Good Neighbour Agreements and the Promotion of Positive Behaviour in

Communities

Karen Croucher, Anwen Jones and Alison Wallace

Report to Communities and Local Government and Home Office

April 2007

Centre for Housing Policy

i

Acknowledgements The research was wholly based on the cooperation of a large number of individuals and organisations and could not have taken place without their contributions. More than 200 landlord organisations took the time to complete the survey and the research team is grateful to all of them. The research team is particularly grateful to those individuals who gave up their time to participate in interviews and focus groups. The research team is also grateful for the assistance of members of the project steering group: Laura Denison, Peter Fenn and Keith Kirby from Communities and Local Government and Juliet Mountford from the Respect Task Force. Finally we would like to thank Lynne Lonsdale and Jane Allen for preparing the report.

ii

iii

Contents Acknowledgements...................................................................................................................i Contents................................................................................................................................. iiii Executive Summary .................................................................................................................v Chapter 1 ................................................................................................................................ 1

Introduction.......................................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 2 ................................................................................................................................ 7

An Overview of the Use of Good Neighbour Agreements or Positive Behaviour Schemes by Social Landlords ............................................................................................................. 7

Chapter 3 .............................................................................................................................. 21 A Profile of Good Neighbour Agreements or Positive Behaviour Schemes ...................... 21

Chapter Four......................................................................................................................... 37 Good Neighbour Agreements and Schemes to Promote Positive Behaviour – How Do They Work? ....................................................................................................................... 37

Chapter 5 .............................................................................................................................. 53 Conclusions and Recommendations................................................................................. 53

References............................................................................................................................ 59 Appendix 1 ............................................................................................................................ 61

Glossary ............................................................................................................................ 61 Appendix 2 ............................................................................................................................ 63

Electronic Survey .............................................................................................................. 63 Appendix 3 ............................................................................................................................ 67

Topic Guides ..................................................................................................................... 67

iv

v

Executive Summary Reflecting current policy concerns around anti-social behaviour, there is growing interest in schemes such as Good Neighbour Agreements that aim to promote positive behaviour in communities and extend the range of tools to address anti-social behaviour that are already in place. In November 2005 the then Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Communities and Local Government) and the Home Office commissioned the Centre for Housing Policy to undertake a study of the use, extent and effectiveness of Good Neighbour Agreements in promoting positive behaviour in England. The research involved a survey of social landlords including: local authorities, Arms Length Management Organisations (ALMOs) and Registered Social Landlords (RSL); focus groups involving representatives of national organisations, practitioners and tenant representatives; and twenty in-depth interviews with landlords across England who were operating or had considered introducing Good Neighbour Agreements. The research found that almost half of the 221 landlord organisations that responded to the survey operated some sort of scheme to promote positive behaviour and nearly a fifth of respondents were considering developing a scheme. Only nine per cent of respondents had considered and rejected the development of such a scheme. It was clear that there is no single model of a Good Neighbour Agreement and landlords employed a variety of schemes. The motivations behind, and operation of agreements also differed. Their overarching aim, however, is to promote positive behaviour. In addition Good Neighbour Agreements:

seek to give a clear indication that there is a commitment from the landlord and other agencies to tackle anti-social behaviour;

seek to engage local residents and to encourage them to share responsibility for tackling nuisance behaviour and promoting positive behaviour;

are used in conjunction with a range of other enforcement and preventative measures to address anti-social behaviour.

Good Neighbour Agreements can be used to do one or more of the following:

reinforce the tenancy agreement;

reassure tenants and residents that local concerns around anti-social behaviour will be addressed;

present a statement of desirable or positive behaviour and what it means to be a good neighbour;

vi

promote a shared set of community standards and expectations around behaviour and highlight the rights and responsibilities of tenants and residents (including children and young people), landlords and other service providers;

contribute to the sustainment of community regeneration initiatives; and

contribute to wider anti-social behaviour strategies.

Good Neighbour Agreements are usually voluntary agreements between landlords and their tenants but they can also be used by other agencies and organisations, for example, Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships or Community Safety Partnerships. The area of coverage of any Good Neighbour Agreement depends on local concerns and the views of the landlord/s and tenants. However, in general respondents felt that specific local agreements that address local issues and concerns are more beneficial than generic agreements covering large areas which tend to be too generalised and can become meaningless. Most schemes targeted the tenants of one or more social landlord but there was evidence of existing multi-tenure interventions and some respondents reported that they planned to develop agreements that would cover private tenants and owner-occupiers. A few respondents said that the introduction of Good Neighbour Agreements provided an opportunity to identify tenants with unmet support needs, (for example, at the start of a tenancy). Others said that where people were unable to comply, this would trigger further investigation and support where necessary. A number of respondents felt that an additional benefit of Good Neighbour Agreements was that they could be used to promote tolerance and understanding of people with support needs who exhibit behaviours that might be perceived as anti-social or strange. It was evident that many respondents had not thought in any great detail about how Good Neighbour Agreements could be developed, implemented, used or evaluated. Others had invested time researching the use of Good Neighbour Agreements in other areas and then adapted them for use locally. It was clear that the introduction of successful Good Neighbour Agreements required some time and effort. Clearly Good Neighbour Agreements can only work if tenants and residents agree to their introduction and are willing to abide by them. Some landlords invested a significant amount of effort to gain the support of local residents and to help them understand and have faith in the agreements. Good Neighbour Agreements are a developing type of practice and there is, as yet, no standard toolbox of measures that can be used to indicate whether they are successful or not. It is also difficult to identify precisely the difference Good Neighbour Agreements make because, like other anti-social behaviour tools, they are used in conjunction with a range of

vii

other measures. However, respondents suggested that it is easier to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of very specific local agreements where improvements are more obvious. Although there is a lack of hard evidence about the impact of Good Neighbour Agreements, landlords operating such initiatives believed there had been positive changes and benefits for the landlord, local residents and the wider community. Overall, those organisations which had chosen to develop Good Neighbour Agreements that involved some degree of community participation (or at least addressed the specific concerns of local residents) appeared to reap wider benefits, e.g. a sense of ownership of the agreement among tenants and local residents and a greater willingness to report and challenge anti-social behaviour. Benefits of Good Neighbour Agreements were perceived to include:

a reduction of complaints over time;

fewer voids;

more applications for homes on previously unpopular estates;

a greater willingness among residents to challenge and report anti-social behaviour; and

improved community cohesion.

Good Neighbour Agreements are, however, always part of a wider anti-social behaviour strategy and cannot work in isolation. Although they are primarily intended to be a preventative tool, like most interventions they only work if they are part of a multi-pronged approach which includes prevention, early intervention and enforcement. Respondents suggested that Good Neighbour Agreements worked because:

local residents and tenants had ownership of the agreements and trusted that the landlord and other agencies would act on any complaints;

they promote positive behaviour which appeals to residents and tenants; informal peer pressure and the desire to be a good neighbour encourages new

tenants/residents to join in the agreement; they strengthen a community’s desire and ability to deal with nuisance and anti-

social behaviour; they set realistic aims and objectives about what they can achieve and how this

can be done; they can trigger support where people are having problems adhering to the

agreement; and they can be backed up with other measures ranging from informal visits and

warnings to enforcement or legal procedures where necessary.

viii

1

Chapter 1 Introduction

In November 2005 the then Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (now Communities and Local Government) and the Home Office commissioned the Centre for Housing Policy to undertake a study to explore the use, extent and effectiveness of Good Neighbour Agreements in promoting positive behaviour in the community. This introductory chapter sets out the background to the study before going on to describe the aims and objectives of the research and the methodology employed. Finally, the chapter sets out the structure of the report.

Background to the study Anti-social behaviour has been a major area of concern for governments, housing managers and residents since the mid-1990s and tackling anti-social behaviour remains a key priority for the Government. Within the housing management arena anti-social behaviour is seen as a problem that can impact on individuals, affect the whole standing of a locality or estate, and influence housing management efficiency in areas such as allocations and void control. In recent years a wide range of tools and legislative powers have been introduced, and a plethora of initiatives and interventions developed to tackle and prevent the problem of anti-social behaviour and its recurrence (Nixon et al, 2003). Social landlords’ powers to deal with the problem have been strengthened and landlords are becoming increasingly willing to use these powers. More than two thirds of social landlords initiated possession actions in response to anti-social behaviour in 2002/2003, with more than a third implementing evictions on this ground (Hunter and Nixon, 2001; Pawson et al, 2005). Social landlords have also deployed a range of remedies other than eviction including Noise Abatement Notices, Anti-Social Behaviour Orders and Injunctions (Pawson et al, 2005). Landlords and other agencies are also making use of a host of early intervention and support measures, both legal and non-statutory, such as diversionary activities for young people, mediation, Acceptable Behaviour Contracts/ Agreements, Parenting Control Agreements, Parenting Contracts And Orders, and Individual Support Orders (Pawson et al, 2005; Respect Task Force, 2006b). In addition, a range of initiatives have been developed to provide support and address the behaviour of perpetrators of anti-social behaviour (Dillane et al, 2001; Jones et al, 2006; Nixon et al, 2006). According to the Government, anti-social behaviour not only diminishes the quality of life for individuals and communities it also “undermines confidence in the law and public services and reduces the willingness of law-abiding citizens to defend and encourage reasonable

2

standards of behaviour in their neighbourhoods” (Home Office, 2004: 47). Government policy documents and reports have focused on the role of residents and communities in “driving improvements in their neighbourhoods, in partnership with local government” (ODPM, 2005: 18). The Respect Action Plan (Respect Task Force, 2006a) makes it clear that governments and local agencies cannot deliver improvements on their own and emphasises the mutual rights and responsibilities of residents, communities and service providers in challenging and tackling anti-social behaviour. The Respect Programme seeks to go “broader, deeper and further” (Respect Task Force, 2006a: 9), it is about dealing with the underlying causes of anti-social behaviour which are seen to stem from a lack of respect among a minority of people for the values that most people share. Tenancy agreements can be used to detail the types of behaviour that are considered anti-social by the landlord, and introductory tenancies, formal warnings, demotions, possession orders and a range of legal measures can be used to enforce behaviour. However, the Government argues that there is a need for new approaches to address problems and to prevent problems occurring in the first place:

This includes ensuring early intervention where problems occur, sharpening our efforts to engage local people to improve their own communities and ensuring local services are fully accountable to their needs (Respect Task Force, 2006b:1).

