Research for the Riots Communities and Victims Panel

1. Research for the Riots Communities and Victims Panel Perceptions survey of residents living in riot and non-riot areas 02/03/12

2. Aims and approach The overall aim of the research is to build on findings from the Panels interim report and specifically address the following key aims; • The usual suspects: How to help reduce re-offending for the good of the community and individuals. • Hopes and dreams: How to tackle youth employment and a real and perceived lack of opportunity by young people. • Building personal resilience: How to support young people to be responsible, ambitious, determined and conscientious. • Children and parents: How to support parents to provide the best chances for their children. • Riots and the brands: How brands can use their influence for the good of the community. • The police are the public and the public are the police: How to improve perceptions of and relationships between communities and the police.

3. Methodology In order to meet these aims, a mixed-methodology approach was adopted to the project; • STRAND ONE – literature review • STRAND TWO – interviews with offenders in riot and non-riot areas • STRAND THREE – engaging communities in riot and non-riot areas Research was carried out in February 2012, and the exact approach and aims for each strand are discussed in further detail at the beginning of the relevant three sections of the research findings outlined within this report.

4. Strand 1 – Literature review 02/03/2012

5. Key aim and approach The key overarching aim for this strand of the research was to; • Explore what evidence exists on the cost-effectiveness of; • youth justice programmes; • family interventions; and • preventative measures in dealing with young offenders and those at risk of crime and ASB • Full details of the approach taken to the review can be found in the stand-alone summary of this Strand of the research

6. Key factors associated with anti- social behaviour and offending

7. Effective Ways of Addressing the Risk Factors • Interventions need to take a multi-agency approach in order to address the multiple needs • many young people at risk of offending have. The following have been identified as key aspects of effective programmes: • Early interventions • School focussed • Targeted to need/multi-modal • Family intervention/ parenting programme • Diversionary/provision of positive activities • Community programmes • Positive consistent role model

8. What works? • Early interventions are effective at diverting young people from offending behaviour by diverting them away from criminal pathways at an early age. • Interventions must be holistically targeted to the needs of the family or young people they are designed to help. Consideration must be given to the range of factors associated with offending behaviour, including acknowledgment of environmental issues. • The role of schools to engage and deliver programmes to young people at risk of crime have proved successful nationally and internationally, whilst linking with other service providers to ensure wider needs are addressed. • The provision of diversionary activities have proved successful in limiting opportunities for criminality amongst young people. • The significance of a positive role model in the lives of young people – targeted interventions delivered by a designated key worker were more effective in reducing offending than instances where multiple workers were involved. • Locally based programmes based and delivered at neighbourhood level can greatly assist engagement by families and young people. • Due to the complexity of risk factors evident in the lives of young offenders requires a co-ordinated multi-agency response.

9. Examples of cost- effectiveness of Programmes • Interventions cannot be compared on a like for like basis. Programmes aimed at high risk offenders or those who have already offended are often more complex and therefore expensive than those which are aimed at low risk offenders, this will be reflected in the cost savings. • The Family Pathfinder programme which is delivered by Local Authorities and provides intensive support for families with multiple needs. Results showed significant improvements in outcomes for 46% of families supported. Findings also reported a return of £1.90 for every £1 invested [SCJ, 2010].. • The Learning Challenge works in secondary schools in the North East, providing group therapy sessions to tackle behavioural issues. Evidence shows a clear improvement in attendance for one third of pupils. It is calculated that for every £1 spent by the charity they produce £11.60 in savings. An aggregate saving of £2.7bn would be made if all preventable persistent truancy was tackled which is the equivalent of £250m per annum.

10. International examples of cost- effectiveness programmes • Family Functional Therapy (FFT) is a family focussed intervention aimed at improving behaviour by helping family members understand how their behaviour affects others. FFT helps children and their families reduce aggressive interactions and instead promotes supportive interaction in the family. FFT was found to significantly reduce recidivism. Young offenders who had been sentenced by a court to probation were randomly assigned to the FFT programme or control, where the control group received standard probation consisting of weekly checks, education and guidance. (Sexton and Alexander, 2003) In a cost benefit analysis of the program based on earlier evaluations, it was estimated to save $7.69 for every $1 invested (Aos et al., 2004). • Life Skills Training was delivered in schools in the US, consisting of largely disadvantaged young people. The programme involved teaching pupils, who were aged 11-12 and largely disadvantaged, a variety of cognitive-behavioural skills for problem-solving and decision-making. There were reported significant reductions in verbal and physical aggression and fighting, and delinquent behaviour 3 months after the intervention in experimental compared with control schools. The programme was also found to be highly cost effective, with estimated savings of $25.61 for every $1 dollar of investment (Aos et al., 2004).

