Police Information

Policing Anti-Social Behaviour

Wed, September 19, 2001

Source: Nick Bland and Tim Rea

Policing Anti-Social Behaviour Policing & Reducing Crime Briefing Note

Background 

Many recent public surveys on crime and policing in the UK show the public give a high priority to the police tackling anti-social behaviour. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary (HMIC) has similarly highlighted this public concern in two recent reports on race and community relations. Central elements of the Crime and Disorder Act (1998) focus on improving the ability of the police, together with other agencies and the public, to counter the problem. 

The report describes research in nine forces identified, in collaboration with ACPO, as having developed initiatives explicitly focused on anti-social behaviour. The fieldwork was conducted between November 1997 and April 1998 and involved meetings and interviews with middle and senior police managers, and the collection of relevant documentation detailing the specifics of initiatives to tackle the problem. In most cases, we also observed the delivery of responses and interviewed officers directly involved in their implementation.  

The report draws general lessons about the policing of anti-social behaviour from the specific force examples visited. It categorises a range of police responses to anti-social behaviour and identifies how, and in what circumstances, these responses are applied. Street-level police enforcement is discussed, but the report also highlights the role of other agencies both in enforcement and in the development of diversionary initiatives. The report discusses other issues highlighted as important by the research specifically, the management of resources, multi-agency partnerships and the media and public relations. Difficulties measuring anti-social behaviour and monitoring the impact of police efforts to tackle it are also discussed. 

Summary of key findings 

The report highlights the difficulty of producing a simple definition of anti-social behaviour. None of the research forces had a formal definition. Two forces had identified a range of incident types to be tackled, provided as illustrations in the report. Police officers generally took a pragmatic ‘common sense’ view based primarily on the operational realities they experience day-to-day; this included criminal and sub-criminal

behaviour. Previous research highlights the absence of consensus about what constitutes disorder and points to the problem of deciding whose definition of ‘order’ should be accorded priority. This highlights the importance of the police, working with other agencies, consulting with local communities to identify the issues of concern, an area addressed by the Crime and Disorder Act. 

Enforcement

Many, if not all, of the forces visited, used street-level, direct policing methods to tackle aspects of anti-social behaviour. However, the approach adopted by the police to enforcement differed. In some cases, direct intervention was described as an integral part of the force’s policing style. Patrol officers were encouraged to routinely tackle individual incidents of anti-social behaviour, which they might have turned a ‘blind-eye’ to in the past. There were other examples where forces undertook direct enforcement against anti-social behaviour, but in a targeted manner, either in relation to an identified problem or in a specific location. Some forces established temporary response teams on an ad hoc basis to deal with specific problems until they had been resolved, with no permanent re-allocation of resources. Others, however, have entrusted enforcement to permanent dedicated units.  

Enforcement by the police alone normally comprised only one element in a range of tactics. A number of the forces visited used partnerships to service multi-agency enforcement operations which enabled them to work with agencies whose legal powers complemented, and sometimes added to, their own. Sometimes the police played a relatively minor role, supporting other agencies taking the lead, particularly when the sanctions available to the other agencies were likely to have greater impact upon the offender. The report focuses on examples in the housing arena to illustrate this. 

Young people

The problems faced by the police in taking action against individuals who may not be involved in illegal acts are illustrated most starkly in relation to young people. It was an issue common to all the forces visited during the research. Officers were sympathetic to the difficulties facing young people and were keen to avoid criminalising them simply for anti-social behaviour. The report provides examples of attempts to mediate between complainants and young people. Enforcement approaches were also applied; examples to counter truancy, in cooperation with educational welfare officers, were common. Outside school hours the police were keen to encourage what might be termed ‘parental enforcement’ through a number of measures, described in the report. An intermediate approach, involving the police and an element of parental enforcement, set up by Strathclyde Police in Hamilton is described in some detail. 

Forces also worked with other agencies to develop alternatives to anti-social behaviour. Solutions in relation to young people often involved the police and other agencies pooling their resources to provide social and recreational diversions from activities likely to annoy local residents. The report provides examples of police involvement in the formation and support of groups providing such activities and in the acquisition of facilities to assist these activities. 

Management issues 

The research highlights a number of important management issues relating to the policing of anti-social behaviour, to which the forces visited had variably responded. Drawing on illustrative examples, the report discusses how they managed resources, multi-agency partnerships, the media and public relations. Resource management focuses primarily on the provision of adequate resources to provide an immediate response to problems. This involves managing the routine reactive demand generated by calls for service in relation to incidents of anti-social behaviour. Some forces visited had tackled this by dedicating resources to handle such calls and/or respond directly to incidents. The report also discusses police efforts to provide and attract financial resources for longer-term police action often relating to multi-agency diversion work. 

Strathclyde Police’s Spotlight Initiative is given particular attention because its success requires the effective management, coordination and deployment of resources on a force-wide basis. Its principle is the maximisation of police resources, often in partnership with other agencies, in targeted ‘bursts’ (or ‘spotlights’) against specific problems. An important distinguishing feature of the strategy is the existence of a central ‘Consultancy Unit’ which plays a crucial role in planning and coordinating force spotlights and monitoring divisional spotlights. The report describes the function of this unit. 

Conclusions

None of the forces visited restricted themselves to a single response to anti-social behaviour but typically used a number of responses to address different problems. It is, however, important to consider the overall impact of such a mix. Although any single response may appear reasonable, they may not be complementary in combination. There is also a need to consider whether and how these approaches support force efforts against crime because problems with anti-social behaviour rarely occur in isolation.  

The report points to the potential benefits of a strategic approach to tackling anti-social behaviour, which also takes account of, and complements, crime. The HMIC report on the policing of disorder (1999) also recommends a coordinated response. Some, but not all, of the forces we visited had begun to tackle this issue. The development by  Strathclyde Police of a Consultancy Unit specifically to plan, organise and coordinate force and divisional Spotlight operations against crime and disorder problems was perhaps the best example encountered of such a strategic approach. 

Points for action 

• Forces should carefully consider the range of available tactics to tackle anti-social behaviour and select those best suited to provide a coordinated and coherent overall response appropriate to local problems. 
• In adopting such a strategic approach forces may wish to consider the benefits offered by a dedicated unit responsible for organising, coordinating and resourcing their responses. 
• Forces should recognise the potential sensitivity of certain approaches to anti-social behaviour for community relations, particularly the possible impact of enforcement. Police actions may be interpreted differently by different sections of the community.
• The reasons for any particular approach need to be clearly communicated both to the communities concerned and the officers involved. 
• The use of the media can play an important role in publicising police efforts and achievements. However, forces need carefully to consider how their actions and messages may be interpreted, particularly in relation to perceived ‘tough’ responses to ‘soft’ issues. 
• Forces are likely to be interested in the measurement of two dimensions of anti-social behaviour; initially establishing the nature and size of the problem itself, and subsequently assessing the impact of actions taken to counter it. In order to do this forces require information systems that allow the analysis of crime and incident data. It is also likely that they will need to produce a consistent definition of the problem to allow accurate monitoring over time, probably based around the use of crime and incident codes.

 

“The views expressed in this briefing note are those of the author, not necessarily

those of the Home Office (nor do they reflect Government policy).”

To view the full paper click the URL below