Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 12:48 am
Time: 12:48 am
Results for antisocial behavior (u.k.)
24 results foundAuthor: Chambers, Max Title: A State of Disorder: Moving Beyond the ASBO in Tackling Anti-Social Behaviour Summary: This report contends that while some limited progress has been made in tackling anti-social behavior, there are a host of weaknesses with the U.K. Government's approach. It suggests a new approach that includes the following: emphasises the importance of local leadership and self-governance; reinvigorates local policing through enhanced accountability and freedom from central direction; encourages personal and community responsibility through building social capital; and is based on the best available evidence about what works to reduce anti-social behavior. Details: London: Policy Exchange, 2010. 56p. Source: Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 118267 Keywords: Antisocial Behavior (U.K.)Problem Youth (U.K.) |
Author: Hart, Di Title: Children and Young People in 'Breach': A Scoping Report on Policy and Practice in the Enforcement of Criminal Justice and Anti-Social Behaviour Orders Summary: This report summarizes the findings of the first phase of a project concerning young people who are in 'breach' of their bail requirements, or anti-social behavior or criminal justice order. The project aims to increase the understanding of policy and practice in different aspects of breach proceedings. A particular focus is the population of children and young people who are in custody as a result of breach, particularly where this is the main reason for their incarceration. Details: London: National Children's Bureau, 2010. 37p. Source: Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 118531 Keywords: Antisocial Behavior (U.K.)Bail, U.K.Juvenile Justice System (U.K.)Juvenile Offenders (U.K.)Young Offenders (U.K.) |
Author: Campbell, Tammy Title: County Court Anti-social Behaviour Co-ordinators: A Pilot Scheme Summary: This reports presents a qualitative investigation of stakeholder views on the pilot scheme, which ran from Autumn 2006 to Autumn 2007. Housing and legal professionals, along with co-ordinators themselves, were interviewed as the pilot period drew to a close. Main findings include a sense that the scheme has resulted in little impact, with county courts dealing with too few anti-social behaviour (ASB) cases to warrant a dedicated co-ordinator. However, this is tempered by some suggestion that in practice all possible ASB-related proceedings were not identified during the pilot. Participants also raised issues around the suitability and sufficienty of county court facilites for ASB cases. Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2008. 45p. Source: Internet Resource; Ministry of Justice Research Series 13/08 Year: 2008 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 114419 Keywords: Antisocial Behavior (U.K.)Juvenile Courts (U.K.)Juveniles Offenders (U.K.) |
Author: Martin, Kerry Title: Positivity in Practice: Approaches to Improving Perceptions of Young People and their Involvement in Crime and Anti-Social Behaviour Summary: There is a mismatch between perceptions and reality about the scale of young people’s involvement in crime and anti-social behaviour. This study highlights the range of approaches that local authorities (LAs) and their partner organisations are undertaking to improve how young people are perceived in their communities, especially in relation to crime and anti-social behaviour. It also describes the methods used by LAs to measure the impact of activities on perceptions. Details: Slough, UK: National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER), 2010. 65p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 119392 Keywords: Antisocial Behavior (U.K.)Public Opinion |
Author: Millie, Andrew Title: Anti-Social Behaviour Strategies: Finding a Balance Summary: Anti-social behaviour (ASB) has a significant impact on the lives of a minority of people in Britain, particularly in areas of social deprivation and inner cities. But it has little or no effect on the quality of life of the majority of the population. The general population tends to equate ASB with problems they associate with young people, including graffiti, drug use or simple rowdiness. Two-thirds favour preventive action over tough action against ASB perpetrators. In the local neighbourhoods, people were mainly concerned with three issues: general misbehaviour by children and young people; visible drug and alcohol misuse; and neighbour disputes and ‘problem families'. Residents often regarded ASB as a symptom of social and moral decline. Local agencies tended to explain it in terms of social exclusion – especially of young people from deprived backgrounds. Some people, however, thought that much of the behaviour now labelled as ASB simply showed that ‘kids will be kids’. These different perspectives on ASB implied different solutions. Those who saw it as a consequence of declining moral standards tended to favour tougher discipline. Those who saw it as a result of deprivation preferred prevention and inclusion. In all three case-study sites, local ASB strategies have been adopted that balance enforcement with preventive work, and emphasise the need for a graduated and proportionate approach to enforcement. This contrasts with the stronger national emphasis on enforcement. We conclude that both national and local ASB strategies should aim for a balance between enforcement and prevention and that more care is needed in defining ASB and in deciding the limits on the use of civil remedies. Details: Bristol, U.K.: Policy Press for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2005. 66p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 18, 2011 at: http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/1861347774.pdf Year: 2005 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.jrf.org.uk/sites/files/jrf/1861347774.pdf Shelf Number: 120835 Keywords: Antisocial Behavior (U.K.)GraffitiJuvenile OffendersNuisance Behaviors and Disorders |
Author: Atkinson, Roland Title: The Use of Civil Legal Remedies for Neighbour Nuisance in Scotland Summary: The vast majority of complaints to social landlords of anti-social behaviour are successfully resolved by housing management action. However, there is little use of mediation as an alternative to legal remedies. Except where there were convictions for drug-dealing, cases were only taken to court where the offending behaviour continued, despite repeated warnings from the landlord. However, in a number of cases the tenants could be regarded as vulnerable due to mental health, serious alcohol abuse and 'out of control' children. This raises concerns that eviction action was not the most appropriate response to the problem. The way complaints are managed is crucial both to the successful use of legal remedies, and the prospects of resolving complaints without going to court. In that regard there was considerable variation in the nature and effectiveness of links between housing staff and other agencies and/or departments. Eviction is by far the commonest legal remedy used against anti-social behaviour, but there are substantial variations in the extent to which it is used by social landlords. Most eviction summonses result either in eviction or other outcomes which are acceptable to the landlord. The substantive law on eviction already covers all situations in which landlords might reasonably seek to evict. The most important obstacle is the difficulty of proving allegations stemming from the reluctance of potential witnesses to give evidence. Delay is a serious problem. However, there is considerable scope for reducing the extent of delay in eviction actions through changes in practice in both landlords and the courts. Interdict is much less commonly used than eviction as a remedy for anti-social behaviour, and misperceptions of its scope were not uncommon. However, landlords are almost invariably successful in obtaining interdict and find it a speedy remedy, except