ASB perception survey results report public final AUGUST

					Anti-social behaviour (ASB) resident perception survey report
Michael Liu. May 2010



1.   Introduction and summary.............................................................................................................1
2.   Methodology ...................................................................................................................................3
3.   Results. ...........................................................................................................................................4
4.   Additional comments ...................................................................................................................18
5.   Recommendations........................................................................................................................22
6.   Acknowledgements, feedback and further information.............................................................23
7.   Appendix 1: All data .....................................................................................................................24
8.   Appendix 2: Sample demographics ............................................................................................34
9.   Appendix 3: Survey questions.....................................................................................................36


1. Introduction and summary

The 2009 STATUS survey showed that dealing with anti-social behaviour was an important service
priority and the first Metropolitan Housing Partnership (MHP) Customer Panel survey1 told MHP that
concerns about the anti-social behaviour service were strongly linked to perceptions of, and concerns
about, their local area. Additionally, the Tenant Services Authority’s ‘national conversation’ indicated that
anti-social behaviour and security were key concerns for residents.

Therefore, in addition to the ASB case satisfaction survey, which is completed by customers who report
ASB cases, Policy and Performance carried out an additional, one-off survey amongst members of the
MHP customer panel in January 2010, to look at the perceptions and attitudes of residents (tenants and
leaseholders) to safety in the local area and local problems more generally. The primary intention is to
use the results as part of the review of MHP’s ASB policy and Harassment policy, enabling MHP to
revise the policies to address these concerns. The policy is currently under review throughout the
summer of 2010 and is pending the outcome of a planned full Equalities Impact Assessment. In addition
the data will help;

        identify neighbourhood problems;
        evaluate the perceived effectiveness of their actions;
        identify residents priorities; and
        provide feedback and direction at resident and staff policy review consultation workshops.

The Resident Perception Survey has been developed, based on questions from the Respect
Performance Improvement Toolkit, which in turn uses elements from the British Crime Survey, the Local
Government User Satisfaction Survey, the Housing Corporation’s ASB Survey and examples from
individual landlords. In addition, the final survey was reviewed by, and amended with, input from MHP’s
neighbourhood management corporate group and MHP’s Resident Reader’s Panel.


1
 ‘Overall Priorities’ carried out in Dec 2008 – Jan 2009. To see the report go to http://www.mhp-
online.co.uk/customerpanel/library.html. The Customer Panel is a group of approximately 3000 ‘involved’ residents who have
previously indicated that they would like to add input into developing MHP’s services.

                                                                                      May 2010                                                    1 of 38
The headline results are:

       About a third of MHP panel members, (32%) felt that their landlord is very or fairly good at
       dealing with local reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) - higher than national average (27%).

       65% of all respondents were fairly or very concerned about ASB in their local area.

       When calculated using the British Crime Survey national indicator method, 21% thought there to
       be a high level of ASB in their area (compared to 15% in the British Crime Survey).

       Panel members thought the biggest problem areas were:
       1. Rubbish and litter (41%)
       2. Drug use and dealing (36%)
       3. People not treating others with respect and consideration (36%)
       4. Noisy neighbours (34%)
       5. Teenagers hanging around outside (32%)

       The top 5 services residents believe can help reduce ASB are:
       1. CCTV (62%)
       2. More visible housing staff (43%)
       3. Specialist ASB team (38%)
       4. 24 hour ASB advice line (36%)
       5. Sports and other youth activities (35%)

       69% of respondents said they feel safe in their area by day and only 35% said they feel safe at
       night. These figures are lower than the national averages, 88% who said they feel safe by day
       and 51% by night.

Based on a review of the data received, this report makes the following provisional recommendations.
These recommendations are to be submitted to Policy and Performance and the operational businesses
for consideration and further action:

       Improve the perception of ASB by developing a communications strategy to re-assure residents
       of existing actions and approaches already in place within the organisation. This includes, as part
       of the ASB policy review, reviewing best practice in relation to the resident information provided
       Consider and develop a policy with performance indicators to monitor the use and effectiveness
       of partnership working
       As part of the ASB policy review, evaluate the support and advice given to victims of ASB during,
       and after case management to ensure that cases are resolved successfully where possible. This
       is to ensure that complainants’[ feelings of anxiety and safety are appropriately addressed
       To address local concerns with anti-social behaviour through the use of ‘one stop shop’ resident
       ASB meetings with landlord, neighbourhood policing teams/local authority/community investment
       teams. Where these exist already, provide minimum standards and practices for these events
       Review lettings plans and allocations policies (in conjunction with their local authority partners) to
       ensure balanced and sustainable lettings are achieved
       Review and prioritise the Sign-up policy and procedure so that new residents understand their
       rights and responsibilities
       Through the resident consultation process of the ASB policy review, assess the demand and
       viability of initiatives (such as good neighbour agreements), rewards or incentives that promote
       positive behaviour and encourage community cohesion
       As rubbish and litter is the biggest area of concern for residents, it is recommended that MHP
       investigate options to address these specific concerns, including: reviewing and monitoring the
       Neighbourhood Reviews policy and procedures, investigating possible partnership agency
       initiatives (e.g. Keep Britain Tidy Campaign), improving and publicising facilities for residents to
       report rubbish and litter concerns and embedding with Estates Services the recording of rubbish
       and litter problems as part of ASB case management
       Through the ASB policy review, enable a robust approach to drug use and drug dealing so that
       drug-related issues are appropriately identified and managed

                                                             May 2010                                   2 of 38
       Operational business to compare where services exist against the survey responses to identify if
       there are gaps between resident publicity and actual service delivery
       Review the current CCTV policy and strategy in response to the resident priority that CCTV is
       perceived as the most effective means of tackling ASB
       Identify a method to record and monitor or to map the costs and resources of all ASB services so
       that additional resources or initiatives can be considered and if any cost-effective and high-impact
       services can be introduced or expanded
       Review and improve publicity for existing services to ensure residents are sufficiently informed of
       the various activities that the organisation carries out to tackle ASB
       Target Community Investment activities by using available data (including data collected as part
       of MHP’s Customer Insight project) and identify and target problem and at risk estates, groups or
       families. Residents to be informed about how community investment helps in tackling ASB, and
       communication and publicity about these activities should be more explicit when the objective is
       to tackle ASB

2. Methodology

A total of 1503 people from the MHP customer panel were sent the survey either by post or though an
email link to complete online.




For Spirita, the sample was sampled by age, location and tenure, in order to achieve a representative
spread of respondents.

For the other member organisations, 100% of MHP panel members were sent a survey form due to the
low numbers of residents from them on the customer panel.

As the number of responses from Canalside, Roundshaw and CPH panel members was low, their data
will be grouped together with MHT London and labelled ‘London’ hereafter.

A breakdown of the sample achieved in terms of demographics is given in Appendix 2. The sample was
generally similar to that found in STATUS 2009, except where indicated.

As a very broad rule, and based on the sample sizes achieved, this report will assume that a statistically-
reliable result has a margin of plus or minus 10% (e.g. if 50 per cent of respondents give a particular
answer, the true answer for the whole population would be within the range 40 per cent to 60 per cent).




                                                             May 2010                                 3 of 38
3. Results.

3.1 Levels of concern about ASB

3.1.1    Concerned about ASB in your area?




In total, 65% of respondents were either fairly or very concerned about ASB in their area. Granta
residents (50%) are less fairly or very concerned about ASB in their area than either Spirita (65%) or
London residents (71%). On first impression, this compares unfavourably with the closest available
national indicator, ‘Perceptions of Anti-social behaviour’ indicator, from the latest1 nationwide British
Crime Survey (BCS) data. It must be noted that, although these two indicators offer an overall opinion of
resident’s perceptions of ASB, they should not be directly compared. The next section provides a closer
comparison, using the national indicator method. In addition, the sample for the BCS is nationally
representative of the British population and is not just taken from the social-housing population. It
indicates a much higher level of concern about ASB amongst residents of MHP than is found nationally,
and this may be due to higher levels of concern about ASB amongst social housing tenants (the BCS
2007/2008 indicates that social-housing tenants are twice as likely as those in owner-occupied or
private-rented property to perceive ASB as a problem in their area).

Taken on its own, however, the percentage of respondents fairly or very concerned about ASB is much
higher then those who are not, approximately two thirds of residents. Measures which may improve this
result have been previously identified in MHP’s Respect strategy. One of the Respect Standard for
Housing Management core commitments is to reassure residents though improved publicity and resident
communication. MHP’s ASB leaflets and website information (in response to input from MHP’s
residents) were revised to provide improved information on types of ASB, how to report it and how it will
be managed. In addition, there has been an increase in articles relating to ASB activities and actions
published in local resident magazines.

Reducing the level of concern of ASB in a local area is also linked to the effectiveness of local
partnership working and management of other issues such as crime and community cohesion. Closer
ties with neighbourhood policing, Community Safety Partnerships and local authorities should be
identified and monitored. A policy, setting out how landlords will engage in local area and work with
partners, is also a requirement as part of the Tenant Services Authority’s Neighbourhood and
Community standard.

In addition, from April 2010, landlords will have access to a new Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) Action
Team funded by Communities and Local Government whose remit is to work with housing providers who
need support in the most difficult problem areas, operating at a strategic level offering advice and
guidance on the best way to tackle wider ASB issues in the community.




