15. Supplementary memorandum submitted
by the Home Office
ANSWERS TO HOME OFFICE QUESTIONS FROM THE
HOME AFFAIRS SELECT COMMITTEE
Request for information
Please provide details about the following:
(a) the ASB Unit in the Home Office, for
instance
Its current staff complement and staff profile,
ASBU staff complement is 33. Actual staff numbers
were:
ASBU's structure comprises of a Director and
Deputy, Assistant Directors and then a Communications and Campaigns
team, an Implementation and areas team, an Interventions team
and a Whitehall, Ministerial and Parliamentary team. The Unit
is staffed with a mixture of civil servants, secondees from other
government departments, expert practitioners and some short term
contract staff. The Unit is situated in the Crime Reduction and
Community safety Group headed by Leigh Lewis.
Its current level of funding, and how this is
spent
Current level of funding:
| 2004-05 |
| |
| Forecast of Expenditure | 24,000,000
|
| CDRP funding | 9,400,000 |
| Environmental crime | 3,908,018
|
| Together action areas | 1,587,431
|
| ASB Prosecutors | 1,128,500
|
| Nuisance neighbours | 888,000
|
| CSO Events | 800,000 |
| Street scene | 795,450 |
| Taking a stand awards | 565,000
|
| Training events and materials | 975,000
|
| Together campaign/Communications | 843,000
|
| Public consultation events | 432,000
|
| Together action line/web site | 491,437
|
| ASB Bill measures | 361,087
|
| Parenting projects | 300,000
|
| Staff and other admin costs | 1,525,077
|
Its main programmes, activities and objectives
The Unit's aims and objectives are to add value to the existing
measures to tackle anti-social behaviour and to drive forward
new policy, practice and action.
ASBU works together with other government departments, tenants,
residents and the public, and seeks to make an immediate and lasting
difference to the lives of people who experience anti-social behaviour
day after day. The Unit challenges the culture that exists in
some communities that means anti-social behaviour is not tackled.
ASBU has policy lead responsibility for Anti-social Behaviour
Orders (ASBOs). Policy for other areas generally lies with mainstream
HO Units or with other Government Departments. ASBU does, however,
reinforce activity and take forward specific work flowing directly
from the Anti-social Behaviour Act and the Together campaign.
These broadly fall into the following categories:
— tackling nuisance neighbours;
— tackling begging, street drinking;
— tackling environmental anti-social behaviour;
— improving the response (the Together actionline;
the Together Academy; funding for ASB Co-ordinators in Crime and
Disorder Reduction Partnerships); and
— building infrastructure—ASB prosecutors;
magistrates' sentencing.
Its arrangements for ensuring effective co-ordination with
other relevant Departments (such as DCMS, ODPM, DfES and DEFRA)
ASBU has various methods of ensuring co-ordination with relevant
government departments.
At a strategic level Hazel Blears is a member of the ODPM
Ministerial Group on Cleaner, Safer, Greener which delivers ODPM
target PSA 8. ASB is a key part of this target. Furthermore Hazel
also has bilaterals with Phil Hope on these issues. The Unit is
also planning to hold a Ministerial Stocktake led by Hazel Blears
in the spring.
At a senior management level ASBU is part of the official
level group on Cleaner, Safer, Greener. The Unit also regularly
attends such events as the Sustainable Communities Conference
and senior staff briefings. ASBU are part of the DEFRA Joint Agency
Forum which supports the Government in delivering its strategy
for Cleaner, Safer, Greener communities by amongst other things,
informing and challenging the national policy framework, raising
issues not addressed by the Government's strategy and acting as
champions for the Cleaner, Greener, Safer brand. ASBU are also
part of the DEFRA Fly-Posting Action Group. ASBU recently held
a two day stocktake with the CPS and officials here have monthly
bilaterals with the CPS and DCA. ASBU, through Home Office policy
leads also has links into the work on licensing of DCMS and work
on Young People led by DfES.
At a delivery level ODPM also contributed £350,000 to
the set up of our TOGETHER Academies, Actionline and Website,
and assist in ensuring up-to-date housing related material is
available on the Website. The Unit also funds a member of staff
based in ODPM working on housing who co-ordinates work between
the two departments. The Unit also has a secondee from DEFRA who
leads on enviro issues within the Unit. Again, as with ODPM, we
work with DEFRA on all enviro related materials for the TOGETHER
Website and event programmes.
(b) the extent to which the powers mentioned in the Home
Office submission to the Committee have been used, providing as
many figures as possible (and broken down, as far as possible,
by time-period, age and geographical area)
ASBU carried out a survey over the Summer of 2004 to establish
what progress Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership (CDRPs)
had made in implementing the TOGETHER Campaign. This was sent
to the anti-social behaviour co-ordinator of every CDRP in England
and Wales. 239 responded to the survey, which represents a 66%
response rate. The survey asked about use and enforcement of powers
as well as perception of success and staffing levels.
An estimate of use of powers for the year from 1 October
2003 to 30 of September 2004 has been made. This is based on actual
figures for the 11 months from 1 October 2003 to 31 August 2004,
plus the anti-social behaviour co-ordinators' report of planned
or anticipated use of powers during September 2004. The data should
therefore be treated as an estimate.
CDRPs estimates:
— 2,633 ASBOs issued between October 2003 and September
2004;
— 158 crack house closure orders made between January
2004 and September 2004;
— 418 dispersal orders between January 2004 and
September 2004;
— 824 parenting contracts and orders between October
2003 and September 2004;
— 5,383 acceptable behaviour contracts between October
2003 and September 2004; and
— 85% of local authorities have increased their
use of ASBOs in the year since the launch of the TOGETHER Action
Plan.