One such approach is the use of schemes that seek to engage residents in agreeing standards of conduct such as Good Neighbour Agreements, Neighbourhood Charters, Tenant Participation Compacts and Resident Involvement Statements (ODPM, 2006). As will be seen below, very little is known about such schemes but Flint (2006) has suggested that they appear to share a key characteristic in that they attempt to broaden out tenant responsibilities to incorporate the promotion and facilitation of positive behaviours rather than simply prevent prohibited or undesirable behaviour.

Existing good neighbour and positive behaviour schemes Several Scottish local authorities introduced Good Neighbourhood Agreements or Good Neighbour Charters in the late 1990s. These are used to highlight and reinforce clauses in the tenancy agreement regarding anti-social behaviour. In Dundee for example, the housing department and Dundee Federation of Tenants produced a Good Neighbour Charter to be signed by all new tenants, giving their commitment to being a good neighbour. The Charter highlights what is expected of tenants as good neighbours, and outlines examples of neighbour nuisance to make clear what activities are considered anti-social. It also makes clear what the landlord will do in response to anti-social behaviour and explains the legal actions that can be taken. In some areas local authorities have attempted to involve local residents as well as tenants, for example, North Lanarkshire Council made an explicit and concerted attempt to secure owner-occupiers as signatories to their Good Neighbour Agreements although it is unclear how successful these attempts were.

3

Previous research suggests that some forms of Good Neighbour Agreement or Charter have been used in England since the mid-1990s, usually within wider ranging Estate or Neighbourhood Agreements. Estate Agreements (also referred to as Neighbourhood Agreements, particularly in mixed tenure areas and where there is more than one landlord) were first developed in 1990 by the London Borough of Camden as a means of improving consultation with tenants and strengthening the accountability of the Council. The essence of Estate Agreements or Contracts is to provide a vehicle for a formalised arrangement between residents and service providers over standards such as response times, although at least some Estate Agreements also require residents and tenants to agree to abide by certain standards. The Report of the Policy Action Team 8 on Anti-social Behaviour (SEU, 2000) recommended the use of Neighbourhood or Estate Agreements as a first stage in the prevention of anti-social behaviour and highlighted the example of Monsall Future Partnership in Manchester. This was a joint Estate Agreement which established a common set of standards and targets for the delivery of services to tenants of all the partner landlords. In return, tenants signed up to a Community Declaration, which included an agreement to behave in a neighbourly way. A study for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (Cole et al., 2000) identified seven local authorities and 12 Registered Social Landlords that had introduced some form of Estate Agreement. Four of these agreements were intended as extensions of the formal landlord-tenant contract, with the aims of explaining obligations in more detail and fostering a sense of ‘neighbourliness’. The researchers concluded that neighbourhood agreements were still in their relative infancy and there was little consistency over scope, aims and function. A study for the ODPM (Nixon et al, 2003), found that 23 per cent of landlords (21 per cent of LAs and 26 per cent of RSLs) reported that they were using some form of Neighbourhood Agreement but no specific details of these agreements are available. Reports on New Deal for Communities (NDC) Partnerships (Blandy et al, 2004; Renewal.net, undated) also suggest that some social landlords have developed tenancy agreements and other non-enforceable agreements that are specific to a particular neighbourhood. Their aim is to reinforce tenants’ identification with their local area and to set standards of behaviour. In some cases these agreements even dictate minimum levels of active participation in the community. However, none of the NDC Partnerships made use of Good Neighbour Agreements, nor were they aware of a specific tenancy agreement for a particular area. From the little that is known of Estate, Neighbourhood or Good Neighbour Agreements, they appear to take different forms, have different aims and be used in various ways. For example, the Joseph Rowntree Housing Trust has a Good Neighbour Charter. The Charter is a document that reinforces the tenancy agreement, clearly stating what it means to be a good neighbour but it does not require the tenant’s signature. In other cases, Good Neighbour Agreements or Good Neighbour Declarations set out what is and what is not acceptable to the residents of an area and can be used as a tool to reinforce the conditions of the tenancy agreement with new tenants. Such agreements can be initiated by any agency, for example the local authority, social landlords, residents’ associations and

4

Neighbourhood Watch Schemes. These agreements require the support of the community as a whole to abide by them and there are no legal sanctions if they are broken although there is evidence that they may be used in court as additional evidence of the measures used by the landlord to curb unacceptable behaviour. Good Neighbour Agreements can also be used in a similar way to Acceptable Behaviour Agreements (or contracts) to stop anti-social behaviour or prevent it from escalating.1 Thurrock Council, for example, defines a Good Neighbour Contract as ‘a means of reinforcing, in a positive way, a tenant's responsibilities for the behaviour of themselves, their family or anyone else either residing at, or visiting their property, without recourse to legal sanctions’2. Whilst the use of Good Neighbour Agreements and similar initiatives have been highlighted in reports (Scottish Executive, 2003a, 2003b) there is no robust research evidence of their effectiveness. A review of the available evidence about schemes in England suggests that there is some confusion about the nature and content of various agreements, some of which share the same name but apparently have different aims and objectives. Research has been conducted on reward schemes (Lupton et al, 2003), which reward tenants e.g., for paying their rent, and a recent study (Bastow et al, 2006) examines the role of individual incentives within strategies promoting civil renewal. However, very little is known about the use, extent and effectiveness of Good Neighbour Agreements and other schemes to promote positive behaviour in England, or how these link to related initiatives such as incentive schemes.

The research study The overall objective of the research was to establish the extent of the use of Good Neighbour Agreements and how they link to related initiatives such as tenancy agreements, incentive schemes and Good Neighbour Awards. The specific objectives were to:

Examine the different forms of agreement that are in place and how these agreements are promoted, and what behaviour is covered;

Establish the range of agencies and stakeholders involved and their role in promoting and developing Good Neighbour Agreements;

Establish the level of tenant and community involvement in developing Good Neighbour Agreements;

Establish the costs of setting up Good Neighbour Agreements;

Examine the ways Good Neighbour Agreements are used in multi-tenure environments;

Examine the ways tenants are encouraged to sign up to Good Neighbour Agreements;

1 Personal communication with Worthing Community Safety Partnership. 2 http://www.thurrock-community.org.uk/council/housing/tenants/content.php?page=anti_social

5

Examine the ways in which Good Neighbour Agreements are monitored and enforced;

Establish how effective Good Neighbour Agreements and related initiatives are in terms of take up, coverage, reduction of anti-social behaviour, and promotion of positive behaviour;

Establish how Good Neighbour Agreements are related to other measures aimed at tackling anti-social behaviour; and

Provide examples and/or suggestions of how agreements might be aligned with wider multi-agency efforts to tackle ASB through enforcement and support tools.

Stage 1: Electronic survey, supplemented by an interview based review The primary intention of the first stage was to establish the extent of the use of Good Neighbour Agreements and similar initiatives in England by undertaking an electronic survey (see Appendix 1) of social landlords and Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships in England. All local authority housing departments, ALMOs and larger RSLs3 and all English Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships (CDRPs) were included. Although the research focuses on the role of social landlords as neighbourhood managers the 339 CDRPs were included in the survey as it was thought the responsibility for developing and administrating Good Neighbour Agreements might lie with them in some areas. Respondents to the survey were asked to indicate their willingness to take part in a telephone interview. The survey was supported by an internet search to identify any existing high profile initiatives. A total of 221 landlord organisations responded to the survey including LAs, RSLs, ALMOs and one Tenancy Management Organisation.

Stage 2: Telephone interviews with key contacts The second stage of the research was intended to allow detailed exploration of the main topics through in-depth telephone interviews with social landlords. These topics included the range of behaviour covered by agreements, and how these were decided upon; how agreements are promoted within communities, what the response of tenants had been, and how landlords monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the agreements (the telephone interview topic guide is attached in Appendix 2). A sample of the 71 respondents to the survey who agreed to take part in the telephone interviews was purposively selected, following consultation with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Home Office, to allow coverage of different types of organisation; a range of locations (rural, urban, suburban, provincial, and different regions); different types of Good Neighbour Agreements; and organisations that were considering adopting a Good Neighbour Agreement or similar initiative or who had considered such a scheme and rejected the idea. A total of 20 in-depth interviews were conducted between March and the middle of April 2006.

3 In order to keep the survey manageable, only RSLs with more than 1000 units of stock in management were surveyed. RSLs with 1000 units or more manage 94% of Housing Association stock in England.