1
 Home Office Crime in England and Wales: Quarterly Update to September 2009, 21 January 2010. This is also the Place
Survey indicator NI 17. This indicator shows nationally that there was a significant reduction in the proportion of people with a
high level of perceived anti-social behaviour compared with the previous year (from 17% to 15%).

                                                                           May 2010                                          4 of 38
3.1.2    % of respondents with a high level of perceived ASB (calculated by BCS formula)

The BCS calculates their high level of perceived anti-social behaviour by aggregating the responses to
perceived problem areas of selected ASB behaviours1. This can be replicated for MHP by using the
responses from 3.6 of this report (question 6 of survey (see Appendix 3: Survey questions) and produces
a separate indicator (% with a high level of perceived anti-social behaviour). This indicator at 21% is
significantly closer to the 15% BCS result.




However, the 7 anti-social behaviour problem area types used to calculate the BCS indicator are not the
same as the top 7 anti-social behaviour types residents have identified. If the same indicator was
calculated using MHP’s top 7 anti-social behaviour problem areas from 3.6 (Rubbish or litter, Noisy
neighbours, People not taking responsibility for their children, People not treating others with respect and
consideration, Drunk or rowdy behaviour, Drug use or dealing and Teenagers hanging around outside),
the total increases slightly to 30%. Both these figures lend weight to the conclusion that levels of concern
amongst MHP about ASB are high and so worth addressing.



Section 3.1 recommendations:
      Improve the perception of ASB by developing a communications strategy to re-assure residents
      of existing actions and approaches already in place within the organisation. This includes, as part
      of the ASB policy review, reviewing best practice in relation to the resident information provided
      Consider and develop a policy with performance indicators to monitor the use and effectiveness
      of partnership working




1
 Formula at: www.audit-commission.gov.uk/localgov/audit/nis/Pages/NI017Perceptionsofanti-socialbehaviour.aspx. The
combined measure is calculated by allocating scores to the responses to the question about the seven anti-social behaviours;
noisy neighbours or loud parties, teenagers hanging around on the streets, rubbish or litter lying around, vandalism, graffiti and
other deliberate damage to property or vehicles, people using or dealing drugs, people being drunk or rowdy in public places
and abandoned or burnt out cars, where:
0 = Not a problem at all, 1 = Not a very big problem, 2 = Fairly big problem and 3 = Very big problem
A total score for each respondent is calculated based on the responses to the seven questions. The maximum possible score is
21. High perception of ASB is a score of 11 or above. The indicator is the percentage of respondents whose score was 11 or
above out of the total answering the question. No opinions included in the score as zero. MHP indicator includes the indicator ‘it
Happens but is not a problem’ and is assigned a score of 0.5.
                                                                          May 2010                                          5 of 38
3.2 Levels of concern about security in the local area

3.2.1    Feel safe in your area in the day?




MHP’s residents are less likely to say they feel safe than is found nationally. This is illustrated by the
following comparisons with the results of the ‘Place Survey’1:

         East Midlands place survey: 88% feel very of fairly safe during the day, compared to 70% of
         Spirita residents;
         London place survey: 85% feel safe during the day, compared to 63% of. MHT London residents;
         England place survey: 88% feel safe during the day, compared to 69% of MHP residents.

It is notable that, of respondents who have indicated they feel unsafe during the day, rather more (90%)
have been affected by ASB (from the results given for section 3.7) compared to 57% overall. This could
indicate that experiencing ASB personally may have a negative effect on a resident’s overall feeling of
safety in their area. As well as feeling confidence in reporting problems to their landlord, it is possible
that the support and advice given when cases are reported and the outcome of reports of ASB will both
have an impact on this indicator.

In order to get some idea about how feeling unsafe may be caused, this data was cross-tabulated
against the problem areas in section 3.6. The top 3 problem (fairly or very big problem) areas of
residents who said they feel very unsafe were:

         72% Teenagers hanging around outside
         71% Noisy neighbours
         67% People not treating others with respect and consideration


3.2.2    Feel safe in your area at night?




When results of this question are compared to those of the Place Survey, it is unsurprising (based on the
profile of respondents of a Place Survey) that MHP residents are more likely to say they feel unsafe in
their area at night than is found nationally:

         East Midlands place survey: 51% feel very or fairly safe after dark compared to 35% of Spirita
         residents;
         London place survey: 44% feel safe after dark compared to 32% of MHT London residents;
         England place survey: 51% feel safe after dark compared to 35% of MHP residents.

1
 Place survey: a bi-annual survey administered by Local authorities amongst all people living in their area, across all tenures of
property, including owner-occupiers, private lets and leaseholders.
                                                                          May 2010                                          6 of 38
Of the respondents who have indicated they feel unsafe at night, 68% have been affected by ASB
compared to 57% overall. (Q15) The top 3 problem (Q14, fairly or very big problem) areas of residents
who said they feel very unsafe were:

       60% People not treating others with respect and consideration
       57% Noisy neighbours
       56% Drug use or dealing

Section 3.2 recommendations

       As part of the ASB policy review, evaluate the support and advice given to victims of ASB during,
       and after, case management to ensure that cases are resolved successfully, where possible.
       This is to ensure that complainants’ feelings of anxiety and safety are appropriately addressed
       To address local concerns about anti-social behaviour through the use of ‘one-stop-shop’
       resident ASB meetings with landlord, neighbourhood policing teams/local authority/community
       investment teams. Where these exist already, provide minimum standards and practices for
       these events




                                                           May 2010                                7 of 38
3.3 People from different backgrounds get along?

3.3.1       People from different backgrounds get along by location




47% of people overall agreed that their local area was a place where people from different backgrounds
get on well together. A 2007 nationwide survey carried out by the Commission on Integration and
Cohesion found that 1 79% of people agreed or strongly agreed that people of different backgrounds get
on well in their local area. Cohesion rates ranged from 38% to 90% - but in only ten out of 387 areas was
the cohesion rate under 60%. This finding suggests that cohesion amongst our residents should be of
some concern to MHP.

This figure varies considerably between different areas, (for example, Barking and Dagenham is at 49%,
Oldham at 50% compared to Rushcliffe Borough Council at 87%) suggesting that this figure is also
reflective of wider social, economic and community issues. However, this does not demonstrate
successful implementation of the core commitment for community cohesion and warrants further
monitoring.

Encouraging community tolerance and responsibility is one of the most challenging objectives landlords
may tackle, both ensuring that residents act responsibly and managing their expectations. Although
there is a limit in relation to the law, the agreement of local authority partners and MHP’s corporate
objectives, sustainable and cohesive communities begin at the lettings stage. From there, residents
must be aware of their rights and responsibilities (not just when they move in, but throughout their stay),
including have a clear understanding of the impact their potential behaviour may have on the wider
community.


3.3.2       Age range of responses as to whether people from different backgrounds get along


     60 and over


         up to 59


                    0%      10%         20%        30%        40%         50%       60%         70%       80%       90%    100%
                               Agree strongly     Agree    Neither agree nor disagree       Disagree   Disagree strongly


The above table illustrates again that age is related to perceptions of community cohesion.

More people aged 60 and over agreed or strongly agreed that their local area is a place where people
from different backgrounds get on well together than amongst people aged 59 years or under.

Section 3.3 recommendations:
      Review lettings plans and allocations policies (in conjunction with their local authority partners) to
      ensure balanced and sustainable lettings are achieved.
      Review and prioritise the Sign-up policy and procedure so that new residents understand their
      rights and responsibilities.



1
    Commission on Integration and Cohesion, 2007, ‘Our Shared Futures’, P. 21.
                                                                                 May 2010                                    8 of 38
         Through the resident consultation process of the ASB policy review, assess the demand and
         viability of initiatives (such as good neighbour agreements), rewards or incentives that promote
         positive behaviour and encourage community cohesion.

3.4 Neighbourhood as a place to live

Overall satisfaction




These results closely mirror those found in STATUS 2009. London residents are least satisfied with their
neighbourhood as a place to live (65% said they were satisfied) compared to Spirita (71%) and Granta
(85%)

This is somewhat unexpected, given the high percentages of people who said they were concerned
about ASB in their area (see section 3.1).


3.5 Area got better or worse over 12 months?

MHP all:




    0%         10%        20%         30%         40%         50%        60%         70%         80%        90%     100%
            Much better         A little better         About the same          A little worse         Much worse



By location:




As many respondents believe that their area has got worse (29%) as it has got better (28%) over the
past 12 months. This statistic is worth monitoring over time to determine the effectiveness of any
proposed ASB service improvements.




                                                                         May 2010                                    9 of 38
3.6 Problem areas
                                                                    Drug use or dealing
                                      Teenagers hanging around outside
             People not taking responsibility for their children
                                                                         Noisy neighbours
                                                                          Rubbish or litter
    People not treating others with respect and consideration
                                                              Drunk or rowdy behaviour
                                                                                       Other crime
                                                                         Pets and animals
                                                                    Vandalism or grafitti
                                        Abandoned or burnt out vehicles

                                                                                                                  0%            10%            20%         30%     40%             50%                60%             70%       80%    90%      100%
                       A very big problem                      A fairly big problem                      Not a very big problem                          It happens but it's not a problem                             Not a problem at all



Respondents were asked about the problem areas where they live. The biggest issues (a fairly and very
big problem) were:
       1. Rubbish and litter (41%)
       2. Drug use and dealing (36%)
       3. People not treating others with respect and consideration (36%)
       4. Noisy neighbours (34%)
       5. Teenagers hanging around outside (32%)

The top two problem areas are contrary to the type of ASB cases MHP logs and manages. For example1
,
 5% of the type of ASB reports received is about rubbish and litter and 4% concerns drug use and
dealing. More reflective are the concerns about noise (45% of categories), and related to that, treatment
of others with respect and consideration.