A further breakdown of the National Survey is attached at
Annex A.
General questions
1. The definition of anti-social behaviour (ASB) is broad,
and refers not so much to actual behaviour but to the effects
of behaviour (ie likely to cause alarm, harassment or distress).
What do you see as the advantages of this? Are there disadvantages
and risks?
The first statutory definition of ASB was contained in the
Crime and Disorder Act 1998 in relation to ASBOs The definition
stated that an ASBO could be used when a "person has acted
. . . in an anti-social manner, that is to say, in a manner that
has caused or was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress
to one or more persons not of the same household as himself".
If we were to strictly define anti-social behaviour by certain
types of behaviour/actions run the risk of excluding some types
of behaviour that are problematic or including others which may
not be. This we believe would restrict action and we want agencies
to have the flexibility to tackle anti-social behaviour in the
way it manifests itself locally.
The definition enables local partnerships to consider the
impact and perception of behaviours locally when drawing up their
own definition of anti-social behaviour. To assist local partnerships
with this process, a typology of behaviours commonly thought of
as anti-social has been developed by the Home Office Research
Development and Statistics Directorate. A list derived from this
typology was used for a one day snap shot of reports of anti-social
behaviour in September 2003. (See: Home Office Development
and Practice Report 26).
The advantage is that it allows local partnerships to be
responsive to the specific needs and concerns of residents in
their local area. A disadvantage could be that there is no common
standard for data recording—we think the importance of responsiveness
to local concerns is more important.
The issue of a definition of ASB was further considered as
part of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's consultation
paper Tackling Anti-Social Tenants (issued in April 2002).
Respondents were clear that a strict definition would not be helpful
and was not necessary.
2. ASB includes several acts, which are already criminal
offences, raising the possibility of criminal acts being dealt
with through civil proceedings. Is this of concern to the Home
Office? How commonplace is this?
It is important to understand the nature of anti-social behaviour
in order to understand why the current interventions used to tackle
anti-social behaviour are needed.
Anti-social behaviour is often characterised by repeated
but low level incidents, often by people neighbours, or others
who are known in the community—there is a proximity between
the victim and perpetrator that makes people afraid to report
incidents, fearing repeat victimisation, intimidation or reprisal.
Often when police arrive at an incident everything has gone quiet,
there is no incident to witness and victims are reluctant to come
forward.
If there is a crime committed and evidence of this, then
this may be dealt with as a one off offence and prosecuted through
the criminal justice system. However, when the situation involves
chronic and ongoing incidents, as anti-social behaviour often
is, by one or two individuals, carrying out a wide range of activity
often against the same households or individuals, the priority
should be to protect victims. Civil proceedings which prohibit
behaviour such as injunctions can be obtained quickly.
In tackling anti-social behaviour (using the new tools such
as ASBOs, housing and anti-social behaviour injunctions, closure
orders, and dispersal powers) there is a likelihood that criminal
activity will be tackled at the same time, but this is not always
the case. Using a civil sanction such as an injunction or ASBO
does not prevent criminal prosecutions being pursued simultaneously.
This alone does not concern us and there is a range of interventions,
to deal with anti-social behaviour, which use the criminal or
civil route. What is important is selecting the intervention that
will best deal with the situation, providing an effective and
swift remedy with further protection for individuals and the community.
Injunctions and restraining orders had been used long before
the new interventions were introduced. Anti-social behaviour is
not the only field in which civil and criminal remedies are employed
to tackle the behaviour and protect victims. (for example restraining
orders/injunctions used in domestic violence cases alongside prosecution).
3. Why has the Home Office committed to a Public Service
Agreement (PSA) target to reduce the fear of ASB, but not the
level of ASB itself?
Anti-social behaviour includes issues that are tackled by
the police, by local authorities and other local agencies. There
is no comprehensive national source of statistics on incidents
of ASB, data that is collected is patchy and of variable quality.
The majority of ASB incidents—such as incidents of
nuisance behaviour or graffiti- are difficult to measure; different
definitions and recording methods are used in different areas.
In addition, anti-social behaviour is under reported and so incident
data can not be considered reliable.
At a national level it is possible to measure perception
of levels of ASB consistently and robustly through the seven strands
of the BCS:
— Abandoned or burnt out cars.
— Noisy neighbours or loud parties.
— People being drunk or rowdy in public places.
— People using or dealing drugs.
— Teenagers hanging around on the streets.
— Rubbish or litter lying around.
— Vandalism, graffiti and other deliberate damage
to properties.
Perception of anti-social behaviour being a significant problem
in an area is also measured through the ODPM's local government
user satisfaction survey so that local authority areas have clear
information on what is happening locally.
Perception of anti-social behaviour is an indicator of actual
experience of ASB. The BCS has established that a high proportion
of those perceiving problems in their area had experienced problems
in the previous 12 months (ref Perceptions and experiences of
anti-social behaviour, Findings no 252, Home Office 2004).
Reducing perception of, as ASB is in itself useful: perception
of as ASB has a negative impact on quality of life. BCS analysis
shows that those who experienced as ASB often were most likely
to experience a negative effect on their quality of life: a high
frequency of experience was found to be the strongest predictor
of high impact on quality of life.
4. The Action Plan on ASB for the next two to three years
prioritises three types of ASB: nuisance neighbours, environmental
crime and begging. Why were these areas chosen?
