adversely affecting the environment and substance misuse in its area3

9. Failure to consider crime and disorder in the exercise of its functions could leave the Council open to a legal challenge if it is found to not have done all it reasonably can.

10. Community safety is addressed through the work of a number of services across the Council, with the prevention and reduction of anti-social behaviour and crime being a key element of the work undertaken. Appendix A is a mapping diagram showing the work across the Council to tackle community safety. The range of service areas involved in community safety includes Housing & Neighbourhood Renewal, City Management, Childrens Services, Partnerships & Citizen Focus, Regulatory & Supporting Services and Legal Services.

11. As part of the Inquiry, the Members met with senior officers and management from the Council and Police Authority, including the newly elected Police and Crime Commissioner. The Cardiff Cabinet Member Communities, Housing & Social Justice informed the Inquiry Members that
3

Crime and Disorder Act (1998), Section 17 [http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/37/contents]

24

working in partnership is the key to addressing anti-social behaviour in the city. While in the past individual areas of the Council may have tried to address anti-social behaviour in isolation, it is now recognised that a coordinated approach with wider partners is essential. This message was echoed in a number of meetings of the Inquiry, with the Police and Crime Commissioner stating that partnership is not an add on to the daily working practice of the Police and other responsible authorities, it is integral to the reduction of crime, anti-social behaviour and disorder.

12. The Leading Cardiff Building Communities document was produced in July 2012 for the new Administration of Cardiff Council to outline its vision for the city, and identifies a number of key priorities for the 2012/13 municipal year. This document shows a commitment to addressing antisocial behaviour in partnership. It states that anti-social behaviour, and the fear that it causes, can be a blight on our communities and we will ensure that all Council services and partner agencies co-ordinate a local response to crime related problems, with solutions that properly meet the needs of local people.4

13. To support the partnership arrangements in Cardiff, a number of projects and partnership groups are in place. Appendix B shows the current reporting arrangements in diagrammatic form. This diagram shows that a number of arrangements are in place for a range of regular meetings, work stream priorities and performance monitoring and evaluation work.

Partnership Initiatives
14. Senior Council Officers outlined a number of specific projects and initiatives that are in place to address different aspects of anti-social behaviour within the city, undertaken in partnership across Council service areas and working with the Police and other responsible authorities. It is recognised that there is a need to take both a reactive and preventative approach to anti-social behaviour. This is a view shared with the Home
4

Cardiff Council; Leading Cardiff Building Communities

25

Office White Paper which states that, Anti-social behaviour (ASB) cannot be addressed long term by dealing reactively with the behaviour of those who already have entrenched and serious behavioural problems. [] we must also prevent ASB from happening in the first place.5

Alcohol Treatment Centre 15. Within the city centre an Alcohol Treatment Centre (ATC) has been set up to support individuals who have become intoxicated on a night out and to reduce alcohol-related incidents of crime and disorder within the city centre. The ATC is run in partnership between the Councils City Management team, the Police Authority and University Health Board. A representative from Cardiff University Violence & Society Research Group highlighted why this initiative was important. Not only does it prevent alcohol induced incidents of disorder occurring, but also reduces the pressure on the hospital emergency department and prevents Police officers needing to leave the city streets to accompany individuals to the emergency department.

16. Figure D shows the complex interdependencies that exist within the nighttime economy and demonstrates why it is important for agencies to work together. The dotted lines on the diagram show where individuals are diverted away from the emergency department and can be discharged by medical practitioners at the ATC. The Members of the Inquiry were informed that this is important because overcrowding in the emergency department places patients at greater risk, prolongs pain and suffering, increases patient waits, increases patient dissatisfaction, increases ambulance handover times, decreases physician productivity, increases frustration among staff and promotes violence.

Home Office; Putting Victims First, More Effective Responses to Anti-Social Behaviour, May 2012

26

Figure D Night-time Economy Complex Interdependencies6

Community Payback 17. Another initiative within the city centre is the use of individuals that have been ordered by the Courts to undertake Community Payback to collect glasses and glass bottles from the streets and gutters on Friday and Saturday nights. Community Payback is essentially the replacement for Community Service. It is unpaid work, aimed at giving something to local communities and forcing offenders to repay the community for the wrong they have done. This work undertaken with the Probation Service is regarded as a success with no glassings occurring on the streets of Cardiff city centre for a second year in a row and the scheme has subsequently been introduced in other areas of the country.

Youth Offending Service ASB Project 18. The Anti-Social Behaviour Project of the Council Youth Offending Service aims to divert young people from participating in anti-social behaviour at an early stage with a view to reducing the number of Acceptable Behaviour Contracts and Anti-Social Behaviour Orders that are issued across Cardiff. The Youth Offending Service works in partnership with the Police, schools, Social Services and a number of other Council services in

Source Cardiff Uni School of Dentistry, Violence & Society Research Group

27

order to work with young people and their families to get to the root of issues, to signpost to services that can help, and to divert young people away from anti-social behaviour. Currently within the city there are no young people (17 and under) with Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBO), four young people with Criminal Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (CRASBO) and three with Acceptable Behaviour Contracts (ABC).

StaySafe 19. StaySafe was highlighted to the Inquiry Members as another example of partnership working with a youth focus. Operation StaySafe is a joint initiative run between South Wales Police and Cardiff Council and is aimed at engaging with vulnerable children and young people who may be at risk of becoming the victim of crime or involved in criminal or anti-social behaviour. The project has links with individuals from a large range of organisations, including Victim Support; Sexual Assault Referral Clinic; Hospital Emergency Department; Trading Standards; Licensing Team; Ambulance Trust; Youth Services; Substance Misuse Action Team; Antisocial Behaviour Team; Street Pastors; Community Drug Alcohol Team; and South Wales Police.

20. An important element for this initiative is the provision through Section 46 of the Children Act (1989) allowing the Police to detain and remove a child to a place of safety when there is reasonable cause to believe the child would suffer harm. This particularly applies if they are in possession of alcohol, having consumed alcohol, out on the streets at night, involved in anti-social behaviour, in the company of adults who may be involved in anti-social behaviour and/or crime, and in possession of a firework. The Police have the power to ensure parents come and collect their child and use this opportunity to advise parents of the risks, dangers and consequences involved in their child's behaviour and offer follow up support.

21. The Council Officer involved with this project has recently won the 2012/13 Butler Trust Award for Team Manager: for contributions to the local stay 28

safe crime reduction and public safety initiative with young people. The Butler Trust Annual Awards are the most sought after awards for people working in correctional settings in the UK. The Awards recognise outstanding dedication, skill and creativity by people working in prisons, probation or youth justice settings across the UK.

Motor Cycles 22. To address motor cycle related nuisance in parks in Cardiff, the Council works in partnership with the Police to undertake specific operations across problem hotspots in the city. These are large scale operation involving significant levels of Police and Council resources, at times including Police helicopters. In 2011/12, six operations were undertaken. As a result, seven bikes were confiscated as un-road worthy, one referral was made to social services where a father was found with a child onboard, three section 59 notices (anti-social driving offences) were issued, two referrals were made to Housing, and five referrals were made for anti-social behaviour.

Noise Pollution 23. Regulatory and Supporting Services has a number of legislative powers that can be used to address and prevent anti-social behaviour occurring in the city. The Councils Noise Pollution team has established an out of hours noise service for residents disturbed by night time noise. Two Noise Enforcement Officers are on duty from 7pm onwards from Thursday to Sunday, with the service operating as late as 4am at peak periods on the weekends. Officers are available to respond to incidents such as noisy parties, initially by bringing the matter to the attention of those concerned. However, officers have wide ranging powers to intervene formally where necessary, including the issue of legal notices, the service of Fixed Penalty Notices and in extreme cases the seizure of noise equipment. At times, the Noise Enforcement Officers undertake work alongside the Police, providing a coordinated response and reducing the risk of abuse and violence.

29

Views on Community Safety 24. Academics from the Cardiff University Centre for Crime, Law and Justice expressed concerns to the members of the Inquiry regarding the mainstreaming of community safety within services. They stated that in their opinion there is a risk that co-ordination between services within the local authority and from other responsible authorities within a partnership gets lost. This is especially important if it is accepted that many problems of community safety are multi-faceted and require a multi-agency response which, itself, needs to be coordinated. The danger of only mainstreaming community safety within local authority services is that this multi-agency response breaks down as particular services (education, housing, youth services, adult and childrens social services etc) could adopt their own approaches which may only address particular aspects of community safety problems or, at worst, contradict one another.