Of the very big problem areas only, the top two were drugs or drug dealing (19% of responses) and
teenagers hanging around outside (18%).




1
    MHP Quarter 3 2009/10 Housing Services BART – New categories received as a % of cases received:

                         Benchmarking comparison. Categories received as a % of cases received
    50%
    45%                                                                                                                                                                                                Q2
    40%                                                                                                                                                                                                Q3
    35%                                                                                                                                                                                                HouseMark Q2
    30%
    25%
    20%
    15%
    10%
     5%
     0%
                           Criminal




                                                                                                                                                                                    Pets and animal
                                          Domestic violence




                                                                                               intimidation, verbal
                                                                             Garden nuisance




                                                                                                                      Hate related




                                                                                                                                                           Noise


                                                                                                                                                                   Nuisance from




                                                                                                                                                                                                        Physical violence



                                                                                                                                                                                                                             Rubbish




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Vandalism/damage
                                                                 Drugs




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Sexual
                                                                                                                                      Misuse of public
             Alcohol




                                                                                                                       incidents
                                                                                                   Harassment,




                                                                                                                                                                                       nuisance
                                                                                                                                                                      vehicles




                                                                                                                                                                                                           (non DV)




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   to property
                                                                                                                                          space
                                                                                                      abuse




                                                                                                                                                          May 2010                                                                                    10 of 38
Rubbish and litter problems are not historically treated as anti-social behaviour cases that
neighbourhood officers manage (e.g. apart from in instances such as persistent fly-tipping). As it is the
biggest area that residents are most concerned about, it is recommended that MHP investigate options
to address these concerns.

Drug use and dealing has been highlighted as the second major problem area from respondents, but
also does not reflect MHP’s casework profile. There are possible reasons for this, including residents not
feeling confident about reporting or do not see it as ASB that the landlord manages (Section 3.8 looks at
the reasons for not reporting ASB). As it has been identified as one of the biggest problem areas, MHP
will ensure through the ASB policy review that reports of drug use and dealing are appropriately received
and managed.

3.6.1    Comparison against Place Survey (fairly or very big problem area)

 50%                                                                                                MHP
                                                                                                    London
 45%
                                                                                                    Spirita
 40%                                                                                                England place survey

 35%

 30%

 25%

 20%

 15%

 10%

  5%

  0%
        Rubbish or litter      People not      Drug use or      Noisy        Teenagers    Drunk or rowdy      Vandalism or
                             treating others     dealing     neighbours    hanging around   behaviour            grafitti
                            with respect and                                  outside
                              consideration

The above table illustrates the main problem areas overall, by Spirita and by London. Of note1 is the
following;
        London panel members top concerns are ‘Treating others with respect and consideration’ and
        ‘Teenagers hanging around outside’ (47% of respondents indicated that it was a big or fairly big
        problem area)
        And, London respondents are more concerned about ‘Drug use or dealing’, ‘Noisy neighbours’
        and ‘Treating others with respect and consideration’ then the national average.
        Spirita panel members’ top concern is ‘Rubbish or litter’ (39%), followed by ‘Noisy neighbours’.
        Indeed, ‘Noisy neighbours’ is the only problem that Spirita residents identify more often than is
        found nationally. Conversely, ‘Vandalism and grafitti’ is considerably less of a problem to Spirita’s
        residents than is found either nationally or in London.
        Overall, the data suggests that ‘Noisy Neighbours’ are considerably more of a problem for MHP
        residents than is found nationally.




1
  When comparing against sample sets, this report assumes a 10% difference between samples for the differences to be
significant
                                                                          May 2010                                      11 of 38
3.6.2       Problem areas by age range
    60 and over: Teenagers hanging around
                   outside

up to 59:Teenagers hanging around outside


             60 and over: Noisy neighbours


                 up to 59:Noisy neighbours

 60 and over:People not treating others with
         respect and consideration
    up to 59:People not treating others with
           respect and consideration

           60 and over: Drug use or dealing


              up to 59: Drug use or dealing


              60 and over: Rubbish or litter


                 up to 59: Rubbish or litter


                                               0%   10%   20%            30%            40%            50%           60%           70%            80%            90%           100%
                                                                A very big or fairly big problem    Not a very big problem   It happens but it's not a problem or not a problem at all


Except for ‘Teenagers hanging around outside’, residents over the age of 60 years are less concerned
about key problem areas than are those aged 59 years or less.

There is a particularly large difference between the age groups - 17% - who see ‘Noisy neighbours’ as a
problem. Possible reasons for this may include the type of properties that different age groups live in,
and/or greater tolerance and expectations in regards to lifestyle differences. This could be related to the
finding shown in Section 3.3, where higher age groups were more likely, than those from lower age
groups, to agree that people from different backgrounds get along.


Section 3.6 recommendations:
      As rubbish and litter is the biggest area of concern for residents, it is recommended that MHP
      investigate options to address these specific concerns, including: reviewing and monitoring the
      Neighbourhood Reviews policy and procedures, investigating possible partnership agency
      initiatives (e.g. Keep Britain Tidy Campaign), improving and publicising facilities for residents to
      report rubbish and litter concerns and embedding with Estates Services the recording of rubbish
      and litter problems as part of ASB case management
      Through the ASB policy review, enable a robust approach to drug use and drug dealing so that
      drug-related issues are appropriately identified and managed.




                                                                                                   May 2010                                                                 12 of 38
3.7 Have you been affected by anti-social behaviour and did you report it to your landlord?

     I've been affected
     by anti-social
     behaviour and
     didn't report it to                         I haven't been
     my landlord but                             affected by anti-
     reported it to                              social behaviour
     another agency                              43%
     (such as the police
     or the local
     authority)
     7%

                                                                     I've been affected
                                                                     by anti-social
                                                                     behaviour but
                                 I've been affected                  didn't report it to
                                 by anti-social                      my landlord
                                 behaviour and                       18%
                                 reported it to my
                                 landlord
                                 32%




In total, 57% of respondents have been affected by ASB. Of residents that have been affected by ASB,
69% reported it to us or to another agency and 31% did not report it at all. Question 16 breaks down the
reasons why they did not report it to us.




                                                              May 2010                            13 of 38
3.8 If you did not report ASB, why?


                                                                               Left it to
                                                                               someone else
                                                    Lack of
                                                                               to report, 5%
                                                    confidence in
                                                    landlord, 19%

                               It was not
                               something the
                               landlord was
                               responsible for,
                                                                          None of my
                               22%
                                                                          business, 7%

                                                                            Other*, 3%

                                                                      Concerned
                                   Fear of
                                                                      about
                                   reprisals, 22%
                                                                      confidentiality,
                                                                      10%

                                                       Did not think it
                                                       worth reporting,
                                                       12%



Of the reasons as to why ASB is not reported to us, the reasons of most concern from MHP’s
perspective are the fear of reprisals, confidentiality concerns and the lack of confidence in us.

MHP recognises that resident communication is important in relation to this, including better awareness
of our responsibilities with regards to data protection, confidentiality and victim support.


* Other reasons include
       nothing would be done about it
       not been affected
       I spoke to the perpetrator direct
       I have a better rapport with Council and my local MP
       I did have a problem about 2 years ago but it was sorted out very well
       dealt with it ourselves
       nasty-minded and unhelpful housing officers
       reported to neighbourhood watch
       reported by others before I had the opportunity




                                                               May 2010                             14 of 38
3.9 How good is your landlord at preventing ASB?


       MHP all




        Spirita




       London



                  0%   10%          20%       30%         40%         50%       60%          70%        80%        90%     100%

                        Very or fairly good         Neither good nor poor         Very or fairly poor         Don't know


In general, the number of residents who believe that the landlord is good at preventing ASB is about
equal to the percentage of respondents who believe they are poor at preventing ASB. Improvements to
this indicator must be linked to greater use and publicity of early intervention and prevention solutions.

There is a large proportion of ‘Don’t knows’ which could suggest that some of the services (such as
community-investment activities) are not sufficiently publicised to provide a demonstrable effect on
preventing ASB.

3.10        How good is your landlord at taking action?




Overall, 32 % of residents said that MHP was very or fairly good at taking action in response to reports of
ASB in their local area. This compares to 45% of Granta residents, 38% of London residents and 26% of
Spirita residents who said that their landlord was very or fairly good at taking action in response to
reports of ASB in their local area.

It is noteable that Spirita (26%) is higher than a sample of Nottingham City Council and their
geographical neighbours (24%). And, that MHT London 38% is higher than the London average 30%.

These results demonstrate that there is a degree of confidence in the organisation taking seriously
issues of ASB and acting on them.

Based on the published data1 for LAs that MHP operate in, a recommended improvement target is 38%.




