Safety in diversity: responding to anti-social behaviour in areas with large minority ethnic populations David Prior Institute of Applied Social Studies

Questions from the academic literature (Fitzgerald & Hale 2006; Isal 2006; Prior & Spalek 2008)  Are the ASB powers used disproportionately against BME people?  To what extent are anti-terror priorities influencing the use of ASB interventions?  Are the ASB powers used to protect BME people against racial abuse?  How do official perceptions/constructions of cultural difference shape ASB interventions?

The Research  Key question – what are the implications of ethnically diverse populations for community safety & ASB work?  Exploratory research in three areas: Haringey, Leicester, Birmingham  Analysis of 18 interviews – community safety staff, ASB practitioners, police officers  Analysis of policy & strategy documents, & data reports

Population Profiles Total Population: Haringey 222,000 Leicester 284,000 Birmingham 1.1 million Ethnic Population %: Haringey LeicesterBirmingham African-Caribbean African South Asian White British White Other All Other

Perceptions of Cohesion & Difference in Relation to ASB – 3 key dimensions  The settled BME communities  The new communities  Generational differences

ASB and the settled BME communities  Some variations in understanding between ethnic groups of what is anti-social – but more differences in what to do about it  Varying levels of tolerance – BME groups perceived as more tolerant – but class significant here  Big differences in willingness/capacity to make formal reports of ASB - esp Asian communities  Asian communities perceived as dealing with their own problems – but little known about what & how

A: “It should matter if we’re not getting the calls but is it because things are actually being dealt with locally or is it because of lack of knowledge?” B: “And lack of trust?” A: “I think that BME communities are much more tolerant and accepting, they’re less likely to report incidents such as verbal abuse.” B: “We do minimal work in the high BME areas. We don’t get the complaints from there and problems are dealt with within those communities, the elders of the area will sort matters out. There are different attitudes and values, it’s like a sub-culture in those areas. We get nothing from those areas.” DP: “Does it matter if you don’t get complaints from the BME areas?” ……………………………..

ASB and the new communities  Key distinction between ‘settled’ and ‘new’ communities – site of cultural clashes  Major ASB concerns re new communities – e.g. Somalis, Congolese, East Europeans  Lifestyle differences as a source of ASB complaints (Poles, Congolese) – but some professional ambivalence about how to categorise  Other behaviours shaped by experiences of conflict & oppression (Somalis) – but response driven by need to protect wider community

In relation to street drinking by large numbers of people from a particular African ‘new community’: “This was in a predominantly Black area so the complaints were coming from Black residents. But I wouldn’t necessarily call this ASB, it’s an example of cultural differences, of what people do as part of their normal life that’s not really pushing the boundaries.” “There are lots of reports about Polish young men in Asian communities. They work and play hard, so we get a lot of calls from the Asian majority about Polish workers partying and so on. But this is something that may be tolerated in a different part of the city because of different attitudes to drinking.” “Somalis have become more of a problem over the last 18 months as they move on from refugee status and get on to housing lists and move out of their original area. We have a high use of ASBOs on Somali youths, it’s really beyond prevention, it’s serious stuff……. There’s a major impact of their behaviour on settled communities of all ethnicities, completely out of tune with established standards, constant aggression and harassment.”

Generations (& genders)  Age differences within communities as a key factor in ASB  Inter-generational tensions – perceptions of breakdown of traditional controls over young people  Globalizing & westernizing influences coupled with absence of guidance/role models  Young people creating their own cultural identities – often based on local turf rather than ethnicity  Gender – a largely invisible issue

Dilemmas in Using the ASB Powers  Difficulties of definition – when does a cultural practice become ASB?  Hierarchies of ASB and the drift to civil actions as crime control – the police influence  Targeting crime (gangs; drugs) through ASBOs leads to ‘hidden’ disproportionality (& some resource conflicts)  Dealing with racially motivated incidents – does the ASB route devalue the offence?

“More ASBO applications in [the area] are against adults rather than young people and proportionally more of those are taken against BME individuals. Stand-alone ASBOs are used a lot for criminal offences where a criminal prosecution is not possible, usually because witnesses won’t go to court. They’re typically to do with drugs and prostitution and they’re more likely to involve Black individuals.” “We deal with issues on a case by case basis, consider them on their merits, the proportionality of legal action, is it just. But a lot of BME perpetrators get to [the ASB unit] when issues are already serious so that the questions about appropriateness of legal action can usually be answered ‘yes’. The priority of gang issues means that more ASBOs are used on Black and Asian youths……” “The police are very rigorous on racially aggravated offences, people get arrested for making a threat with a racial element to it for example. This works all ways between different ethnic groups. You get a better response if an offence is racially aggravated.”

Emerging Ways of Working  New forms of knowledge – local intelligence  New networks of communication – beyond the ‘community leaders’ – new forms of partnership  Building on successes – positive community responses to anti-terror initiatives and gang busting  Re-balancing the prevention/enforcement relationship

Some theoretical/research issues  Meanings of cohesion and integration – and the acceptable boundaries of difference  The temporal dimension – how ‘settled’ is ‘settled’? How ‘new’ is ‘new’?  The spatial dimension – governance implications of large areas of majority ‘minority’ population  Trajectories of change within communities and impacts on behavioural norms - generational; social mobility  Use of civil powers to deal with ‘ethnic crime’  Development of new knowledge systems and relational networks – ASB and deliberative policy analysis? Or further ‘responsibilization’?