where there are proceedings for breach of interdict. There is some cause for concern over the appropriateness of the outcomes in both eviction and interdict cases in the courts, given the high proportion of cases in which the defender does not attend or is not represented. Other remedies (specific implement, title conditions, by-laws) are little used. Landlords were not convinced that anti-social behaviour orders will make a substantial contribution to dealing with anti-social behaviour. This research was commissioned by the Scottish Courts Administration (now Civil Justice and International Division, Courts Group, Justice Department) in response to a recommendation of the Scottish Affairs Select Committee, which called for research into delay in eviction cases, and the effectiveness of other legal remedies to deal with anti-social behaviour. The aims of the research were to: · to establish the extent to which, and the way in which, the available legal remedies are used to deal with anti-social behaviour and neighbour disputes; · to establish how effective the legal remedies are in practice · to establish the extent to which particular factors contribute to the ineffectiveness (or effectiveness) of the legal process · to assess how existing processes might be used or managed differently, and consider the need (if any) for reform of law and/or practice of parties and/or courts; · and to analyse the economic costs associated with the legal process. Details: Edinburgh: Scottish Executive Central Research Unit, 2000. 257p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 21, 2011 at: http://www.scie-socialcareonline.org.uk/repository/fulltext/nuisance.pdf Year: 2000 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.scie-socialcareonline.org.uk/repository/fulltext/nuisance.pdf Shelf Number: 120836 Keywords: Antisocial Behavior (U.K.)Civil RemediesNuisance Behaviors and Disorder |
Author: Great Britain. Department for Communities and Local Government Title: Tackling Anti-Social Behaviour: Tools and Powers -- Toolkit for Social Landlords Summary: Anti-social behaviour and nuisance continues to be a problem in many communities, and public expectations continue to rise in relation to the role social landlords play in addressing anti-social behaviour. Recent U.K. legislation provides social landlords and their partner agencies with even greater tools and powers with which to continue to improve anti-social behaviour services. For some landlords with geographically dispersed stock, or stock in rural areas, developing a strategy that is responsive to the demands of different areas can be complex. Effective community engagement and local partnership arrangements are essential in developing an approach to tackling anti-social behaviour, that can identify and respond appropriately and proportionately to the diverse problems each area presents, and which reflects local concerns. Social landlords have a responsibility to work closely with partner agencies, local authorities, the police, residents and community organisations to tackle the cause and effect of anti-social behaviour in communities. This involves developing a holistic approach which includes multi-agency working, early intervention and prevention work, support for victims and perpetrators, as well as using the full range of enforcement tools and powers available to landlords. The key aims of the guidance are to: • Raise social landlords’ awareness of the full range of powers and tools available to them to tackle anti-social behaviour and its underlying causes • Support the delivery of an appropriate level of response to anti-social behaviour by landlords, that accurately reflects local priorities and circumstances • Assist landlords to utilise the full range of powers and enforcement tools available to them to act promptly and effectively to reduce levels of anti-social behaviour • Encourage greater community confidence in social landlords’ ability and commitment to tackle anti-social behaviour and its causes • Support partnership working between local authorities, the police, other agencies and social landlords at a local level to establish the most effective methods of managing anti-social behaviour, crime and nuisance. Details: London: Communities and Local Government, 2010. 132p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 21, 2011 at: http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/pdf/1530807.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/pdf/1530807.pdf Shelf Number: 121087 Keywords: Antisocial Behavior (U.K.)HousingNuisance Behaviors and Disorder |
Author: Innes, Martin Title: Rethinking the Policing of Anti-Social Behaviour Summary: This study develops an evidence-led perspective on the police response to antisocial behaviour (ASB). By starting with the views of victims and the public about the effectiveness of the police management of ASB and working back from these, the research is able to develop new insights in terms of what the police can do to reduce the social harm caused by ASB within and across communities. It is based upon an analysis integrating data from a survey of 5699 ASB victims, the British Crime Survey and Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary’s assessment of police system quality. The analysis identifies two major issues for the police in that: • Aspects of the systems and processes used in many police forces for managing ASB have a negative impact upon victims and the public. In particular, where police seek to manage demand for their services through a robust ‘graded response’ policy, this can be interpreted very negatively by the public when they call the police about ASB issues. • Relatedly, some community safety partnerships appear to be too inward facing and are failing to deliver services that meet the needs of ASB victims in terms of stopping problems in a reasonable time-frame. These findings directly challenge some key tenets of current thinking about responding to ASB within the police service and across the criminal justice sector. In addition, the research identifies ‘what works’ in managing ASB. Those police forces who performed best in the eyes of ASB victims and the public: • Brief Neighbourhood Policing teams, response officers and CID thoroughly about ASB issues, and specific local problems; • Use systematic intelligence processes to manage and co-ordinate their responses to ASB; • Ensure that Neighbourhood Policing teams are equipped and resourced to engage in tactical and strategic problem-solving of ASB issues. When people bring ASB to the attention of the police, more often than not, it is because it is harming them, and they want someone to take action to stop it and quickly. There is a clear and consistent pattern of evidence that where police do not attend and respond adequately to ASB issues this has a strongly negative impact upon public confidence and satisfaction. Details: London: Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary, 2010. 92p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 22, 2011 at:http://www.hmic.gov.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/Anti-social_behaviour_2010/ASB_ACA_20100923.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.hmic.gov.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/Anti-social_behaviour_2010/ASB_ACA_20100923.pdf Shelf Number: 121091 Keywords: Antisocial Behavior (U.K.)Police-Community RelationsPublic Opinion |