1
    Lambeth 25.3% (target is plus 6.6% at 31.9%) and Haringey 28.2% (target is plus 5.8% at 34%).
                                                                            May 2010                                       15 of 38
3.11     Local services to prevent ASB
                             Street or estate lighting

  Estate inspections to provice neat and tidy estates

                    Sports and other youth activities

                      Community centre, hall or club

                                               CCTV

    Warnings or leaflets eg. on estate noticeboards

                             24 hour ASB advice line

             Work experience or volunteer schemes
                                                                                                 Spirita yes
                                  Parenting support                                              London yes
                           More visible housing staff                                            Granta yes

       Local area/ community agreement or standard

                        Supporting young offenders

                                Specialist ASB team

                        Local ASB drop-in surgeries

                                                         0   10   20        30    40   50   60         70          80

Residents were asked if they were aware of any services in their local area, run either by us or by other
agencies. The above chart identifies the percentage of residents who are aware that of these services in
each of the three areas – Spirita, London and Granta.

For services which MHP provide, it may be a useful exercise to compare where services exist against
the survey responses. This may identify if these services are receiving the necessary targeting, publicity
and resident communication.

Section 3.11 recommendations:
      Operational business to compare where services exist against the survey responses to identify if
      there are gaps between resident publicity and actual service delivery.




                                                                       May 2010                                16 of 38
3.12       Which helps most in reducing ASB?


                                                 CCTV

                             More visible housing staff

                                 Specialist ASB team

                               24 hour ASB advice line

                      Sports and other youth activities

    Estate inspections to provide neat and tidy estates

                               Street or estate lighting

                                     Parenting support

               Work experience or volunteer schemes

                        Community centre, hall or club

                          Local ASB drop-in surgeries

                           Supporting young offenders

       Warnings or leaflets eg. on estate noticeboards

        Local area/ community agreement or standard

                                                           0%   10%   20%       30%    40%      50%        60%        70%


Respondents were asked to select the service which they thought would reduce ASB. Consequently, if
these were implemented, it might be expected to see an improvement in responses to all previous
questions relating to ASB perceptions, and possibly, feelings of safety. This information will be taken in
the context of proven methods and value for money. Thus, a balanced approach is required, with
residents kept informed as to what actions will work and what will not.

CCTV cameras were considered by the greatest margin of residents to be the most effective, which is in
line with the public support for such systems in general. However, the effectiveness of CCTV is mixed1,
and consideration must be given to the type of ASB it is intended to resolve, where it is placed, how it is
paid for and monitored and the type of technology used.

Regardless of the effectiveness of CCTV, it may be assumed from the responses that its presence
makes respondents feel safer and further consideration and research is required. This may include the
installation of ‘dummy’ cameras or warning signs. The outcome of this consideration will be fed back to
residents.

More visible housing staff: This response requires further interrogation as it is not defined as to what
residents specifically require. This may include a uniformed presence such as neighbourhood wardens,
expanding the role of caretakers or concierge staff, frequency of housing officers visiting on-site, or
estate services days.

Specialist ASB teams: The comparative performance of landlords, with or without specialist ASB
teams, has been looked at2 as an outcome of this survey feedback:
       % of respondents very or fairly satisfied with the way their ASB complaint was dealt with: no
       specialist team 66%, specialist team 71%, mixed team 74%
       % of respondents very or fairly satisfied with the outcome of their ASB complaint: no specialist
       team 64%, specialist team 68%, mixed team 74%


1
  The Home Office commissioned Professor Martin Gill to review the effectiveness of CCTV: ‘Assessing the Impact of CCTV' ,
2005.
2
  Based on a sample of 75 organisations who have answered the relevant performance indicators in the HouseMark ASB
benchmarking return.
                                                                            May 2010                                 17 of 38
       Average number of days taken to resolve ASB cases: no specialist team 82 days, specialist
       team 86 days, mixed team 104 days

The data asserts that, contrary to perceptions provided, specialist ASB teams do not significantly
improve on performance. ASB makes up a significant part of housing managers’ time and resources,
and improvements on how this is recorded and communicated should be considered by them.

24 Hour ASB advice line: MHP will shortly be introducing 24 ASB reporting through our customer call
centres. Although out of hours staff will not be able to immediately manage non-emergency ASB (and
emergency ASB must be dealt with through the emergency services), it is stressed that staff are
sufficiently trained to record reports of ASB appropriately and sensitively. This includes relevant sign-
posting to national advice lines where appropriate.

Sport and other youth activities: Greater correlation should be made between MHP’s well-developed
community investment activities and their actions to prevent and tackle ASB. Measures to create more
linkages which have been recently introduced include the addition and presence of MHT’s Community
Investment at MHT’s ASB housing management forum, However, improvements can be made by using
available data captured through the housing management systems to identify and target problem and at
risk estates, groups or families. For residents to be informed about how community investment helps in
tackling ASB, it may be an option that communication and publicity about these activities should reflect
and make implications to its objectives where the objective is to reduce ASB.



Section 3.12 recommendations:
      Review the current CCTV policy and strategy in response to the resident priority that CCTV is
      perceived as the most effective means of tackling ASB
      Identify a method to record and monitor or to map the costs and resources of all ASB services so
      that additional resources or initiatives can be considered and if any cost-effective and high-impact
      services can be introduced or expanded.
      Review and improve publicity for existing services to ensure residents are sufficiently informed of
      the various activities that the organisation carries out to tackle ASB
      Target Community Investment activities by using available data (including data collected as part
      of MHP’s Customer Insight project) and identify and target problem and at risk estates, groups or
      families. For residents to be informed about how community investment helps in tackling ASB,
      and communication about these activities should be more explicit with regards to its role in
      preventing ASB.




                                                            May 2010                                 18 of 38
         Additional comments

The comments below will be used to govern the direction of the reviewed ASB policy and will also be
circulated to each business so that any service improvements can be assessed.

Granta
         This is a social problem that should be dealt with by the local authorities, Police and Government.
         Whilst Metropolitan are to be congratulated on the stance and involvement, the options are in
         reality limited, although I suppose every little helps
         "Question 10 should be worded better perhaps: Does your estate/street/block of flats have a
         particular service= does not have or don't know. Campaign for clear English!"
         No serious problems - very good
         It seems when you contact anyone you are told to contact the police which is not always the best
         method of dealing with ASB. A more prominent presence of housing staff and more inspections
         of site and properties would help greatly.

London
     More cctv fence's seem to take the brunt of vandalism
     The worst thing is people loo in the lift every day and the camera is there no action has been
     taken. Please look into this
     Replace locks on street doors: police has told me any child could get into our building and our
     front door locks are useless. We have asked repeatedly for a change of lock, but to no avail.
     Not sure how we can prevent teenagers from other estates hanging around Kingscroft communal
     area
     Time and money needs to be spent on providing activities for young people in the area
     Keep sending ASB information to residents to remind them about ASB. Also to remind parents to
     be in control of their kids, especially at night
     Send out better notices that people will understand, say not to slam front doors of their house,
     and people passing my house and I can hear them speaking loud, car noise from the same
     people who slam doors too before they enter their place
     Staff to consider the matter consciously
     I can't, you have a better idea
     Improve your service by actually providing a service. Writing letters to perpetrators of ASB is not
     the only measure available. Why don't you use the courts and legislation? Also stop putting the
     onus on tenants to do all the work i.e. diary sheets, which are mislaid by yourselves or not used
     to take offenders to court. People in Juniper Close have been suffering ASB for years. You
     people are paid to do a job. You have a duty of care to your tenants. All this bureaucratic
     nonsense is a waste of time. Surveys, why? If you're going to put them to good use then fine, but
     nothing gets done. Why can't you employ a team of out of hours staff who can deal with ASB,
     such as dogs barking late at night, loud music etc?
     Intercom and security doors. Productive activities for the youths in the area
     Basically I think allowing the mentally ill to live amongst normal people is a big problem. My
     wife's car was damaged by a person with mental illness and nothing was or has been done by
     MHT
     Parents must be responsible for their own children/young people. They must not be allowed to
     'pass the buck'
     I don't know what's the point in doing this because nothing ever gets done. I have been going
     through anti-social behaviour for the last 6-7 years, all you keep doing is closing the case of
     breaking the data protection act which i am now seeking advice on these matters because I'm fed
     up to the back teeth with this and nothing ever gets done because Metropolitan doesn't care and
     can't be bothered so I'm now going to the next level. Please stop sending these forms to me as
     they will go straight in the bin
     Good to provide specialist ASB team if not any local ASB drop-in surgeries will be perfect.
     I have reported incidents many times but nothing has ever happened. Rarely any feedback at all.
     It makes me and others feel "why bother", if people don't care, if landlords don't bother to ever
     contact you which they haven't in my case. Makes me feel lonely and isolated
     Fine parents who do nothing to prevent their offspring behaving in an anti-social way, especially
     when their offspring vandalise property, gardens, steal and get caught. Also evict tenants whose
     children have a long history of ASB
                                                             May 2010                                 19 of 38
          1.Quick action: on occasion, my HO has acted superbly. Quick and satisfactory action, but I was
          nearly having a breakdown before response was made2. Follow-up: I've even met the Director.
          ALL STAFF HAVE AN EXCELLENT ATTITUDE. but follow-up is poor3. Respond: Usually, my
          reports don't get through or are ignored.0
          (Response to Q4) Both dominant community Afro and native Brits are anti mix community and
          dislike Asian community. Somalis want their own religious and cultural living and to (illegible).
          (Response to Q9) Please visit Edmonton office and see the volume of correspondence reported
          since MHT took over from Enfield Council(illegible) You may not find it convenient to read it but
          observe the sight of the volume to indicate what sort of (illegible) I've been living all this time.

