Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 10:01 pm
Time: 10:01 pm
Results for antisocial behavior (australia)
2 results foundAuthor: Jacobs, Keith Title: Developing Effective Housing Management Policies to Address Problems of Anti-Social Behaviour Summary: This report presents research undertaken by the AHURI Southern Research Centre to develop effective housing management policies to address problems of anti-social behaviour (ASB). In recent years, public housing has increasingly become the tenure for individuals with limited incomes and a high level of social need. Furthermore, deinstitutionalisation policies in mental health provision have meant that individuals who in the past would have been provided with institutional care are now often residing in public housing. The intensive needs of many tenants result in a new set of challenges for housing managers in terms of supporting sustainable tenancies. The term anti-social behaviour is used to denote a range of activities from the very minor (such as the dropping of litter) to more extreme forms of criminal behaviour (such as burglary and harassment). Though residents who engage in ASB may be few in number, their activities have a significant negative impact on the quality of life for their neighbours. There is a wide-ranging debate about the causal factors associated with ASB. The dominant view within the Australian housing profession and academia is that ASB is a symptom of wider structural factors such as unemployment and poverty. Therefore, the most desirable policies are those that are community focused and seek to address the causal factors associated with ASB. However, there is a strand of literature based on the ‘underclass’ theory that draws upon the work of Charles Murray (1994) claiming that individual fecklessness is the root causal factor for ASB. Such underclass theories have been especially influential in informing the contemporary practices undertaken by housing authorities in the USA and, to a lesser extent, the UK. In Australia, State Housing Authorities deploy a range of strategies to address incidences of ASB. These include provisions within Residential Tenancy Acts to enforce conditions of tenancy, ‘good neighbour policies’, tenant complaint procedures, court orders, referrals to independent mediation services and, in extreme cases, eviction. However, while official policy frameworks for addressing ASB are in the public realm, very little is known about the extent of ASB, the ways in which housing managers actually respond to incidents and how tenants view the problem. In order to address these gaps in knowledge two case study investigations were undertaken in Bridgewater, Hobart and Christie Downs, Adelaide. The findings from the case study investigations confirm that ASB is a serious concern to tenants and housing managers and that considerable time and resources are taken up in responding to ASB. On average, it was estimated that front-line housing managers spend at least an hour a day on ASB issues. This figure can be even higher for senior managers when complex ASB cases are referred to them. Area offices very often deal with at least 10 incidents a week. However, the real extent of ASB is probably far greater than this with tenants noting that many incidents are not reported because of concerns about retribution. Young people under the age 16 are often cited as the most frequent perpetrators of ASB, although some incidents are viewed by staff as a direct consequence of the deinsitutionalisation policies in health care that have meant more individuals with mental health problems are residing in public housing. Housing managers perform an important role in preventing incidents of ASB and in responding to complaints from tenants. Evidence from the case study investigations show that staff adopt a range of proactive measures to reduce the risk of incidents taking place. The most effective interventions involve: • Housing staff working directly with tenants on an informal basis and utilising their knowledge of the area to inform their decision-making and harness a sense of communal well-being. • Flexible allocation policies • Communication and publicity strategies, especially when these are undertaken with the local community. • The establishment of neighbourhood renewal initiatives (i.e. Bridgewater Urban Renewal Project), which can play a vital part in tackling social stigma and restoring civic pride, both of which, in turn, can result in reduced incidents of ASB activities such as vandalism and damage to communal areas. Housing managers, when the need arises, utilise other measures to deal with ASB, for example, probationary tenancies, which can be effective in making sure tenants are aware of their responsibilities and transfers for exceptional cases (although it was acknowledged that this might result in simply moving the problem on). The establishment of good working relationships with the police and other professionals (such as educational and welfare professionals) were viewed as being very valuable. The best modes of collaboration were judged to be informal arrangements at the local level alongside innovative practices such as ‘officer next door programmes’ whereby special arrangements were made for police to reside in public housing to increase their presence on an estate. Mediation services were also valued for resolving disputes, but only when both