Author: Rogers, Ben Title: The Woolwich Model: Can Citizens Tackle Anti-Social Behaviour? Summary: This essay speaks to just one particular challenge: that of anti-social behaviour. It argues that while public concern for low-level disorder remains high, citizens have, for a number of reasons, withdrawn from day-to-day intervention. At the same time, policy has tended to focus on top-down, professionally-centred approaches to tackling the problem. This report argues that great gains could be made by taking a different approach – modelled on first aid – where people, including those with direct responsibility for managing the local public realm, are trained in basic community safety skills. Giving people the capacity to respond to anti-social behaviour and defuse conflict could, if pursued alongside continuing support for other forms of community policing, help reduce the problem and people’s concerns, while bringing wider benefits. Details: London: RSA, 2010. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Essay 2: Accessed March 22, 2011 at: http://www.thersa.org/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/327082/0882RSA_21CE_benrogers_web.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.thersa.org/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/327082/0882RSA_21CE_benrogers_web.pdf Shelf Number: 121098 Keywords: Antisocial Behavior (U.K.)Nuisance Behaviors and Disorders |
Author: Clarke, Alan Title: Describing and Assessing Interventions to Address Anti-Social Behaviour Summary: This report explores how interventions for anti-social behaviour (ASB) are used in some local areas and the nature of the ASB. It pulls together two strands of work: a quantitative strand using data from local areas to look at Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships’ (CDRPs) use of ASB interventions and a qualitative investigation of the context in which ASB interventions are made, focusing on persistent adult perpetrators. The study has provided information about those who receive interventions for ASB and what interventions were received. The findings are in line with other research, for example about half of those receiving interventions in the study areas were young people aged under 18 and most interventions were lower level with few people getting more than one intervention in the study period. The detailed consideration of cases of persistent ASB by adults highlights the complex needs of many of the perpetrators and the challenges faced by practitioners in dealing with these types of ASB. Both the e quantitative and qualitative aspects of the research raise issues for practitioners in effectively dealing with ASB. ●● Current ASB data-collection practice does not tend to generate the kinds of data-sets which can underpin robust assessments of the effectiveness of ASB interventions, although there are practical steps which could be taken to help move ASB practice in a more focused (and perhaps cost-effective) direction. ●● Data management systems were often not designed to enable easy access to information by multi-agency groups involved in ASB work. This could lead to delays in the decision-making process and duplication of service provision. ●● Data sharing was one of the most contentious aspects of ASB practice. Not only were practitioners uncertain about both informed consent and the requirements of the Data Protection Act but also many commented on the reluctance of some partner agencies to share information. Details: London: Home Office, 2011. 59p. Source: Internet Resource: Research Report No. 51: Accessed April 12, 2011 at: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/horr51/horr51-report?view=Binary Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/horr51/horr51-report?view=Binary Shelf Number: 121320 Keywords: Antisocial Behavior (U.K.)Community Safety PartnershipsNuisance Behaviors and Disorder |
Author: Selman, Julia E. Title: New Deal for Communities Youth Inclusioin Programme: Early Outcomes in West Ham and Plaistow Summary: This report is based on research of the New Deal for Communities Youth Inclusion Programme (NDC YIP) in the West Ham and Plaistow area. It presents findings on the early impacts of the NDC YIP project on service users. The purpose of our research was to find out what impact, if any, participating in the activities at the NDC YIP core project had on the anti-social and offending behaviour of the young people who regularly attended. We also aimed to find out about the processes of change behind the impact. At a project level we looked at how the project defined the problems and needs of the young people and how well the project responded to these problems. At the participant’s level we looked at the needs and problems of the young people as defined by them. This helped us to understand if the project may provide a solution to some of their problems. We spoke to some of the young people about their perceptions and experiences of participating in the project. Due to budgetary constraints, as well as low levels of attendance, we have been unable to undertake as much research as we would have liked. The findings presented in this report therefore only give partial insight into the impact of the NDC YIP. At the same time, the findings have identified some good practice at the NDC YIP in West Ham & Plaistow which may be beneficial for the programme as a whole. Details: London: Centre for Institutional Studies, University of East London, 2006. 39p. Source: Internet Resource: CIS Research Report 4: Accessed August 28, 2012 at: http://www.uel.ac.uk/cis/documents/report4.pdf Year: 2006 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.uel.ac.uk/cis/documents/report4.pdf Shelf Number: 126163 Keywords: Antisocial Behavior (U.K.)At-risk YouthDelinquency Prevention |
Author: Jacobson, Jessica Title: Tackling Anti-Social Behaviour: A Critical Review Summary: Over the past decade, anti-social behaviour (henceforth referred to as ASB) has become a focus of much policy-making and debate within central and local government and the police. Clear definitions of ASB are lacking, but the term is usually understood to refer to relatively minor criminal activity and non-criminal ‘nuisance’ behaviour that affects the social and/or physical environment of public or semi-public places. The term ASB is frequently used synonymously with ‘disorder’, and is sometimes associated with the concept of ‘incivilities’. This study emerged out of the recognition that despite the depth of policy interest in ASB in the UK, there is a lack of clarity in many of the policies and strategies (both national and local) that address the issue. Certainly, many of the specific problems associated with ASB are extensively documented, in national policy literature and in local CDRP audit and strategy documents. And strategists and practitioners across the country are engaged in the task of designing and implementing measures that target the problems of ASB in an enormously wide variety of ways. However, notwithstanding this profound commitment to addressing the problems of ASB, it appears that there are gaps in understanding of the phenomenon. Policymakers have not engaged in rigorous thinking about the inter-relationships between ASB and other problems – particularly crime, structural inequalities, and the loss of social capital within the most deprived families and neighbourhoods. Hence, for example, there has been little analysis of how local and national work on ASB can contribute to current programmes on civic renewal and neighbourhood regeneration, although it is usually taken for granted that these different agendas are closely interlinked. Those responsible for the ASB agenda – particularly within the Home Office and its Anti-Social Behaviour Unit (ASBU) – have driven it forward on the conviction that ASB, because it causes misery for a lot of people, must be stopped by all means available (which has tended to mean through enforcement). A typical statement of the TOGETHER campaign reads: The campaign represents a commitment, by everyone involved, to take a stand, to be accountable for their actions and to uphold standards of decency and behaviour. Above all, the TOGETHER campaign is about taking action. By working together, we can deliver change in our communities (Home Office, 2004c) To some extent, this represents a refreshingly vigorous and focussed approach to a deep-seated and often very serious problem. However, the lack of critical and analytical thinking on ASB carries certain risks, particularly that the action will fail if it does not involve understanding of the root causes as well as the symptoms of ASB; being tough on ASB and tough on the causes of ASB if you will. Elsewhere