These issues were initially chosen for the TOGETHER Action
Plan as many practitioners and members of the public had raised
them with the Unit during its early days when the White Paper
was being written. It was necessary at that stage to give a focus
to the work and galvanise action around specific issues. The Action
Plan ensured that these would become priorities so that the Unit
could grip them, develop new solutions and ensure that best practice
could be developed in the trailblazer areas.
5. What Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) do you use to
monitor the Home Office strategy on ASB? Which data are published?
Perception of ASB is measured through the British Crime Survey.
This is the single measurement used to gauge the success of the
Home Office strategy on ASB. Using this measure, the proportion
of people estimated to perceive a high level of anti-social behaviour
in their local area fell from 21% to 16% between 2002-03 and 2003-04.
6. According to the latest figures, it is becoming more
common both for anti-social behaviour orders (ASBOs) to be taken
out against young people and for young people to enter custody
as a result of a breach of an ASBO. Does the Home Office take
this as demonstrating that tough measures are working, or is it
seen as a matter of concern?
Although the number of ASBOs issued is increasing, the ratio
between orders issued for juveniles and orders issued for adults
has remained consistently at around 50:50. As the number of ASBOs
increase there is likely to be a corresponding increase in the
number of breaches.
Out of a total of 474 ASBOs issued to juveniles during June
2000 to December 2002, 170 were breached (36%). Of the 170 breaches,
71 juveniles received an immediate custodial sentence (42%). A
range of other disposals were used (see table at Annex B). New
data up to December 2003 will be available shortly.
The sentence given should be proportionate and reflect the
impact of the anti-social behaviour. From data reported to the
Home Office, we know that those young people who received custody
for breach of ASBO were persistent offenders, with only 15% of
sentences to custody resulting from breach of ASBO alone. There
is no evidence that breach of ASBOs alone are leading to increases
in custody.
We do not consider the breach rate to be the indication of
whether or not ASBOs are effective. ASBOs are designed to protect
the community by prohibiting certain sorts of behaviour. If the
ASBO is not breached, the community remains protected. When an
ASBO is breached, a criminal offence will occur requiring further
interventions.
7. Does imprisonment only ever follow a serious breach
of an ASBO, or can it be imposed for a technical breach—even
where no criminal or anti-social act has taken place?
Breach of an order itself is a criminal offence. Parliament
made it so. There is no true distinction between "technical"
or "serious" breach. If the terms of the order are in
place to stop alarm, harassment and intimidation to members of
the public then once breached that is a criminal offence and tried
accordingly in a Court of Law.
From data reported to the Home Office for the period June
2000 to December 2002, we know that in the case of breach of order
by juveniles, 42% received immediate custody, other disposals
included, fine, community sentence and discharge. For adults,
58% of those that breached received immediate custody.
The courts assess the impact of the breach on the community
and apply the appropriate sentence. If a court assesses an offence
as being low level without aggravating features then the severest
penalties may not be appropriate. This is an entirely appropriate
exercise of judicial discretion. There are a range of disposals
available for ASBO breaches. These range from fines to community
sentences and custody. The full range of disposals of the youth
court are available, and custody should only be considered as
a last resort in cases of serious or persistent breach.
8. Is the prevention of ASB as central as enforcement
to the work of the ASB Unit, or does this aspect tend to be dealt
with by other relevant Government Departments?
The prevention of ASB is core to the work of other departments,
and the work of the Unit was not about replacing what was already
being done, but rather to drive the agenda forward and make a
difference on the ground. The work is not either/or—prevention
and enforcement are two sides of the same coin.
The Government's strategy is to ensure that all available
powers are understood and that the tools that have been sought
by practitioners are used to bring relief to communities. This
may be interpreted as enforcement. Enforcement is often used to
describe action involving court proceedings (such as ASBOs or
eviction proceedings). In this context ABCs are not seen as enforcement
because they occur outside the court process. However the Unit
would say that everything from warnings, through to ABCs to ASBOs
are enforcement—because they are enforcing standards of
behaviour.
Specific questions on the Home Office written submission
P6 "The Government is committed to ensuring local
agencies have the powers they need to reduce the impact of ASB".
Does the regular use of these powers have resource implications
and, if so, is the Government able and willing to provide the
extra resources needed?
If used wisely and well tools to tackle anti-social behaviour
can reduce and prevent crime and disorder. It is also the case
that the more experienced agencies and staff have become mean
they become quicker and easier they are to use. This should
have positive implications for resourcing the work.
Although tacking anti-social behaviour across the spectrum
of litter to problem families is core work for local authorities
and the police and therefore resourced locally, the Government
has made new and additional resources available to improve the
infrastructure to tackle anti-social behaviour. £9.4 million
in 2004-05 and 2005-06 ensured that each CDRP receives the minimum
of £25,000 for two years to underpin their work.
P7 The information about Acceptable Behaviour Contracts
is now two-and-a-half years old. Does the Home Office have more
up-to-date information? Are there any plans to acquire it?
The Home Office does not routinely collect statistics on
the use of acceptable behaviour contracts or agreements (ABCs
or ABAs). ABC schemes, have been developed by a range of agencies
whose role it is to prevent such behaviour (including police,
Yots, schools, housing departments etc).
However, in the national survey of anti-social behaviour,
CDRPs estimated that 5,383 contracts had been signed in England
and Wales between October 2003 and September 2004. 78% of local
authorities said they were using more acceptable behaviour contracts
than in the previous year.
