Scottish Action Framework on Antisocial Behaviour: the evidence

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

2. 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

3. 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

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

5. Approaching the problem? • The social landlord role? Widening? • Strategic role – housing / corporate ? • Context: 2005-2008 Strategic framework and guidance • Some evaluation in Flint et al (2007) • Costs of ASB for budgeting • Not well known? Out of date?

6. 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?

7. 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’

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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)

12. 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

13. 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]