25. An example was given from a local authority the academics had previously worked with, where a Community Safety Officer was taken to court by the Childrens Social Service of his own authority. He wanted to secure an Anti-Social Behaviour Order on an individual who was also a client of Social Services. Social Services contested the ASBO citing their duty of care for rehabilitating this client. Ultimately Social Services won the case and stopped the ASBO. The broader point is that to avoid the cost of contradictory approaches, much less the expense of court proceedings to resolve conflicts between responsible authorities, there is a need for multiagency approaches to be themselves coordinated.

26. Members were informed by Academics at Cardiff University Centre for Crime, Law and Justice that Cardiff used to be at the forefront of addressing anti-social behaviour. In 2010, the Safer Capital Cardiff partnership won a Tilley Award for integrating partnership and problem solving approaches into their work. It was stated that the Tilley Awards are internationally prestigious awards that recognise innovative crime fighting 30

projects where representative authorities, community groups and the public successfully work together to identify and tackle local crime problems.

27. It is important for the services of the Council involved in community safety and other responsible authorities involved to have an agreement on what its priorities are and therefore how different approaches to anti-social behaviour, both enforcement and preventive, ought to be coordinated.

Research Commissioned 28. The Cardiff Council Scrutiny Research Team was commissioned to identify and outline good practices which have tackled anti-social behaviour in other local authorities. There was a particular focus on the organisational structures, partnerships and collaborative arrangements that local authorities have used to reduce levels of anti-social behaviour in quantity and detrimental impact. This briefing paper can be found as Appendix C.

29. This piece of research identified that most of the local authorities explored share a similar process whereby the respective council department or agency will attempt to resolve the reported anti-social behaviour in isolation where incidents are not considered to be of serious concern. Where it is determined that formal action or a collaborative approach is required, anti-social behaviour incidents are referred to a dedicated antisocial behaviour unit or partnership.

30. In each local authority, tenants of Council or housing association properties have different anti-social behaviour reporting arrangements to the general public or those who reside in private accommodation. With the exception of Nottingham City Council, the local authorities who were included in this review have dedicated officers or units which respond to incidents of anti-social behaviour that are reported by Council property tenants. The process is for Council tenants to contact their Housing Officer with details of the anti-social behaviour incident. Attempts are then made 31

by the Housing Officer to resolve the issue informally. For residents of private accommodation most local authorities have a general anti-social behaviour telephone number from which allegations can be directed. This is consistent with Cardiff Council, where Council tenants and non-Council tenants issues are addressed by different teams.

Housing
31. Cardiff Council has a number of legislative duties and powers as a landlord. The Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 (amending the Housing Act 1996) requires the Council to publish an Anti-Social Behaviour Statement of Policy and Procedure. In this context, anti-social behaviour is defined as conduct which is capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any person, and which directly or indirectly relates to or affects the housing management functions of a relevant landlord. It is also conduct which consists of or involves using or threatening to use housing accommodation owned or managed by a relevant landlord for an unlawful purpose.

32. A number of specific interventions are available to the Council in order to address tenants whose actions may be considered to constitute anti-social behaviour: Introductory Tenancy is a trial period of one year before an individual becomes a secure tenant. Introductory tenants have fewer rights than secure tenants and their tenancies can be ended more easily if they break their tenancy conditions. The Council has the power to extend an Introductory Tenancy for another six months if it deemed necessary. Demoted Tenancy, introduced by the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003, enables local authorities to deal more effectively with anti-social behaviour. It instigates a two-stage regime entitling such landlords to apply to demote an otherwise secure tenancy for a year. During this demoted period, the Council may seek possession of the property as of right if conduct is not improved.

32

33. The Council is also able to take action with the Police and look to apply an Anti-Social Behaviour Injunction (ASBI) on an individual. An ASBI is similar to an Anti-Social Behaviour Order (ASBO) but has been developed to help councils and housing associations tackle anti-social behaviour in social housing areas. They tend to be sought by local authorities, police and/or social landlords or housing associations and are set up with a series of conditions being attached, that if breached, hold consequences. AntiSocial Behaviour Injunctions are issued by the County Court to prevent anti-social behaviour being committed by an individual. If the ASBI carries the power of arrest, any breach on the Injunction may result in arrest of the individual.

34. The Cardiff Council Anti-Social Behaviour Statement of Policy and Procedures states that it will take firm action to eliminate anti-social behaviour. Our response to anti-social behaviour is proportionate, depending on the facts of each case. Our normal approach is to ensure that families or individuals who may be causing anti-social behaviour receive support to assist them in modifying their behaviour, and then to act against those families or individuals who continue to cause a nuisance.7

35. An annual Tenants Satisfaction Survey is undertaken by the Council in order to identify levels of satisfaction, and capture the views of Local Authority tenants on the current services they receive. The results of the 2012 Survey show a number of positive views regarding the Council as a landlord, however the following results were captured in relation to antisocial behaviour: 20.8% of tenants reported that they were dissatisfied with how the Council deals with anti-social behaviour. 27.8% of tenants that had contacted the Council regarding anti-social behaviour/nuisance neighbours were passed to at least three people before their query was dealt with.

Cardiff Council; Anti-Social Behaviour Statement of Policy and Procedures

33

three-tenths of tenants found staff unhelpful when their query to the Council related to anti-social behaviour/nuisance 50% of respondents were dissatisfied with the final outcome when making contact about anti-social behaviour/nuisance neighbours.8

Housing Associations 36. The Social Landlords Crime and Nuisance Group (SLCNG) was contacted as the UK's leading housing based organisation specialising in delivering effective solutions to anti-social behaviour. It was recommended that the Members of the Inquiry meet with representatives from Charter Housing Association and Wales & West Housing Association (WWHA) in order to discuss good practice in tackling anti-social behaviour with local organisations and to obtain views on Cardiff Council Housing.

37. The Members of the Inquiry heard that, in the view of these representatives, Cardiffs Housing function is not particularly dynamic and tends to struggle at partnership working to address problem tenants. An example was given where a housing association tenant had been racially abused by a Council Housing tenant. There was an opportunity for Housing Officers from both organisations to undertake a joint visit and address the issue, but the Council declined to get involved because no complaint had been registered with them. The representative from WWHA expressed a view that the Police Authority was far more proactive and willing to engage in joint visits.

38. The Members of the Inquiry were informed that in the past meetings had been held between WWHA and Cardiff Housing Management with a view to improve services and adopt a consistent and holistic approach across Cardiff. There was however no outcome from these meetings and relationships remained unchanged. The representative from WWHA stated that this willingness to work with Cardiff Council was still there, and offered

Cardiff Council; Annual Tenant Satisfaction Survey

34

that WWHA could work with Cardiff Council to share good practice and to develop consistent working practices across the city.

39. Housing association representatives stated that it was important for housing associations, and local authority housing sections to share good practice and experience. Two nationwide groups were highlighted as good examples to facilitate this; the All Wales Anti-Social Behaviour Coordinator Group and an All Wales Share Good Practice Group. It was commented that engagement in these groups from Cardiff Council was very limited.

40. The Members of the Inquiry were informed that WWHA had recently undertaken an analysis of all the court cases the Association had been through in relation to anti-social behaviour from tenants. It was shown that the large majority of these cases started out as noise complaints and early intervention could probably have prevented the need for them to go to court, but the complaints had not been addressed early and were allowed to escalate. It was highlighted to the Members that early and swift engagement in complaints is essential to reduce and prevent incidents of anti-social behaviour. The representative from Charter Housing Association agreed and shared an experience from a number of years ago with the Members, where noise complaints were put to the bottom of his pile of priorities to deal with. A few weeks later this noise complaint had become an incident of grievous bodily harm involving the same individuals. He felt many serious cases could be avoided if they were addressed at an early stage when only minor incidents.

41. Housing association representatives also highlighted the importance of effective communication with tenants. Individuals should know that their complaints are being looked into and should be made aware of the timescales involved, which can avoid the expectation that things will be resolved overnight. It was commented that even if an individual needed to be informed that nothing had progressed or that their case had been held up this is better than hearing nothing and assuming the Council had 35

forgotten them. It is also important to let individuals know issues when have been dealt with and share the outcomes where appropriate, even to the extent of publicising successes. The relationship housing officers build up with their residents is very important, and wherever possible officers should be out and about rather than desk bound.