11. Strand 2 – Views of offenders 02/03/2012

12. Aims and approach This strand of the research sought to engage offenders on their experiences of offending, and engagement with services to support and engage them. Interviews with young offenders aged 11-17 had three core aims; • what are the common themes and areas of divergence in offenders’ developmental pathways • what are their experiences with agencies in the early stages of their criminal development up to the age of 18 => Does this vary, and if so how across different types of area? • what is the interaction between risk and protective factors identified as being influential to the young person’s pathway into and out of criminal behaviour Interviews with adult offenders aged 18-24 focussed on the following core aims; • the drivers of offending behaviours (risk factors) • the conditions that encourage more positive behaviours or paths away from criminal behaviour (protective factors); • experiences of youth and adult services, including in the early stages of criminal behaviour; and • experiences of the transition from youth services (up to age 17) to adult services (from 18 to 24); • how youth and adult services can be adjusted to better meet youth/adult offenders’ needs.

13. Numbers of young people engaging with the research In total – 25 offenders took part in one-to-one in-depth interviews that lasted around approximately 30-45 minutes in length. Response across each of the six study areas is outlined below;

14. Views and experiences of offendersDevelopmental pathways – inter-relationship between risk factors There are clear overlaps between the range of risk factors that led to the offending behaviour of the young people and adults we spoke with.

15. Views and experiences of offendersDevelopmental pathways – key themes “maybe if I had a Dad around who would show me values of life….cause I didn’t have any ambitions [would have stopped offending]”Rioter Area, adult ex-offender “ I was fine until I moved into a new area. Then I moved in suddenly got in with the wrong people and I was drinking a lot and kicking off at my Mum because I was drunk. That was the first time I got arrested.”Non-Rioter Area, young person Common factors cited by both adult and young offenders on why they got involved in crime; Family problems – parental breakup, absent fathers, abuse Neighbourhood – clear distinction between the effects of living in a good and a bad area – moving into a certain areas was seen by many as catalyst to the start of their bad behaviour Accommodation issues – dislike of housing prompt more time spent out of home, often on the streets hanging around with mates, coupled with lack of things to do = offending

16. Views and experiences of offendersDevelopmental pathways – key themes “I first took heroin when I was 12….also took pills for the first time when I was 12…I got into it by knocking around with older people…when I was 11”Non-Rioter Area, adult ex-offender “ You’ll just look at any mischief to stop getting bored” Rioter Area, Young Person Friendship groups – starting to hang out with the ‘wrong’ crowd. Feeling of belonging to a group of friends, with ‘older’ groups seen to exploit the younger groups. Providing a sense of attachment and support not evident at home Lack of purposeful activities – nothing good to do that doesn’t cost money Substance misuse – experimenting with drugs with friends

17. Views and experiences of offendersDevelopmental pathways – key themes “I was getting more aggressive, short fused, I was getting violent”Non-Rioter Area, young person “ Used to go to gym after school to deal with anger, stopped me punching walls or flying off the handle”Rioter Area, young person Truancy and/or exclusion from school – a result of bad behaviour and disengagement in school. Problems at school were often associated with problems occurring at home – coincided also with them hanging out with the ‘wrong’ people. Anger management issues – often resulting from family issues and dynamics

18. Views and experiences of offendersInvolvement and views of riots “I was money motivated… when I wanted my bike; a moped – I started stealing phones so I could pay for one” Rioter Area, adult offender “come on, we’ve got nothing else to do…lets go and nick some trainers” Rioter Area, paired young people depth People wanting “stuff” and money Young people being bored   Out of dislike for the police - gaining control over the police, getting revenge Taking advantage of the situation in areas outside London – for example, when it was shown the police were not controlling it in London

19. Views and experiences of offendersExperiences of agencies – early contact with services “I hardly saw [the woman from social services], you would have thought I would see her more [preventative services] but I only saw her 4 times” Non-Rioter Area ,young person Young people and adult offenders spoke of experience with the police through family problems early in life (rarely positive, especially if criminality in the family) and when they started hanging out with the friends/gangs in larger groups, whether they were causing ASB and/or offending (or not). They also usually had some contact with social services, because they grew up in a family deemed at risk or due to a child running away. This contact was not well regarded by most young people and offenders.