we have called for a balanced approach to ASB strategies (Millie et al., 2005b), where strategies consider prevention as well as enforcement options. Without integrating such work there is a danger that those involved in dealing with these causes on the ground will be alienated because their work is under-valued and under-resourced, that different strands of action relating to ASB and wider issues will work against rather than complement each other. In recognition of the existing gaps in understanding of ASB we initiated this study in order to look at one aspect, namely the rationales of current work on ASB. On the face of it, it seems wholly sensible to tackle ASB simply because ASB is ‘a bad thing’; but what are policy-makers and practitioners seeking to achieve by tackling ASB? This key question raises in turn a number of supplementary questions about rationales for ASB work, including: To what extent is work on ASB (at national and local levels) underpinned by explicit rationales? Are there different rationales, and to what extent do they conflict with or complement each other? Do different rationales for action on ASB imply different forms of action? Are the aims and expectations associated with work on ASB realistic? To what extent are rationales for work on ASB informed by relevant research? Details: London: Institute for Criminal Policy Research, School of Law, King’s College London, 2005. 59p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 1, 2012 at: https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/dspace-jspui/bitstream/2134/3791/1/2005%20Jacobson%20Millie%20%20Hough%20report.pdf Year: 2005 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/dspace-jspui/bitstream/2134/3791/1/2005%20Jacobson%20Millie%20%20Hough%20report.pdf Shelf Number: 126181 Keywords: Antisocial Behavior (U.K.)Disorderly ConductIncivilitiesNuisance Behavior and DisorderNuisance Behaviors |
Author: Ipsos MORI Title: Policing Anti-Social Behaviour - the Public Perspective: Wave 2. Research Study for HMIC: Final Report Summary: This is the second wave of research into attitudes towards anti-social behaviour and the police's response, commissioned by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary to complement its inspection of how forces are tackling the problem. It sets out the perceptions of people who contacted the police to report anti-social behaviour - their understanding of 'anti-social behaviour', its impact on their lives, their perceptions of how the police and other agencies deal with it, and how they may react to similar occurrences in the future. Interviews were conducted by telephone in February-March 2012 with a random selection of 9,311 people in England and Wales who called the police to report an incident of anti-social behaviour in September 20112 ('callers' in this report). Findings are compared with those from wave one of the research which was undertaken in May-June 2010 with people who reported anti-social behaviour to the police in September 2009. Details: London: Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabularly, 2012. 104p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 1, 2012 at: http://www.hmic.gov.uk/media/policing-anti-social-behaviour-the-public-perspective-wave-2.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.hmic.gov.uk/media/policing-anti-social-behaviour-the-public-perspective-wave-2.pdf Shelf Number: 126182 Keywords: Antisocial Behavior (U.K.)Disorderly ConductIncivilitiesNuisance Behaviors and DisorderPolicingPublic Opinion |
Author: Parr, Sadie Title: Anti-social Behaviour Intensive Family Support Projects: An Evaluation of Six Pioneering Projects Summary: The Government’s strategy to develop sustainable solutions to anti-social behaviour (ASB) is based on a ‘twin track’ approach involving both action to address the underlying causes of problem behaviour and the use of appropriate sanctions to support and protect the wider community. This report addresses the former of these concerns and presents the findings from a two-year evaluation of six Intensive Family Support Projects (IFSPs) pioneering a new way of working to support ASB ‘perpetrators’ to change their behaviour. The research, funded by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, now the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG), was undertaken by a team of specialist researchers at Sheffield Hallam University. The study draws on a wide range of quantitative and qualitative data to evaluate the six intensive family support projects in terms of effectiveness, costs and benefits and lessons for wider dissemination. During 2003, six pioneering local authorities, working closely with housing associations and charities, established a number of dedicated ASB intensive family support projects. While each of the schemes was developed in response to locallyidentified needs, they share a number of common features: • All the projects formed part of local well developed, comprehensive ASB strategies that recognised the inter-related nature of prevention, enforcement and resettlement action and have been designed specifically to help support families, who have been evicted, or who are under threat of homelessness, due to ASB displayed by themselves or visitors to their homes, change their behaviour. • The project interventions aim to break the cycle of poor behaviour and homelessness; bringing families back into mainstream housing; helping children and young people who are perceived to be out of control; and/or providing an alternative solution where other ASB interventions have failed. • The model of provision is based on the work developed by the Dundee Families Project run by NCH in partnership with Dundee City Council (Dillane, 2001). Projects provide a range of services including some or all of the following types of intervention: – outreach support to help families address behavioural and other problems in order to maintain their existing accommodation; – outreach support in dispersed tenancies managed by the project; – intensive support in core residential accommodation managed by the project. Five of the six projects have been developed by NCH (North West) in partnership with authorities in Blackburn with Darwen, Bolton, Manchester, Oldham and Salford, to deliver an outreach, preventative service to reduce the dependency on legal remedies to tackle ASB exhibited by families. Services provided in Bolton and Manchester also include a core residential unit for families considered to be in need of more intensive support and it is proposed that a further core residential unit will be opened in Salford during 2006/07. The sixth project included in the evaluation was established by Sheffield City Council. The dedicated ASB high support service provides both core residential accommodation and dedicated outreach support mainly to families living in dispersed tenancies. Sheffield City Council is thought to be the first local authority in the country to develop this type of intervention and its inclusion in the evaluation provides an opportunity to explore the impact of different models of service provision. The findings in the report are based on an analysis of statistical data collected from project case files in relation to 2562 families, consisting of 370 adults and 743 children, who had worked with the six projects during the period 2003-2005. This quantitative data have been supplemented by qualitative data drawn from interviews with a sample of service users (both adults and children), project staff, referral agencies, and other key stakeholders. Detailed analysis of the costs and benefits of the projects has also been facilitated by scrutiny of project records and accounts. Details: London: Department for Communities and Local Government, 2006. 188p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 1, 2012 at: Year: 2006 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 126215 Keywords: Antisocial Behavior (U.K.)Disorderly ConductFamily InterventionsHousingIncivilitiesNuisance Behaviors and Disorder |