42. It should be noted that housing association representatives felt many of these issues are seen across local authority housing sections in general as opposed to problems exclusively in Cardiff Council. It was suggested that too many processes and procedures are in place that hinder independent decision making allowing for effective and quick responses to issues.

Tenants & Residents Associations 43. An invite to contribute to the Inquiry was sent out to the Chair of each Tenants & Residents Association (TRA) in Cardiff. As a result, the Members of the Inquiry met with the Chairs of Channel View Tenants & Residents Association and SWLTRA (South Morgan Place, Wyndham Street, Wyndham Place and Lewis Street Tenants & Residents Association).

44. The Chair of Channel View Tenants & Residents Association explained that the majority of complaints he receives from residents relate to a lack of ability to connect with the Council as their landlord. There is frustration that there isnt a main point of contact or a dedicated officer to go to. This view was supported by the Chair of SWLTRA who felt the links between the Council and its tenants was not strong enough. The SWLTRA newsletter was circulated to the members to emphasise this point; while the newsletter contains the names and direct contact details for local Police Community Support Officers and Councillors, the details provided for the Council were the Connect2Cardiff number and a generic AntiSocial Behaviour Officers number.

36

45. The Tenants & Residents Association representatives felt that this lack of contact with the Council meant that there was nobody around to solve small issues that arise, no one to keep people in line, and inevitably tensions rise and grow into larger incidents. If action was taken earlier and the Council was more responsive it was felt that less problems would occur.

46. This emphasis on early intervention and quick response was a view shared by a number of the witnesses contributing to the Inquiry. As previously outlined, representatives from local housing associations stated that in their professional opinion, early and swift engagement in complaints is essential to reduce and prevent incidents of anti-social behaviour. Many serious cases could be avoided if they are addressed at an early stage when only minor incidents. This was also a view shared by a professor from Cardiff University Centre for Crime, Law and Justice, who stated that it is very important to nip issues in the bud at an early stage. If issues can be prevented from growing, they will not become incidents of anti-social behaviour requiring a more intensive response.

47. Representatives from the tenants & residents association highlighted some additional factors that they felt contributed to anti-social behaviour that the Council could reasonably address. Firstly, it was stated that there are links between poor maintenance of a building and anti-social behaviour. If an area is allowing to deteriorate and looks run down, people tend to lose respect for it and problematic behaviour follows. This was a view shared by housing association representatives who highlighted some areas of Council Housing as disgusting, and felt it was no surprise that the problems exist in terms of behaviour. Secondly, it was commented that there seemed to be inconsistencies in the Councils Housing Allocation Policy, which leads to conflict between residents given their different perceptions of acceptable behaviour. An example was provided where a young individual had been given a flat in a block housing residents over 50 years old. This was a view shared a Member of the Inquiry who knew of

37

examples in their ward where young people were being housed in blocks that were previously allocated for older residents only.

48. It was noted that this may be out of the Councils control where a resident may have taken the right to buy their property and had subsequently moved elsewhere, renting out their property to an individual who may not comply with the Councils Allocation Policy.

Police Authority
49. The Police Authority plays a key role in addressing anti-social behaviour in Cardiff, working in partnership with the Council and other responsible authorities in the City. The members of the Inquiry met with the Chief Superintendent, Superintendent and a Chief Inspector from Cardiff Base Command Unit and also the recently-elected Police and Crime Commissioner for South Wales.

50. It was stressed to the Members of the Inquiry that the partnership arrangements that exist between the Police, various Council departments and other responsible authorities are essential in continuing to reduce the levels of crime and anti-social behaviour in the city. A number of initiatives previously outlined by Council officers were again used to demonstrate the success that can be achieved in working together to address particular concerns in the city. Additionally, the CCTC control room for the city, where Council Highways officers, Police Authority officers and Council Anti-Social Behaviour officers monitor the cameras across the city was given as an important way to gather evidence and maximise opportunities to tackle crime in Cardiff. It was commented that this may be the only place in Wales that this kind of CCTV partnership set up and relationship exists.

51. 101 is the Police non-emergency number for individuals to report crimes or incidents that do not require an emergency response. Calls to 101 (from both landlines and mobile networks) cost 15 pence per call, no matter

38

what time of day the call is made and no matter what the call duration is. The 15p cost of the call goes to the telephony providers to cover the cost of carrying the calls. The police and government receive no money from calls to 101. Calls made to 101 from BT telephone boxes are currently free of charge. The Inquiry Members were informed that calls are received and processed within the Police Service Centre in Cardiff, which also handles 999 calls in the area. If calls are made to 999 that are not an emergency they are passed on to the 101 operators rather than being disconnected and told to call the different number.

52. Tenants and residents association representatives voiced frustrations with the 101 number. They stated that they and other residents were unaware that the 101 number was not free, and only discovered this when their phone bill was received. Also, it was stated that often incidents are reported to the Police but it seems nothing ever comes of it. Sometimes incident numbers were given, but not always, which causes problems in chasing up incidents that have been reported. Members of the Inquiry also stated they had had similar experiences, where constituents had informed them on incidents they had reported, but Members were unable to chase them up and check progress with the Police because no incident number was given. This creates unnecessary frustrations for both Members and members of the public, and wastes time.

53. It was also suggested that the service received through 101 when noise complaints are reported could be improved. As a matter for the Council, members of the public are redirected to the Noise Pollution Team or the Out of Hours Noise Service. However as previously outlined, this out of hours service is only operational from Thursday to Sunday, and individuals wishing to report late night noise the remainder of the week are left to report incidents on an answer phone. Members of the Inquiry recognised this frustration having had similar experiences and felt that the Police should take more responsibility to deal with this, in the knowledge that the Council service will not be operational and given the partnership that exists between them. 39

54. The Police and Crime Commissioner for South Wales informed the members of the Inquiry that in his experience there are two essential knowledge bases on a local level, which should be utilised as much as possible; Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs) and Elected Members. He stated that it was his intention to formally spend time with each Elected Member at least once a year, and also to meet with Council Leaders and Cabinet Members frequently. It was also stated that Elected Members should be enable to be more engaged in Neighbourhood Management issues given their role in representing the public and businesses in their constituency.

55. This view was shared by the Chief Superintendent who felt that Elected Members should be probably be represented on at Neighbourhood Management Programme Board meetings, which are used to discuss and make critical local decisions. These meetings include local inspectors, GPs, head teachers and council officers, who consider a large amount of local data relating to crime and anti-social behaviour, but currently the Councillors who have been elected by local people are not included. Similarly, the Chief Superintendent highlighted the Neighbourhood Profiles produced by the Council, that give a local overview of crime and anti social behaviour, as a document Elected Members should receive, despite the confidentiality stamp. It would allow Members to assist in getting to the bottom of local incidents and concerns.

56. Members of the Inquiry were informed that there is an engagement plan in place for local Inspectors that includes a requirement to engage with local Councillors. Members however commented that often the response they receive from Inspectors is inconsistent, and each works in a different way. The relationship and understanding that has been built up over a period of time between Elected Members, the Police and local communities can disappear overnight if a new Inspector is introduced who works in a different way. It was felt that improvements could be made to standardise the way in which Inspectors and Sergeants work. Representatives of the 40

Cardiff Base Command Unit expressed a willingness to work with Elected Members to develop a set terms of reference for Inspectors to work towards and to explore improvements that can be made.

57. Representatives of the Cardiff Base Command Unit also expressed a willingness to explore more opportunities to work with Elected Members and to allow Members an insight into the way the Police in Cardiff work. This included the potential to visit the Police Service Centre to see how 101 calls are received and processed through the system, and to join the Police on the streets when Operation Perception is carried out in a Members constituency.

58. Operation Perception is where officers conduct house to house enquiries speaking to residents about Police work to tackle crime and anti-social behaviour, providing crime prevention advice, and collecting feedback on the service residents feel they receive. It is felt that focusing resources on one geographic area helps deliver a strong message to the community that the Police want to understand peoples needs and views.

Improvements
59. Throughout the Inquiry, members heard that there is room for improvement in the way that the Council engages and works in partnership with organisations and individuals where statutory requirements do not exist, including members of the public, with a view to address and prevent anti-social behaviour.

Communication 60. In meeting Council officers, it was acknowledged that improvements are needed across the board in the information available to the public and the communication the Council undertakes. Individuals reporting incidents to the Council should not be left wondering what is happening with their case and if there has been any progress. Where set timescales apply, or if particular processes need to be undertaken, this should be explained to

41

the individual. The Council could also make increased effort to inform people when their issues / cases have been resolved and what the outcome has been, so that people are not left guessing or assuming nothing has been done. Officers will from time to time look to move onto the next case as soon as they have completed one, neglecting to contact the individuals involved, while it was acknowledged that this is an important step in closing a case.