20. Views and experiences of offendersExperiences of agencies - School “I’ve got a mentor with me now...if I get angry in class I can go to her and just calm down. I’ve got somewhere to go if I’m angry and I don’t have to stay in class and get angrier” Rioter Area, young person “me behaviour did not change much because of it… I could have had some more help out of school…it was the problems outside school that was causing the problems…things kicked off in the holidays” Non-Rioter Area ,young person There were mixed views on help received at schools. There were some good examples of 1 to 1 mentoring provision, anger management or learning support being given and it having a positive effect. However, for others, despite the fact they were positive about the support, they felt it was not enough. They needed one to one support out of school so it was also there in the holidays and at the weekend.

21. Views and experiences of offendersExperiences of agencies – CJ contact Most young people and adults reported having contact with YOTs and Probation services, although experiences of both were mixed. Where young people (and adult offenders) were most positive about this contact was where it was on a one to one basis. It was also where they had built a good relationship, they had been provided access to other services and the contact did not feel like a rushed appointment. “YOT and probation services representatives aren’t interested in people. They just ask what you did today, what you’re doing tomorrow, and push you out the door” Rioter Area, adult .

22. Views and experiences of offendersExperiences of agencies – CJ contact “all I had to do was go down, speak to them and that was it.” Non-Rioter Area, adult offender “The YOT have taught me how to control my anger and how to think about things differently. It’s made a big difference. They have also got me on a six month apprenticeship... 2 weeks into it , really enjoying it, feel much more positive about future now.” Rioter Area, young person

23. Views and experiences of offendersExperiences of agencies – CJ contact • There were mixed views towards the transition. Most found there was no difference between youth services and adult services. • However, some mentioned that the severity of the adult system did come as a shock, primarily around the enforcement of attending appointments. As a youth, they could miss appointments and not much was done – this was different as an adult. They found this a bit of a shock. “…it becomes a lot more heavier. When you are under that 18 you get a slap on the wrists, its when you hit 18 they start threatening you with jail, probation, community service, things like that. Then you just keep on getting locked up.” Non-Rioter Area, adult offender

24. Views and experiences of offendersExperiences of agencies – CJ contact • Adult offenders also spoke of the frustration of working for certificates in prison and then not being offered the support to finish courses once released and the lack of aftercare in helping finding accommodation – factors seen to contribute towards likely reoffending. “There’s a thing called St Giles and they help you with housing and re-housing when you get out of prison. And they make you sign a lot of paper work and the amount of paper work you sign and that, you expect you’re gonna get somewhere when you come out, but you never do- the most you get is probably two nights in a B&B and then you’ve got to do your own thing.” Rioter Area, adult offender

25. Views and experiences of offendersMaking services more effective – what worked • The services that young people and adult offenders reported as having the most significant impact on their behaviour was through one-to-one work. And this must be with a person: • they get on with/can build a relationship with; • who has time to spend with them to build this relationship and provide a tailored package for them; • can talk to them about their future, give them some aspirations, instil importance of future and the consequences of their behaviour on future opportunities; and • who understand their situation, been there i.e. ex-offenders, people from where they live • A co-ordinated link to other services/opportunities – such as Connexions • Targeted support according to individual need – i.e. accommodation, substance misuse “He’d give us tips on how to calm down and that…it was someone for me to talk to that wasn’t a family member and someone who understood what I was going through.” Non-Rioter Area, young person

26. Aged 8 Mum & Dad had problematic relationship Step dad abused him Aged 13 Aged 3 • Naughty in class • Arrogant & cocky • Angry with teacher • Sent home from school • Likes living in area – has friends, plays basketball/football • Involved in some shoplifting – nicking sweets • Not seen mother in 10 years (just befriended on Facebook) • Sees dad every fortnight • No support • Getting along better at school LIFE Went to live with grandmother • Caught for being involved in riots • First time trouble with police • Burglary x 3, 10mth RO • Thought of free stuff • Mentor • Since December • Calms down if get angry in class • “somewhere to go if I’m angry” • Only YOT support so far • Useful to talk • Not proper meetings • RO panel – different people talking about same things “if heard once, don’t need to hear it again” • Aspirations -BASKETBALL • Want to go to USA & play for team/v. good at it “It will show I did something positive” • Upset that someone might stop him doing what he wants too SUPPORT