6

Stage 3: Four focus groups with key stake-holders The third key stage of the research was intended to allow an exploration of the expectations and effectiveness of Good Neighbour Agreements from the perspective of key players at national and regional level (the topic guides are contained in Appendix 2). One focus group was held with representatives from national organisations including the Chartered Institute of Housing, Citizens Advice Bureaux, National Housing Federation, Housing Corporation, Housing Inspectorate and the Tenant Participatory Advice Service. Two focus groups were held with landlord and agency representatives from the South East (4 people) and the North West (6 people). The fourth focus groups involved eight tenant representatives from a number of social landlords in Yorkshire4.

Analysis A database of initiatives based on the electronic survey was constructed using Microsoft Access, the data was then analysed using SPSS. The in-depth telephone interviews and focus group interviews were digitally recorded with the permission of participants. Interviews were then transcribed and coded and charted using a thematic grid.

Structure of the Report Chapter 2 presents the findings of the electronic survey and provides an overview of the use of Good Neighbour Agreements. Chapter 3 draws on the qualitative interviews with key stakeholders and presents findings on perceptions of anti-social behaviour and multi-agency responses to the problem before going on to examine variations in the nature, content and aims of Good Neighbour Agreements and similar schemes. Chapter 4 explores the motivations for setting up agreements and schemes to promote positive behaviour; the development, operation and evaluation of initiatives, and the perceived benefits and challenges of such schemes. Chapter 5 presents the conclusions and study recommendations.

4 The regional focus groups were made up of survey respondents who had indicated their willingness to participate in interviews. Tenant representatives were recruited with the help of local housing providers and tenant groups.

7

Chapter 2 An Overview of the Use of Good Neighbour Agreements or Positive Behaviour Schemes by Social Landlords

Introduction This chapter provides an overview of the use of Good Neighbour Agreements and similar initiatives aimed at promoting positive behaviour by social landlords. Drawing on the findings of the survey of social landlords the chapter presents findings on:

The characteristics of survey respondents, the type of landlord, size of the organisation and their regional location and the extent of anti-social behaviour in the region;

The extent and type of Good Neighbour Agreements and other schemes designed to promote positive behaviour used by different landlord organisations;

Motivations for adopting positive behaviour schemes and aims of the schemes;

Target groups and approaches to developing schemes; and

How good neighbour and positive behaviour schemes are used.

Survey Respondents As noted in Chapter 1, the main focus of the research is on the role of social landlords. However, as it was thought that responsibility for developing and administering Good Neighbour Agreements and similar initiatives might lie with Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships (CDRPs) all English CDRPs were also invited to participate in the survey. It was clear, however, that there was duplication between the responses of local authorities and the 18 CDRPs that responded as many CDRPs were local authority based. For this reason CDRPs were omitted from the final analysis as were the five non-stock holding local authorities (local authorities that had transferred all of their stock under the Large Scale Voluntary Transfer scheme) that responded to the survey. Taking these omissions into account, the survey yielded 221 responses, a response rate of 42 per cent. The following findings are based on the responses of the 221 social landlords including local authorities (LAs), arms length management organisations (ALMOs), registered social landlords (RSLs) and one tenancy management organisation (TMO).

8

Table 2.1 shows that the survey response rate among different types of landlord varied. RSLs accounted for 64 per cent of landlords surveyed but only accounted for 49 per cent of total responses (a response rate of 32 per cent). LAs made up 26 per cent of the sample frame but accounted for 36 per cent of responses (a response rate of 58 per cent). ALMOs made up just under a tenth of the sample but accounted for 14 per cent of responses (a response rate of 64 per cent).

Table 2.1: Survey responses by organisation type

Percentages have been rounded. *Tenant Management Organisations5 (TMOs) were not specifically included in the survey as they usually manage only a small proportion of a landlord organisation’s stock. This TMO is unusual as it manages almost 10,000 units on behalf of the local authority.

Characteristics of landlords Figure 2.1 presents a breakdown of survey respondents by size and type of organisation. Throughout the report landlords have been named as ‘small’ if the number of units of stock in management is less than 5000, ‘medium’ if between 5000 and 9999, ‘large’ if between 10000 and 14999, and ‘very large’ if they have over 15000 units of stock. It can be seen that the majority of RSL respondents (61 per cent) were small organisations with a housing stock of less than 5000 units6. The majority of LAs (71 per cent) that responded were small or medium sized (with fewer than 10,000 units) whilst ALMOs tended to be larger, with almost two-thirds (63 per cent) having over 10,000 units.

5 See http://www.nftmo.com/tmo.html 6 As noted in Chapter 1, in order to keep the survey manageable only RSLs holding more than 1,000 units were surveyed.

LA RSL ALMO TMO Total Total Number of Responses 80 108 32 1 221

% of all responses 36% 49% 15% 0.5% 100

% of sample 26% 64% 10% *

Response rate 58% 32% 64% NA 42%

9

Figure 2.1 Survey respondents by size and organisation type.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1-4999 5000-9999 10000-14999

15000+ Total

per

cent

of o

rani

satio

n ty

pe

LARSLALMOTMO

Number of respondents = 221

Use of anti-social behaviour tools In order to gain some insight into the wider approaches taken by landlords to tackle anti-social behaviour, respondents were asked about other measures they employed apart from good neighbour or positive behaviour schemes. They were specifically asked whether they used any of the following:

Acceptable Behaviour Contracts/Agreements (ABCs);

Anti-social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs);

Housing Act Injunctions7;

Demotion8;

Possession action;

Suspension of right to buy and

Section 222 Injunctions9.

7 The Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 introduced wider provisions allowing social landlords to apply for injunctions to prohibit anti-social behaviour that affects the management of their housing stock. 8 The effect of the Demotion Order depends on the type of tenancy which it replaces (i.e. the tenancy it demotes), which is dependent on the type of landlord and also, in some cases, the date on which the tenancy commenced. Broadly, demotion reduces the rights of tenants and their security of tenure (see Together website (http://www.together.gov.uk/home.asp)). 9 A Local Authority can use the authority of s.222 of the Local Government Act 1972 to bring injunction proceedings in the county court to prohibit a person from continuing to cause a public nuisance.

10

This list of possible measures is not exhaustive10 and clearly any enforcement activity reflects the specific circumstances of individual cases which could not be explored in a short survey. Further, a survey of this type cannot provide details about the frequency of use of different tools or the outcome of interventions and actions. For example it can not be shown whether the use of early interventions or warnings such as mediation or ABCs were successful in stopping problematic behaviour thus reducing the need for further measures including legal action. Nevertheless, the survey responses give an indication of the range of tools employed by social landlords. Figure 2.2 shows the anti-social behaviour tools used by type of organisation. It can be seen that ABCs are used by all ALMOs, 95 per cent of RSLs, and 94 per cent of LAs. Almost all ALMOs (97 per cent) and LAs (96 per cent) reported using ASBOs while less than three-quarters (72 per cent) of RSLs reported doing so. Housing Act Injunctions are used by all ALMOs and the vast majority of RSLs (83 per cent) and LAs (80 per cent). Most respondents also said they used possession orders with 95 per cent of RSLs, 95 per cent of LAs and 94 per cent of ALMOs reporting that they did so. Suspension of the right to buy is less widely used: half of the ALMOs, 40 per cent of LAs and less than a third (30 per cent) of RSLs reported using this tool. It should be noted that not all RSL tenants have the right to buy so this measure is not always appropriate for RSLs. The least used of the remedies, across all landlords, were Section 222 Orders although half of ALMOs and almost a third (31 per cent) of LAs reported using these orders, only just over a tenth (11 per cent) of RSLs did so.

10 For details regarding these and a range of other tools to overcome anti-social behaviour please see the Together website (http://www.together.gov.uk/home.asp).

11

Figure 2.2 Anti-social behaviour remedies used by organisation type

Number of respondents = 221

Figure 2.3 illustrates the use of the different anti-social behaviour tools by the size of the landlord organisation. It can be seen that larger landlords are more likely to use the range of anti-social behaviour tools. Although all landlords make use of ABCs, small organisations make rather less use of ASBOs. Less than three-quarters (73 per cent) of ‘small’ landlords (with less than 5,000 properties) using ASBOs compared with over 90 per cent of larger landlords (all those with 5,000 – 15,000 units). Housing Injunctions were used by nearly three quarters (74 per cent) of ‘small’ landlords and by almost all larger landlords with 10,000 – 15,000 or more units. Smaller landlords were also less likely to report using Demotion with only about half (49 per cent) doing so compared with over three-quarters (77 per cent of ‘very large’ landlords. There is little difference in the reported use of Possession but use of Suspension of Right to Buy is used more by ‘very large’ landlords (62 per cent) and least by ‘small’ landlords (24 per cent). The most marked difference is in the use of Section 222 Orders. Only 11 per cent of small landlords reported their use compared with 53 per cent of landlords with 15,000 units or more.

0102030405060708090

100

ABCs

ASBOs

Injun

ction

s

Demoti

on

Posse

ssion

Suspe

nd R

TB

Sec. 2

22 O

rders

Perc

enta

ge o

f org

anis

atio

ns

LA

RSLALMO

TMOTotal

12

Figure 2.3 Use of Anti-social behaviour tools by size of landlord organisation

Number of respondents =221.

Additional comments suggest that landlords make use of a range of pre-enforcement interventions involving victims, perpetrators and other agencies. Those most frequently mentioned by respondents included: parenting contracts; mediation, and extensive work prior to court orders including warning letters; multi-agency working; and voluntary undertakings in court. Other measures mentioned less frequently included: starter tenancies; crack house closures; dispersal orders; and Acceptable Behaviour Contracts (ABCs) for adults. Respondents were also asked whether they provided intensive support (early intervention or rehabilitation) for households who are at risk of homelessness because of anti-social behaviour. Of the 189 individuals who answered this question, 84 (44 per cent) said that they did so. There was little difference between the responses with regard to landlord types although ALMOs (48 per cent) and LAs (47 per cent) were more likely to provide intensive support than RSLs (42 per cent). Of those who offered support 80 per cent provided floating support while just seven per cent offered residential support.