61. As previously mentioned, representatives of tenants & residents associations felt the Council can improve its presence and communication with residents of Council properties. This was acknowledged in meeting with Council officers where a number of communication improvements were outlined. This included the development of a Good Neighbour Guide which would be given to Council tenants, outlining what behaviour is acceptable and what is not, and explaining the actions the Council will take in addressing behaviour which was undesirable and may be considered anti social. Council officers also indicated that improvements are needed in the feedback given to victims and those reporting incidents, and that the Council should more proactively publicise actions to address problem neighbours.

62. Within the Council, an Enquiry System has been developed as a means for Elected Members to track issues they have reported to the Council, providing a unique reference number, a status indicator, the ability to track which service area is dealing with the enquiry and any additional comments added by officers. Members are able to log enquiries that can range from reporting issues and requests for service, through to more complex enquiries about service strategy or ongoing customer issues, with the ability to attach letters or photos that support their enquiry. The Inquiry Members were informed that it is hoped this system will be rolled out for use by the general public to track enquiries to the Council following a pilot period for Elected Members only.

42

63. The Members of the Inquiry welcomed the commitment to allowing members of the public to log enquiries and track how their cases are being dealt with, although they were concerned that in their experience this system was little more that a data base of incidents recorded and did not provide enough information about which officer to contact for updates. It was felt that in its current form, it would not be the answer to allowing members of the public to track incidents and issues they have reported.

Private Landlords 64. The Chair of the Cardiff Landlord Forum (CLF) and a representative of the Association of Letting and Management Agencies (ALMA) were invited to meet with the Members of the Inquiry to discuss tackling anti-social behaviour in the private rented housing sector, a sector which is growing in Cardiff, with over 20% of properties in the city being privately rented. The CLF aims to provide a facility for the education of landlords, a point of contact for the local authority to speak to landlords and gauge opinion on matters and to provide a voice for landlords on issues that concern them and their business. Everyone that owns a property in the local authority region of Cardiff is considered a member of the forum. The ALMA Forum is a self-regulating organisation, which encourages best practice in the lettings' industry throughout South Wales. It offers a professional service to both landlords and tenants, with experienced management and welltrained staff.

65. Members were informed that there is a perception amongst some landlords that if they get in touch with the Council for assistance or advice will be laden with requirements and regulations as a result, and so some choose to try and deal with problems alone. It was felt that far better engagement could be undertaken between the Council and landlords, with the Council clearly outlining what the expectations of landlords in the city are when it comes to individuals who are causing disruption considered to be anti-social.

43

66. It was commented that, the general opinion of landlords is that dealing with problem residents who live in private rented accommodation is currently unfairly dumped with them, while a far more effective approach would be for the Council and landlords to put pressure on individuals from two directions. For example, warning letters could be written in parallel, which it is felt would be more effective than letters being received from either organisation in isolation.

67. The Landlord Accreditation Wales (LAW) Scheme, which is administered by Cardiff Council, was highlighted as a very useful source of information for private landlords, and a good way to develop good practice in managing properties. The Chair of the CLF felt that many more landlords could be benefiting from this scheme and other advice the Council provides, but that they do not recognise themselves as landlords (possibly having inherited a property or having moved in with a partner). It was felt that the Council could be doing far more to promote the scheme, the support it currently provides, and that clear advice and information should be available through the Council website. It was commented that ideally, there would be a single point of contact within the Council for landlords to use to discuss problems and to gain assistance in tackling problem tenants.

Cardiff University 68. Members of the Inquiry met with academics from Cardiff University in order to discuss good practice for community safety and to hear about specific interventions that have been undertaken in Cardiff. Individuals from both the Cardiff University Centre for Crime, Law and Justice and the Cardiff University Violence and Society Research Group stressed the importance of effective data collection and robust analysis to inform decisions made on partnership priorities and to allocate resources at a time when cutbacks across the public sector are being made. Without this kind of data analysis, reporting and monitoring, responsible authorities can only base work and the allocation of resources on subjective opinions

44

including the (possibly unrepresentative) feedback of a minority of disgruntled clients or service users.

69. It was commented that across the country a large number of innovative initiatives are implemented in order to address and prevent anti-social behaviour, however these often lack structured data collection or analysis arrangements to enable the initiative to be formally evaluated. Without this robust evidence, initiatives will not be adopted elsewhere as successful good practice.

70. It was highlighted that a good analytical work is currently undertaken by the Councils Senior Partnership Analyst, who undertakes the hotspot analysis and Neighbourhood Profiles mentioned earlier in this report. The Director of Cardiff University Centre for Crime, Law and Justice expressed a willingness to cultivate a research relationship between the University, the Council and other responsible authorities, sharing expertise on the most effective ways to reduce anti-social behaviour in the city. It was also suggested that postgraduate students and researchers could contribute to any analysis work through their ability to analyse non-sensitive and anonymous data, such as crime patterns, revealing spikes and hot-spots of problems which can then assist responsible authorities, including the Council. Individuals at the University would welcome the opportunity for students to be able to get real experience, to work on current data sets and make real recommendations, while responsible authorities could benefit through increased resources for analysis. This could involve placements for student researchers contributing to work already undertaken by the Partnership, or specific independent reviews of initiatives undertaken by postgraduate students.

Licensing 71. Concerns were highlighted through the Inquiry that important information was not being fed through to the Licensing Committee, which could potentially influence decisions on the allocation or renewal of alcohol licenses. It appeared that information is collected and made available but 45

is not always being fed through to the papers for the Committee. A member of the Inquiry shared his experience, where a complaint log was submitted to the Council regarding a premise that was soon to reapply for its license. This information did not get included within Committee Papers and so the evidence was not considered prior to renewal being approved. This issue was raised with the relevant senior Council officer and assurances were given that this issue was being addressed.

72. Members were also informed that data collection is undertaken by the University Health Board wherever possible, for example data captured in A&E regarding where accidents or incidents have occurred, and as a responsible authority this information should be included in licensing decision making. However to the knowledge of the Members of the Inquiry, Health data had never been included within the papers they had seen. It was commented that the fact this information may have been collected from severely drunk individuals could explain why is omitted from decision making papers.

Home Office Proposals

73. The Home Office is proposing to move away from a one size fits all model of dealing with anti-social behaviour, recognising that anti-social behaviour is a local problem and is different in every area and for every victim. It is suggested that local agencies will have to focus their response to antisocial behaviour on the needs of the victim rather than the incident itself. Putting Victims First, More Effective Responses to Anti-Social Behaviour sets out plans to replace the 19 complex existing tools with six faster, more effective powers (see Figure E). The aim is that these should enable professionals to take action quickly, which will stop anti-social behaviour by changing the way offenders behave in the longer term.

46

Figure E Simplification: From 19 to 6 9

74. A summary of the new powers are as follows: Crime Prevention Injunction this will be a purely civil order that can be quickly obtained in the County Court for adults and in the Youth Court for 10-17 year olds. It would be obtained on the civil burden of proof for instances where a person has engaged in conduct which is capable of causing nuisance or annoyance. A power of arrest could be attached to the injunction if the individual had used or threatened violence or if there was a risk of significant harm to the victim. Breach of the injunction would be punishable as contempt of court in the case of an adult, which might include being punished by up to two years in prison. Criminal Behaviour Order this would be a new civil order available alongside a conviction which could be requested by the police or council, and would be available where it would assist in the prevention of harassment, alarm or distress being caused to members of the public. As with the crime prevention injunction there would be the ability
9

Home Office; Putting Victims First, More Effective Responses to Anti-Social Behaviour (pg 24)

47

to proscribe behaviour and also set positive requirements to address underlying behavioural issues. Community Protection Notice this would deal with environmental antisocial behaviour. Councils, the police and social housing providers would be able to issue the notices. They would be issued to an individual or a responsible person within a business or organisation to deal with a problem affecting the community. It is intended to deal with a range of issues such as graffiti, littering, and dog-fouling. It would have to relate to persistent behaviour rather than single incidents, and the police could use it for example to tackle neighbourhood noise issues. Community Protection Order (public space) this will give Councils a flexible power to deal with place based anti-social behaviour. It would replace Dog Control Orders, Gating Orders and Designated Public Place Orders but would also be available for a wider range of behaviour including those covered by good rule and governance byelaws. The order would be issued by a council having consulted local residents, the police and police and crime commissioner to deal with existing problems or to prevent future ones. Community Protection Order (closure) - This would allow councils or the police to issue an order temporarily closing any property including licensed premises, businesses and private residences for up to 48 hours if there is a public nuisance or if disorder is likely to imminently ensue. The council and police would have to apply to the Magistrates Courts after the order comes into force for the court to consider the order and whether to extend it. Continuing closure would require a higher test being satisfied: that a person had engaged in disorder, antisocial or criminal behaviour on the premises and the property is associated with disorder or serious nuisance. A property subject to such an order could be completely closed for up to three months, and up to six months in total. Directions Power - The police will be given a new flexible Directions Power bringing together a range of dispersal powers. It would allow a

48

police officer or Police Community Support Officer to require a person who has committed or is likely to commit anti-social behaviour to leave an area and not return for 48 hours. There would be no need to designate an area in advance, and could be used on public land or in common areas of private land where the landowner consents.

