Session One: Policy and Practice Overview

Expensive mistakes in tackling ASB and how to avoid them - Judy Nixon, Principal Lecturer in ASB Studies, Sheffield Hallam University

What do we know about ASB?

• The cost of dealing with ASB is in excess of £3.4 billion per year

• The vast majority of incidents are relatively minor and can be dealt with effectively using informal visits, warning letters or ABCs

• 93% of people stop ASB after three pre legal warnings• International research evidence confirms that preventive

programmes are cost effective

Which families are most likely to be the subject of complaints?

• In 80% of families referred to FIPs at least one adult suffered from mental or physical health problems or some form of substance abuse

• Family violence was also prevalent with 47% of women suffering from either a history of, or currently subject to, intimate partner violence and/or intergenerational violence involving physical, mental or sexual abuse

Which families are most likely to be the subject of complaints?

• In addition to being ‘perpetrators’ of ASB, in 60% of families one of more member of the household was also a ‘victim’ of ASB

• Young people committing ASB are more likely than the general population to suffer from mental health problems and/or learning difficulties

Data source: Nixon, J., Hunter, C., Parr, S., Myers, S., Whittle, S. & Sanderson, D. (2006) Anti-Social Behaviour Intensive Family Support Projects: An evaluation of six pioneering projects

What goes wrong?

• Failure to engage in preventative measures• Difficulty in engaging with partners• Lack of training and confidence by staff• Taking steps only when problems have escalated• Focus on enforcement solutions• Failure to thoroughly investigate• Failure to identify if a perpetrator has a disability• Lack of awareness of developments in case law or

statute

Case study 1: Jane

• Following a family argument Jane, a 18 year old was nominated for a flat in a block occupied predominantly by people over 55. Complaints about noise nuisance started the day she moved in and within a week she was informed that there would be an expedited court hearing for possession at which an outright order was granted

• Jane subsequently lodged an appeal which was upheld with the appeal judge severely criticised the landlord and commenting that what has happened was 'a wholly unreasonable exercise of discretion, a breach of natural justice and plainly wrong'.

• The landlord was asked to consider transferring Jane to alternative accommodation but this option was declined and in the end Jane was rehoused by the LA.

The direct and indirect costs

Direct costs of tenancy failure• Legal costs, witness support

measures and staff time incurred by the landlord in taking possession action: £6,500 - £9,000 plus the costs of the appeal process

• Opportunity costs in terms of staff resources

• Rental loss - average void turn around - 39 days @ £65 per week rent = £362

• Temporary homelessness accommodation based on a average length of stay of 6 months = £23,400

Total direct costs £30,262-£32,762

Indirect costs of tenancy failure• Loss of confidence and goodwill

amongst partner agencies • Increase in staff stress-related

illness• Poor reputation• Anxiety and distress to existing

tenants many of whom were elderly

• The costs of social exclusion for young people are high: up to £70,019 for those with conduct disorder and £24,324 for conduct problems – ten times higher than for young people with no problems

• Costs of being 'NEET' when 16-18 are also very high – up to £5,802 (male) and £10,072 (female) per annum

Case Study 2: Moat Housing Group V Hartless and Harris

At 9 pm on 29th Oct 2004 Susan Hartless was putting her fourChildren aged 6-14 to bed when her landlord, accompanied bythe police and a TV camera crew, served her with a withoutnotice ASB injunction requiring her to immediately vacate herhome. The police advised Susan to contact a solicitor whodiscovered that the majority of the evidence related to a quitedifferent family. An immediate order to stay the effect of theinjunction was made over the telephone by a High Court Judge.Susan Hartless was subsequently granted leave to appeal theASB injunction. In the meantime however, Moat HG had appliedfor and been granted a possession order and an ASBO whichalso formed the subject of a Court of Appeal hearing in March2005. The Court of Appeal found that in this case an injunctionwithout notice was neither necessary not proportionate, asuspended rather than outright possession order was grantedand the ASBO was set aside

The direct and indirect costs

Direct costs of legal action

• Five court hearings: – ASBI @ £1,600 (without

notice is likely to be more expensive)