The extent of Good Neighbour Agreements or schemes to promote positive behaviour Almost half of all respondents (49 per cent) reported that they operated one or more schemes to promote positive behaviour. 41 per cent had introduced some form of Good Neighbour Agreement while 17 per cent operated a rewards scheme. Nineteen landlords (9 per cent) operated both a Good Neighbour Agreement and a rewards scheme.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

ABCs

ASBOs

Injun

ction

s

Demoti

on

Posse

ssion

s

Suspe

nd R

TB

Sec. 2

22 O

rders

Perc

enta

ge o

f org

anis

atio

ns

0-49995000-999910000-1499915000+

13

As can be seen in figure 2.4 positive behaviour schemes are operated by all types of landlord with over half of RSLs (55 per cent) just under half of ALMOs (47 per cent) and just over two fifths (44 per cent) of LAs doing so.

Figure 2.4 Operation of Good Neighbour Agreement by type of organisation

Number of respondents with Good Neighbour Agreement or positive behaviour scheme =109

Figure 2.5 presents a break-down of organisations with some form of scheme to promote positive behaviour (including Good Neighbour Agreements and rewards schemes) by the size of their stock. It can be seen that larger landlords were more likely to have adopted such a scheme with 78 per cent of ‘large’ landlords (with 10,000 – 14,999 units of stock) and 65 per cent of ‘very large’ landlords (with more than 15,000 units), reporting that they operated a Good Neighbour Agreement. Thirty eight per cent of ‘small’ landlords (with less than 5,000 units) and 48 per cent of ‘medium’ landlords (with 5000 – 9999) units had such agreements in place. Respondents were also asked if they had considered developing any form of initiative to promote positive behaviour. Forty-three landlords (20 per cent of respondents) said they were actively considering adopting some form of Good Neighbour Agreement in the near future. These were split fairly evenly between LAs and RSLs, with a slightly smaller proportion of ALMOs reported that they were considering introducing schemes. A further nine landlords reported that they had considered implementing a scheme but had decided against it. Some respondents provided reasons for rejecting schemes explaining that they had been piloted but that landlord or tenant performance had not been enhanced by incentives or that the tenants had either rejected, or not engaged with, the scheme.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

LARSL

ALMO

TOTALPerc

enta

ge o

f org

anis

atio

n ty

pe

14

Figure 2.5 Landlords with positive behaviour agreements by size of stock

Number of respondents with Good Neighbour Agreement or positive behaviour scheme =109

Types of good neighbour or positive behaviour schemes used by landlords It was clear from the responses that there is no single model of a Good Neighbour Agreement and landlords employed a variety of schemes to promote positive behaviour. For the purposes of this report the generic term ‘Good Neighbour Agreement’ covers a range of interventions reported by respondents that aim to promote positive behaviour by requiring households to behave in an acceptable manner including (amongst others):

Good Neighbour Declarations;

Community Promises;

Tenants’ codes of conduct/charter;

Tenant or community declarations. Although the responses demonstrate that such schemes are being used by many landlords they reveal little about the content or operation of such agreements. Responses to open questions and comments made by some respondents suggest, as noted in Chapter 1, that the nature of these agreements may vary quite considerably even where schemes share the same name. Conversely schemes exist with different names but appear to operate in similar ways (this is explored further in Chapter 3). Nevertheless, many appeared to share a number of common aims and objectives. Although some schemes based upon rewards or incentives were used in conjunction with some specific code of conduct, charter or declaration, they have been excluded from the analysis that follows as the operation of the schemes was often quite distinct from the contract style of other Good Neighbour Agreements.

Figure 2.6: Landlords with positive behaviour agreements by size of stock

0

20

4060

80

1000-4

999

5000

-9999

1000

0-1499

9

1500

0+

Per

cent

age

of o

rgan

isat

ions

15

Why adopt Good Neighbour Agreements? Respondents were asked to indicate the key motivations for introducing such schemes, and specifically whether the following were factors:

Management issues e.g. voids, rent arrears and turnover;

Anti-social behaviour;

Community cohesion and/or neighbourhood management issues;

Protecting investment or regeneration and sustainability;

Retaining customers or marketing;

Organisational change; Not all of the 91 respondents who reported operating such schemes answered this question but among the 64 who did, the most frequently reported reasons for doing so were to address issues relating to anti-social behaviour (90 per cent of responses) followed by wider community cohesion (75 per cent). As can be seen in Figure 2.6 management issues and sustaining investment in an estate were the next most important motivations.

Figure 2.6 Motivations for operating Good Neighbour Agreements

Number of respondents with Good Neighbour Agreements who responded to question = 64

Figure 2.7 presents the reasons given for introducing Good Neighbour Agreements by different types of landlord. For local authorities and ALMOs, anti-social behaviour was the prime reason for adopting schemes, with all 19 local authorities and all six ALMOs who responded to this question giving this as a reason. Interestingly, community cohesion was an equally important factor for RSLs with 32 (82 per cent of those responding to the question) reporting community cohesion and anti-social behaviour as motivations for introducing a scheme. Half the ALMOs (3) and over two thirds of local authorities (13) cited community cohesion. Sustaining investment in an area was a motivation for just under half of the RSLs (17), a third of the ALMOs (2) and just under a third of local authorities (6). Pressure from

0

20

40

60

80

100

Man

agem

ent

ASB

Coh

esio

n

Sust

aina

bility

Mar

ket

Org

.cha

nge

Tena

nts

Per c

ent

% of thosewith GNA

16

tenants was reported as a motivation by less than half the LAs (8), a third of ALMOs (2) and under a fifth of RSLs (6). However, management issues were more prevalent amongst RSLs with over two thirds (25) citing this as a motivation compared with just under half of local authorities (9). Only a very small number of LAs and RSLs cited organisational change as a factor and none of the six ALMOs gave this reason.

Figure 2.7 Motivations for adopting Good Neighbour Agreement by organisation type

Number of respondents with Good Neighbour Agreements who responded to question = 64

Who are Good Neighbour Agreements aimed at? Out of the 91 landlords who reported having Good Neighbour Agreements 62 responded to the question about target groups. Figure 2.8 that half of the landlords said the scheme was aimed at their own tenants on single estates only. Local authorities (47 per cent) and ALMOs (50 per cent) were more likely to report that their Good Neighbour Agreements were aimed at all the landlord’s tenants across the whole of a landlord’s stock, compared to 31 per cent of RSLs. Over a third of schemes (39 per cent) were aimed at all residents on a single estate or in a neighbourhood (usually tenants and those of other social landlords). Only ten schemes (16 per cent) included homeowners or leaseholders. Very few respondents (6) reported having schemes that included private tenants on estates or in neighbourhoods.

0102030405060708090

100

Mangem

ent

ASB

Cohes

ion

Sustai

n

Market

Org ch

ange

Tenan

ts

per c

ent LA

RSL

ALMO

Total

17

Figure 2.8 Who Good Neighbour Agreements are aimed at

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

All ten

ants

Tenan

ts es

tate o

nly

All soc

ial hou

sing t

enants

All res

idents

estat

e

Homeo

wners

Private

tena

nts

per c

ent

Proportion oforganisations

Number of respondents with Good Neighbour Agreements who responded to question = 62

Development of schemes Landlords were asked how the scheme was agreed and whether, for example, other agencies, tenants or the wider community were involved. Respondents were able to choose more than one answer as the development of the scheme may have involved different stages. Out of the 91 landlords with good neighbour schemes 56 responded to this question. As the final column of figure 2.9 shows, almost 43 per cent of landlords reported that they consulted tenant representatives regarding the form the agreements or schemes took, with a further 43 per cent reporting that all tenants were consulted. Around a third of landlords (30 per cent) involved other agencies and 41 per cent engaged in extensive community participation in developing the schemes.

Figure 2.9 Landlords’ approach to developing Good Neighbour Agreements

Number of respondents with Good Neighbour Agreements who responded to question = 56

05

101520253035404550

Communityparticipation

Involve agencies Tenant WideConsultation

Consult tenantRep.s

perc

ent

18

Figure 2.10 shows that half the local authorities (7) answering this question reported that they consulted tenant representatives compared to just over a third (14) of RSLs. However, local authorities were more likely to engage in community participation to develop their agreements with over two thirds (9) reporting that they had undertaken extensive community work compared with only six local authorities. Although these are small numbers it appears that ALMOs and local authorities were more likely to report working with other agencies in drawing up agreements or schemes than RSLs.

Figure 2.10 How Good Neighbour Agreements are developed by organisation type

Number of respondents with Good Neighbour Agreements who responded to question = 56

How are Good Neighbour Agreements used? Landlords were asked how their good neighbour or positive behaviour scheme is used. Specifically they were asked whether the scheme/s were used:

To reinforce the landlord’s tenancy agreement;

To reinforce the community’s own values;

As part of an estate agreement (between the community and providers) and/or

To provide incentives for positive behaviour.