Author: Hirst, Julia Title: An Evaluation of Two Initiatives to Reward Young People Summary: This study examines two pilot schemes in Bradford and York designed to increase young people’s self esteem and stimulate a greater appreciation of the positive contribution they can make to their communities. The two schemes rewarded young people for positive behaviour and taking part in practical community-based activities. The context for the schemes was one of intergenerational tensions, with incidences, or perceptions, of anti-social behaviour a concern for residents. This report: n analyses a range of qualitative and quantitative data, including a literature review; presents the findings of a 20-month evaluation of the two schemes; looks at how the two schemes were shaped by their different local contexts; and outlines some key questions and provides checklists for groups and agencies thinking of setting up a reward scheme for young people. Details: Layerthorpe: York Publishing Services and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2007. 84p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 1, 2012 at: http://www.jrf.org.uk/system/files/2119-reward-young-people.pdf Year: 2007 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.jrf.org.uk/system/files/2119-reward-young-people.pdf Shelf Number: 126221 Keywords: Antisocial Behavior (U.K.)At-risk YouthDelinquency Prevention |
Author: Armitage, Victoria Jane Title: The Inbetweeners: Young People Making Sense of Youth Anti-Social Behaviour Summary: Beginning with the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, the UK government’s ‘Anti-social Behaviour Agenda’ has served to label all young people as potentially anti-social. This study describes and analyses young people’s accounts of anti-social behaviour and the impact of anti-social behaviour legislation on young people living in a rural context. Through semi-structured interviews with eighteen teenagers in a rural northern town who had undertaken anti-social behaviour but were not subject to any individual control measures, the research explores the participants’ perceptions of their (informal) identification as anti-social, their interactions with institutions of social control and how these factors impacted on their sense of self. In particular, it explores the strategies that the respondents utilised to avoid internalising a deviant identity and through doing so examines the relationship between anti-social behaviour and youth as a transition. Whilst none of the respondents considered themselves to be anti-social, they had all been subject to informal control measures including being ‘moved on’ and having their details taken by the police. The findings indicate that for these young people, anti-social behaviour is inexorably tied to their liminal position as ‘youths’ and this allows their identities to be fluid and constantly changing. The respondents understand their social position/s as ‘inbetween’ a variety of statuses, and it is postulated that the widely acknowledged vague nature of ASB definition and their identities as ‘youths’ allows them to negotiate the space between a pro- and anti-social identity without internalising either. They therefore construct anti-social behaviour as a normal part of conventional youth, and something which they will certainly ‘grow out of’. Details: Durham, UK: Durham University, School of Applied Social Sciences, 2012. 275p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed September 4, 2012 at: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/3581/1/Victoria_Armitage_Doctoral_Thesis_May_2012.pdf?DDD34+ Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/3581/1/Victoria_Armitage_Doctoral_Thesis_May_2012.pdf?DDD34+ Shelf Number: 126242 Keywords: Antisocial Behavior (U.K.)At-risk YouthDelinquency PreventionDisorderly ConductIncivilitiesNuisance Behaviors and Disorder |
Author: Jones, Anwen Title: Addressing Antisocial Behaviour: An Independent Evaluation of Shelter Inclusion Project Summary: Shelter Inclusion Project represents a new approach to tackling antisocial behaviour and social exclusion. The scheme was launched in 2002 in partnership with Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council. The project was designed to provide an alternative model to present enforcement policies and residential schemes by offering a specialist floating support service to help households identify and deal with the causes of their behaviour and learn how to resolve their situations. Shelter Inclusion Project illustrates how meeting the support needs of households involved in antisocial acts can impact positively on their behaviour and reduce the risk of homelessness and social exclusion. An independent evaluation of the pilot model, funded by the Housing Corporation and undertaken by the Centre for Housing Policy, University of York, found that: the project succeeded in ending or improving antisocial behaviour in seven out of ten households that had completed their time with the project. Among the 45 ‘closed case’ households, 60 per cent no longer exhibited any antisocial behaviour. A further 11 per cent were reported as showing improvements in their behaviour. high levels of tenancy sustainment were achieved, with 84 per cent of closed cases assessed as no longer being at risk of homelessness following contact with the project. there was a high level of service engagement, with users accepting targeted work to address antisocial behaviour. Most service users reported that the project had made a significant difference to their lives, helping them to regain confidence, control and self-respect. Over its three-year duration, the project supported 74 households containing a total of 230 individuals. The households had been subject to a total of 149 actions for antisocial behaviour, including written and verbal warnings, eviction, injunctions and Anti-social Behaviour Orders. The most common antisocial acts were noise and youth nuisance. The majority of the households, 67 per cent, contained children. Lone parent households formed the most common type of household at 43 per cent. However, in 70 per cent of cases, antisocial behaviour was being committed only by an adult in the household. The households were almost all economically inactive at the point of referral. Only three per cent of the service users were in work. Nearly half (45 per cent) were carers for dependent children. Children were often experiencing disruption to their education, including truanting and exclusion, at the point of referral. Twenty-four per cent of the children were either temporarily or permanently excluded, or missing significant amounts of school. Many households had high levels of selfreported health and support needs. More than half the households contained an adult with depression and other mental health problems. Just under one third of the households contained someone with a limiting illness or disability. Drug and alcohol dependency among adults was a problem in 23 per cent of the households. Details: York, UK: Shelter, The University of York and The Housing Corporation, 2006. 60p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 26, 2012 at: http://england.shelter.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/38611/Inclusion_Project_Evaluation_Addressing_antisocial_behaviour.pdf Year: 2006 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://england.shelter.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/38611/Inclusion_Project_Evaluation_Addressing_antisocial_behaviour.pdf Shelf Number: 126458 Keywords: Antisocial Behavior (U.K.)HomelessnessHousingShelter Inclusion ProjectSocial Exclusion |