27. Aged 9 13 Support received SCHOOL 14 • YOT - long appointments, - no real support – although worker does text telling him what to do • - helped when needed and getting him into college • - Went on a boxing course but stopped as ran beyond length of order • Mum - gives me lots of support but my choices - tries not to upset her with his behaviour • School/college - people good there - show it’s good to be good/positive role models • bunking/getting in trouble • seemed funny getting into trouble • fight – excluded for 6 months • attitude – “used to be rude” • Offered support but didn’t want it • People around him influencing him • Moved to nicer area/ permanent house in Upper Norwood • don’t see old friends now as now goes to college now so no time/ doing GCSEs • Has been in trouble with police again for robbery of phone • Received community service • Workshops – long and rubbish and not worthwhile • FIRST TROUBLE WITH POLICE • Robbery x 3 (not involved) • Shoplifting • Assaults • got NFA 5 years lived in area Hanging around all bad people

28. Born Holland • 2004 • Followed sister to London • “not for me. I got in a bit of trouble” • stabbed someone with screwdriver • arrested but adjourned • 2002 • Moved from Holland to • Start new life with mum • Town too small 2009 Moved to different area • 2011 • Dad moved back to Holland to take care of Grandmother • Little brother stabbed – he then attacked the person responsible as retaliation • Received a court order as a result then too • 2012 • Caught with knife - feels young people have to carry a weapon • Received another court order • Feels that this order has helped to calm him down

29. Research for the Riots Communities and Victims Panel Perceptions survey of residents living in riot and non-riot areas 02/03/12

30. Overview • This survey represents the third strand of a three strand project for the Riots Communities and Victims Panel, commissioned by the Department for Communities and Local Government. • The survey consisted of interviews with 1,204 residents aged 16+ living in six different areas of the country, purposively selected to ensure we gathered a mix of views from those living in areas inhabited by rioters and those living in areas where no rioters live. • The areas were selected to ensure that their make-up (i.e. levels of deprivation, crime rates, etc.) was comparable, with the aim being to explore the reasons why, in light of this comparability, some areas were affected by rioters but not others. • The overall aims of this survey strand were to: • Investigate what residents’ opinions of their local area are with regard to quality of life and how tight-knit the community is. • Assess what the residents’ opinions are towards opportunities for young people in the local area. In particular this is focussed on education and employment but we were also interested in finding out how young people are perceived by the wider community in general. • Find out how the public view the police in their local area and their response to anti-social behaviour. We wanted to find out what the public’s relationship with the police was like. • Investigate how young people are portrayed in the media and find out if the constant marketing and advertising which they are subject to played any part in driving them to riot.

31. Methodology • Ipsos MORI conducted interviews with 1,204 respondents aged 16 or over, from specific clusters of adjacent MSOAs in 6 areas (approximately 200 interviews per area). • These areas were purposively sampled by DCLG based on their profile (e.g. deprivation levels) and split into 4 ‘rioter’ areas and 2 ‘non-rioter’ areas. • The sampling approach used was Random Digit Dialling (RDD), which ensured that a cross-section of the target audience was reached, including those with ex-directory telephone numbers. • Quotas were set at a local level by age, gender, work status and ethnicity to reflect the population aged 16+ of residents in each respective area. • Interviews were conducted over the telephone using Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) and were carried out by Ipsos MORI in-house Telephone Operations centres. The centres are members of the Interviewer Quality Control Scheme (IQCS) and have Market Research Quality Standards Association (MRQSA) quality accreditation. • Fieldwork took place between 14th February and 22nd February 2012.

32. Technical note (1) • Data presented here is weighted to ensure it is representative of the local MSOA clusters/ areas surveyed. Firstly, data has been weighted by age, gender, work status and ethnicity to the known population profile of the relevant MSOA clusters/ area, using latest available Mid-Year Estimates. Secondly, because more interviews were carried out in some areas than others, aggregate figures have been adjusted to ensure that each area has an exact equal weighting. • Due to the sampling methodology adopted for this survey, it is important to bear in mind that the aggregated figures across all six areas do not reflect the picture for the wider population of England, or indeed the individual cities surveyed, since we only targeted a small section of the population within each. • Where results do not sum to 100, this may be due to multiple responses, computer rounding or the exclusion of don’t knows/not stated. • An asterisk (*) represents a value of less than one half or one percent, but not zero. • Throughout the questionnaire, local residents were asked to think about their local area when responding to questions - defined as the area within 15 to 20 minutes walking distance from the respondents’ home.