– Possession @ £6,500 - £9,000

– ASBO @ £3,100• Direct legal costs £15,000-

£20,000 – Costs of ASB consultant £250

-£300 per day– Housing officer costs – Police officer costs

Total direct costs a minimum of £30,000

Indirect costs and consequence

• Loss of l/l's reputation • Increase in staff stress- related

illness• Loss of confidence by staff as to

what action to take• Poor reputation of the estate and

possible loss of rental income• Anxiety and distress to existing

tenants many of whom were elderly• Loss of confidence and goodwill

affecting both residents and partner agencies

• Costs associated with rebuilding community confidence

1. What went wrong in this case?

• Failure to address the underlying causes of the problems– complaints started in 2001 when the estate was being

constructed and was in part still a building site with no play areas

– the area quickly developed a poor reputation - known locally as 'Beirut'

– a new estate but no community capacity building was undertaken

– allegations of racism and victimisation of a travelling family were not investigated

– no action to address underlying problems such as parenting or anger management

2. What else went wrong?

• Failure to engage in preventative measures– failure to adhere to stated procedures and policy– no diversionary activities for children or young people

were provided– no offer of mediation or mentoring– no support for Ms Hartless a single mother with 4

young children– no investigation of the health and welfare of the

children– no partnership work with local schools, youth workers

or social care agencies

3. Further problems

• Lack of training of staff and failure to investigate properly– no letters, warnings or direct contact was made with the

alleged perpetrators – little investigation - decisions were based on rumour and

conjecture– failure to support witnesses - witness diary sheets issued

in June 2001 but action was only taken when problems had escalated

– local residents advised to collect photographic evidence this fed fears of paedophilia

– failure to involve partner agencies or call a case conference (no contact with social services)

– failure of the landlord to present a clear and considered view

– reliance on an 'expert' with no knowledge of the local area

4. And yet more problems

• Lack of knowledge of legal procedure – Ouster injunctions were sought without any

emergency accommodation arrangements being made

– The evidence was confused with the majority of complaints relating to another family

– Double hearsay was employed in witness statements– Little reference was made to witness diary sheets or

alternative contemporaneous evidence– No evidence was sought or provided about the

welfare or health of the children

How robust is your practice?

• Does your organisation have comprehensive, clear and accessible statements of policies and procedures on anti-social behavior that are reviewed regularly?

• Do you have a rolling programme of training to ensure that all staff are confident in their knowledge and ability to deal with ASB complaints in a holistic manner?

• How robust are your partnership arrangements particularly with social care agencies and third sector groups?

How robust is your practice?

• Do your recording and monitoring systems enable you to identify emerging hot spots and provide you with sufficient information to develop early intervention strategies?

• Are complainants provided with support and information to ensure they feel safe and secure in their home and neighborhood?

• Are perpetrators provided with the support needed to address underlying causes and bring about a lasting change in their behaviour, with or without the use of enforcement measures?

Measures to help prevent ASB

• Prevention– creation of physical and social environments where

ASB is less likely to arise– dealing swiftly with the first sign of vandalism and

graffiti– provision of services that help young people avoid

getting drawn into ASB– building community cohesion and collective efficacy

Measures to help prevent ASB

• Early intervention and diversion– employment of a range of diversionary activities

including accessible and affordable leisure facilities for young people

– share information for early identification of problems both in relation to individuals and communities

– work with other agencies to target interventions – enforcement of tenancy agreements

Sources of further information on the costs and cost consequences of ASB

• Pawson, H. et al (2005) The Use of Possession Actions and Evictions by Social Landlords; London: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/housing/203568

• Scott, S., Knapp, M., Henderson, J. & Maughan, B. (2001) 'Financial cost of social exclusion: follow up study of antisocial children into adulthood', British Medical Journal, 323; 191-4

• Godfrey, C., Hutton, S., Bradshaw, J., Coles, B., Craig, G. & Johnson, J. (2002). Estimating the Cost of Being “Not in Education, Employment or Training” at age 16-18; Department for Education and Skills, Research Report RR346

• Whitehead, C., Stockdale, J. & Razzu, G. (2003) The Economic and Social Costs of Antisocial Behaviour: A Review, London: London School of Economics

• Margo, J. (2008) Make Me a Criminal: Preventing youth crime; London: Institute for Public Policy Research.

• National Audit Office (2005) The Home Office: Tackling anti-social behaviour, Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, HC 99 Session 2006-2007.