Figure 2.11 shows that Good Neighbour Agreements are used primarily to reinforce the tenancy agreement, 51 of 63 respondents (81 per cent) cited this as one of the main uses of their scheme. Encouraging a sense of ‘self policing’ on behalf of tenants to reinforce the communities’ own values was cited by more than half the RSLs (21) and a little over two-fifths of local authorities(8). All six ALMOs said this was an aim. ALMOs and local authorities also reported that their schemes provided incentives for positive behaviour, with a third of these organisation types saying that Good Neighbour Agreements are used in this way. RSLs were more likely to report that they used Good Neighbour Agreements as part of

0102030405060708090

Com

mun

itypa

rtici

patio

n

Oth

er a

genc

ies

Tena

nt W

ide

Con

sulta

tion

Tena

ntR

epre

sent

ativ

esC

onsu

ltatio

n

per c

ent

LA

RSL

ALMO

Total

19

estate agreements, with over half citing this as a primary use of Good Neighbour Agreements, compared to seven (39 per cent) of local authorities and only one ALMO. Respondents were also asked whether non-participation in the scheme acted as a trigger for other interventions e.g. support or management intervention. Very few respondents said that a tenant’s unwillingness to sign a good neighbour style agreement would trigger support interventions, but this is discussed further in Chapter Four.

Figure 2.11 Approaches to developing Good Neighbour Agreements by organisation type

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Rei

nfor

cete

nanc

y

Self

polic

ing

Esta

teag

reem

ent

Ince

ntiv

es

Non

par

t

per c

ent

LA

RSL

ALMO

Total

Number of respondents with Good Neighbour Agreements who responded to question = 63

Conclusion The survey results provide a broad picture of the use of a range of schemes to promote positive behaviour by social landlords of various size and type across England. Larger organisations were more likely than smaller organisations to be using such agreements but the survey showed that almost half of all respondents were using some form of agreement and nearly a fifth were considering developing such a scheme. Only a very small number of landlord respondents had rejected such schemes. The motivations behind the introduction of positive behaviour schemes varied between different landlord types and by the size of the organisation but overall issues of anti-social behaviour and community cohesion were the most important drivers and most schemes are used to reinforce the tenancy agreement and/or to reinforce community values. Although most schemes were aimed at the landlord’s own tenants there is evidence that landlords are working to involve residents across tenure types including, although to a lesser degree, private residents. These issues are examined in more detail in the following chapters which present the findings of the in-depth telephone interviews and focus groups.

20

21

Chapter 3 A Profile of Good Neighbour Agreements or Positive Behaviour Schemes

This chapter draws on the focus groups with regional practitioners in the North West and South East of England and tenant groups in Yorkshire, and the interviews with housing practitioners across England. The Chapter presents findings on:

Landlord and tenant perceptions of antisocial behaviour;

The multi-agency working arrangements to tackle anti-social behaviour and nuisance in their areas;

The variations in content of agreements and rewards schemes and the groups targeted by such agreements; and

The differences in types of agreement, illustrated by examples of various agreements.

Landlord perspectives of anti-social behaviour To provide the context for our examination of different types of agreement, participants in the practitioner focus groups and interviews were asked to describe the nature and extent of anti-social behaviour in their areas. A wide range of behaviours were reported, all of which could broadly be described as anti-social, however participants emphasised that the majority of incidents were relatively minor. Nevertheless, many participants reported serious crimes and other forms of high level or “hard end” anti-social behaviour including drug dealing, prostitution and the operation of crack houses. These more serious problems were consistently attributed to small number of residents or tenants in the neighbourhood who were usually known to a range of agencies. The influence of these behaviours on the local area and residents could be profound. One London landlord described the impact of serious anti-social behaviour and criminal activity on the residents of one estate. Residents had become fearful of one another and had left control of the estate to those engaged in crime and disorder. Other serious incidents and problems reported by participants were racist attacks and incidents. These types of incidents were perceived to have increased as a consequence of recent high profile national and local events, for example, a small number of respondents specifically mentioned an increase in race hate crimes following the London bombings in July 2005, and racist murders in their area.

22

As noted above, almost all landlord respondents reported that the most common incidents were low-level anti-social behaviour, and that this type of behaviour generated the majority of complaints from tenants. Examples of these lower-level problems included: noise nuisance; graffiti; vandalism and damage to common area and property (wheelie bins were often reported as targets for vandalism including arson); environmental issues, such as dog fouling, littering, dumping rubbish and fly-tipping, unkempt gardens, abandoned cars; and verbal abuse. Participants acknowledged that even low-level environmental and neighbour nuisance can have a corrosive affect on communities. They also noted that at times relatively minor problems between neighbours could quickly escalate into more serious disputes. Some respondents also believed that low-level nuisance behaviour can underpin serious crime and lead to a spiral of decline because they promote a negative image of an area and convey the message that neither residents nor landlords care. The behaviours of young people were consistently reported to be the main source of complaints. Behaviours such as riding mini-motorbikes, alcohol and drug use, and children and young people generally hanging around or playing football in the street were the most common reasons for complaints. Although many of the problems associated with young people were perceived by participants to be relatively low level (see below), it was acknowledged that more serious anti-social behaviour was difficult to address. Tenancy agreements make clear that it is the responsibility of parents to control the behaviour of their children but this was not always easy to enforce. One registered social landlord (RSL) representative in the North West explained a typical response from parents:

What are you going to do? There’s nothing I can do with him [son], doesn’t listen to me, grounded him and he climbs out of the window.

(RSL Worker, North West) Clearly the behaviour of young people was of particular concern to landlords who felt a range of different responses were required, often involving a multi-agency approach and more innovative solutions that offered activities and diversions rather than simply punitive actions. There was some pessimism among landlords who felt that, however successful interventions with young people were, there would always be a new cohort presenting similar problems. Several participants of the focus group noted that diversionary activities were sometimes only available to young people who were subject to ABCs or ASBOs and that there was a need for a wider range of diversionary activities aimed at all young people. Respondents also felt that many complaints about young people’s behaviour were sometimes indicative of a more general degree of intolerance among tenants and residents. As noted above, respondents recognised there were young people with challenging behaviours, but felt that the majority of children and young people simply needed somewhere to go and something to do, and that local residents should be more tolerant. For example, many respondents said they frequently received complaints about children or young people where no breaches of tenancy or anti-social behaviour had occurred. It

23

seemed that the young people’s presence in the locality alone was enough to warrant a complaint to the landlord.

On the diary sheet we’ll have “three youths with a hood walked past my house, didn’t actually do anything”.

(RSL Worker, South East)

Even though there are problem kids, intolerance is the other side of the coin. (RSL Worker, North West) All respondents reported that anti-social behaviour was a high priority for tenants and residents. Some landlords reported findings from their own research which found that, after improvements to their homes, anti-social behaviour was the next most important priority for tenants. It was consistently reported that there were increasing numbers of complaints about anti-social behaviour. It was felt that increasing concerns and reporting of anti-social behaviour were due to a great extent to the media attention given to the issue that was felt to overplay or ‘hype-up ’ the extent and nature of the problem. Residents and tenants were also more aware of the enforcement measures available to landlords, and this had resulted in increased and sometimes unrealistic expectations about the types of behaviour landlords could and should deal with.

The smell of food, they want to evict their neighbour. (Council Worker, London) In contrast to this perception of intolerance, however, one participant from the North East pointed out that tolerance of problem behaviour was also an issue. This respondent reported that people living in areas with the highest levels of anti-social behaviour were the most tolerant as poor behaviour has to a degree been normalised. Nevertheless, the local authorities believed that such behaviour should not be accepted.

You tend to find that in areas where there are more serious problems, residents are more tolerant...but that doesn’t mean that we have to accept it, we work very hard to try and reduce it.

(Community Safety Manager, North East). Respondents also raised the issue of dealing with anti-social behaviour in multi-tenure areas. Although there were examples of anti-social behaviour teams located outside the housing organisations that operated across different tenures, it seemed housing practitioners were often the first port of call for anyone reporting local nuisance or anti-social behaviour and that they had a responsibility to act. Some respondents explained that covenants could be used to enforce standards of behaviour amongst former tenants who had bought their homes under Right to Buy, but generally it was far more difficult to deal with private tenants, owner occupiers and tenants of other social landlords.

24

If you have a group of 30 youths, and you say, right you lot come over here you’re council tenants, and the rest of you on yer bike – it doesn’t work like that.

(Council Worker, South East) Overall, serious criminal and anti-social behaviour was a problem in most areas and was seen to have a stigmatising and detrimental effect on estates and neighbourhoods as well as on individuals. Nevertheless, most landlord and agency representatives reported that the bulk of their casework was taken up with many less serious low-level problems. There was clearly a desire among respondents for people to be more tolerant of their neighbours, particularly children and young people, and for tenants to recognise what types of behaviour it was reasonable for the landlord to deal with. However, it was also acknowledged that some lower level problems remained a high priority for tenants because of the adverse impact on their lives and their environment.

Tenants’ perspectives of anti-social behaviour This section draws upon material from the focus group of tenants held in Wakefield. Participants came from across the region but were mainly from West and South Yorkshire. Anti-social behaviour was clearly a high priority for these participants. In particular there were several issues that concerned them including: drug-related nuisance and crime; environmental nuisance; and youth nuisance. The tenants described drug related problems in their area, in particular, drug paraphernalia in public areas, petty theft associated with drug use, and the problem of dealers getting young people involved in drug use and crime. The group expressed their frustration with those local residents who were perceived to contribute to the problem by buying stolen goods and providing incentives for drug-related petty theft. Tenants were also concerned about environmental problems including the dumping of rubbish, litter, dog fouling and abandoned cars. Tenants also remarked that it was not only social landlord tenants or their children who were responsible.