Author: Coombes, Mike Title: Youth Inclusion and Support Panels : Preventing Crime and Antisocial Behaviour? Summary: In 2002, the Youth Justice Board (YJB) set out its commitment to develop and pilot pre-crime at-risk panels, later renamed Youth Inclusion and Support Panels (YISPs). The new panels were designed to identify and support young people aged 8–13 who are at high risk of offending and antisocial behaviour before they enter the youth justice system, and were regarded as a key component of the Government’s campaign to prevent crime and combat antisocial behaviour. The YISPs were described as multi-agency planning groups which seek to prevent offending and antisocial behaviour by offering voluntary support services and other complementary interventions for high risk children and their families. Pilots were established to test the development of YISPs, paid for by the Children’s Fund under the auspices of the Department for Education and Skills (DfES).1 In 2003 we were commissioned by the DfES to evaluate thirteen new pilot YISPs, located in Barking & Dagenham, Birmingham, Ealing, Greenwich, Knowsley, Lancashire, Liverpool, Nottingham, Salford, Sheffield, Southwark, Tower Hamlets, Walsall, and Wigan. The Youth Justice Board (YJB) provided detailed guidance to the pilots relating to implementation and operation of YISPs. It was assumed that, in most cases, the Youth Offending Teams (YOTs) would act as the lead agency for the YISP on behalf of the Children’s Fund and the local authority. Providing high-quality services for children and for their families has been regarded as an essential step in preparing young people for the challenges and stresses of everyday life and giving them opportunities to achieve their full potential and thereby contribute positively within diverse, multicultural communities. Increasingly, in recent years, the focus has been on prevention and early intervention, particularly with respect to children deemed to be at high risk. The Government has set out five outcomes for children which now provide the core outcomes framework for all government policy relating to families and to youth justice, including YISPs. They are that children and young people should: be healthy; stay safe; enjoy and achieve; make a positive contribution; and achieve economic well-being. Youth justice agencies are important partners in the delivery of children’s services which focus on early prevention of antisocial and criminal behaviour. The emphasis is on multi-agency approaches which tackle the risks associated with offending. Clearly, the key to prevention lies in being able to target effectively children and young people most at risk of becoming involved in crime and antisocial behaviour. Using a matrix of the risk and protective factors which may lead young people into, or protect them from, crime, the YISPs were tasked with constructing a personally tailored package of support and interventions, summarised in an integrated support plan (ISP) designed to facilitate the kind of provision which will prevent the young person moving further towards crime. Central to the concept was the role of keyworkers, who are responsible for assessing risk and co-ordinating and monitoring the package of interventions, thereby ensuring that children and their families receive mainstream public services at the earliest opportunity. It was considered essential that the YISPs should provide accessible services which reflect the diversity of the local population and which take account of ethnicity, religion, disability, sexual orientation, gender, age and race. Involvement in YISPs is voluntary. Children and their families are asked to consent to referral and assessment for consideration by a panel, and to co-operate with the ISP. One of the core principles of YISPs is that children and their parents/carers should be involved as much as possible in each stage of the process. At the centre of YISPs is the multi-agency panel, which should include representatives from a wide range of agencies. The expectation is that the panel will be involved in prioritising cases, considering detailed assessments and designing ISPs. Panels are not specifically required to oversee compliance with ISPs but are expected to monitor and review the child’s progress and satisfaction with the interventions offered. Details: Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Institute of Health and Society, Newcastle University, 2007. 204p. Source: Internet Resource: Research Report DCSF-RW018: Accessed September 29, 2012 at: http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/6644/1/DCSF-RW018.pdf Year: 2007 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/6644/1/DCSF-RW018.pdf Shelf Number: 107711 Keywords: Antisocial Behavior (U.K.)At-risk YouthDelinquency Prevention |
Author: Wright, Gillian Title: Review of Housing Related Anti-Social Behaviour Policies and Interventions in the UK Summary: This report is a review of housing related anti-social behaviour (ASB) policy and interventions in the UK. This report examines how ASB is defined, the tools available for tackling it within housing and seeks to review any existing evaluation to assess the effectiveness of ASB measures in the UK. Section 1: Introduction -- Section 1 provides a brief overview of the purpose of the paper, the background to the development of ASB policies, as well as an overview to any evaluation that has taken place. This section also outlines the Government’s position on ASB. Section 2: Defining Antisocial Behaviour -- Section 2 concentrates on the debate surrounding the definition of anti-social behaviour in the policy arena. It has not been possible to provide a neat definition, given the extensive range and spectrum of anti-social behaviour, but this section compares definitions in use across the UK and seeks to establish an agreed definition upon which policy decisions could be made. Section 3: Antisocial Behaviour in Housing -- Section 3 outlines the impact of ASB in housing and the different approaches that are required by social and private housing providers. Section 4: Tools & Initiatives -- Section 4 sets out a number of tools that are available to landlords to tackle ASB, these include: Antisocial Behaviour Contracts and Orders (ABC / ASBO); Scottish Short Secure Tenancies (SSST), etc. This section also outlines the Government’s new proposals for tackling ASB, outlined in their recent consultation document ‘More Effective Responses to Anti-Social Behaviour’. Section 5: Measuring the Costs -- Section 5 provides some data on the costs of tackling ASB and what should be considered when estimating the costs for particular initiatives e.g. Family Intervention Programmes. Section 6: Prevention, Intervention & Enforcement -- This section looks at the core principles in tackling ASB of prevention, intervention and enforcement. The section assesses the difficult balance between preventing, changing and punishing bad behaviour. Section 7: Conclusion & Recommendations -- Section 7 draws some conclusions on the effectiveness, or otherwise, of current definitions and initiatives used to tackle ASB. Section 8: Recommendations -- Section 8 puts forward a number of recommendations, both short-term measures and long-term strategic initiatives to tackle some of the identified problems. Details: Belfast: Department for Social Development, Housing Directorate, 2011. 125p. Source: Internet Resource: Research Paper BRT 1/2011: Accessed October 5, 2012 at: www.dsdni.gov.uk Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 126568 Keywords: Antisocial Behavior (U.K.)Disorderly ConductHousingNuisance Behaviors and Disorder |