75. The White Paper also outlines a range of initiatives to help victims, communities and businesses ensure that local agencies take action to deal with anti-social behaviour. At the heart of these proposals is the introduction of a Community Trigger that would give victims (or a third party in the case of vulnerable victims) and communities the right to demand action from agencies where they have repeatedly ignored complaints about anti-social behaviour. The Community Trigger will be a high level duty on councils, the police, and health services to deal jointly with complaints from the public where no action has previously been taken, although vexatious or malicious complaints could be rejected. The Community Trigger is currently being trialed across communities in Manchester, West Lindsey and Boston, Brighton and Hove, and Richmond upon Thames. The pilot areas will provide feedback and test the trigger on the ground before it can be applied nationwide.

76. Members of the Inquiry were informed that the Council and other responsible authorities are aware of these developments and recognise the move towards focussing on the victim rather than categorising the actual anti-social behaviour itself. With regard to the Community Trigger, the Council is awaiting the results of these trials in order to understand how it will work in practice. Two low level pilots are testing how this can be introduced in Cardiff, so that the Council and its partners are not starting from scratch when the changes are implemented. It is anticipated that the final proposals will be outlined as part of the Queens speech in May 2013.

49

INQUIRY METHODOLOGY
77. The task group set out to examine the structure and approach taken by Cardiff Council in tackling anti-social behaviour in the city. Members heard evidence from a number of internal witnesses representing the following service areas: Partnerships & Citizen Focus, City Management, Regulatory & Supporting Services, Legal Services and Childrens Services. Members also received evidence from a range of external witnesses, some of which have partnership working arrangements in place with the Council.

78. Members recognise that a number of responsible authorities contribute to the Community Safety partnership work undertaken across the city, such as the Health Board, Probation Trust and Fire Authority, but the focus of the Inquiry was placed upon the Council and Police Authority.

79. Over the course of the Inquiry, Members received information from the following witnesses:

Internal

Councillor Lynda Thorne

Cabinet Member; Communities, Housing & Social Justice

Sarah McGill

Corporate Chief Officer, Communities

Martin Hamilton

Chief Officer, City Management

Dave Holland

Head of Service, Regulatory & Supporting Services

Jane Thomas

Operational Manager, Benefits, Finance & Tenants Services

50

Richard Grigg

Housing Lawyer, Legal Services

Sarah Manley

Cardiff Youth Offending Service ASB Co-ordinator

Rachel Jones

Operational Manager, Partnerships & Citizen Focus

Anne Rowland

Private Sector Housing Environmental Health Officer and Landlord Accreditation Scheme Manager

External Witnesses

Chief Superintendent Alun Thomas

South Wales Police

Superintendent Belinda Davies

South Wales Police

Chief Inspector Stephen Murray

South Wales Police

Alun Michael

Police & Crime Commissioner for South Wales

Douglas Haig

Chair, Cardiff Landlord Forum

Sophie Packer

Association of Letting and Management Agencies

John Priday

Charter Housing

Jan Fox

Wales and West Housing Association

Professor Gordon Hughes

Cardiff University 51

Adam Edwards

Cardiff University

John Fellows

Channel View Tenants & Residents Association

Georgina Sammut

South Morgan Place, Wyndham Street, Wyndham Place and Lewis Street Tenants & Residents Association

Dr Simon Moore

Cardiff University

Marjukka Heikkinen

Cardiff University

52

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cardiff Council; Anti-Social Behaviour Statement of Policy and Procedures Available: www.cardiff.gov.uk/ObjView.asp?Object_ID=1361

Cardiff Council; Leading Cardiff Building Communities Available: www.cardiff.gov.uk/objview.asp?object_id=23337

Cardiff Council; Annual Tenant Satisfaction Survey Available: http://www.cardiff.gov.uk/ObjView.asp?Object_ID=24518&Language

Citizen Advice Bureau; What is Anti-Social Behaviour Available: http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/wales/housing_w/housing_problems_where_yo u_live_e/anti_social_behaviour_in_housing.htm

Crime and Disorder Act (1998) Available: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/37/contents

Home Office ; Putting Victims First, More Effective Responses to Anti Social Behaviour, May 2012 Available: http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm83/8367/8367.pdf

53

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
80. The Scrutiny Committee is empowered to enquire, consider, review and recommend but not to make policy decisions. As the recommendations in this report are to consider and review matters there are no direct financial implications at this stage in relation to any of the work programme. However, financial implications may arise if and when the matters under review are implemented with or without any modifications.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
81. The Scrutiny Committee is empowered to enquire, consider, review and recommend but not to make policy decisions. As the recommendations in this report are to consider and review matters there are no direct legal implications. However, legal implications may arise if and when the matters under review are implemented with or without modification. Any report with recommendations for decision that goes to Executive / Council will set out any legal implications arising from those recommendations. All decisions taken by or on behalf of the Council must (a) be within the legal power of the Council; (b) comply with any procedural requirement imposed by law; (c) be within the powers of the body or person exercising powers on behalf of the Council; (d) be undertaken in accordance with the procedural requirements imposed by the Council e.g. standing orders and financial regulations; (e) be fully and properly informed; (f) be properly motivated; (g) be taken having regard to the Council's fiduciary duty to its taxpayers; and (h) be reasonable and proper in all the circumstances.

54

COMMITTEE TERMS OF REFERENCE

To scrutinise, measure and actively promote improvement in the Councils performance in the provision of services and compliance with Council policies, aims and objectives in the area of community and adult services, including:

Public and Private Housing Adult Social Care Disabled Facilities Grants Community Care Services Community Safety Mental Health & Physical Disabilities Neighbourhood Renewal and Communities Next Commissioning Strategy Health Partnership Advice & Benefit Local Service Board Consumer Protection Older Persons Strategy

To assess the impact of partnerships with and resources and services provided by external organisations, including the Welsh Assembly Government, Assembly-sponsored public bodies, quasi- departmental non-governmental bodies and health services on the effectiveness of Council service delivery.

To report to an appropriate Executive or Council meeting on its findings and to make recommendations on measures which may enhance the Authoritys performance in this area.

55

COMMUNITY AND ADULT SERVICES SCRUTINY COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

Councillor Ramesh Patel (Chairperson)

Councillor Ali Ahmed

Councillor Joseph Carter

Councillor Kirsty Davies

Councillor Daniel DeAth

Councillor David Groves

Councillor Mary McGarry

Councillor Eleanor Sanders

Councillor Graham Thomas

56

APPENDIX A: Council Wide Community Safety

57

APPENDIX B: Community Safety Reporting Structure

Community Safety Reporting Structure

Regional South Wales Advisory Group

Leadership Group and Cardiff Partnership Board (CPB)

CASSC Scrutiny CPB Scrutiny

Multi Agency Problem Solving

Safer & Cohesive Communities Programme Board

Programme Boards X7

Performance Monitoring and Analysis

Safety & Safeguarding Communities Strategic Performance Indicators Workstream 1 Reduce domestic and sexual violence Trend Workstream 2 Improve offender management/reduce 1st time entrants to youth justice system Programme Highlight Reports Workstream 3 Develop a vibrant & safe night time economy Community Safety Data Sets Analysis Neighbourhood Intelligence Reports

Quality of Life Group (monthly) Joint Chair Neighbourhood Nuisance Manager and Police (organised by the Police) Attendees: All HANR Neighbourhood Nuisance team leaders Police reps from all sectors Youth Offending Service Victim Support Agenda: Strategic ASB matters Exceptional issues from PSG CCTV allocation/tasking Vulnerable victims Hotspot areas Main offenders

NEEDS Assessment

Community Cohesion

Workstream 4 Deliver the outcomes sought by the CONTEST Strategy

Problem Solving Groups (3 x monthly) Chair/Coordinate HANR Neighbourhood Nuisance team leaders Attendees: Sector police representative Education/ RSL/Victim Support Agenda - Local ASB issues Problem solving Pass up items to QoL
Workstream 6 Assist people and communities to feel safe Workstream 5 Preventing, Managing & Tackling Community Tensions

Workstream 7 Supporting Inclsuion and citizen involvment

58

APPENDIX C: BRIEFING PAPER Anti Social Behaviour Arrangements

Briefing Paper Anti Social Behaviour Arrangements

1.1

Introduction

This briefing paper produced by Cardiff Councils Scrutiny Research Team provides background information for the Community and Adult Services Scrutiny Committee (CASSC) on existing anti-social behaviour (ASB) arrangements used in comparable local authorities to Cardiff. The research is specifically focussed on the organisational structures, partnership and collaborative arrangements which have been implemented to address ASB.