P7 Are there any plans for a review of the Penalty Notice
for Disorder (PND) scheme? If so, what form would this review
take?
The penalty notice for disorder scheme is still in its infancy
and will continue to be closely monitored by the Home Office to
ensure its continued effectiveness.
PNDs were piloted in four police force areas between August
2002 and September 2003. The pilots were reviewed and evaluated.
(Findings from the interim and final evaluation reports are published
as Home Office Research Findings Nos 232 and 257, available on
the Home Office website under Research and Development—Publications—2004.)
The scheme was rolled out to all forces in England and Wales
during the 2003-04 financial year following the announcement on
14 May 2003 by David Blunkett, the then Home Secretary, that the
scheme would be rolled out early in the light of positive feedback
from the pilots. Over 40,000 PNDs had been issued up to the end
of October 2004.
As part of the on-going development of the scheme, three
new firework offences were added with effect from 11 October 2004
and a further seven offences, retail theft (up to a maximum of
£200), criminal damage (up to a maximum of £500), four
alcohol misuse offences targeting under age drinking and littering
were added to the scheme from 1 November. The use of penalty notices
for the two new penalty offences of theft and criminal damage
is being reviewed by the Home Office in consultation with the
police and retail sector representatives. The review will look
at the numbers of penalty notices issued, the value of goods or
amount of damage involved; the issue of repeat offenders, feedback
from the police and retail sector. It will examine the effectiveness
of the revised Police Operational Guidance and the advice it provides
on issuing penalty notices for these offences.
On 27 December 2004, powers were brought into effect to enable
seven police force areas to commence a 12-month pilot for the
issuing of PNDs to 10-15 year olds. The pilots will be subject
to a full evaluation, the results of which will be published.
The evaluation will analyse the use of PNDs for this age group,
payments of penalties or fines by the parent/guardian and interviews
will be undertaken with police officers issuing PNDs, recipients
and their parent/guardian (subject to their agreement).
A National Operational Forum is to be established early in
2005 (which replaces the role of the Operational Working Group
formed for the adult pilots) which has continued to provide advice
through the establishment of the scheme across all forces in England
and Wales for both adults and juveniles. The purpose of the forum
will be to provide operational feedback on the penalty notice
for disorder scheme, disseminate good practice, and keep the Operational
Guidance and penalty notice format under review developing and
agreeing revisions as necessary.
A cost/benefit analysis is also to be undertaken in 2005
seeking to evidence the effectiveness of the scheme in support
of the positive feedback from frontline police officers.
Consideration will be given in 2005 to looking again at adding
more offences with a specific need to amend the alcohol-related
offences, in consultation with DCMS, when the Licensing Act 2003
is brought into effect.
P8 Why do ASBOs run for a minimum of two years? Does this
not run the risk that they will be disproportionate (especially
given that referral orders last between 3 to 12 months)?
A minimum period of two years was made to reflect the need
for the orders to bring respite to communities and for behaviour
to be changed.
ASBOs are designed to protect the community not to punish
the perpetrator; referral orders are for punishing and rehabilitating
an offender. As such these are not directly comparable.
Stand-alone ASBOs can be varied and they may also be discharged
before the two years period with the consent of both parties.
Currently only the defendant can apply to vary or discharge
conditions. However, proposals in the Serious Organised Crime
and Police Bill (introduced to Parliament on 24 November) will
allow the applicant as well as the defendant to vary or discharge
orders made on conviction.
P9 Why do Individual Support Orders (ISOs) last for a maximum
of six months when ASBOs last for at least four times as long?
Should these not run together?
The ISO provides a means by which a 10-17 year old with an
ASBO receives interventions that address the cause of their anti-social
behaviour. An order lasting six months was considered reasonable
and proportionate with human rights legislation. To compel an
individual to receive support on a longer term basis would infringe
on their liberty and be considered a penalty rather then a support
initiative. In addition there is an expectation that the underlying
causes of the anti-social behaviour—such as drugs, alcohol
or anger management problems—should improve significantly
over six months and therefore remove the requirement to continue
receiving the support an ISO offers.
P9 Given that section 30 dispersal powers can be used even
where there is no ASB, how do you ensure that they are being used
proportionately and appropriately? Are you gathering evidence
as to where "gangs" disperse following the use of these
powers?
A dispersal area can only be designated where a police officer
of the rank of superintendent has reasonable grounds for believing
that anti-social behaviour is a significant and persistent problem
in an area and members of the public have been intimidated, harassed,
alarmed or distressed as a result of the presence or behaviour
of groups in that area. They cannot be made where there has been
no ASB. The local authority has to agree to the dispersal designation
before it is made—therefore dispersal notices are not solely
at police discretion. In addition, we expect that managers within
the police ensure that the direction power is used and enforced
in a matter, which is consistent, continued and fair.
We are not gathering evidence as to where "gangs"
disperse following the use of these powers. However, there is
evidence that dispersal powers are having a very significant effect
in hotspot areas. An example is cited below.
P11 Will the effect of Designated Public Places Orders
(DPPOs) not be to move problem drinkers from one location to another?
How is the effectiveness of DPPOs monitored?
The creation of designated areas may well lead to anti-social
drinking or nuisance being displaced into areas that have not
been designated for this purpose. Therefore before making an area
designated, local authorities should make an assessment of areas
to where they reasonably believe that nuisance or disorder will
be displaced ensuring that all those affected by the designation
are appropriately consulted. This is to allow for full consideration
to be given to the consequences of the designation order on the
neighbouring authority. It might be appropriate for a local authority
to designate an area beyond that which is experiencing the immediate
problems caused by anti-social drinking if police evidence suggests
that the existing problem may be displaced once the DPPO was in
place.