33. Technical note (2) • All data are subject to sampling tolerances. The variation between the sample results and the “true” values (the findings that would have been obtained if everyone in the relevant areas had been interviewed) can be predicted from knowledge of the sample sizes on which the results are based and the number of times that a particular answer is given. • Individual areas will be subject to a sampling tolerance of approximately +/- 7 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. For example, on a question where 50% of respondents give a particular answer, the chances are 95 in 100 that this result would not vary, plus or minus, by more than 7 percentage points from the “true” value had all residents living in the sampled area been interviewed. At the aggregate level (1,204 interviews) the sampling tolerance is +/- 3 ppts. • When comparing answers between the different MSOA areas, between riot and non-riot affected areas, or between the aggregate findings and a particular MSOA area, sampling tolerances also apply. To illustrate, when comparing the views of respondents in one area (202) to those of all respondents (1,204) the difference would need to be greater than approximately +/- 8 ppts to be statistically significant. • Please note that strictly speaking the tolerances shown here apply only to random samples. In practice good quality quota sampling has been found to be as accurate.

34. More rate their quality of life as good than poor but respondents living in rioter areas are more likely to rate it as poor. Q1 How would you rate the quality of life in your local area? Base: All. Telephone interviews with all residents aged 16+ Fieldwork dates 14th February – 22nd February 2012 Base: (1204) (200) (200) (200) (202) (200) (202) (800) (404) Indicates good/poor is statistically significantly higher than total

35. People tend to be fairly split over how tight-knit they think their local community is and there is no difference between rioter and non-rioter areas. Q2 Do you agree or disagree that your local area is a close, tight-knit community? Base: All. Telephone interviews with all residents aged 16+ Fieldwork dates 14th February – 22nd February 2012 Base: (1204) (200) (200) (200) (202) (200) (202) (800) (404) Indicates agree/disagree is statistically, significantly higher than total

36. There is a roughly equal divide between those who think public services do listen to the public and those who do not. Riot affected areas are more likely to disagree though. Q3a To what extent do you agree/disagree that public services in your local area. . .? (listen to the public) Base: All. Telephone interviews with all residents aged 16+ Fieldwork dates 14th February – 22nd February 2012 Base: (1204) (200) (200) (200) (202) (200) (202) (800) (404) Indicates agree/disagree is statistically, significantly higher than total

37. People do not tend to think that public services involve them in decision making; this is particularly the case in riot affected areas. Q3b To what extent do you agree/disagree that public services in your local area. . .? (involve the public in decision making) Base: All. Telephone interviews with all residents aged 16+ Fieldwork dates 14th February – 22nd February 2012 Base: (1204) (200) (200) (200) (202) (200) (202) (800) (404) Indicates agree/disagree is statistically, significantly higher than total

38. Nearly half of all respondents (49%) feel well informed about decisions that have been made, with little difference between riot and non-riot areas. Q3c To what extent do you agree/disagree that public services in your local area. . .? (inform the public of decisions that have been made) Base: All. Telephone interviews with all residents aged 16+ Fieldwork dates 14th February – 22nd February 2012 Base: (1204) (200) (200) (200) (202) (200) (202) (800) (404) Indicates agree/disagree is statistically, significantly higher than total

39. Around half of respondents agree that public services in their local area are working together effectively to create a better place to live, although this is significantly lower in riot affected areas. Q3d To what extent do you agree/disagree that public services in your local area. . .? (Work together effectively to make your area a better place to live) Base: All. Telephone interviews with all residents aged 16+ Fieldwork dates 14th February – 22nd February 2012 Base: (1204) (200) (200) (200) (202) (200) (202) (800) (404) Indicates agree/disagree is statistically, significantly higher than total

40. Most (71%) believe that crime and ASB are problems in their area. Q4a To what extent do you think that the following are problems in your local area? (Crime and anti-social behaviour) Base: All. Telephone interview with all residents aged 16+ Fieldwork dates 14th February – 22nd February 2012 Base: (1204) (200) (200) (200) (202) (200) (202) (800) (404) Indicates problem/not a problem statistically, significantly higher than total