The Research Team was commissioned to focus on the following local authorities: Bristol; Milton Keynes; Southampton; Swansea; Portsmouth; Leicester City and Nottingham. The research has been predominantly deskbased, but primary research was conducted, via telephone interviews with relevant local authority officers, where available secondary resources were limited.

1.2

Organisational Structures

1.2.1 Identification & Referral Processes

Each local authority has arrangements and processes in place through which ASB incidents can be reported to, or identified by either the Council, housing association or the Police. Most of these local authorities share a similar process whereby the respective council department or agency will attempt to resolve the reported ASB in isolation where incidents are not considered to be of serious concern. Where it is determined that formal action or a collaborative

59

approach is required, ASB incidents are referred to a dedicated ASB unit or partnership. ASB units are predominantly local authority based, with ASB partnerships additionally involving the Police and other agencies (as outlined in 1.3).

In each local authority, tenants of Council or housing association properties have different ASB reporting arrangements to the general public or those who reside in private accommodation.

1.2.2 Reporting ASB for Residents of Tenant Accommodation

With the exception of Nottingham City Council, the local authorities which were included in this review have dedicated officers or units which respond to incidents of ASB that are reported by Council property tenants. The process is for Council tenants to contact their Housing Officer with details of the ASB incident. Attempts are then made by the Housing Officer to resolve the issue informally. If formal action is required, ASB incidents are referred to a specialist ASB unit within the local authority or as part of its partnership arrangement.

Council tenants in Nottingham report ASB incidents directly to Nottingham City Homes (which manages Nottingham City Councils rented and leasehold homes).

In each of the local authorities, housing association tenants are advised to contact their housing association or the police with details of the ASB that they have experienced. In addition, registered social landlords in Southampton can also contact dedicated anti-social behaviour co-ordinators.

1.2.3 Reporting ASB for Residents of Private Accommodation

60

There are various processes through which residents of private accommodation within a local authority can report ASB incidents. These involve residents either reporting ASB incidents directly to the Police, neighbourhood policing teams, or community safety teams / units.

Pollution control departments can deal with instances of anti-social behaviour which involve noise disturbances. However, most local authorities have a general ASB telephone number from which allegations can be directed.

1.2.4 Inter-Departmental Information Sharing Process

Bristol Council uses an inter-departmental collaborative approach to dealing with ASB, prior to making a referral to the Councils dedicated ASB unit, if necessary.

Across East / Central Bristol a Better Neighbourhood Working pilot has been implemented. Within this pilot project, a joint working protocol between the Councils Housing and Environmental Health departments was established to specifically target domestic noise. This protocol involves ASB information, decision making and reporting arrangements being shared between the above Council departments.

1.2.5 Dedicated In-House ASB Posts / Teams

A number of dedicated ASB posts / teams exist within the local authorities included in this research, and their partner agencies. These posts / teams have been created to:

provide information and support to victims of ASB; tackle the causes of ASB; target particular district areas where ASB has been problematic, and;

61

collate intelligence and lead the civil action prosecution process against ASB perpetrators.

Each of the local authorities, with the exception of Bristol City Council, have community wardens / protection officers which provide a visible presence and a reporting channel for ASB incidents. Addition, Southampton employs parenting experts to help reduce ASB and a CREW coordinator (CREW is a community payback arrangement). Southamptons ASB Team also employs Area Investigators and Project Officers to manage and control ASB.

Each of the local authorities, with the exception of Nottingham City Council, have dedicated ASB / neighbourhood support units or teams. These units / teams receive referrals of reported ASB incidents from the respective Council department / agency and instigate legal action where warranted. In Nottingham City Council, reported ASB incidents are managed by partnership arrangements, which are outlined in section 1.3 of this report.

Various projects and teams exist within the local authorities to tackle ASB incidents. These include: a Family Intervention Project in Bristol which works with ASB offenders and their families; Neighbourhood Action Groups in Milton Keynes. These are problem solving groups that deal with community issues; a Safer Communities Unit in Milton Keynes, which has a number of ASB monitoring and control elements; Community Safety and Safer Communities Police Teams in Southampton; an ASB Reduction Team as part of Safer Swansea; a Rapid Response Team in Nottingham, to deal with neighbourhood issues.

Further details of the projects, teams and posts are included in Appendix C to this briefing paper.

62

1.3

Partnership & Collaborative Arrangements

Most local authorities have partnership arrangements with the police and other external organisations to address and control ASB in their respective cities.

As outlined above (1.2), each local authority, with the exception of Nottingham City Council, has a dedicated ASB unit / team. These units / teams largely operate through partnership arrangements involving local authority departments, the police and other partner agencies. This is with the exception of Southampton, Portsmouth and Leicester, which have internal dedicated ASB teams / units that manage the ASB in collaboration, but not direct partnership with the police and partner agencies.

In Southampton there is a collaborative agreement between Southampton Licensing Link, the Police and the Council, to operate the Red Card Scheme. The Red Card Scheme is a zero tolerance initiative, through which trouble makers and criminals can be banned from licensed premises and bars.

There was evidence of direct voluntary sector collaboration in tackling, or addressing the issues caused through ASB in each of the local authorities with the exception of Nottingham City Council. Referrals are widely made to appropriate victim support charities. In Bristol, mediation services are used to try and resolve issues of ASB.

1.4

Quantitative Improvements in Addressing ASB

For each local authority included in this report there is quantitative data which supports decreasing levels of reported ASB incidents. The extent to which this was influenced by the ASB arrangements and structures outlined in this report cannot be determined. However, some details of how these arrangements 63

may have impacted on the decreasing levels of reported ASB incidents are included in Appendix C.

1.5

Appendices

Further background information and data on the research findings are included in the appendices to this briefing paper.

Appendix A contains a comparative mapping of local authority arrangements to tackle ASB; Appendix B contains a comparison of home office statistics on ASBOs issued in each criminal justice system (CJS), matched to the population sizes of each CJS area. The cities included in this research are within the CJS Areas highlighted in the table;

Appendix C contains details of each of the specific structures, partnerships and collaborative arrangements in the local authorities upon which this research focussed. It also contains details of specific ASB activities in each local authority, and quantitative evidence of the improvements which have been made in addressing ASB.

64

1.6

References

Audit Commission, 2005. Community Safety - Southampton City Council Inspection Report.

Census: Population and Household Estimates for England and Wales, 2011.

Home Office, Anti-Social Behaviour Order Statistics 2011, England & Wales.

Nottingham Post, 2012. Police claim victory after antisocial behaviour blitz. Article Available At: http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/Police-claim-victory-antisocial-behaviourblitz/story-17455643-detail/story.html

Portsmouth Council, 2008. Local Authority Housing Management, Anti-Social Behaviour. Available At: http://www.portsmouth.gov.uk/media/HSGMGT_policy-asb.pdf.pdf

Safer Bristol Crime and Drugs Partnership, 2012 15 Partnership Plan. http://www.bristol.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/community_and_safety/ safer_bristol/Safer%20Bristol%20Partnership%20Plan%20201215%20version.pdf

Safer Leicester Partnership, 2010. AntiSocial Behaviour Strategy 20102013.