Author: Heap, Victoria Title: Understanding Public Perceptions of Anti-Social Behaviour: Problems and Policy Responses Summary: Anti-social behaviour (ASB) has emerged as a major community safety concern over the past decade. Reducing the number of incidents of ASB and lessening the impact these have upon the publics’ quality of life have become key components of criminal justice policy. The British Crime Survey has provided evidence of the types of ASB being experienced and quantified the proportion of people perceiving high levels of ASB in their local area. This research suggests strong links between high levels of deprivation and perceiving high levels of ASB. Attempts have also been made to determine what factors drive these perceptions, in order to produce evidence-based ASB reduction policies. This thesis builds upon existing research into public perceptions of ASB by exploring public perceptions in-depth, using a mixed methods strategy. A three phase, explanatory sequential design was employed. Phase one quantified public perceptions in selected hardpressed ACORN areas. These findings were utilised to inform the topics for further qualitative elaboration in phase two. The third phase qualitatively explored how practitioners address public perceptions of ASB. Inferences were generated from all three phases of data collection, providing a holistic, coherent and contextualised discussion of potential policy implications of the findings. The findings presented within this thesis uncover new attitudinal based factors that are statistically and independently associated with public perceptions of ASB. In addition, primary and secondary drivers of public perceptions were qualitatively identified in the hardpressed areas studied. New insight has also been provided into the methods practitioners use to address public perceptions, particularly into the difficulties associated with measuring perceptions and the reciprocal relationship that exists between practitioners and the public. The inferences generated suggest that public perceptions of ASB are complex, with the factors influencing perceptions often interconnected. This thesis calls for greater strategic clarification regarding the role perceptions play in ASB policy, in order for accurate, locally applicable perception measurement to be achieved and a reduction in perceived high levels of ASB to be obtained. Details: Huddersfield, UK: University of Huddersfield, 2010. 318p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed October 9, 2012 at: http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/9209/ Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/9209/ Shelf Number: 126656 Keywords: Antisocial Behavior (U.K.)Disorderly ConductNuisance Behaviors and DisordersPublic Attitudes |
Author: Innes, Helen Title: Personal, Situational and Incidental Vulnerabilities to ASB Harm: a follow up study. Summary: This study makes a significant contribution to the evidence base around the impacts of antisocial behaviour (ASB) upon victims and „what works‟ in terms of police responses to such problems. It extends and elaborates some of the findings originally set out in 2010 in the Universities‟ Police Science Institute‟s (UPSI) report „Rethinking the Policing of Antisocial Behaviour‟ that advocated a shift towards a more victim-centred and harm-based approach. This influenced HMIC‟s „Stop the Rot‟ report of that year. In 2012 HMIC inspected all police forces to check their progress in implementing reforms based upon the findings of the 2010 work. The Inspectorate concluded that whilst progress had been made by all forces in improving their responses to ASB, opportunities for further improvement remained. Accordingly, the analysis set out herein seeks to clarify these opportunities and what police can do to better protect repeat and vulnerable victims of ASB Driven by an empirical analysis of a survey of nearly 10,000 ASB victims (the largest dataset of its kind) and HMIC police performance assessments, we focus in particular upon the concept of vulnerability. This recognises that some people and communities are more liable to being negatively impacted by ASB because they lack social, economic and psychological resilience to withstand the negative effects associated with such experiences. Informed by analysis of the data we identify three main types of vulnerability: 1. Personal vulnerability – results from an individual or group‟s characteristics, identity or status. In effect, there are certain individual characteristics that shape susceptibility to being negatively affected by a victimisation experience. For example, mental or physical health status. 2. Situational vulnerability –where the impact of any ASB is amplified by some aspect of the context in which it occurs. For example, neighbourhoods that are socially or economically stressed may be more harmed by the occurrence of ASB. Similarly, areas with low levels of social capital or high crime rates may be negatively impacted by events that, if they occurred in different circumstances, would be less influential. 3. Incidental vulnerability – our analysis demonstrates that there are certain forms of antisocial incident that are likely to induce harmful effects for victims. Most notably, this includes repeated occurrences, but also incidents perceived by victims to be personally targeted. When different combinations of vulnerability are profiled, we find differences in their prevalence and social distribution. For example, repeat and vulnerable victims are disproportionately drawn from poor socio-economic circumstances, whereas repeat, but not vulnerable, victims are not. Police forces differ from each other in the profile of their callers on characteristics of vulnerability and repeat victimisation. Health vulnerability, for example, is present in approximately 25 percent of callers in Dyfed Powys compared to 8 percent in City of London. A better knowledge of local victim profiles is therefore central to understanding the underlying nature of the ASB problem. Our analysis of victim satisfaction and its links with police performance data enable us to highlight a number of areas where there are gains to be made in meeting the needs of ASB victims. The most challenging cases are where victims are both repeat and vulnerable. The complex and ever-changing circumstances associated with ASB and the victim means that there is no substitute for inter-personal communication at the point of report. Technological „solutions‟ can identify some, but not all, vulnerable victims. All victims want to feel listened to, taken seriously, and to know what police action was taken as a result of their call. However, because some victims are more vulnerable and at risk than others, they do not all share the same „starting place‟. Whilst the needs of repeat or vulnerable victims may be generally well met by police, the repeat and vulnerable victim is most likely to „fall through the net‟. The percentage of victims who viewed their call to police as having made „no difference‟ was greater for the most acute category of repeat and vulnerable victim at 45 percent compared to 35 percent for victims who were neither repeat nor vulnerable. The identification of vulnerability and risk should prompt police to consider ‘doing more’ with the victim or ‘doing different’. This does not have to be resource-intensive; it could be offering greater reassurance, taking more time to communicate or communicating more frequently. Better police performance is unlikely to ‘drive down’ the overall volume of calls on ASB, but it can improve victim satisfaction and public reporting of this type of crime. The available evidence suggests that reductions in the number of ASB reports may not be a reliable indicator of performance improvements in this domain. In fact, somewhat counter-intuitively, better performing forces were more likely to see the public report issues to them and forces with a high public need tended to have more effective police systems in place. Our analysis suggests that area level deprivation drives call volume; in areas of high deprivation 60 percent could be classified as repeat callers of three times or more, compared with 38% in low deprivation areas. The key operational implications of our analysis are summarised in an ASB Call Template or ‘ACT’ model. This model proposes four key stages in the process from receiving an ASB call through to completed action feedback to the victim. These stages are: 1. The primary ‘inter-personal’ stage: the use of probing questions at every point of report to establish and record who, where, and why the victim is reporting. 2. The secondary ‘I.T’ stage: linking this victim information with any previous contacts, with area data or previous intelligence to add depth and context to the victim report. 3. Action Planning: identification of risk and the deployment of resources. This necessitates a degree of „tailoring‟ responses according to the needs of the victim. 4. Communicate Action: timely and appropriate feedback to the victim about what the police response was to their call with due consideration of the needs of the victim. Details: Cardiff, UK: Universities' Police Science Institute, Cardiff University, 2013. 99p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 9, 2013 at: http://www.hmic.gov.uk/media/personal-situational-and-incidental-vulnerabilities-to-anti-social-behaviour-harm-a-follow-up-study.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.hmic.gov.uk/media/personal-situational-and-incidental-vulnerabilities-to-anti-social-behaviour-harm-a-follow-up-study.pdf Shelf Number: 128323 Keywords: Antisocial Behavior (U.K.)Disorderly ConductIncivilitiesNuisance Behaviors and DisorderPolice ResponseVictims of Crime |