The problem we’re having with anti-social behaviour is from teenagers that don’t live on the estate, that come from private landlords further down the road or further up the road…Last week we had five incidents on that estate, only small, only a couple of hundred flats: an attempted ram raid of the Post Office, an old lady that were robbed, a case of kids from down the road breaking new fencing that’d only been up a week, a fella breaking into a car at back of shops, and it all goes on and on.

(RSL tenant, Bradford) The tenants, who were mostly older people, reflected on the causes of anti-social behaviour. Although they considered housing managers and other agencies were partly to blame for not having used the enforcement tools available to them over the years, they also felt that there were wider issues reflecting a more general malaise in society. They commented on liberal

25

parenting and a lack of parental control, but they also felt there was a shared community responsibility for what they saw as a decline in standards. A small number of tenants had become involved in the tenant movement as a result of their direct experiences of anti-social behaviour and nuisance and their wish to influence and shape landlords’ responses in the future.

I had a very personal experience with neighbours who moved into flats below me, and from the moment they moved in to the moment they were evicted three months later they made my life hell. I was in tears every day. I was crying my eyes out and saying I can’t cope with this. I was losing sleep; ended up on anti-depressants, sleeping tablets; my life was made a misery through them.

(RSL Tenant, Huddersfield).

They tried to set my house on fire, three cars damaged, the council wanted to move me, that’s where I got involved in things I do, because I stood up to them.

(ALMO Tenant, South Yorkshire) The first tenant had received prompt practical and emotional support from her landlord and local authority Anti-Social Behaviour Unit, but other tenants who had similar experiences in the past described their landlords’ responses as being less helpful. Tenants acknowledged and appreciated the steps taken in recent years to develop multi-agency approaches to tackling anti-social behaviour, but still described serious problems that needed to be addressed. As noted above, while tenants believed landlords and other agencies had a role in tackling anti-social behaviour and should use the enforcement tools available, they also believed that tenants, residents and the wider community had a responsibility and a role to play.

Don’t you think it’s so easy with anti-social behaviour to criticise the council, to criticise the police, why aren’t they doing it? Get off our backsides, more police on the street .It [anti-social behaviour] shouldn’t happen, we can police our own communities, if we’re allowed to, that’s the way to stop it, the people on the estates or wherever they live, there’s nothing stronger than community itself.

(ALMO Tenant, South Yorkshire).

Multi-agency partnerships to address anti-social behaviour Many participants reported effective working relationships between landlords and other agencies to facilitate the development of strategies and initiatives to address anti-social behaviour. Agencies included the police, fire brigade, local authority Anti-Social Behaviour Teams or Units, youth teams and social services. However the level and extent of involvement in multi-agency partnerships working varied. Local authorities, stock transfer

26

RSLs and arms length management organisations (ALMOs) reported more effective multi-agency relationships than those RSLs whose stock crossed several local authority and police area boundaries. Registered social landlords with stock located in different areas found it difficult to engage with a number of different, more locally focused, partnership arrangements or data sharing procedures. The costs of buying into partnership services (such as witness support, or mediation services) could be prohibitive especially when stock in a local authority area was small. However, one local authority participant observed that some RSLs left all the anti-social behaviour initiatives to local authorities, and felt it should be compulsory for all RSLs to join local initiatives. RSLs who had experienced difficulties engaging in partnership work in some areas felt that successes were often based on the personal relationships and the rapport built up by individuals with staff in other agencies such as the police or local authority. It was noted that staff spent a great deal of time and energy on mediating completely different sets of organisations and procedures, and some complaints remained about data sharing arrangements and the lack of any dedicated police staff with whom to liaise. Some RSLs (as noted above, most usually stock transfer RSLs) and ALMOs were well integrated with local authority anti-social behaviour units or working groups and were funding police officers and police patrol cars. Some had seconded police officers working directly and exclusively with their housing workers. Many respondents, especially those from local authorities, reported having close ties with all services and held regular multi-agency case conferencing in order to progress action against anti-social behaviour. There were however, concerns about the involvement of some agencies, in particular social services. One RSL representative explained that social services had been written out of the local partnership agreements after repeated non-attendance. Some tenants were encouraged by the way different agencies in their areas were now working together. They felt that although they lacked formal representation on some partnerships, that there was more willingness to engage with the tenants’ and residents’ groups. Some of the local authority and ALMO tenants reported strong and active tenant and resident groups whereas tenants from smaller RSLs reported their tenant associations were new. The tenants agreed that all agencies had to work together to combat anti-social behaviour, and would have welcomed more tenant and resident involvement in partnerships, although the difficulty of getting tenants and residents involved in various meetings and forums was noted. Many tenant groups had access to named officers of different agencies to contact should problems arise. There was a feeling that many of these arrangements were in their infancy, but that it was recognised that there were new ways of working that would develop and provide benefits over time. Tenants groups were seen to have a role in maintaining this momentum for change.

27

Luckily we’ve got structures in place, but it’s only come about because of pressure from communities.

(ALMO Tenant, South Yorkshire)

Good Neighbour Agreements and positive behaviour schemes Responses to the survey (reported in Chapter 2) showed that around half of landlords used some form of Good Neighbour Agreement11 or scheme to promote positive behaviour (such as rewards and incentive schemes) in addition to the enforcement tools available to combat anti-social behaviour. The focus groups and interviews were intended to allow greater exploration of the content and application of different agreements and positive behaviour schemes. Clearly in practice a wide range of agreements are in place. They are called by a variety of different names, and collectively cover an assortment of behaviours. Some are highly prescriptive, and others more statements of expectations of tenant or resident behaviour. The scope of agreements can range from particular individuals or small groups of individuals to the population of whole cities. Examples of different types of agreement are provided below in Figures 3.2 to 3.10.

Name of Good Neighbour Agreement As noted above, respondents used a variety of different names for their schemes for example: ’Tenants’ Charter’, ‘Good Neighbour Declaration’ and ‘Tenants’ Code of Conduct’ as well as ‘Good Neighbour Agreement’. It was also clear that these schemes operated differently, for example, some were targeted at very specific groups while others were aimed at all tenants and residents in a neighbourhood. However these initiatives generally shared a similar intent and addressed broadly similar types of behaviours. It was clear from the discussion that most of our respondents saw these agreements – whatever they were called – as measures that might prevent low level anti-social behaviour by: setting standards; clarifying what was and what was not acceptable behaviour; and highlighting the consequences of unacceptable behaviour. Thus despite the variety of terminology, most respondents had a shared understanding of what the various agreements were attempting to achieve. Examples of different schemes and their operation are presented in the next section of this chapter.

Who are agreements aimed at? Although agreements were generally seen to have a preventative role, they were targeted at a wide range of different groups. Some agreements were aimed at particular age groups whilst others covered residents of all ages. Agreements could cover the behaviour of just one or a few individuals or all the residents of particular streets or estates, regardless of tenure. Others were intended to cover the tenants of a particular landlord, sometimes just in one estate, and sometimes as a stock-wide agreement. One agreement is currently being

11 For the purpose of clarity, the generic term Good Neighbour Agreement is used here except when reference is made to specific interventions such as rewards and/or incentive schemes.

28

developed to cover the population of a whole city. Figure 3.1 broadly illustrates this spectrum of ‘target populations’. It should be noted however, that it is in the targeting of agreements that there is the greatest diversity in practice. Thus the Figure outlines the range of groups covered by agreements, but does not completely capture all the variations that were reported. Note also that agreements reported were spread across different population groups, and in some areas, more than one type of agreement was in place.

Figure 3.1 Range of target populations of good neighbour or positive behaviour schemes.

Individual tenants

Groups of tenants

Children & young people

Tenants on estate

(single landlord)

Tenants with

different social

landlords

All tenants of

single landlord’s

stock

Cross tenure – street/

estate or neighbour

-hoods

Whole city

Those agreements that were aimed at individual tenants used a variety of names, and appeared to be a hybrid of Acceptable Behaviour Contracts. Many landlords reported ABCs for young people were effective, and had produced similar style agreements for individual adults. Other landlords had negotiated or mediated contracts between small groups of neighbours who were in dispute. Sometimes similarly mediated agreements (called Mediated Community Agreements) were put in place in particular streets to target very specific and localised problems. As noted above, the activities of young people generated a large proportion of complaints about anti-social behaviour. The interviews and focus groups provided a small number of examples of agreements that were specifically intended to promote good behaviour amongst older children and young people (see example in Figure 3.2 below). Agreements aimed at children exclusively were based upon rewards or incentives, with outings and sports activities given in return for the children’s own community or neighbourhood involvement12. In some cases young people were required to sign these agreements. Agreements aimed at tenants on particular estates were often put in place to address specific problems, or were put in place following refurbishment of properties and/or improvements to the area. In the latter case, the intention of the agreement was to ensure the maintenance of the estate improvements by highlighting expectations of behaviour, and creating a new start, or vision for the estate (see Chapter 4). Often it was intended to extend the prototype agreement across the whole of an individual landlord’s stock, thus estate-focused agreements were often pilot projects. Agreements covering all a landlord’s tenants were also being put into place by local authority and stock transfer RSLs. Often these agreements were being targeted in the first instance on new tenants.

12 Many respondents mentioned activities and schemes for children as part of their overall ASB strategy but these were not always formalised in agreements.

29

There were also examples of cross-tenure agreements involving tenants of more than one social landlord, tenants in the private rented sector, leaseholder and homeowners. These were relatively rare. One example covered a mixed tenure estate, and another covered a single street; both were operated in the same local authority area, and were council-led (rather than landlord-led) initiatives.