Safer MK, 2011. Performance Group Report. Available at: http://www.miltonkeynes.gov.uk/safermk/documents/Performance_Group_Rep_Mar_11.pdf

Safer MK, [no date]. Milton Keynes Anti Social Behaviour Procedures. Available at: http://cmis.miltonkeynes.gov.uk/CmisWebPublic/Binary.ashx?Document=29702

65

Safer Swansea Strategy 2011-14. Available at: http://www.saferswansea.org.uk/media/pdf/d/h/Safer_Swansea_20112014.pdf

Southampton Council, Southampton Red Card Scheme Launched. Website Article, Available at: http://www.southampton.gov.uk/living/safersouthampton/RedCardlaunched.as px

Southampton Safe City Partnership, [no date]. Terms of Reference. Available at: http://www.southamptonconnect.com/images/Item%206%20TOR%20App%20B_tcm23-289224.pdf

66

Appendix A Mapping of Local Authority (LA) Arrangements to Tackle ASB

Local Authority Inter- Departmental Information Sharing Processes Prior to Referral ASB Referral Processes Public Sector Partnership Private Sector Collaboration Voluntary Sector Collaboration Dedicated In-House ASB Posts / Teams Bristol Milton Keynes Southampton Swansea Portsmouth Leicester City Nottingham

- through the red card scheme

number of ASBOs issued at all courts has dropped each year since 2007 (for Hampshire & Isle of Wight collectively)

Quantitative Evidence of Improvements in Addressing ASB

reported crime has reduced, but referrals to the ASB Reduction Team have increased.

NB - A ticked box indicates that the arrangement is in place in the respective local authority.

67

Appendix B ASBOs issued at all courts in each Criminal Justice System area as reported to the Ministry of Justice by the Court Service, 01.04.09 31.12.11 (Home Office, Anti-Social Behaviour Order Statistics 2011, England & Wales). Matched to the population sizes (Census 2011)

68

Appendix C

Bristol Council
Background

Safer Bristol is a Crime, Drugs and Alcohol Partnership arrangement between a number of public and private sector organisations. Tackling ASB is one of the functions managed within this partnership, and the main processes and structures relating to dealing with reported ASB incidents are outlined below.

Raising ASB Complaints and Informal Action

ASB complaints from Council tenants are raised with the Councils Estate Management Service. The Estate Management Service allocates a Housing Officer, who sets out an action plan with the tenant. The Housing Officer decides whether a multi agency approach is needed (which may involve the Police and other local agencies) in an early intervention approach, or if they can deal with ASB alone.

ASB complaints from non-Council tenants are received and dealt with by the Neighbourhood Policing Team. However, Bristol Council also has a Pollution Control Team which responds to complaints regarding noise. These teams will try and resolve the complaints informally in the first instance, but can refer incidents to the Councils Anti Social Behaviour Team if formal action is required.

A collaborative arrangement is also in place between Bristol City Council and the Bristol Mediation Service, which is a charitable organisation that can be used to resolve ASB issues.

69

ASB Referral for Formal Action

Where early intervention fails with regards to Council tenants, ASB Case conferences are held, which are attended by all relevant agencies (Estate Management Services, ASB Team, the Police, Legal Services and support agencies).

When formal action is required, a referral is made to the Specialist Anti-Social Behaviour Team. They work with the Estate Management Service, Police and other partner agencies to take legal action against ASB offenders.

Pilot Intelligence Sharing Initiative

Bristol Council uses an inter-departmental collaborative approach in dealing with reported ASB, prior to making a referral to a dedicated ASB unit, if necessary.

A Better Neighbourhood Working pilot has been implemented across East / Central Bristol. Within this pilot, a joint working protocol between the Councils Housing and Environmental Health departments was established to specifically target domestic noise. This protocol involves the handling of ASB information, decision making and reporting arrangements being shared between the above Council departments.

ASB Activities

Family Intervention Project through which a key worker provides support to ASB offenders and their families to try and reform their behaviour.

Vulnerable Victims Management Service.

70

Evidence of Improvements in Addressing ASB In 2011/12 overall levels of ASB decreased by 4% from the 2010/11 figures.

In 2011, Bristol was accredited with Purple Flag status, for excellent management of the city centre at night. An element of the assessment was the requirement to achieve lower incidence of crime and ASB.

In the Bristol City Councils annual Quality of Life Survey:

A total of 31% of respondents felt that ASB was a problem in their area.

This is reported as being an improvement on the 2005 findings, where 49% felt ASB was a problem in their area; respondents were asked if they agree that the Police and public services

are successfully dealing with crime and ASB. 25% of respondents agreed with this statement in 2008, however, this figure rose to 40% in the 2011 survey (Safer Bristol Crime and Drugs Partnership, 2012 15).

71

Milton Keynes
Background

Safer MK involves 6 agencies working as partners with the aim of making Milton Keynes Safer (Thames Valley Police, Milton Keynes Council, Buckinghamshire Fire & Rescue Service, Milton Keynes Primary Care Trust, Thames Valley Probation Service and the Thames Valley Police Authority).

Raising ASB Complaints and Informal Action

ASB complaints can be reported to any of the departments in the Safer MK umbrella (Safer Communities Unit, Housing, Environmental Health, Trading Standards and Police) and partner agencies (Youth Offending Team, Probation, Primary Care Trust, Buckinghamshire Fire & Rescue Service, Education) (Safer MK [no date]).

Efforts are made to resolve minor ASB incidents in isolation, by the unit or partner agency, without collaboration through the partnership arrangement. Where incidents are not resolved, details of the reported ASB are shared between all of the partners and a multi-agency discussion determines the future course of action.

Registered social landlords are not part of Safer MK. However, it is reported that they work closely with Safer MK to deal with instances of ASB.

72

ASB Referral for Formal Action

Where a reported ASB incident cannot be resolved by the partner agency alone, details of the ASB incident are shared with all Safer MK partners. Safer MK employs an ASB Coordinator, who is responsible for producing an action plan and liaising with a number of agencies to ensure that reported ASB is tackled from different angles.

ASB Activities, Initiatives and Structures

Neighbourhood Action Groups (NAGs) are a key element of Neighbourhood Policing in Thames Valley. NAGs are problem solving groups which deal with community issues and consist of partner agencies, key stakeholders and members of the local community.

The Safer Communities Unit aims to improve the local communities quality of life and consists of the following elements: Mobile Closed Circuit Television (CCTV); Abandoned Vehicles Unit (AVU); Graffiti; Anti Social Behaviour; Fly tipping/litter; Dog Fouling; Traveller Unit; Safer Communities Wardens; Call handling and information management.

Evidence of Improvements in Addressing ASB

Police reported ASB reduced by 20% in 2010/11 compared to the previous year. Over the same period the rate of police reported ASB also fell by 22% (Safer MK 2011).

Police and council recorded incidents of ASB have decreased by 14% in 2010/11. Over the same period the rate of police and council reported incidents of ASB also fell by 15.9% (Safer MK 2011).

73

Southampton
Background

The Safe City Partnership is a strategic leadership group, with a number of subgroups (Safe City Partnership Review Group, Tackling Alcohol Partnership, Drug Action Team, Vulnerable Victims Group and Index of Multiple Deprivation Reducing Crime Group).

The Safe City Partnership is comprised of Chief Officer or Senior Level Representatives from Six Responsible Authorities (consisting of Fire and Rescue, Council, Primary Health Care Trust, Police, Police Authority and Probation Trust). This partnership works in cooperation with Wessex Youth Offending Team and Southampton Voluntary Service (Southampton Safe City Partnership, [no date]).

Raising ASB Complaints and Informal Action

There are various ways of reporting and raising ASB issues in Southampton.

Residents are encouraged to report ASB by calling 101, which is a Hampshire Police number for community safety issues. However, the Council website also outlines how members of the public can contact the local authority, or their social landlord.

The Council also has a Community Safety Team, which implements initiatives that address ASB (Audit Commission, 2005). Incidents of ASB can be reported to the Community Safety Team directly.

Southampton Council tenants can report ASB to their local Housing Officer, and tenants of a registered social landlord can contact ASB Coordinators, who will be able to investigate ASB issues.

74

Additionally, there is a Safer Neighbourhoods Police Team, who can be contacted with details of ASB.

ASB Referral for Formal Action

Once reported, ASB incidents are referred to the Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) Team within the local authority. The ASB Team consists of Area Investigators, Project Officers, Neighbourhood Watch and a CREW (Crime Reduction and Environment Weeks) Coordinator (CREW is a community payback arrangement). They work with the Police, local groups and other Council teams to address ASB.