parties were willing to participate. Finally, there was a view that policies need to be in place to deal with persistent ASB offenders who do not respond appropriately to complaints about their behaviour. In theory, eviction was deemed to be undesirable because the problem was not resolved but merely moved on to another locality or housing tenure. However, in certain circumstances housing managers and tenants felt that legal procedures and the threat of eviction could be useful as a deterrent. The report concludes that a mix of preventive and responsive strategies is required to tackle ASB and that the institutional barriers that can undermine implementation need to be addressed. For example, issues relating to confidentiality were seen as an impediment to information exchange with the police and staff working in community corrections. Holistic policies informed by social justice perspectives are generally seen as the best forms of intervention in preference to the imposition of stricter sanctions and punitive measures such as those adopted in the USA and to a lesser extent in UK policy settings. However, the active engagement by housing managers in holistic approaches to ASB requires considerable time and expertise. It is therefore important that the necessary training and resources are made available if such policies are to succeed. Details: Melbourne: Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, 2003. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 22, 2011 at: http://eprints.utas.edu.au/2130/1/40163_final.pdf Year: 2003 Country: Australia URL: http://eprints.utas.edu.au/2130/1/40163_final.pdf Shelf Number: 120843 Keywords: Antisocial Behavior (Australia)Nuisance Behaviors and DisorderPublic Housing |
Author: Queensland. Crime and Misconduct Commission Title: Police Move-On Powers: A CMC Review of their Use Summary: Move-on powers enable police to issue a direction to individuals or groups to move on or leave a public place. Move-on powers are intended to give police powers to respond to antisocial behaviour and thus facilitate improved perceptions of community safety. The powers are also seen as having the potential to divert people away from the criminal justice system. Queensland Police Service (QPS) officers have had the power to issue a move-on direction since 1997. Before 2006, the use of these powers was restricted to certain geographical locations. Over time, there has been an incremental expansion of the areas in which police can apply the laws. On 1 June 2006, new laws were introduced to expand the use of move-on powers to all public places in Queensland. These new laws also required the CMC to review the use of move-on powers as soon as practicable after 31 December 2007. The statewide expansion of the move-on powers occurred at a time when public attention was focused on antisocial behaviour and the mechanisms available to police to effectively prevent and respond to such behaviour. Significantly, the then Minister for Police and Corrective Services, the Hon. J Spence, established the Safe Youth Parties Taskforce (SYPT) in response to incidents of youth parties being gate-crashed and associated youth violence. This taskforce recommended the geographical expansion of the move-on laws (SYPT 2006). The debate surrounding the expansion of the powers centred on a number of issues, most of which stem from the discretionary nature of the law and the way in which police can apply it. In the large part, move-on powers are not complaint driven but rather are used by police in the routine activities associated with the policing of public spaces. When faced with a situation involving a person’s behaviour or presence in a public place, police officers will use their discretion to determine which response is most appropriate in the circumstance. Such responses can range from doing nothing, to unofficially encouraging the individual or group to relocate, to officially directing them to move on, and to using another power to arrest. Concerns were expressed that move-on powers would be misused by police officers. In particular, it was feared that those people living and regularly moving within public spaces, such as young people, homeless people and Indigenous people, would be disproportionately affected by the move-on law and would be displaced to another public space or drawn into the criminal justice system. It was also claimed that the law would enable the police to carry out ‘back-door’ regulation of public spaces, allowing them to remove people who were seen as ‘undesirable’. Views that personal biases, prejudices and stereotyping may influence a police officer’s decision-making processes were also raised. These concerns guided our review and focused our research efforts on the following key questions: How are police using move-on powers? 2. What role do move-on powers play in policing public order? 3. What is guiding or influencing the use of move-on powers? Details: Brisbane: Queensland Crime and Misconduct Commission, 2011. 104p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 15, 2011 at: http://www.cmc.qld.gov.au/data/portal/00000005/content/80468001292819166771.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Australia URL: http://www.cmc.qld.gov.au/data/portal/00000005/content/80468001292819166771.pdf Shelf Number: 121008 Keywords: Antisocial Behavior (Australia)Disorderly ConductPolicingPublic PlacesPublic Space |