Status of agreements Many participants reported that agreements require a signature from the tenants, yet they were ostensibly voluntary agreements, with no legal status. It was commonly reported that new tenants would attract further investigation if they refused to sign. One landlord suggested that signing an agreement was seen as a requirement for new tenants. Some landlords used the signing of the agreement as a symbolic act of commitment by tenants to being a good neighbour. In some cases, tenants’ representatives signed agreements on behalf of all residents in a particular estate. It was often an ambition to have all existing tenants sign up to the agreement, but this was seen to require a huge amount of staff time, particularly where large estates/neighbourhoods were involved. Instead, many landlords chose to sign up new tenants, in this way they hoped eventually to involve all tenants. Some schemes that were primarily about rewards and incentives did not require the tenants to sign up, but others required a supplementary Tenant Charter to be signed.

Content of agreements The content of these various forms of agreement also differed. Content is clearly related to the number of people the agreement is intended to cover. Agreements covering large numbers of people – for example stock-wide agreements - were often more generic, whilst agreements covering small numbers of people were usually more specific. The content also varied depending on the aims of the agreement. Although there appeared to be a shared understanding of an over- arching aim of prevention, some agreements were much less prescriptive than others, simply setting out principles of neighbourliness and community living.

This is no more than what would be expected of normal behaviour from anybody

(RSL Worker, Midlands) Other agreements contained more prescriptive clauses that echoed terms found in tenancy agreements and emphasised the potential consequences of breaching the agreement. A number of landlords have chosen to include clauses relating to criminal activity, (for example, drug dealing and drug use, crime, violence and prostitution) in their agreements. One authority in the South East has a Tenants’ Code of Conduct that is read out to tenants when they sign up for a property, and is then signed by the tenant. This authority stressed:

The idea – if done correctly –is to set out our standards right at the beginning…if you come down to speak to someone who’s been in a property two or three years, even longer, then their pattern of behaviour is quite

30

established. What we’re saying, we own the housing, this is our housing, these are our estates, if you want to live in our housing, this is what you agree to do.

(ASB Officer, South East) Other agreements address low-level nuisance or environmental concerns as landlords felt the tenancy agreement addressed crime and serious anti-social behaviour. Some agreements, however, attempt to promote community values and community concerns. The importance of community ownership of the agreement was stressed by a number of respondents, one participant explained:

We’ve got these set of principles by which people should abide by if they live on the estate. You try and give the representatives and tenants themselves the responsibility of choosing those principles, so they have ownership of scheme so rather than just give it to them. The way we looked at it was that we already had the tenancy agreement, sort of landlord/tenant contract thing, this was more to try and break down the barriers between tenants and get them thinking along the same lines and respecting each other’s points of view. (ASB Officer, London)

Examples of agreements In Figures 3.2 to 3.10 a number of examples of various types of agreement are presented, including agreements described as charters, declarations, pledges and incentive schemes. They are intended to demonstrate the considerable variations in content across different agreements, and provide examples of agreements used for different groups of tenants and residents. It is worth noting that as yet their effectiveness has not been evaluated (effectiveness is more fully addressed in Chapter 4). Examples of agreements aimed at individuals and/ or small groups of tenants have not been included as they are highly specific to individuals, and thus do not have a wider application.

Example of an incentive scheme for young people Fig.3.2 gives details about an incentive scheme for young people. Similar schemes have been established in different places around the UK, and all are based upon experience from a scheme in Sheffield. National organisers guide and support local projects, and local workers and young people are then able to link into a national network. The RSL setting up the scheme already operated a rewards and incentive scheme for tenants, but this was designed to encourage adults to adhere to the tenancy agreement. As the RSL had no contractual relationship with the tenants’ children, they sought ideas that would be of direct appeal to the young people on their estates.

31

Figure 3.2 Example of incentive scheme for young people

An incentive scheme aimed at young people Aims

Maintain high expectations of young people Recognise positive potential in all individuals Recognise diversity in ability Encourage affirmation of individuals and hope for communities Maintain commitment and maximum impact and minimum resources Work with small groups and simple ideas.

Content To assist housing associations, local authorities and other community groups like faith communities to work with children to overcome unmet needs in their life by providing incentives to improve life skills and a sense of serving the community. Schemes vary throughout the Network but are based upon young people between ages 11-18 earning points by performing work in the community such as gardening projects. These points can be exchanged for trips out by the young people involved. Contact: Kate King, Dreamscheme, K.King@can-online.org

Example of an estate based agreement used following regeneration Fig. 3.3 is an example of an agreement, in this case described as a ‘Community Promise’, which an RSL in the Midlands has used to secure the commitment of residents to a new vision for the estate and area. As noted above, estate based agreements were often introduced following major regeneration or refurbishment schemes, or were part of the re-modelling of neighbourhoods as part of the New Deal for Communities programme. The content of this agreement reflects the desire to foster good neighbour relations for the future. It was introduced alongside a local lettings policy. Although the agreement is voluntary, it is expected that all tenants will be invited to sign the agreement when returning to or joining the estate.

Figure 3.3 Example of an estate based agreement used following regeneration

Community Promise Estate based agreement Aim To foster community cohesion and neighbourliness on estate subject to neighbourhood renewal. Content ‘The Community Promise is designed to help make sure that all residents are committed to making the apartments safe, secure and happy place in which to live. We all have our own ideas of what a perfect neighbourhood would be like and this promise is intended to help ensure these are realised and that residents can live in a stable community. If we all treat each other with respect we can achieve that. As a member of the [estate] community, my promise is to make sure that my family, my visitors and I will do our bit to help create the stable community and pleasant environment that all residents are signing up to. With this commitment from everyone we can then all live securely and peacefully in our homes free from criminal activity, harassment and un-neighbourly behaviour. I will be a good neighbour and treat my fellow residents with respect and courtesy at all times. I want to be proud of my home and neighbourhood and in signing this document commit to playing my part in the success and future of [estate] and all who live there. (signed by all in household members over age 14) Contact: Nick Sedgwick, Leicester HA,Nick.Sedgwick@lha_asra.org.uk

32

Example of an estate based agreement used to ‘reclaim’ an estate Figure 3.4 presents an example of an agreement designed to encourage communication between neighbours who often do not know each other or are distrustful of one another. It has been used on two estates in London. On one estate the local authority landlord took action against the main perpetrators of serious anti-social behaviour (in partnership with local police) and sought to give confidence back to the majority of the estate’s residents. The content is similar in tone to Fig 3.3 but has more detail and addresses specific local concerns requested by residents following consultation. A certificate and sticker are given to tenants who join. The agreement is voluntary. It is intended to promote a cohesive atmosphere amongst the tenants and residents on the estate rather than echo or reinforce the tenancy agreement.

Figure 3.4 Example of an estate based agreement used to ‘reclaim’ an estate Good Neighbour Declaration Estate-based Good Neighbour Agreement Aims “Being a good neighbour- your right to a quiet life. [Estate] is a good place to live, but the actions of a selfish minority can often spoil life for everyone. We will make a united stand against anyone who does not respect their neighbours, their environment, their homes or the law. This community will succeed if we all work together”

Content The declaration follows a section on landlords’ and tenants’ responsibilities. I will use reasonable language with my neighbours, other residents and visitors. I will not engage in behaviour that disturbs or offends my neighbours or other residents. I will make sure that my visitors do not damage the property of other residents or areas of this estate. I will not play loud music late at night, or at other times to the annoyance of my neighbours or other residents.

Crime in the community I will watch out for other people’s property and keep a look out generally to help make this estate a safe place to live. I will report all incidents of vandalism and graffiti that I see to the relevant people. I will ensure that security doors and gates are kept shut at all times.

Children, elderly and vulnerable in the community Children shall show respect and be shown respect If I see any child being bullied or abused I will not ignore it. I will ensure that my activities do not cause problems for others including children. I will look out for elderly and vulnerable neighbours and if I am concerned, I will contact the appropriate authorities.

Helping the community I will get along with my neighbours. I will keep the welfare of everyone on the estate in mind. I recognise that our housing staff and the police cannot do anything about problems that they do not know about. I will report issues of crime and anti-social behaviour that I have or I see to the relevant people. I want the best for [estate] in terms of being a good place to live for people of all ages. I will do as much as I am able to help initiatives taken on behalf of [estate] to be successful.

Looking after the environment I will not leave my rubbish anywhere other than in the bins provided. I will make sure that my rubbish is properly bagged and put in the refuse chambers. I will make sure that my balcony is clean, tidy and free from household clutter. I will make sure that my door and windows are also kept clean so that visitors to our estate can see that we care about where we live. I will not, or let any of my visitors, act in anyway that would harm the environment of our estate. I will follow the regulations on parking, as it is to the benefit of all residents and visitors to our estate. I will keep my dog under control at all times. I will clean up after my dog. I will not let my dog bark to the annoyance of other residents. I will respect works done by residents in the green and planted area. I agree with these standards and will abide by them. (Signed by any member of the household. Tenants are then provided with sticker and certificate). Contact Anthony Millinship, Lambeth Housing (amillinship@lambeth.gov.uk)

33

Example of an estate based agreement between residents (including young people)

Figure 3.5 below presents an example of an estate based agreement that was designed to address the behaviour of different groups who lived on estates by targeting adults with and without children and young people themselves. It is simple and includes both specific rules and aspirations.

