Agenda item

Councillor John Woolf, Executive Member for Community Safety, Besserat Atsebaha, Director of Community Safety, Security and Resilience, Daniel Lawson, Assistant Director – Civil Protection, and Rosalind Hick, ASB Programme Manager, presented to the Committee on the council’s response to complex ASB.

The following main points were noted in the discussion:

·        The Executive Member commented on the importance of getting the basics right in terms of case management and reporting mechanisms. It was important to remember that ASB was subjective and different activities may have different impacts on different residents. The council did not have the same powers to intervene as the police, but could tackle ASB effectively by having clear and consistent policies, procedures and practices. The Executive Member highlighted Islington’s commitment to early intervention, the need to take a contextual approach, and commented on the need for a zero-tolerance approach to anti-social behaviour.  

·        Officers highlighted that responding to ASB effectively was a high priority for residents and was identified as the second highest priority in the recent Lets Talk Islington resident engagement survey. This priority was reflected in member casework. Service demand had recently returned to pre-Covid levels and the majority of reports related to noise nuisance and neighbour issues.

·        The majority of ASB reporting was now via the webform; this was a new trend, as previously the majority of repots were made by telephone. Reports peaked between 10.00pm and midnight when people were trying to sleep, and the summer was busier than the winter, as people gathered in parks and public spaces late into the evening.

·        Officers summarised the ASB Programme that was seeking to transform the way that the council manages and responds to ASB. This work included introducing a new definition of ASB. It was essential to have a clear definition of ASB so residents and partners knew what the council would and would not respond to. It was also important that ASB was dealt with by the correct agency; where ASB involved criminal activity this should be referred to the Police; ASB on social housing estates should be directed to the relevant housing provider.

·        The Committee noted the statutory Community Trigger process which allowed residents to call for a review of persistent ASB issues if they felt these were not being addressed sufficiently.

·        A new ASB case management system was being introduced to assist with monitoring and managing ASB.

·        The Committee considered a map of ASB “hotspots”. A hotspot was classified as an area with six or more reports of ASB. These changed frequently, however some areas were persistently classified as hotspots, particularly town centres, transport hubs, and parks during summer.

·        A new webform was being developed to support better reporting of ASB. The Committee asked for an update on when this would be available.

·        A member commented on the decrease in telephone calls reporting ASB and queried if the system had been designed to discourage people from reporting by telephone. In response, officers advised that there had been a corresponding increase in online reporting, and it was thought that residents were choosing to report ASB through their preferred contact method. The service was exploring other options for reporting ASB, including WhatsApp and the use of an app that would allow photos and videos to be uploaded. It was important to have a range of reporting methods available to residents and the telephone system had recently been upgraded to make it easier to report over the phone. 

·        A member commented that ASB can be subjective and it was important that ASB interventions did not effectively criminalise young people, particularly groups of young Black and Asian men, simply for congregating in public spaces. It was asked how officers review reports of ASB and if the council had data on how many reports of ASB were rejected. In response, the Executive Member commented on the importance of defining ASB and being very clear on what the council would and would not respond to. It was important to consider equalities issues in all council services, and in particular the ASB team worked closely with the Targeted Youth Support team to ensure that issues were considered from a youth perspective.

·        A member suggested that the design of some estates could be improved to make them feel more welcoming and this may reduce instances of ASB; it was thought that fencing and locked gates could make spaces feel hostile. In response, the Executive Member referenced the “broken window theory” that neglected spaces can attract ASB, and summarised how addressing low level issues like graffiti and littering could make communities feel safer.

·        A member asked how the council worked in partnership with housing associations to tackle ASB on their estates. In response, it was advised that the council is able to lobby and influence housing providers when ASB was having a detrimental impact on residents, however it was important to be clear that the council did not have enforcement powers on estates managed by housing associations. Officers noted that they were working to develop strong positive working relationships with colleagues in local housing associations.

·        It was confirmed that the ASB Team worked with colleagues in Adult Social Care around ASB issues that involved their service users. These situations tended to involve vulnerable people and had to be addressed carefully.

·        A member noted longstanding ASB issues in their ward and queried if the council had sufficient resources to resolve ASB issues effectively. In response, the Executive Member commented on the investment made in the ASB Programme to transform the way the council manages ASB, however also noted the difficulties of resolving complex cases of ASB, particularly when the perpetrator had mental health issues or other vulnerabilities. It could also take time to resolve issues when a court order was required, due to the backlog in the justice system. In such cases it was important to continue to report issues, and report to the police when appropriate if ASB issues continued to escalate.

·        The Committee noted partnership work with other council services and partners, including Parkguard, Arsenal in the Community, voluntary sector organisations and youth centres. An intensive partnership approach was appropriate following a major incident; partners had worked closely together to reassure the community following the double murder around the Elthorne Estate in late June.

·        Following a question, it was advised that there was some overlap between ASB hotspots and deprivation and social inequalities certainly impacted on prevalence of ASB. However, hotspots were also focused around transport hubs, town centres, the Emirates Stadium, and other busy areas. As the Council did not have responsibility for responding to ASB issues on housing association estates, these did not display as hotspots on the map, even if there was a high level of ASB.

·        It was thought that reporting of ASB was lower than the true figure and there may be hotspots that were not known to council services. Some residents were not comfortable in reporting issues to the council or police and further work was needed to reassure residents to provide confidence in reporting. It was suggested that developing new reporting routes might lead to new hotspots being identified.

·        Hotspots were identified from both reports to the ASB team and reports to the Police. The service was working to incorporate Housing data and this would further develop the hotspot data and would assist with targeting future interventions.

·        Following a question on thresholds for intervention, the Executive Member reiterated the importance of defining ASB. Occasionally the council would receive ASB reports around the noise of children playing or other minor issues which were not considered to meet the threshold. It was important to take a common-sense approach and to ensure that staff on estates, such as caretakers, had a clear understanding of ASB definitions so they could provide accurate advice to residents.

·        A member expressed concern about the variety of responses to ASB from different housing providers, commenting that all residents deserved to have their cases dealt with fairly and consistently. In response, it was advised that the council worked to engage and influence housing providers, but the council did not have enforcement powers.

·        A member commented on the importance of prevention, highlighting an example of a faulty light in a communal area. This had been reported several months ago but had not been fixed, and as the area was now dark at night, had turned into an ASB hotspot. It was commented that some vulnerable people did not trust authorities and would never report issues to the police or council; it was suggested that further engagement with the voluntary sector may help with the reporting of such issues.

·        Officers advised that they were investigating the feasibility of anonymous reporting.

·        A member noted that building confidence in the council’s ASB response was a priority for the service and queried how this increase in confidence would be measured. In response, it was suggested that an increase in reporting would be indicative of increased confidence, and the council would also seek feedback through community meetings and satisfaction surveys. These would be measured through KPIs.

The Committee thanked Councillor Woolf and officers for their attendance.