There is no central government monitoring of the effectiveness
of DPPOs. If the local authority concerned wished to set up their
own monitoring arrangements that would be entirely for them to
decide.
However, there is a requirement set out in the "Statutory
Instrument 2001—The Local Authorities (Alcohol Consumption
in Designated Public Places) Regulations 2001" that "a
copy of any order made shall be sent to the Secretary of State".
To date 134 local authorities have notified the Home Office of
the designated zones they have created.
The take-up indicates that local authorities have found that
DPPOs are helping them to tackle the problems of anti-social public
drinking. The results of the summer (2004) alcohol misuse enforcement
campaign were published in September 2004. The Lessons Learned
document includes several case studies that highlight the benefits
of having a DPPO in place as an effective tool to help tackle
the problems of anti-social public drinking.
P13 Should arms-length management organisations (ALMOs)
be given powers to apply for ASBOs and injunctions? If not, why
not?
It is almost inevitable that, in carrying out housing management
functions on a local authority's behalf, ALMOs will be called
upon to tackle anti-social behaviour. ALMOs, through the delegation
of housing management functions can already access a range of
tools that will help protect communities from anti-social behaviour.
This includes, for example, housing injunctions, demotion and
possession on ASB grounds.
We believe that local authorities should have the flexibility
to make appropriate local decisions to ensure that their functions
are carried out as effectively as possible, not least tackling
anti-social behaviour. The Serious Organised Crime and Police
Bill (SOCPB), currently before Parliament, contains a provision
that will allow local authorities to contract out their ASBO powers
to other organisations.
ODPM are currently undertaking a wide-ranging review of the
long term future of ALMOs which will produce a formal consultation
document in the Spring. It is likely that this will include consultation
on whether or not it might be appropriate for local authorities
to be able to contract out ASBO powers to ALMOs managing some
or all of their housing stock.
P19 How many hits of the TOGETHER website and how many
calls to ActionLine have there been since these were launched?
The Action line was launched in March 2004 and up to December
2004 it had received over 6,200 calls and e-mails. The Website
went live on 7 June 2004 and figures to the end of December 2004
show it has had over 49,700 visits to date.
P20 How many fixed penalty notices have been issued specifically
by Community Support Officers? Can these figures be broken down
according to the offence?
The Home Office currently collects data nationally on fixed
penalty notices for each police force, broken down by offence.
However, the data requirement from forces does not distinguish
between those issued by police officers and those issued by community
support officers.
Work is in hand to further refine the data requirement by
issuer. Forces have been notified that we will be making this
change, so as to enable them to prepare for it.
P21 Apart from sources of funding, what are the essential
differences between Neighbourhood Wardens (and, for that matter,
"street wardens") and CSOs? Why have these two different
groups? Will Neighbourhood Wardens still be necessary once the
number of CSOs has risen to over 20,000?
Neighbourhood Wardens is the generic name now used for all
Wardens. The distinction at the outset of the programmes can be
categorised as follows:
Neighbourhood wardens provide a uniformed presence in residential
areas with the aim of enhancing quality of life issues. Wardens
promote community safety, assist with environmental improvements
and housing management, but also contribute to community development.
Wardens may patrol, carry out concierge duties or act as "super
caretakers" playing a significant role in effective neighbourhood
management. Wardens can help deliver local crime and disorder
reduction targets. They are the "ears and eyes" of the
police, local authority and community.
Street Wardens are similar to neighbourhood warden, but have
more of an emphasis on caring for the physical appearance of the
area. They tackle environmental problems such as litter, graffiti
and dog fouling, as well as promoting community safety. They also
help to deter anti-social behaviour; reduce the fear of crime;
and foster social inclusion.
Inevitably, there may be some overlap with community support
officers in that environmental issues may have an anti-social
element and the solutions wardens can bring (and sometimes their
mere presence) may reduce or deter anti-social behaviour and low
level disorder. However, CSOs in contrast, are under the direction
of the police and have a more enforcement-based focus than wardens,
with more powers to tackle anti-social behaviour and public nuisance
(such as the power to require name and address for anti-social
behaviour and the power to confiscate alcohol and tobacco). While
they do deal with environmental and social issues, the core role
of the CSO role is providing high-visibility policing and dealing
with ASB.
There is demand from local authorities to maintain the distinction
between local authority wardens focusing on environmental and
social problems and police-controlled CSOs dealing primarily with
low-level disorder. We believe the distinction is a positive one
and ensures that the widest possible range of local issues will
be addressed.
P23 Are perpetrators of ASB sent to ASB Response Courts
instead of or in addition to regular courts? Why was it felt that
ASB in particular justified having special courts, as opposed
to other areas of offending?
Supporting witnesses is a particular issue in anti-social
behaviour cases due to likelihood of repeat victimisation, fear
of reprisals, knowing the perpetrator etc Creating an environment
that fosters confidence and trust is a vital part of encouraging
people to act as formal witnesses. For this reason, DCA have developed
anti-social behaviour response courts (ASBRC).
An ASBRC is a special court sitting held in a regular court
and operates in a number of ways, depending on the local need.
Magistrates, court clerks and all courts staff make every effort
to avoid delays, and sentencers are fully aware and trained on
the range of powers available to tackle ASB. There is also active
local engagement between the courts and other partners with courts
receiving regular updates on the impact of ASB on the community.