The ASB Team will try and resolve matters informally in the first instance, but will instigate legal proceedings where necessary. In persistent cases, or where they feel the victim is vulnerable, they will refer the case to the local Victim Support Service and hold a multi-agency meeting to help ensure victims are safe and appropriately supported.

ASB Activities and Initiatives

Red Card Scheme This is a zero tolerance initiative, where trouble makers and criminals can be banned from licensed premises and bars in the night time economy. This is a collaborative arrangement between Southampton Licensing Link, the Police and the Council.

Neighbourhood Watch Scheme. Employment of parenting experts - who work with parents and carers to prevent young people from committing ASB, refer families to parenting programmes and offer support by linking families with other agencies.

Neighbourhood Warden Service.

75

Evidence of Improvements in Addressing ASB

According to a recent but undated Council article, incidents of ASB reduced by 8%, while violent crime fell by more than 20% over the last year (Southampton Council [no date])

The Southampton Safe City Partnership won a Tilley Award for combined efforts to combat crime and disorder across Southamptons night time economy.

76

Swansea
Background

The Safer Swansea Partnership is a group of organisations and individuals working together to create a safer city. Key statutory partners include the Council, Police, Fire and Rescue, Health and Probation Services.

Raising ASB Complaints and Informal Action

Members of the public are advised on the Councils website to contact the Police, District Housing Officer, housing association officer, or Environment Department to report ASB.

A Neighbourhood Support Unit (NSU) specifically operates for Council tenants. The unit provides a 24hour landlord presence on estates in a proactive approach to tackling ASB. The NSU also deals with issues raised by Housing Officers.

Under the Safer Swansea Partnership is an ASB Reduction Team. Their role is to moderate behaviour through a referral process which they operate. There is also a Community Safety Team, which is part of the Safer Swansea Partnership.

There is voluntary sector participation in the partnership, which includes Victim Support and Age Concern.

77

ASB Referral for Formal Action

A single agency will refer the ASB incident to the Safer Swansea Partnership where it is deemed that a partnership response is needed to solve the problem. The referral is graded and validated and validated by the partnership.

There is a four stage referral process. At escalation stages three and four, referrals are brought to a Problem Solving Group. The Problem Solving Group is a consultative body which represents all partner agencies where problems are discussed and actions are agreed (Safer Swansea Strategy 2011-14).

ASB Activities and Initiatives

Neighbourhood Support Unit with a 24 hour landlord presence on estates. Dedicated ASB Reduction Coordinator.

Evidence of Improvements in Addressing ASB

Swansea has achieved a 37% reduction in recorded crime over the last seven years (Safer Swansea Strategy 2011-14)

78

Portsmouth
Background

The Council works as part of the Safer Portsmouth Partnership to address issues relating to ASB. The Council uses a multi-agency approach to discuss and manage ASB issues, and apply ASB Orders.

Raising ASB Complaints and Informal Action

Council tenants can report ASB incidents to the Housing Office, who will either:

make a referral to the Portsmouth Assessment Service (PAS) (run by Portsmouth Mediation Service), or if the ASB is outside the remit of the PAS, or is very serious;

make a referral to the ASB Unit. (Portsmouth Council 2008)

Housing association tenants contact their housing association in order to raise matters of ASB.

Residents in private accommodation report incidents of ASB to the Police.

Whilst the above channels are predominantly used, complaints of ASB can be made to the Public Protection Team, Racial Awareness Team and potentially to other sections of the Council.

ASB Referral for Formal Action

Where ASB cannot be resolved by the individual unit or agency which received the complaint in isolation, a referral is then made to the Anti Social Behaviour Unit (ASBU). The ASBU works with residents and partner agencies in an

79

approach to reducing ASB. This unit receives referrals from partner agencies including Social Services, Housing and the Police.

ASB Activities and Initiatives

Community Wardens provide a visible uniformed presence on the streets, parks and open spaces of Portsmouth, and offer a contact point for reports of criminal activity including ASB.

Police Community Safety Officers work in conjunction with the Community Wardens.

Evidence of Improvements in Addressing ASB

The Council was awarded Beacon Status for ASB, in recognition of its work in tackling ASB with its partners. The number of ASBOs issued at all courts has dropped each year since 2007 for Hampshire and Isle of Wight collectively (Home Office, Anti Social Behaviour Order Statistics 2011)

80

Leicester City
Background

The Council is part of a Safer Leicester Partnership, which is made up of partners in the public, private, and voluntary sector, with the aim of ensuring that the city responds to and deals with crime and reduction of ASB.

Raising ASB Complaints and Informal Action

Tenants of the Council or a housing association report ASB to their Housing Officer. The Housing Officer will then provide assistance in resolving the issue and refer the matter to the ASB Unit if the matter cannot be resolved in isolation, i.e. within the remit of the Housing Officer.

Residents of private homes report ASB directly to the ASB Unit.

ASB complaints can also be received by other sections in the Council, including the Noise Team and the Dog Warden Service.

ASB Referral for Formal Action

Referrals are made to the ASB Unit where ASB cant be dealt with by the agency which received the complaint in isolation. The ASB Unit deals with the most serious cases of ASB in collaboration with other agencies, which include the Housing Department, the Noise Team and the Police.

81

ASB Activities and Initiatives

Challenge and Support Project aims to ensure local services are working together to assess young peoples needs and offering appropriate support to young people involved in or at risk of anti-social behaviour.

City Wardens each Council ward has a dedicated City Warden. Part of its role is to improve the reporting of incidents including ASB and to speed up the response to these incidents.

Evidence of Improvements in Addressing ASB A decrease in incidents of ASB reported for the period April September 2009 compared to the same period in 2008. The total number decreased by 7% from 14,341 to 13,385 (Anti-Social Behaviour Strategy, 20102013).

82

Nottingham
Background

A South Nottinghamshire Community Safety Partnership (CSP) operates within the Nottinghamshire Partnership. The South Nottinghamshire CSP is a partnership of the Police, local authorities and other relevant agencies. The partnership administers public information, holds public meetings and arranges patch walks to improve information on ASB and try to reduce incidence of ASB. South Nottinghamshire CSP is also a channel through which ASB incidents to be reported. The key aims of the partnership are to reduce fear and crime in neighbourhoods, and to make communities safer. There are other distinct partnerships which operate within the Nottinghamshire Partnership which also aim to reduce crime and ASB. These include: Ashfield Partnership Against Crime; Bassetlaw Newark & Sherwood CSP and Mansfield Partnership Against Crime.

Additionally, Nottingham Community Protection (NCP) has been set up to tackle ASB and environmental crime in Nottingham. NCP is a partnership of council and police functions. This partnership offers a single point of contact for ASB, Community Protection Officers and a Rapid Response Team to deal with problem areas.

Raising ASB Complaints and Informal Action

Tenants of Nottingham City Homes (which manages Nottingham City Council's rented and leasehold homes) can report ASB directly to them, to the Councils ASB helpline, or to the Police.

Complaints relating to ASB from residents of private homes can be raised with the South Nottinghamshire CSP, Nottingham Community Protection or directly with the Council.

83

Noise pollution can be reported to the Councils Pollution Control Department, or via the 101, non-emergency Police telephone number.

ASB Referral for Formal Action

Where informal methods of resolving ASB do not prove effective, the South Nottinghamshire CSP will instigate formal legal action.

Nottingham Community Protection has dedicated officers and teams which try to address ASB without taking formal action. However, in serious instances of ASB, they work with partners to exercise civil orders and instigate legal action against offenders.

Similarly, legal action can be taken by the Councils Pollution Control Department where ASB relates to noise disturbances.

ASB Activities and Initiatives

Community Protection Officers (In NCP) provide a visible presence in every neighbourhood in Nottingham, and respond to neighbourhood issues;

Rapid Response Team (in NCP) works on a hot spot basis to tackle ASB in problem areas; 24-hour ASB helpline provided by the NCP.

84

Evidence of Improvements in Addressing ASB

In Hucknall in Nottingham, ASB fell by 22% between April and October 2012 compared to the same period in the previous year (Nottingham Post Article 2012)

The number of ASBOs issued at all courts has dropped each year since 2008 for Nottinghamshire (Home Office, Anti Social Behaviour Order Statistics 2011).

85

Scrutiny Services, Cardiff County Council The Courtyard, County Hall, Atlantic Wharf, Cardiff CF10 4UW Tel: 029 2087 2296 Fax: 029 2087 2579 Email: scrutinyviewpoints@cardiff.gov.uk

2013 Cardiff County Council

86