Spirita
          Promote neighbourhood watch
          "Firstly believe the person telling you of the problem! Be stricter with parents."
          It would be really nice if our landlord remembered that we are here. I have never been visited by
          our Housing Officer and have no idea who s/he is= we have never been advised that anyone
          from the housing association is going to be available or doing a walk around. I think it would
          make a difference to the tenants here if we had these opportunities. I know none of us have
          reported the ASB in this area to the landlord as every tenant (and I have really and truly spoken
          to all) agrees that our landlord doesn't care about us. Inconsiderate parking is another nightmare
          we have to deal with. We are all older and /or disabled people and all have tales of either being
          blocked in so trapped in our homes (wheelchairs and scooters need more access!) or times when
          we have had to use the road because the path can't be used thanks to the parking on it. Again,
          it's not reported as we do not believe Spirita cares about us
          5 years ago was told full time employed only now letting people of other employment status onto
          estate
          "Green Lane which runs to the rear of Manifold Drive is a escape route for any criminals.
          Recently a car was broken into in Manifold Drive
          As of yet I do not know what can be done."
          I don't see how you can as it is a problem of parents and government
          "We are marginalised on this estate= being half way between Nott'm and Derby, and not near
          any larger social housing complexes makes it difficult to form more than a passing interest in how
          things are run here in the locality. There was an active neighbourhood support group but it had
          faded due to the fact that the leading proponent for change is now relocated and part of a new
          project with a wider remit and based more in the City than in this area where so much was
          planned and nothing has been followed up to promote better relationships within the various age
          groups, including the teenagers who truly have been grouped together as the generic cause of
          what is an inevitable social decline due to them having little or no facilities to use. Poor parenting
          plays it's role but again that is a demographic norm and country-wide problem of epidemic
          proportion. I do not really see how Spirita can ease the AS behaviour problems that occur
          because they are too complex= for instance one would expect a youth work team for an estate
          this big, but there is no youth worker attached as such. I together with local councillors have
          offered FREE sports facilities but since the youth culture is one of peer groups with nowhere to
          meet without being asked to move elsewhere, as said they are taking the blame for a situation
          that was predicted 30 yrs ago. We are safe in our homes due to being part of a neighbourhood
          watch scheme, tho' it is reliant on the local police to deal with matters that on other estates the
          landlord is managing to control effectively. As a member of a Resident's Action Group we have
          concentrated on getting the call centre more productive and been successful in doing so. Figures
          for calls taken have risen to above 80% with figures for calls left unanswered in the lowest of
          double figures and complaints about those calls now in single figures.
          When the subject of social decline and a move from absolute poverty to relative poverty predicted
          I was listening to a wold advocate for change at the LSE!! Now that those changes are upon us,
          we have an economic crisis, the likes of which even the most pessimistic of pundits never
          imagined or predicted. Nor was there any Afghan crisis or Wars in Iraq, all which have weakened
          the political purse where funding initiatives to curb A/S behaviour is concerned. Once again -
          reps of the Derbyshire County Council had to go 'cap in hand' to beg the gov't not to reduce the
          amount levied on the C.C., thereby allowing for a stronger policing of the county, this area
          included. Priority Need - and this would not cost a fortune - purchase the unused land on North
          Road (once a vandalised playground and now a flat piece of land), place a portacabin structure
          on it and make a kind of facility where the youths on the estate could call 'theirs' instead of
                                                                May 2010                                 20 of 38
expecting them to follow a nocturnal nomadic existence, moving from one street corner to the
next, risking hostile requests to move on just because those street corners are the only places
where the youths can congregate and be themselves without harassment from adults who have
forgotten they themselves were once like those kids= however they had a secure future and
employment possibilities. Even post grads will tell you, they cannot find posts equal to their skill
sets. Sadly the area is more like a commune than a community though this cannot be laid at
either the door of Spirita, the local Council, nor when all is considered... HM Government!
Someone once said: 'The poor will always be with us!' The 21st century mantra is 'Anti-social
behaviour is part of life and people will have to accept it many years into a most uncertain future.'
Thanks for the facility of allowing me to input this feedback= I can only hope that it is read by
people whom themselves understand the crisis that society faces in 2010 - 2015!"
To many young Boys and girls who have left school and have nothing to do all day but cause
havoc and smoke drugs, I was a landlord for 25 years and I know a lot about drugs and so forth
and there is a lot of it in this area.
We could have our scheme properties fenced
I have set up a neighbourhood watch scheme on this scheme involving residents also I am a
member of the police local awareness group and have police patrol around this complex Fri. and
Sat evenings as this is when most of the trouble is caused things have quietened down a lot
since introducing these
"By patrolling the area after dark
By providing young people with interesting activities
By taking persistent offenders onto the streets to help clear up graffiti and rubbish."
just give the kids something to do and make them feel they are worth something
Staff at Spirita to at least appear to take the matter seriously
We suffered from ASB just over 2 years ago which resulted in us being moved after being
receiving death threats from the troublesome neighbour. This was the last straw. I would be
happy to discuss this further
Take action much quicker when ASB is reported, and not have this, we need you to keep a
record for the next MONTH, even then it appears no action is taken, even if it appears the ASB
has abated, then restarts, when AGAIN the same statement, keep a record for a MONTH, this
can go on for anything up to 6 months and some time even longer
Not sure different things work in different areas
act quicker when reports are made, not have to fill in detailed reports each MONTH, why do we
have to wait this length of time, even then if warnings are given they are ignored, so it's back to
make another report for a month, (waste of time, it appears that it's to much trouble and costly to
take any action, especially at court,) the answer! so what, live with it, at least you have
somewhere to live
Door to door surveys with Spirita's residents as I was not aware that such surveys were available.
Dog owners should be made to pay a fine for dogs not on leads. All tenants should be vetted -
we were
Move offending tenants, neighbours
More estate inspections, more support from Spirita
As a retired lecturer and counsellor, I should be happy to assist in supporting young offenders
and other young groups
Teenagers need something constructive, thought provoking and real to do in their spare time.
Taxis need to park appropriately. Lights fitted or something voice activated when men of all ages
urinate in the bushes/wall of our street, real action taken especially if they urinate in the alleys
between the houses and courting couples have also been found there - no lighting so ideal
places for ASB
Riot control squads. Cameras everywhere
Possibly have residents take part in neighbourhood forums
More secure doors to flats on Lawrence close and roundabouts
More dog wardens.




                                                     May 2010                                 21 of 38
4. Recommendations

The below is a summary of the recommendations made overall and throughout the body of the report.
These are provisional recommendations which require agreement and if agreed, resourced, measured
and monitored appropriately.

        Overall recommendations                                                           Lead
        Corporate Housing Operations Group to consider the contents of this report. If    Housing
        necessary task a working group to review, action and implement the                Operations
        recommendations made. In addition, Housing Operations Group members to            group
        cascade report to relevant services in their businesses.
        Where there are local service-improvement action plans and other action plans     Operational
        or gap analyses, consideration to be given as to where findings of this report    businesses
        suppor tor overlap with them.
        Each Landlord analyses the data set and the additional resident comments in       Operational
        section 4.0 to identify relevant local issues and suggested improvements.         businesses
        Feed back report findings to the MHP Customer Panel and National Residents        Policy and
        Group and publish findings on the website and other resident literature.          performance
        Feed back the outcome of the recommendations made to the MHP Customer             Policy and
        Panel and National Residents Group and publish these outcomes on the              performance
        website and other resident literature.


from    Specific recommendations                                                          Lead
3.1     Improve the perception of ASB by developing a communications strategy to re-      Operational
        assure residents of existing actions and approaches already in place within the   businesses
        organisation. This includes, as part of the ASB policy review, reviewing best
        practice in relation to the resident information provided.
3.1     Consider and develop a policy with performance indicators to monitor the use      Operational
        and effectiveness of partnership working.                                         businesses
3.2     As part of the ASB policy review, evaluate the support and advice given to        Policy and
        victims of ASB during and after case management to ensure that cases are          performance
        resolved successfully where possible. This is to ensure that complainants’
        feelings of anxiety and safety are appropriately addressed.
3.3     To address local concerns about anti-social behaviour through the use of ‘one     Operational
        stop shop’ resident ASB meetings with landlord, neighbourhood policing            businesses
        teams/local authority/community investment teams. Where these exist
        already, provide minimum standards and practices for these events.
3.3     Review lettings plans and allocations policies (in conjunction with their local   Policy and
        authority partners) to ensure balanced and sustainable lettings are achieved.     performance
3.3     Review and prioritise the Sign-up policy and procedure so that new residents      Policy and
        understand their rights and responsibilities.                                     performance
3.3     Through the resident consultation process of the ASB policy review, assess        Policy and
        the demand and viability of initiatives (such as good neighbour agreements),      performance
        rewards or incentives that promote positive behaviour and encourage
        community cohesion.
3.6     As rubbish and litter is the biggest area of concern for residents, it is         Policy and
        recommended that MHP investigate options to address these specific                performance
        concerns, including: reviewing and monitoring the Neighbourhood Reviews
        policy and procedures, investigating possible partnership agency initiatives
        (e.g. Keep Britain Tidy Campaign), improving and publicising facilities for
        residents to report rubbish and litter concerns and embedding with Estates
        Services the recording of rubbish and litter problems as part of ASB case
        management.
3.6     Through the ASB policy review, enable a robust approach to drug use and           Policy and
        drug dealing so that drug-related issues are appropriately identified and         performance
        managed.