Other types of offending—such as domestic violence—do
also have similar special arrangements in order to encourage victims
to come forward. These are necessary because of the particularly
difficult circumstances which can result in intimidation and reprisals.
Specialist ASB prosecutors complement the response courts
and also play their part in ensuring cases are dealt with swiftly,
effectively and in tune with the needs of local communities.
P25 Please provide more information about these diversionary
programmes, including details of their content (perhaps with some
examples), what is known about their effectiveness, when decisions
will be made as to whether to extend the pilots and which Government
Department is responsible for support and evaluation. More specifically,
who sits on the Youth Inclusion and Support Panels (YISPs)? Is
there ever an overlap between Positive Futures programmes and
Youth Inclusion Programmes?
The Youth Inclusion Programmes (YIPs) and Youth Inclusion
and Support Panels (YISPS) are part of the Government's wider
programme to target young people at risk of getting involved in
criminal and anti-social behaviour. These are essentially intensive
intervention programmes that target the risk factors often associated
with young people's offending.
1. Youth Inclusion Programme (YIPs): key facts
The Youth Inclusion Programme runs in 72 of the most deprived
neighbourhoods in England and Wales, each scheme targeting the
50 most at risk 13-16 year olds. The Home Office provides £7
million per year to the Youth Justice Board and this figure is
matched by local funding sources in YIP areas. We are providing
funding until April 2006. The Home Office Strategic Plan includes
a commitment to increase the number of schemes by 50% by 2008.
Participation in YIPs is voluntary, but the programmes seek
to engage young people in constructive activities. In addition
to focusing on the 50 most at risk young people, the programme
also encourages wider groups of young people to participate in
programme activities, including siblings and peers. Interventions
take a variety of forms, from sport to more structured drugs education,
health, education, including mentoring, arts and other constructive
leisure activities, and motor workshops, and many other interventions,
many of which are the result of local innovation. and employment
advice sessions. The YJB manages the programmes through Youth
Offending Teams (YOTs).
Community Merit Award schemes in some YIP areas are a new
part of the YIP approach to reducing youth crime in deprived areas.
The schemes are business-sponsored and use incentives to motivate
youngsters to work in the community and foster a sense of community
responsibility at an early age. The "top 50" most at
risk are identified by local agencies using a number of risk factors
that are known to be associated with offending.
The targets for the programme are as follows:
— To ensure at least 75% of the identified target
group (the core 50) are engaged with, and that those engaged receive
at least five hours of appropriate interventions per week.
— To reduce arrest rates among the target group
by 70% compared to the 12 months prior to their engagement.
— To ensure 90% of those in the engaged target group
are in suitable full-time education, training or employment.
Evaluation of YIP National Programme
The impact of Yips show that
— 66% of the target group engaged on an average
of one hour per week.
— 66% reduction in arrest rates for the target group.
Currently 80% of those in the engaged target group are in
suitable full-time education, training or employment (ETE).
The Home Office Strategic Plan, "Confident Communities
in a Secure Britain" includes a commitment to increase the
number of early intervention schemes by 50%. This commitment is
based on good evidence that the programme is working in reducing
youth crime, plus providing real benefits to families, communities
and individuals, including addressing poor educational attendance
and achievement.
Example of YIP
"Ways towards youth inclusion in Derby"
Derby Youth Inclusion Programme (YIP) works with young people
between the ages of 13 and 15 at risk of offending and diverting
them from crime and helping them to fulfill their true potential
by:
— equipping them to aspire to excellence; and
Youth clubs, workshops (including art, DJing, gardening,
outdoor activities and Youth Achievement Awards), days out and
residential trips are among the activities on offer. One-to one
mentoring is at the heart of the drive to provide support, challenge
and friendship.
Arrest rates for the young people taking part went down by
94.6% compared to the 12-month period before they signed up to
the programme. Not only does the project reach 98% of the young
people most at risk in the area, but it also works with another
100 who are their peers and siblings.
The YIP is part of the Youth Justice Board's national programme
and is delivered by the community-based "Enthusiasm Trust."
2. Youth Inclusion and Support Panels (YISPs): Key facts
93 pilot Youth Inclusion and Support Panels (YISPs) help
to target children in the 8 to 13 age risk group. YISPs are funded
through the Children's Fund. The main emphasis of the Panels'
work is to ensure that children and their families receive, at
the earliest possible opportunity, mainstream public services
together with interventions from voluntary and community groups
(eg Education, social services, youth service and mental health
services).
YISPs are multi-agency planning groups consisting of YOTs,
Police, Social Services, Health , schools and other agencies depending
on local circumstances, aimed at preventing high risk 8-13 year
olds, many of which are pre-crime, from offending and anti-social
behaviour by ensuring they are engaged with mainstream public
services and receive targeted interventions from voluntary and
community groups. The YISP referral criteria are:
— the behaviour of the child is of concern to two
or more of partnership agencies;
— the child is exposed to four or more risk factors;
and
— is known or a concern of a potential involvement
in, criminal or anti-social behaviour.
In April 2003 the Youth Justice Board set up 14 pilot YISPs
to run for a year. The annual cost of each is understood to be
£100,000, met by the Youth Justice Board and the Children's
Fund. Although the majority of the panels did not start to take
referrals until late summer and was largely due to recruiting
panel members and gaining service agreements.
