Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 9:08 pm
Time: 9:08 pm
Results for nuisance behavior and disorder
3 results foundAuthor: Brown, Alison P. Title: The Role of Mediation in Tackling Neighbour Disputes and Anti-Social Behaviour Summary: The aims of the study are to provide evidence about mediation and alternative approaches to the resolution of neighbour disputes, and to draw conclusions about the effectiveness and costs of mediation compared to legal remedies such as actions for repossession and anti-social behaviour orders. An additional objective was to investigate the reasons for refusing to take part in mediation. In the study, the main research methods used were analysis of 100 cases from two community mediation services and two local authority mediation services, and 50 legal proceedings cases (eviction, anti-social behaviour order and interdict) from local authorities. In addition, parties to mediation were interviewed to compare their view of outcomes with those recorded by mediation services. Housing officers who make referrals to mediation, and a small number of people who had opted not to take part in mediation, were also interviewed. The main methodological challenges were the difficulty in obtaining data from environmental health, police and housing services, and to a lesser extent from mediation services; the reasons for this included data protection considerations, and lack of time recording. Specialist investigation teams provided the most robust data, but few areas of Scotland have such teams therefore these costs may not be typical. In general, the mediation cases examined involved mildly anti-social behaviour or serious personality or lifestyle clashes. In most cases, the main presenting issue was noise, either noise of domestic appliances, children, dogs, and other 'normal' living, or noise of parties and loud music. A smaller number of disputes originated in disputes between children, with which parents had become involved, or disputes over boundaries and upkeep of common areas. Cases remained live in mediation services generally for between two weeks and two months. Half of the cases included at least one non-council-tenant party. In 61 percent of cases, the outcome recorded by the mediation service was either full or partial agreement or some improvement in the situation. In just under half of these cases (in 28 percent of all cases), the mediation service recorded an agreement on all presenting issues. Mediators themselves, however, suggest that there are likely to be positive outcomes in terms of changed awareness, which cannot easily be measured, even in 'unsuccessful' cases. The profile of interventions, outcomes and costs varied significantly between mediation services. From the perspective of participants, however, outcomes recorded at the close of a case are not necessarily a reliable guide to the longer-term outcomes. Although outcomes are not always worse than those recorded, the proportion of positive outcomes recorded by some mediation services appears not necessarily to reflect the experience of participants. Participants' views demonstrate some of the challenges facing mediation, but show a generally positive view of the process, even where it does not bring the desired outcome. A number of participants, however, have found the mediation process more traumatic than might be expected. All legal action cases studied involved serious and protracted anti-social behaviour, often including fighting, verbal abuse, swearing and damage to property. In most cases, it involved the perpetrator and visitors or family members, and in all cases it affected more than one neighbour. In many cases, there was a history of criminal convictions and/or mental health and/or alcohol-related problems. These cases in general were quite different to those found in mediation services. The seriousness of the behaviour was reflected in the length of time from decision to take legal proceedings to an outcome; this was usually several months and often one or two years. The majority of perpetrators were local authority tenants. In terms of outcomes of legal cases, it is particularly difficult to assess the long-term outcomes of evictions and transfers, which were the short-term outcome in half of the cases. In the short term, several cases were 'solved' by the perpetrator moving away, being imprisoned, or being offered a community care package. In only two cases were proceedings dropped due to evidence of improvement in the situation. The majority of anti-social behaviour orders examined were breached, some of which breaches were then prosecuted. From the 100 mediation cases studied, the average cost of handling a case was 121, which rose to 204 when face-to-face or shuttle mediation was involved; and the maximum case cost was 484. Costs for local authority mediation services were, on average, slightly lower, but this reflects a higher proportion of cases where no contact was made with parties to the dispute. From the 50 legal cases, the average cost was 3,546, with a range from 339 to 13,692 for a very complex eviction case. These are net costs, however, and would be considerably higher if overheads were included. Average costs of ASBOs and repossession actions were approximately 2,250 and 9,000 respectively. These figures should be read in the context of the diverse organisational arrangements found; that is, the costs depend on the proportion of work carried out by a specialist team with its own budget, or by housing managers, where costs are likely to be absorbed. In terms of unwillingness to take part in mediation, or to see the process through to a conclusion, the main reasons given by refusers themselves were: unwillingness to engage with the other party; fear of reprisals; belief that the other party did or would manipulate the process or the mediators; fear of an escalation of the dispute; and the desire for a definitive judgement on their case. Lack of knowledge about mediation or of confidence in mediation services did not appear to be a significant factor. Legal action costs far more than mediation, due to the seriousness of disputes, but also to the procedures required in order to prepare a case for possible court action. There are local variations in the amount of evidence generally thought to be necessary for a strong case. Although mediation will not be sufficient to deal with serious anti-social behaviour, which is associated with alcohol and drug abuse, mental health problems or criminal activity, its cost effectiveness suggests that there is considerable scope to extend mediation in the area of neighbour disputes. Details: Edinburgh: Scottish Executive Social Research, 2003. 58p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 21, 2011 at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/47176/0025566.pdf Year: 2003 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/47176/0025566.pdf Shelf Number: 120837 Keywords: Antisocial Behavior (Scotland)Dispute SettlementMediationNuisance Behavior and Disorder |
Author: Cavanagh, Ben Title: A Review of Dispersal Powers Summary: Dispersal powers were introduced in Scotland under the Antisocial Behaviour etc. (Scotland) Act 2004. Their introduction reflected the aim of the then Scottish Executive to address the antisocial behaviour of groups in public spaces. This had consistently been rated as one of the main concerns of communities in Scottish Crime Surveys. Dispersal powers allow police to designate a “dispersal area” in a location where there has been a history of antisocial behaviour caused by groups congregating in public spaces. From this area, for a 3-month period, they can disperse groups of two or more individuals whose presence or behaviour, in the view of police officers, is causing or is likely to cause alarm or distress to members of the public. Dispersed individuals (who do not live in the dispersal area) are not allowed to return to the designated area for 24 hours. The breach of an order to disperse is a criminal offence and is liable on conviction to a maximum £2500 fine or imprisonment or to both. This study was designed to consider a wide range of issues around the main questions of how dispersal powers have been administered and how far they represent an effective means of providing relief to communities affected by the antisocial behaviour of groups. Details: Edinburgh: Scottish Government Social Research, 2007. 89p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 21, 2011 at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/201001/0053723.pdf Year: 2007 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/201001/0053723.pdf Shelf Number: 120838 Keywords: Antisocial Behavior (Scotland)Nuisance Behavior and Disorder |
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 |