                                                          May 2010                                22 of 38
3.11   Operational business to compare where services exist against the survey                Operational
       responses to identify if there are gaps between resident publicity and actual          businesses
       service delivery.
3.12   Review the current CCTV policy and strategy in response to the resident                Policy and
       priority that CCTV is perceived as the most effective means of tackling ASB.           performance
3.12   Identify a method to record and monitor or to map the costs and resources of           Operational
       all ASB services so that additional resources or initiatives can be considered         businesses
       and if any cost-effective and high-impact services can be introduced or
       expanded.
3.12   Review and improve publicity for existing services to ensure residents are             Operational
       sufficiently informed of the various activities that the organisation carries out to   businesses
       tackle ASB.
3.12   Target Community Investment activities by using available data (including data         Operational
       collected as part of MHP’s Customer Insight project) and identify and target           businesses
       problem and at risk estates, groups or families. For residents to be informed
       about how community investment helps in tackling ASB, and communication
       about these activities should be more explicit with regards to its role in
       preventing ASB
3.12   Improve the perception of ASB by developing a communications strategy to re-           Operational
       assure residents of existing actions and approaches already in place within the        businesses
       organisation. This includes, as part of the ASB policy review, reviewing best
       practice in relation to the resident information provided.

5. Acknowledgements, feedback and further information

   Metropolitan Housing Partnership

   Author and presentation: Michael Liu, Policy and performance, mliu@mht.co.uk

   Support from: Louise Craven, Vanessa Broad and Rob Wood, Policy and performance.

   Website: www.mhp-online.co.uk




                                                             May 2010                                 23 of 38
6. Appendix 1: All data

MHP anti-social behaviour perception survey

Published from 09.12.2009 to 26.01.2010
220 responses (1 unique)


4. Who are they

  Alternatives                            Percent   Value
  1 Tenant                                 96,8 %    209
  2 Leaseholder                             2,8 %       6
  3 Other, please state                     0,5 %       1
  Total                                              216

5. Landlords

  Alternatives                            Percent   Value
  1 Canalside                               0,5 %       1
  2 Granta                                 11,1 %      24
  3 Roundshaw Homes                         0,0 %       0
  4 Clapham Park Homes                      3,7 %       8
  5 Metropolitan Housing Trust             30,9 %      67
  6 Spirita                                53,5 %    116
  7 Other, please state                     0,5 %       1
  Total                                              217

6. Local authority

  Alternatives                           Percent    Value
  1 Amber Valley Borough Council           1,5 %        2
  2 Ashfield District Council              0,0 %        0
  3 Bassetlaw District Council             0,0 %        0
  4 Bolsover District Council              0,7 %        1
  5 Broxbourne District Council            0,0 %        0
  6 Broxtowe Borough Council               0,7 %        1
  7 Charnwood Borough Council              0,0 %        0
  8 Chesterfield                           0,0 %        0
  9 Dacorum Borough Council                1,5 %        2
  10 Derby City Council                   16,4 %       22
  11 Derbyshire Dales                      0,0 %        0
  12 East Hertfordhsire District Council   0,7 %        1
  13 East Staffordshire                    0,0 %        0
  14 Erewash Borough Council               2,2 %        3
  15 Gedling Borough Council               0,7 %        1
  16 Leicester City Council                0,7 %        1
  17 London Borough of Barking & Dagenham 0,0 %         0
  18 London Borough of Barnet              3,7 %        5
  19 London Borough of Brent               6,0 %        8
  20 London Borough of Croydon             0,0 %        0
  21 London Borough of Ealing              0,0 %        0
  22 London Borough of Enfield             5,2 %        7
  23 London Borough of Hackney             1,5 %        2
  24 London Borough of Harringey           6,7 %        9
  25 London Borough of Harrow              2,2 %        3
  26 London Borough of Hillingdon          0,7 %        1
  27 London Borough of Hounslow            2,2 %        3
  28 London Borough of Lambeth             6,0 %        8
                                                     May 2010   24 of 38
  29 London Borough of Lewisham              0,0 %      0
  30 London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames0,0 %        0
  31 London Borough of Southwark             2,2 %      3
  32 London Borough of Sutton                0,0 %      0
  33 London Borough of Waltham Forest        0,0 %      0
  34 London Borough of Wandsworth            0,0 %      0
  35 Mansfield District Council              2,2 %      3
  36 North East Derbyshire District Council  1,5 %      2
  37 Nottingham City Council                 6,0 %      8
  38 Oadby & Wigston Borough Council         0,7 %      1
  39 R B Kensingston and Chelsea             0,0 %      0
  40 Rushcliffe Borough Council             23,9 %     32
  41 South Derbyshire                        2,2 %      3
  42 South Kesteven District Council         0,0 %      0
  43 Spelthorne Borough Council              1,5 %      2
  44 Surrey Heath Borough Council            0,0 %      0
  45 Tamworth                                0,0 %      0
  Total                                               134

7. Attending a workshop

  Alternatives                           Percent     Value
  1 Yes                                   26,0 %        54
  2 No                                    74,0 %      154
  Total                                               208
8. Concerned about ASB in your area?

  Alternatives                           Percent     Value
  1 Not at all concerned                  13,4 %        29
  2 Slightly concerned                    19,8 %        43
  3 Fairly concerned                      22,1 %        48
  4 Very concerned                        43,3 %        94
  5 No opinion                             1,4 %         3
  Total                                               217

9. Feel safe in your area in the day?

  Alternatives                           Percent     Value
  1 Very safe                             22,9 %        50
  2 Fairly safe                           45,9 %      100
  3 Neither safe not unsafe               10,6 %        23
  4 Fairly insafe                         10,1 %        22
  5 Very unsafe                            8,7 %        19
  6 Don't know                             1,8 %         4
  Total                                               218

10. Feel safe in your area at night?

  Alternatives                           Percent     Value
  1 Very safe                              7,4 %        16
  2 Fairly safe                           27,6 %        60
  3 Neither safe nor unsafe               16,6 %        36
  4 Fairly unsafe                         20,7 %        45
  5 Very unsafe                           25,3 %        55
  6 Don't know                             2,3 %         5
  Total                                               217


11. People from different backgrounds get along?
                                                      May 2010   25 of 38
  Alternatives                                 Percent      Value
  1 Agree strongly                               7,8 %         17
  2 Agree                                       38,5 %         84
  3 Neither agree nor disagree                  34,4 %         75
  4 Disagree                                    13,3 %         29
  5 Disagree strongly                            6,0 %         13
  Total                                                      218

12. Neighbourhood as a place to live

  Alternatives                                 Percent      Value
  1 Very satisfied                              28,2 %         62
  2 Fairly satisfied                            42,3 %         93
  3 Neither satisfied nor unsatisfied           12,7 %         28
  4 Fairly dissatisfied                          9,1 %         20
  5 Very dissatisfied                            7,7 %         17
  Total                                                      220

13. Area got better or worse over 12 months?

  Alternatives                                 Percent      Value
  1 Much better                                  8,8 %         19
  2 A little better                             18,9 %         41
  3 About the same                              43,8 %         95
  4 A little worse                              18,0 %         39
  5 Much worse                                  10,6 %         23
  Total                                                      217

14. Problem issues

  Alternatives                                              N
  1 Rubbish or litter                                     212
  2 Noisy neighbours                                      212
  3 Pets and animals                                      209
  4 People not taking responsibility for their children   214
  5 People not treating others with respect and           213
     consideration
  6 Drunk or rowdy behaviour                              215
  7 Abandoned or burnt out vehicles                       213
  8 Vandalism or graffiti                                 213
  9 Drug use or dealing                                   205
  10 Other crime                                          202
  11 Teenagers hanging around outside                     213

14.1 Problem issues - Rubbish or litter

  Alternatives                                 Percent      Value
  1 Not a problem at all                        13,2 %         28
  2 It happens but it's not a problem           11,3 %         24
  3 Not a very big problem                      34,4 %         73
  4 A fairly big problem                        25,9 %         55
  5 A very big problem                          15,1 %         32
  Total                                                      212

14.2 Problem issues - Noisy neighbours

  Alternatives                                 Percent      Value
  1 Not a problem at all                        28,3 %         60
                                                                May 2010   26 of 38
  2 It happens but it's not a problem        9,9 %        21
  3 Not a very big problem                  27,8 %        59
  4 A fairly big problem                    18,9 %        40
  5 A very big problem                      15,1 %        32
  Total                                                  212

14.3 Problem issues - Pets and animals

  Alternatives                             Percent     Value
  1 Not a problem at all                    42,1 %        88
  2 It happens but it's not a problem        8,6 %        18
  3 Not a very big problem                  28,7 %        60
  4 A fairly big problem                    11,5 %        24
  5 A very big problem                       9,1 %        19
  Total                                                 209

14.4 Problem issues - People not taking responsibility for their children

  Alternatives                             Percent     Value
  1 Not a problem at all                    36,9 %        79
  2 It happens but it's not a problem        9,8 %        21
  3 Not a very big problem                  21,0 %        45
  4 A fairly big problem                    16,8 %        36
  5 A very big problem                      15,4 %        33
  Total                                                 214

14.5 Problem issues - People not treating others with respect and consideration

  Alternatives                             Percent     Value
  1 Not a problem at all                    31,5 %        67
  2 It happens but it's not a problem       10,3 %        22
  3 Not a very big problem                  22,1 %        47
  4 A fairly big problem                    22,5 %        48
  5 A very big problem                      13,6 %        29
  Total                                                 213