Author: Great Britain. Home Office Title: Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014: Reform of anti-social behaviour powers; Statutory guidance for frontline professions Summary: Anti-social behaviour is a broad term used to describe the day-to-day incidents of crime, nuisance and disorder that make many people's lives a misery - from litter and vandalism, to public drunkenness or aggressive dogs, to noisy or abusive neighbours. Such a wide range of behaviours means that responsibility for dealing with anti-social behaviour is shared between a number of agencies, particularly the police, councils and social landlords . Victims can feel helpless, bounced from one agency to another and then back again. In many cases, the behaviour is targeted against the most vulnerable in our society and even what is perceived as 'low level' anti-social behaviour, hen targeted and persistent, can have devastating effects on a victim's life. Our reforms are designed to put victims at the heart of the response to anti-social behaviour, and give professionals the flexibility they need to deal with any given situation. This is statutory guidance issued under sections 19, 32, 41, 56, 73 and 91 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 and replaces the draft guidance issued in October 2013. This guidance is written primarily for the police officers, council staff and social landlords who will use the new powers. Part 1 looks at the new measures being introduced to give victims a greater say in the way their reports of anti-social behaviour are dealt with. Part 2 then outlines the new powers. We have worked closely with frontline professionals, victims and others in the development of the legislation, and we will continue to work to ensure that this guidance helps professionals make best use of the new powers to protect the public. Details: London: Home Office, 2014. 68p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 22, 2014 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/332839/StatutoryGuidanceFrontline.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/332839/StatutoryGuidanceFrontline.pdf Shelf Number: 132730 Keywords: Antisocial Behavior (U.K.)Disorderly ConductNuisance Behaviors and Disorders |
Author: Great Britain. Home Office Title: Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014: Reform of anti-social behaviour powers. Statutory Guidance for frontline professionals Summary: Anti-social behaviour is a broad term used to describe the day-to-day incidents of crime, nuisance and disorder that make many people's lives a misery - from litter and vandalism, to public drunkenness or aggressive dogs, to noisy or abusive neighbours. Such a wide range of behaviours means that responsibility for dealing with anti-social behaviour is shared between a number of agencies, particularly the police, councils and social landlords. Victims can feel helpless, bounced from one agency to another and then back again. In many cases, the behaviour is targeted against the most vulnerable in our society and even what is perceived as 'low level' anti-social behaviour, when targeted and persistent, can have devastating effects on a victim's life. Our reforms are designed to put victims at the heart of the response to anti-social behaviour, and give professionals the flexibility they need to deal with any given situation. This is statutory guidance issued under sections 19, 32, 41, 56, 73 and 91 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 and replaces the draft guidance issued in October 2013. This guidance is written primarily for the police officers, council staff and social landlords who will use the new powers. Part 1 looks at the new measures being introduced to give victims a greater say in the way their reports of anti-social behaviour are dealt with. Part 2 then outlines the new powers. We have worked closely with frontline professionals, victims and others in the development of the legislation, and we will continue to work to ensure that this guidance helps professionals make best use of the new powers to protect the public. Details: London: Home Office, 2014. 68p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 20, 2014 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/352562/ASB_Guidance_v8_July2014_final__2_.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/352562/ASB_Guidance_v8_July2014_final__2_.pdf Shelf Number: 133746 Keywords: Antisocial Behavior (U.K.)Disorderly ConductNuisance Behaviors and DisordersVandalism |
Author: Schroeder, Kari Britt Title: Local norms of cheating and the cultural evolution of crime and punishment: a study of two urban neighborhoods Summary: The prevalence of antisocial behavior varies across time and place. The likelihood of committing such behavior is affected by, and also affects, the local social environment. To further our understanding of this dynamic process, we conducted two studies of antisocial behavior, punishment, and social norms. These studies took place in two neighborhoods in Newcastle Upon Tyne, England. According to a previous study, Neighborhood A enjoys relatively low frequencies of antisocial behavior and crime and high levels of social capital. In contrast, Neighborhood B is characterized by relatively high frequencies of antisocial behavior and crime and low levels of social capital. In Study 1, we used an economic game to assess neighborhood differences in theft, third-party punishment (3PP) of theft, and expectation of 3PP. Participants also reported their perceived neighborhood frequency of cooperative norm violation ("cheating"). Participants in Neighborhood B thought that their neighbors commonly cheat but did not condone cheating. They stole more money from their neighbors in the game, and were less punitive of those who did, than the residents of Neighborhood A. Perceived cheating was positively associated with theft, negatively associated with the expectation of 3PP, and central to the neighborhood difference. Lower trust in one's neighbors and a greater subjective value of the monetary cost of punishment contributed to the reduced punishment observed in Neighborhood B. In Study 2, we examined the causality of cooperative norm violation on expectation of 3PP with a norms manipulation. Residents in Neighborhood B who were informed that cheating is locally uncommon were more expectant of 3PP. In sum, our results provide support for three potentially simultaneous positive feedback mechanisms by which the perception that others are behaving antisocially can lead to further antisocial behavior: (1) motivation to avoid being suckered, (2) decreased punishment of antisocial behavior, and (3) decreased expectation of punishment of antisocial behavior. Consideration of these mechanisms and of norm-psychology will help us to understand how neighborhoods can descend into an antisocial culture and get stuck there. Details: PeerJ 2:e450; DOI 10.7717/peerj.450. 23p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 13, 2014 at: https://peerj.com/articles/450.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://peerj.com/articles/450.pdf Shelf Number: 134072 Keywords: Antisocial Behavior (U.K.)CheatingNeighborhoods and CrimePunishmentSocial CapitalStealingTheftUrban Areas |