Scottish Action Framework on Antisocial Behaviour: the evidence Dr Isobel Anderson Firm Analytical Foundations Conference, 22 April 2008

Outline Background to the Action Framework and its development The process approach to tackling ASB Prevention and Intervention – what is ‘known’ or ‘not known’ Policy Review – Implications from the current evidence base – Suggestions for further research & evaluation

The Scottish Action Framework Adapted from Nixon & Hunter (2006) – guidance for social landlords Revised for Scottish legislative, policy and practice context Drew on available evidence – no new research Scottish focus, but wider where needed/appropriate

Process Approach: 7 core tasks 1. Identifying the nature of the problem 2. Recording, monitoring and reviewing 3. Preventive measures and supportive intervention 4. Multi-agency partnerships 5. Specialist support and training 6. Investigations, intervention, witness support 7. Legal action

Approaching the problem? The social landlord role? Widening? Strategic role – housing / corporate ? Context: Strategic framework and guidance – Some evaluation in Flint et al (2007) Costs of ASB for budgeting – Not well known? Out of date?

Evidence: prevention & early intervention Family support – reasonable evidence base, reasonable success Incentive schemes – reasonable evidence base, inconclusive about success Diversionary activities – minimal evaluative evidence, perception of success (common sense?) Community wardens – patchy evidence?

Evidence: Community Wardens Fife local study (2006) – 3 year evaluation. Evidence of impact across localities and time National study (Hayton et al, 2007) - ‘no really coherent or consistent picture of the impact of community wardens due to weaknesses in monitoring’ ASB strategies at neighbourhood level (Flint et al 2007) – ‘demonstrably cost effective’

Evidence: Mediation ‘Pre-legal’ Intervention Brown et al 2003 – Mediation cost effective compared to legal measures Flint et al 2007 – ‘delivered improvements, but not possible to robustly determine cost effectiveness’ – Also applied to Safe Neighbourhoods Team, freephone helpline & Night Noise Team

Evidence: Legal Intervention National, 3 year study ((DTZ & Heriot Watt University) Focus on ASBOs Some comparative data on NSPs, Evictions, SSSTs Method does not link to/compare with preventive measures

Using the action framework Evidence based examples for staff, residents, board/committee members Guidance, fact sheets, questions & activities – internal development and review Emphasises – equal opportunities issues; performance monitoring/self-assessment; information sharing/joint working protocols Awareness of changing environment

Policy review: gaps in evidence Up to date data on costs of antisocial behaviour Up to date cost/benefit analysis of activities/interventions Improved links between evaluation of prevention and intervention activities – Methodological issues? – National level data, with comparisons – Track changes over time Allocations policy and practice – more guidance sought (Britain et al 2007)

Policy Review: gaps in evidence Structures for service delivery/training – Role/knowledge of secondees from local government – Evaluation of Glasgow ASB Task Force No comparison with other approaches? Partnership working – Some positive evidence from Flint et al (2007) – No national picture – Role of housing and other professions? – Scope for comparison with other types of partnerships

Policy Review: some conclusions Housing – leading/widening role? Limits? Lots of guidance/activity – has implementation met strategic objectives? (national and local levels) Need to continue/enhance both routine/local monitoring and independent/national evaluation Need to link to ‘positive’ social justice and community cohesion agendas (Paradigm shift?) [Detailed critique – end July 08]