14.6 Problem issues - Drunk or rowdy behaviour

  Alternatives                             Percent     Value
  1 Not a problem at all                    30,7 %        66
  2 It happens but it's not a problem       13,0 %        28
  3 Not a very big problem                  27,9 %        60
  4 A fairly big problem                    14,9 %        32
  5 A very big problem                      13,5 %        29
  Total                                                 215

14.7 Problem issues - Abandoned or burnt-out vehicles

  Alternatives                             Percent     Value
  1 Not a problem at all                    65,7 %      140
  2 It happens but it's not a problem       13,6 %        29
  3 Not a very big problem                  15,5 %        33
  4 A fairly big problem                     3,8 %         8
  5 A very big problem                       1,4 %         3
  Total                                                 213

14.8 Problem issues - Vandalism or graffiti
  Alternatives                              Percent    Value
  1 Not a problem at all                     40,4 %       86
                                                        May 2010                  27 of 38
  2 It happens but it's not a problem                       8,9 %           19
  3 Not a very big problem                                 29,1 %           62
  4 A fairly big problem                                   12,7 %           27
  5 A very big problem                                      8,9 %           19
  Total                                                                    213

14.9 Problem issues - Drug use or dealing

  Alternatives                                             Percent      Value
  1 Not a problem at all                                    33,2 %         68
  2 It happens but it's not a problem                       12,2 %         25
  3 Not a very big problem                                  19,0 %         39
  4 A fairly big problem                                    16,6 %         34
  5 A very big problem                                      19,0 %         39
  Total                                                                  205

14.10 Problem issues - Other crime

  Alternatives                                             Percent      Value
  1 Not a problem at all                                    28,7 %         58
  2 It happens but it's not a problem                       20,8 %         42
  3 Not a very big problem                                  25,2 %         51
  4 A fairly big problem                                    14,9 %         30
  5 A very big problem                                      10,4 %         21
  Total                                                                  202

14.11 Problem issues - Teenagers hanging around outside

  Alternatives                                             Percent      Value
  1 Not a problem at all                                    25,8 %         55
  2 It happens but it's not a problem                       15,0 %         32
  3 Not a very big problem                                  26,8 %         57
  4 A fairly big problem                                    14,6 %         31
  5 A very big problem                                      17,8 %         38
  Total                                                                  213

15. Did you report it to your landlord?

  Alternatives                                              Percent        Value
  1 I've been affected by anti-social behaviour but                   17,6 % 36
      didn't report it to my landlord
  2 I've been affected by anti-social behaviour and           6,8 %          14
      didn't report it to my landlord but reported it to
      another agency (such as the police or the local
      authority)
  3 I've been affected by anti-social behaviour and          32,2 %          66
      reported it to my landlord
  4 I haven't been affected by anti-social behaviour         43,4 %          89
  Total                                                                     205


16. If you did not report ASB, why?

  Alternatives                                             Percent      Value
  1 Lack of confidence in landlord                          15,9 %         11
  2 Fear of reprisals                                       18,8 %         13
  3 Concerned about confidentiality                          8,7 %          6
  4 Did not think it worth reporting                        10,1 %          7
  5 None of my business                                      5,8 %          4
  6 Left it someone else to report                           4,3 %          3
  7 It was not something the landlord was                   18,8 %         13
     responsible for
  8 Other, please specify                                  17,4 %           12
                                                                          May 2010   28 of 38
  Total                                                        69

17. How good is your landlord at preventing ASB

  Alternatives                               Percent     Value
  1 Very good                                 10,3 %        22
  2 Fairly good                               19,2 %        41
  3 Neither good nor poor                     18,8 %        40
  4 Fairly poor                               12,2 %        26
  5 Very poor                                 16,4 %        35
  6 Don't know                                23,0 %        49
  Total                                                   213

18. How good is your landlord at taking action?

  Alternatives                               Percent     Value
  1 Very good                                 13,6 %        29
  2 Fairly good                               18,7 %        40
  3 Neither good nor poor                     13,1 %        28
  4 Fairly poor                               13,1 %        28
  5 Very poor                                 15,9 %        34
  6 Don't know                                25,7 %        55
  Total                                                   214

19. Local services to prevent ASB?

  Alternatives                                           N
  1 24 hour ASB advice line                            183
  2 CCTV                                               184
  3 Community centre, hall or club                     180
  4 Estate inspections to provide neat and tidy        190
     estates
  5 Local ASB drop-in surgeries                        173
  6 Local area/ community agreement or standard        165
  7 More visible housing staff                         178
  8 Parenting support                                  173
  9 Specialist ASB team                                174
  10 Sports and other youth activities                 182
  11 Street or estate lighting                         184
  12 Supporting young offenders                        172
  13 Warnings or leaflets eg. on estate noticeboards   176
  14 Work experience or volunteer schemes              173

19.1 Local services to prevent ASB? - 24 hour ASB advice line

  Alternatives                               Percent     Value
  1 Yes                                       14,8 %        27
  2 No                                        85,2 %      156
  Total                                                   183

19.2 Local services to prevent ASB? - CCTV

  Alternatives                               Percent     Value
  1 Yes                                       27,7 %        51
  2 No                                        72,3 %      133
  Total                                                   184

19.3 Local services to prevent ASB? - Community centre, hall or club

                                                             May 2010   29 of 38
  Alternatives                             Percent    Value
  1 Yes                                     31,1 %       56
  2 No                                      68,9 %     124
  Total                                                180

19.4 Local services to prevent ASB? - Estate inspections to provide neat and tidy estates

  Alternatives                             Percent    Value
  1 Yes                                     46,3 %       88
  2 No                                      53,7 %     102
  Total                                                190

19.5 Local services to prevent ASB? - Local ASB drop-in surgeries

  Alternatives                             Percent    Value
  1 Yes                                      5,8 %       10
  2 No                                      94,2 %     163
  Total                                                173

19.6 local services to prevent asb? - Local area/ community agreement or standard

  Alternatives                             Percent    Value
  1 Yes                                     11,5 %       19
  2 No                                      88,5 %     146
  Total                                                165

19.7 Local services to prevent ASB? - More visible housing staff

  Alternatives                             Percent    Value
  1 Yes                                     12,4 %       22
  2 No                                      87,6 %     156
  Total                                                178

19.8 Local services to prevent ASB? - Parenting support

  Alternatives                             Percent    Value
  1 Yes                                     13,9 %       24
  2 No                                      86,1 %     149
  Total                                                173

19.9 Local services to prevent ASB? - Specialist ASB team

  Alternatives                             Percent    Value
  1 Yes                                      9,2 %       16
  2 No                                      90,8 %     158
  Total                                                174

19.10Llocal services to prevent ASB? - Sports and other youth activities

  Alternatives                             Percent    Value
  1 Yes                                     32,4 %       59
  2 No                                      67,6 %     123
  Total                                                182

19.11 Local services to prevent ASB? - Street or estate lighting

  Alternatives                             Percent    Value
  1 Yes                                     68,5 %     126
  2 No                                      31,5 %       58
                                                        May 2010                            30 of 38
  Total                                                            184

19.12 Local services to prevent ASB? - Supporting young offenders

  Alternatives                                         Percent    Value
  1 Yes                                                 11,0 %       19
  2 No                                                  89,0 %     153
  Total                                                            172

19.13 Local services to prevent ASB? - Warnings or leaflets eg. on estate noticeboards

  Alternatives                                         Percent    Value
  1 Yes                                                 21,6 %       38
  2 No                                                  78,4 %     138
  Total                                                            176

19.14 Local services to prevent ASB? - Work experience or volunteer schemes

  Alternatives                                         Percent    Value
  1 Yes                                                 13,9 %       24
  2 No                                                  86,1 %     149
  Total                                                            173

20. Which helps most in reducing ASB?
  Alternatives                                          Percent    Value
  1 24 hour ASB advice line                             35,5 %        71
  2 CCTV                                                62,0 %      124
  3 Community centre, hall or club                      21,0 %        42
  4 Estate inspections to provide neat and tidy         34,0 %        68
      estates
  5 Local ASB drop-in surgeries                          20,0 %      40
  6 Local area/ community agreement or standard          13,0 %      26
  7 More visible housing staff                           42,5 %      85
  8 Parenting support                                    26,0 %      52
  9 Specialist ASB team                                  38,0 %      76
  10 Sports and other youth activities                   34,5 %      69
  11 Street or estate lighting                           28,0 %      56
  12 Supporting young offenders                          18,5 %      37
  13 Warnings or leaflets eg. on estate noticeboards     16,5 %      33
  14 Work experience or volunteer schemes                20,5 %      41
  Total                                                             200


22. Do you wish us to update our records?

  Alternatives                                         Percent    Value
  1 Yes                                                 62,9 %     105
  2 No                                                  37,1 %       62
  Total                                                            167

23. What is your age?

  Alternatives                                         Percent    Value
  1 Under 25                                             1,4 %        3
  2 25-30                                                6,6 %       14
  3 31-40                                               12,7 %       27
  4 41-50                                               19,3 %       41
  5 51-59                                               15,1 %       32
  6 60-64                                               14,2 %       30
  7 65+                                                 30,7 %       65
  Total                                                            212