41. Around 3 in 5 respondents think that there is a problem with members of the community not treating one another with respect. Again, this is perceived to be more of a problem in riot areas Q4b To what extent do you think that the following are problems in your local area? (Members of the community not treating each other with respect) Base: All. Telephone interview with all residents aged 16+ Fieldwork dates 14th February – 22nd February 2012 Base: (1204) (200) (200) (200) (202) (200) (202) (800) (404) Indicates problem/not a problem statistically, significantly higher than total

42. Around 3 in 5 believe children leaving school with inadequate qualifications is a problem in their local area; this is higher in riot affected areas. Q4c To what extent do you think that the following are problems in your local area? (Children leaving school with inadequate qualifications) Base: All. Telephone interview with all residents aged 16+ Fieldwork dates 14th February – 22nd February 2012 Base: (1204) (200) (200) (200) (202) (200) (202) (800) (404) Indicates problem/not a problem statistically, significantly higher than total

43. Housing issues are seen as a problem by 59% of those asked. As previously seen, views differ depending on whether respondents live in a riot affected area. Q4d To what extent do you think that the following are problems in your local area? (Housing issues (such as availability, affordability and quality)) Base: All. Telephone interviews with all residents aged 16+ Fieldwork dates 14th February – 22nd February 2012 Base: (1204) (200) (200) (200) (202) (200) (202) (800) (404) Indicates problem/not a problem statistically, significantly higher than total

44. Around half (49%) of respondents agree that lack of service provision for vulnerable people is a problem in their local area; there is little difference between the areas surveyed. Q4e To what extent do you think that the following are problems in your local area? (Lack of service provision for those who are elderly or unwell) Base: All. Telephone interviews with all residents aged 16+ Fieldwork dates 14th February – 22nd February 2012 Base: (1204) (200) (200) (200) (202) (200) (202) (800) (404) Indicates problem/not a problem statistically, significantly higher than total

45. Materialism amongst young people is perceived to be a problem by a significant majority, especially in riot affected areas. Q4f To what extent do you think that the following are problems in your local area? (Materialism among young people) Base: All. Telephone interviews with all residents aged 16+ Fieldwork dates 14th February – 22nd February 2012 Base: (1204) (200) (200) (200) (202) (200) (202) (800) (404) Indicates problem/not a problem statistically, significantly higher than total

46. Over half (56%) agree that increasing levels of inequality are a problem. Q4g To what extent do you think that the following are problems in your local area? (A growing gap between the rich and the poor) Base: All. Telephone interviews with all residents aged 16+ Fieldwork dates 14th February – 22nd February 2012 Base: (1204) (200) (200) (200) (202) (200) (202) (800) (404) Indicates problem/not a problem statistically, significantly higher than total

47. There is a fairly even split between those who think schools do adequately prepare young people and those who do not, though in riot affected areas it is significantly less likely that people will agree. Q6a Please tell me to what extent you agree or disagree with each of these statements (Local schools adequately prepare young people with the skills and experiences they need to enter work) Base: All. Telephone interviews with all residents aged 16+ Fieldwork dates 14th February – 22nd February 2012 Base: (1204) (200) (200) (200) (202) (200) (202) (800) (404) Indicates agree/disagree is statistically, significantly higher than total

48. Respondents are more likely to agree than disagree that there is a suitable range of college courses available but disagreement is higher in riot-affected areas. Q6b Please tell me to what extent you agree or disagree with each of these statements (There is a suitable range of college courses available to prepare young people for vocational jobs) Base: All. Telephone interviews with all residents aged 16+ Fieldwork dates 14th February – 22nd February 2012 Base: (1204) (200) (200) (200) (202) (200) (202) (800) (404) Indicates agree/disagree is statistically, significantly higher than total

49. However, people broadly agree that there are not enough vocational options available in schools. Q6c Please tell me to what extent you agree or disagree with each of these statements (There are not enough opportunities for young people to choose vocational options at school, such as apprenticeships) Base: All. Telephone interviews with all residents aged 16+ Fieldwork dates 14th February – 22nd February 2012 Base: (1204) (200) (200) (200) (202) (200) (202) (800) (404) Indicates agree/disagree is statistically, significantly higher than total

50. There are mixed views as to whether local schools are doing enough to address truancy. Q6d Please tell me to what extent you agree or disagree with each of these statements (Local schools have been doing enough to address truancy in your local area) Base: All. Telephone interviews with all residents aged 16+ Fieldwork dates 14th February – 22nd February 2012 Base: (1204) (200) (200) (200) (202) (200) (202) (800) (404) Indicates agree/disagree is statistically, significantly higher than total