Evaluation of YISPs
Evaluation of the pilots began in January 2004 and undertaken
by Newcastle University studying both qualitative and quantative
data. This information is gathered through the use of a Management
Information System at each of the 14 pilots as well as researchers
visiting individual projects to speak with practitioners, families,
young people that attend the panel sessions. Extension of the
evaluation is still being discussed with the DfES who were the
original commissioning body but as yet no decision has been made.
3. Positive Futures: Key facts
Positive Futures programme was launched in March 2000 and
is targeted at 10-19 year olds living in the most deprived neighbourhoods
in England and Wales. Its objective is to have a positive influence
on drug use and other negative behaviours of vulnerable young
people. Since its launch over 51,000 young people have taken regular
part in Positive Futures activities6[6],
with 18,579 engaged at present in activities ranging from sports
such as football and basketball, to wider more educational activities
involving subjects such as the arts and substance misuse prevention.
While sport is the catalyst used to encourage young people to
initially participate, it is through the trust and mutual respect,
built up between young people and project staff, that new opportunities
and alternative lifestyles are introduced. Steering young people
towards education and employment is at the heart of all projects'
work.
Positive Futures is managed by the Home Office Drugs Strategy
Directorate, with an advisory group of representatives from other
government departments, Sport England, the Youth Justice Board
and the Football Foundation.
Managed via statutory and non-statutory agencies, projects
are steered by local partnerships typically comprising of local
agencies, including Youth Offending Teams (YOTs), Youth Inclusion
Programmes (YIPs), the Police, youth services, schools, local
authorities, Connexions, social services, sports clubs, Drug Action
Teams (DATs) and Community Safety Partnerships.
Expenditure for 2004-05 is £6.2 million made up of targeted
Home Office funding (£5.7 million) and Sport England funding
(£0.5 million), plus funds contributed to projects by local
partners.
There are currently 108 Positive Futures projects. All of
which are located in wards that are among the most deprived in
England and Wales most deprived7[7],
including the 30 areas of the country worst affected by drug related
crime.
Monitoring and Evaluation
A comprehensive monitoring and evaluation strategy supports
Positive Futures, drawing on independent evidence from MORI. In
addition the London School of Economics has undertaken research
regarding young peoples' views and more recently research teams
from Sheffield Hallam University, Goldsmiths College, London and
Manchester Metropolitan University have been working on measuring
the impact that sport-based social interventions have on young
people's behaviour.
The latest Positive Futures published progress report identifies
over half of participants demonstrating a "high level of
engagement", with an increasing number of young people seen
as having improved social relationships with their peers. Key
achievements of the young people within Positive Futures projects
include the accomplishment of Community Sports Leader Awards,
Duke of Edinburgh Awards, first aid and drug education training.
Overlap between Positive Futures (PF) and YIPs exist only
in their respective client groups based in high crime areas but
differ in the interventions that each provide: YIPs are seen as
skills based interventions that focus on the developmental needs
of a young person at risk, while PF primarily uses sports activities
to influence and deter those who are at risk of drug and other
substance misuse.
P26 Are prolific offenders people who are frequently appearing
before the courts, and being convicted on a number of separate
occasions? Or would you also include people who, having committed
a string of offences, are caught and convicted for the first time?
The Prolific and other Priority Offenders (PPOs) strategy
allows local areas the flexibility to determine, for themselves,
which offenders are causing the most harm to their communities.
This replaced the old Persistent Offender Scheme which included
a centrally imposed national definition of a Core Persistent Offender—"those
offenders who have been convicted of 6 or more offences within
a rolling 12-month period".
The general criteria for selecting PPOs is based on the nature
and volume of crimes and other harm which an individual is causing
and any local criteria based on the impact the individuals have
on their local communities, using the National Intelligence Model
process. Therefore the evidence used to identify a PPO for targeting
could be a combination of actual convictions or police intelligence,
depending on how local areas have decide to set up their selection
methods. The PPO scheme should be used to deliver local priorities,
particularly those connected to the national public service agreements
relating to robbery, domestic burglary, vehicle crime and violent
crime.
Therefore, due to the local flexibility at the core of the
strategy, identified PPOs could include both those offenders who
have frequently appeared before the courts, and have a number
of separate convictions, as well as those who are caught and convicted
on their first offence.
P27-30 Which Government Department is responsible for the
Children's Fund, Connexions and Youth Services? What is the current
level of funding for each of these (as compared with the past
three years)?
Children, Young People and Families Directorate (CYPFD) based
within Department for Education and Skills (DfES) is responsible
for developing the Children's Fund, Connexions and Youth Services.
Connexions
The first Connexions Partnership began operating in 2001,
however Connexions was phased in gradually and did not have national
coverage until April 2003.
Therefore ascertaining precise levels of funding is complex
as Connexions brought together a number of services for young
people. However a significant element of funding in this area
before Connexions was established belonged to Careers Services.
— The Connexions Service budget for 2004-05 is £460
million.
— In 2003-04, Connexions funding was in excess of
£450 million.
— In 2002-03, £430 million.
— In 2001-02, the combined Careers Service/Connexions
Service budget was £320 million.
The Partnership delivers services designed to meet the needs
of young offenders and young people at risk of becoming involved
in offending. The Partnership contributes towards the shared target
with the Home Office: for 90% of 13-18 year olds, supervised by
Youth Offending Teams, to be in education, training and employment
by December 2004.
However, Partnerships are autonomous—so it is up to
them to decide how they use the money across the vast range of
requirements they have to meet; a decision that should be made
on the basis of an understanding of local needs etc and which
is reflected in their plans which are monitored via Govt Offices.