25. What is your gender?

                                                                   May 2010              31 of 38
  Alternatives                                         Percent    Value
  1 Male                                                38,2 %       81
  2 Female                                              61,8 %     131
  Total                                                            212

26. Disability

  Alternatives                                         Percent    Value
  1 Yes                                                 44,7 %       92
  2 No                                                  48,5 %     100
  3 Prefer not to say                                    6,8 %       14
  Total                                                            206

28. Ethnic group?

  Alternatives                                          Percent    Value
  1 White - British                                     71,1 %      150
  2 White - Irish                                        2,4 %         5
  3 White - Other (please specify)                       0,9 %         2
  4 Mixed - White and Caribbean                          0,9 %         2
  5 Mixed - White and Black African                      0,5 %         1
  6 Mixed - White and Asian                              1,4 %         3
  7 Mixed - Other (please specify)                       0,0 %         0
  8 Asian or Asian British - Indian                      1,4 %         3
  9 Asian or Asian British - Pakistan                    1,4 %         3
  10 Asian or Asian British - Bangladesh                 0,0 %         0
  11 Asian or Asian British - Other (please specify)     0,5 %         1
  12 Black or Black British - Caribbean                 10,0 %        21
  13 Black or Black British - African                    2,4 %         5
  14 Black or Black British - Other (please specify)     0,0 %         0
  15 Chinese                                             0,0 %         0
  16 Other ethnic group (please specify)                 0,0 %         0
  17 Gypsy or Traveller Community                        0,0 %         0
  18 Prefer not to say                                   1,9 %         4
  19 Other, please specify                               5,2 %        11
  Total                                                             211


29. What is your sexual orientation?

  Alternatives                                         Percent    Value
  1 Heterosexual                                        80,3 %     159
  2 Bisexual                                             2,0 %        4
  3 Gay man or woman/lesbian                             1,0 %        2
  4 Prefer not to say                                   16,7 %       33
  Total                                                            198

30. What is your religion?

Alternatives     Percent Value
   1 None                                               21,3 %       45
   2 Christian (including Church of England,            63,0 %      133
      Catholic, Protestant and all other Christian
      denominations)
   3 Buddhist                                            0,5 %        1
   4 Hindu                                               0,9 %        2
   5 Jewish                                              0,5 %        1
   6 Muslim                                              5,2 %       11
   7 Sikh                                                0,5 %        1
   8 Any other religion (please specify)                 1,4 %        3
   9 Prefer not to say                                   6,6 %       14
   Total                                                            211

31. The makeup of your household

  Alternatives                                          Percent    Value
  1 One adult under 60                                  16,3 %        33
  2 One adult aged 60 or over                           23,8 %        48

                                                                   May 2010   32 of 38
  3   Two adults, both under 60                           10,9 %      22
  4   Two adults, at least one 60 or over                 16,8 %      34
  5   Three or more adults, 16 or over                     4,5 %       9
  6   1-parent family with child or children, with at     12,9 %      26
      least one under 16
  7 2-parent family with child or children, with at        9,9 %      20
      least one under 16
  8 other, please state                                    5,0 %      10
  Total                                                              202


32. Language requirements?

  Alternatives                                          Percent    Value
  1 No                                                   95,2 %     200
  2 Yes                                                   1,4 %        3
  3 If yes, please state                                  3,3 %        7
  Total                                                             210

33. Future information in large print?

  Alternatives                                          Percent    Value
  1 No                                                   94,5 %     189
  2 Yes                                                   4,0 %        8
  3 If yes, state requirements                            1,5 %        3
  Total                                                             200




                                                                    May 2010   33 of 38
7. Appendix 2: sample by demographics

In addition to data presented in Appendix 1, the following table shows the demographic for the
sample broken down by location.

In terms of demographics, the sample achieved for this survey is close to the sample achieved for
STATUS 2009, except where indicated.

7.1 Gender:




Whilst the gender of those responding is skewed towards females, this is most marked amongst
respondents from Spirita. This is in line with the findings of STATUS 2009.

7.2 Age:




  35%


  30%


  25%


  20%


  15%


  10%


  5%


  0%
        Under 25   25-30    31-40          41-50       51-59    61-64       65+

                             people data    perception survey

The above graph shows that the ASB perceptions survey sample is skewed towards the higher age
groups when compared to the overall people data held by MHP. This indicates that some of the
disparities in the results found may be due to the sample make up.

When compared to STATUS 2009 sample achieved, the sample achieved for this survey in terms of age
has a marginally higher representation amongst the higher age groups.




                                                                 May 2010                           34 of 38
7.3 Ethnic origin




It shows that there were more people who said they were white British amongst Granta residents than
from either Spirita residents or those from the London area. This is in line with the findings from STATUS
2009.

7.4 Household composition:




7.5 Sexual orientation:




7.6 Religion




The figures relating to stated sexual orientation are similar to those found in STATUS 2009. The figures
relating to religion are similar to STATUS 2009 for London and Spirita. Amongst Granta residents the
sample in this survey has somewhat more residents who said they’re Christian when compared to
STATUS 2009 (58% said they were Christian). However, given the small base size for Granta in this
survey these comparisons need to be treated with caution.

                                                            May 2010                                35 of 38
8. Appendix 3: Survey questions

Anti-social behaviour- your views please

1) How concerned are you about anti-social behaviour in your local area? (tick one box from the list
   below)
   Very concerned
   Fairly concerned
   Slightly concerned
   Not at all concerned
   No opinion


2) How safe or unsafe do you feel when outdoors in your local area during the day? (tick one box from
   the list below)
   Very safe
   Fairly safe
   Neither safe nor unsafe
   Fairly unsafe
   Very unsafe
   Don’t know

3) How safe or unsafe do you feel when outdoors in your local area after dark? (tick one box from the
   list below)
   Very safe
   Fairly safe
   Neither safe nor unsafe
   Fairly unsafe
   Very unsafe
   Don’t know

4) Do you agree or disagree that your local area is a place where people from different backgrounds get
   on well together? (tick one box)
   Agree strongly
   Agree
   Neither agree nor disagree
   Disagree
   Disagree strongly

5)
     a) How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with your neighbourhood as a place to live? (tick one box
          from the list below)
     Very satisfied
     Fairly satisfied
     Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
     Fairly dissatisfied
     Very dissatisfied

     b) As a place to live would you say your local area has got better or worse over the last 12 months?
           (tick one box from the list below)
     Much better
     A little better
     About the same
     A little worse
     Much worse

6) In your local area, how much of a problem are the following issues? (tick one answer for each option
   below)

                                                             May 2010                               36 of 38
                          A very big   A fairly big     Not a very       Not a            It happens
                          problem      problem          big problem      problem at all   but is not a
                                                                                          problem
Rubbish or litter

Noisy neighbours

Pets and animals
People not taking
responsibility for
their children
People not treating
other people
with respect and
consideration
Drunk or rowdy
behaviour
Abandoned or
Burnt-out vehicles
Vandalism or
graffiti
Drug use or
dealing

Other crime

Teenagers hanging
around outside

7)
   a) If you have been affected by anti-social behaviour in the last two years, did you report it to your
       landlord? (tick one box from the list below)
  I’ve been affected by anti-social behaviour but didn’t report it to my landlord
  I’ve been affected by anti-social behaviour and didn’t report it to my landlord but reported it to
another agency (such as the police or the local authority)
  I’ve been affected by anti-social behaviour and reported it to my landlord
  I haven’t been affected by anti-social behaviour

      b) If you have been affected by anti-social behaviour and did not report it to your landlord, please
          indicate why below
     Lack of confidence in landlord
     Fear of reprisals
     Concerned about confidentiality
     Did not think it worth reporting
     None of my business
     Left it to someone else to report
     It was not something the landlord was responsible for
     Other, please state:

8)
     a) How good do you think your landlord is at preventing anti-social behaviour before it happens in
          your local area? (tick one box)
     Very good
     Fairly good
     Neither good nor poor
     Fairly poor

                                                              May 2010                                   37 of 38
   Very poor
   Don’t know

9) How good do you think your landlord is at taking action against reports of anti-social behaviour in
   your local area? (tick one box)
   Very good
   Fairly good
   Neither good nor poor
   Fairly poor
   Very poor
   Don’t know

10)

      a) Are you aware if your local area has the following services to help prevent ASB? These may be
         run by other agencies, such as the police or the council.

                                                                             Yes     No
24 hour ASB advice line
CCTV
Community centre, hall or club
Estate inspections to provide neat and tidy estates
Local ASB drop-in surgeries
Local area / community agreement or standard
More visible housing staff
Parenting support
Specialist ASB team
Sports and other youth activities
Street or estate lighting
Supporting young offenders
Warnings or leaflets e.g. on estate noticeboards
Work experience or volunteer schemes

      b) Which 4 from the following list do you think may help the most in reducing ASB in your local
         area? Tick 4 boxes only


24 hour ASB advice line
CCTV
Community centre, hall or club
Estate inspections to provide neat and tidy estates
Local ASB drop-in surgeries
Local area / community agreement or standard
More visible housing staff
Parenting support
Specialist ASB team
Sports and other youth activities
Street or estate lighting
Supporting young offenders
Warnings or leaflets e.g. on estate noticeboards
Work experience or volunteer schemes

11) Please provide any additional comments on how we can improve our services to prevent and tackle
    anti-social behaviour.




                                                             May 2010                                   38 of 38

				
DOCUMENT INFO