Children's Fund
The Children's Fund was introduced in November 2000 in response
to the Social Exclusion Unit's Policy Action Team report on Young
People, which highlighted the need for improved preventive services.
Before the Children, Young People and Families Directorate was
established in 2003, Children's Fund was the responsibility of
the now defunct Children and Young People's Unit, a cross-government
unit with its lead based in the Home Office.
The 2002 Spending Review (SR2002) allocated £450 million
to the Children's Fund over the 3-year period. Funding difficulties
arose during 2003-04 due to underspends incurred by partnerships
taking time to get up to full speed. Following a mid-year review,
Children's Fund partnerships and local projects were informed
of revised allocations at the end of 2003. For 2004-05, Ministers
identified new resources from outside the Children's Fund, which
meant that the total budget for that year was £160 million.
Children's Fund partnerships have now been allocated £411.5
million over the three years 2005-06 and 2007-08. By the end of
the Spending Review period, partnerships will have received over
£770 million in the years 2003-08, which equates to an average
of £154 million each year.
Youth Service
The Youth and Community Sub Block of the Education Formula
Spend (EFS) provides potential resource to local authorities to
spend on youth and community services.
The Government has asked Local Authorities to give priority
to their Youth Service when planning the use of their EFS resource.
Ministers want Local Authorities to develop their Youth Services
and improve the quality and quantity of their work.
Actual Youth Service budgets and the level, location and
type of provision that an authority makes is for it to decide,
taking into account local priorities and available resources.
— Local Authorities budget for local Youth Services:
— Local Authorities have allocated £363 million
to their Youth Services for 2004-05.
— In 2003-04 local authorities allocated £343
million to Youth Services.
— In 2002-03 local authorities allocated £316
million to Youth Services.
— In 2001-02 local authorities allocated £307
million to Youth Services.
Children, Young People and Families Directorate (CYPFD) based
within Department for Education and Skills (DfES) is responsible
for developing the Children's Fund, Connexions and Youth Services.
Connexions
The first Connexions Partnership began operating in 2001,
however Connexions was phased in gradually and did not have national
coverage until April 2003.
Therefore ascertaining precise levels of funding is complex
as Connexions brought together a number of services for young
people. However a significant element of funding in this area
before Connexions was established belonged to Careers Services.
The Connexions Service budget for 2004-05 is £460 million.
In 2003-04, Connexions funding was in excess of £450
million.
In 2002-03, £430 million.
In 2001-02, the combined Careers Service/Connexions Service
budget was £320 million.
Children's Fund
The Children's Fund was introduced in November 2000 in response
to the Social Exclusion Unit's Policy Action Team report on Young
People, which highlighted the need for improved preventive services.
Before the Children, Young People and Families Directorate was
established in 2003, Children's Fund was the responsibility of
the now defunct Children and Young People's Unit, a cross-government
unit with its lead based in the Home Office.
The 2002 Spending Review (SR2002) allocated £450 million
to the Children's Fund over the three year period. Funding difficulties
arose during 2003-04 due to underspends incurred by partnerships
taking time to get up to full speed. Following a mid-year review,
Children's Fund partnerships and local projects were informed
of revised allocations at the end of 2003. For 2004-05, Ministers
identified new resources from outside the Children's Fund, which
meant that the total budget for that year was £160 million.
Children's Fund partnerships have now been allocated £411.5
million over the 3 years 2005-06 and 2007-08. By the end of the
Spending Review period, partnerships will have received over £770
million in the years 2003-08, which equates to an average of £154
million each year.
Youth Service
Local Authorities budget for local Youth Services:
Local Authorities have allocated £363 million to their
Youth Services for 2004-05.
In 2003-04 local authorities allocated £343 million
to Youth Services.
In 2002-03 local authorities allocated £316 million
to Youth Services.
In 2001-02 local authorities allocated £307 million
to Youth Services.
7 February 2005
Annex B
NUMBER OF BREACHES OF ASBOs, AS NOTIFIED TO THE HOME OFFICE,
BY SEVEREST DISPOSAL, FOR AGES 10-17, 1 JUNE 2000 TO 31 DECEMBER
2002
| Total |
| Detention and Training Order [consecutive] |
45 |
| Detention and Training Order [concurrent] |
26 |
| Immediate custody sub-total | 71
|
| Community Punishment Order (within CPRO) |
3 |
| Community Punishment Order (not within CPRO)
| 4 |
| Curfew Order with electronic monitoring |
3 |
| Curfew Order without electronic monitoring |
6 |
| Attendance Centre Order | 15
|
| Reparation Order | 4 |
| Action Plan Order | 8 |
| Supervision Order with requirement to comply
| 3 |
| Supervision Order with other or no requirements
| 16 |
| Community Rehabilitation Order | 2
|
| Referral Order | 3 |
| Community sentence sub-total | 67
|
| Fine | 14 |
| Conditional Discharge | 4 |
| Bindover on conviction | 1 |
| Absolute Discharge | 3 |
| Parenting Order given in a criminal court |
2 |
| Not separately dealt with | 4
|
| other disposals sub-total | 28
|
| Total | 166 |
| Source: RDS-OCJR/M&SDC |
|
| Home Office M&SDC 263b-04 |
|
| |
6
6 As measured by MORI in "The State of Play", September
2004, available at www.drugs.gov.uk/NationalStrategy/YoungPeople/PositiveFutures. Back
7
7 As measured by the Indices of Multiple Deprivation (IMD), available
at www.urban.odpm.gov.uk. Back
| 