Figure 3.5 Example of estate based agreement aimed at various members of households

Estate based good neighbour agreement Aim This is an agreement between residents, including young people, in Foxhills Road that they should keep to the following rules of behaviour and conduct. In signing this agreement, there is no implication or admission that any individual has committed any of these actions. Adults without children Respect young people. Not to swear or use any form of verbal abuse to other residents, especially young people. Be tolerant and understanding about children’s need to play near home. Not to complain unnecessarily about young peoples activities. Ensure that visitors and relatives conduct themselves in accordance with this AGREEMENT. Parents Respect other residents. Not to swear or use any form of verbal abuse in the street against other residents. Be tolerant and understanding of other residents’ need for periods of peace and quiet. Not to encourage young people to harass or intimidate other residents. Possibly look at providing soft balls for children to play in the street. To establish whether parents can organise to take groups of children to nearby open spaces to play. Young people Respect older residents. Not to swear or use any form of verbal abuse towards other residents. Be tolerant and understanding of other residents’ need for peace and quiet. Not to enter adults’ gardens without politely asking permission. Use soft balls in the street. Not to damage cars, hedges, fences etc. I…………..… agree that from………… I will keep to the above code of conduct Contact: owen.mcmillan@dudley.gov.uk Example of stock-wide agreement intended to reinforce the tenancy agreement Figure 3.6 is an example of an agreement intended to reinforce the tenancy agreement. Agreements of this type often echoed the formal language of tenancy agreements (for example, references to behaviour that ‘causes alarm, harassment and distress’). They are relatively prescriptive about behaviours compared to agreements that are intended to promote shared values in a community (see example presented in Figure 3.4 above). This agreement was aimed at all new tenants of an RSL in the East region. It also includes references to criminal activities that other respondents felt were covered by the tenancy agreement. However, this agreement was specifically designed to emphasis the elements of the tenancy agreement that addressed anti-social behaviour, to ensure new tenants were fully aware of what was expected from them.

34

Figure 3.6 Example of stock wide agreement intended to reinforce the tenancy agreement

Good Neighbour Agreement - for all tenants. Anti-social behaviour causes distress for people who want to live peacefully in their homes and neighbourhoods. [Landlord] is committed to dealing quickly and firmly with those who behave in a way which threatens the peace and security of local residents. Being a Good Neighbour [Landlord] expects all its tenants to treat others living in their neighbourhood fairly, and in a way that they would like to be treated themselves. We believe that by being a good neighbour you will be helping us to stop nuisance and anti-social behaviour on our estates and in your local community. About this agreement As an [landlord] tenant, you must sign this agreement to show that you understand what ‘anti-social’ behaviour is, and that you will not behave badly towards your neighbours or others in the community. You will also be confirming that if you do so, you will be breaking the terms of the Tenancy Agreement which you signed with us, and in some cases, this can eventually lead to you being evicted from your home, or have other action taken against you. What is Anti-Social Behaviour? Anti-social behaviour comes in many forms, from serious acts of violence, harassment or threats of violence directed to one person or others, to general nuisance. The following list contains a number of examples of types of behaviour which we consider ‘anti-social’. And as such, will not be tolerated.

Aggressive and threatening language and behaviour Actual violence against people and property. Hate behaviour against certain people or groups of people because they are perceived to be ‘different’, for example because of their race, colour or lifestyle. Using or selling drugs or other illegal substances. Loud noise, especially late at night, for example by playing music loudly. Allowing pets to make excessive noise, or to be a danger to others. Vandalising property which is not owned by you, including graffiti. Dumping rubbish and litter, in your gardens or around area in which you live. Parking vehicles inconsiderately, or abandoning vehicles, or keeping untaxed vehicles in street. Carrying out domestic violence. Being intolerant of other peoples lifestyles. Being a general nuisance in the community.

What can you do to be a good neighbour? There are many things you can do to help prevent nuisance and anti-social behaviour. Some examples are listed below: Accept that everyone is different and be tolerant of the lifestyles of others. If you feel that someone is acting unreasonably, and you do not feel threatened, speak to them first before making a complaint to [landlord] . It is likely that they did not even realise they were causing a nuisance. In cases of genuine nuisance and/or anti-social behaviour, you must contact HHP and tell us what the problem is so that we can sort it out quickly for the benefit of you and the whole community. Where you have made a complaint, work with HHP to sort the problem out, by keeping to the actions agreed with HHP during the cause of the investigation process. Your agreement with [landlord] Now that you understand what being a ‘good neighbour’ is, you must sign this agreement. If you have any more questions ask them now! I/we agree that whilst I am a tenant of [landlord], I will do everything I can to be ‘a good neighbour’, and will not behave in any way which may be considered ‘anti-social’. I/we understand that if any member of the household, or visitors to the home acting a way which can be considered as being anti-social, [landlord] will take action for breach of tenancy agreement. Eventually this can lead to legal action and/or the repossession of my/our home. Signed/dated/witnessed… Contact: Mark Rebane, Huntingdon Housing Partnership, Mark.Rebane@luminus.org.uk

35

Rewards and incentive schemes The purpose of rewards and incentives schemes were usually related to housing management concerns such a rent arrears, reducing voids, and ensuring tenants left properties in good order when they moved on, however landlords also hoped by rewarding good behaviour, anti-social behaviour or at least low level nuisance would also be reduced. Figure 3.7 is an example of an incentive scheme operated by an ALMO. Figure 3.8 outlines the contents of a Rewards and Tenant Charter Scheme; in this case tenants have to sign the charter and agree to behave in an acceptable manner before they can join the reward scheme.

Figure 3.7 An example of a rewards and incentive scheme

Rewards or incentive scheme Aim The Reward Scheme is our way of recognising and rewarding both our loyal tenants and staff. Its about saying ‘thank you’ in a way that our customers and staff find rewarding. Content Automatic membership if rent up to date. No serious breaches of tenancy. Entry into prize draws and raffles. Discount card offering savings on shopping, travel, holidays and insurance (being negotiated locally). Good Neighbour award –where members nominate their neighbour. Community Grant- where a member who is part of a community group can apply for a one-off grant for a community based project or scheme. Golden Goodbye – a payment made to a member where they leave their home in a clean and tidy condition ready for the next tenant. Member’s magazine featuring competitions open to members only. (does not include preferential repairs service). Contact: Helen.O'Sullivan@kirklees.gov.uk

Figure 3.8 Example of rewards and incentive scheme combined with Tenant Charter

Rewards and Tenant Charter scheme Aim Primarily as a thank you to tenants for continuing to being valued customers. Content Have to sign a residents charter to be a member 6 weeks clear rent account or stick to arrears repayment agreement for 12 weeks No preferential repairs at this stage but planned ‘Countdown’ discount card Competitions to win week long holidays in RSL owned holiday cottage in Bournemouth Access to weekend breaks in winter in holiday cottage Charter asks tenants to agree:

All residents should enjoy a good quality of life and respect their neighbours All residents will respect their own property and keep their garden and home in reasonable condition All residents shouldn’t do anything to damage their neighbours property All residents will exercise responsibility for their children and visitors Residents will exercise respect and support for minority groups within the community They will respect communal areas and facilities They will take responsibility for the actions of their pets in the community Drug dealing, crime and prostitution will not be tolerated.

Contact: Jane Searle, Elmbridge HT, JSearle@ElmbridgeHousing.org.uk.

36

More generally, the idea of incentive schemes has been driven by the scheme operated by Irwell Valley HA (see Lupton et al, 2003)but landlords have taken the idea and amended it locally. For example, some landlords had not included a preferential repairs service as they, or rather their tenants and/or councillors, thought that this was divisive. Some bought into a national discount card scheme, but others had negotiated a local discount card scheme.

Example of a multi-tenure agreement Figure 3.9 presents an example of an agreement covering RSL tenants and owner occupiers on a mixed tenure new build estate. The scheme was led by the local authority. As noted in the previous chapter, there were very few examples of agreements that covered private tenants and/or homeowners, although some landlords reported that they were planning to develop such schemes.

Figure 3.9 Example of agreement used on mixed tenure new build regeneration estate

Good Community Code Agreement in mixed tenure new build estate

Aim Regeneration scheme delivered in partnership with [local authority/housing association/house builder]

Content The partnership supports all the residents of [estate] in the promotion of a positive, caring and safe environment in which to live. It hopes that all residents will sign up to the Good Community Code ensuring that no members of your household or visitors to your property cause harassment, alarm or distress to others and that you will contribute to a sense of community spirit that values diversity and promotes well being of others.

Be a good neighbour Take pride in my home Respect other people’s property Look out for my neighbours Take care of the environment Be part of the community

Mandale Park Community Code Contact: Marilyn.Davies@stockton.gov.uk

Conclusions Anti-social behaviour was recognised to be a major concern of tenants and landlords. Although serious crime and nuisance was a problem and had a detrimental effect on individuals and communities, low level nuisance made up the majority of casework for housing practitioners. Landlords had often developed effective relationships with other agencies in order to address anti-social behaviour and develop anti-social behaviour strategies, although it was recognised that some partnership arrangements are still evolving. There is a lack of a common typology or classification of agreements. The various forms of agreements that were explored in the interviews and discussion groups tended to focus on low-level anti-social behaviours. The intention of agreements can also differ, from those that seek to promote community cohesion and set principles for neighbourly conduct, and others that reinforce the terms of the tenancy agreement, and are prescriptive about acceptable behaviours. Most agreements required tenants to sign them. The following chapter examines the development, operation and effectiveness of agreements in more detail.

37

Chapter Four Good Neighbour Agreements and Schemes to Promote Positive Behaviour – How Do They Work?

In the discussion groups and interviews we explored in some depth the reasons why organisations had decided to introduce Good Neighbour Agreements or other schemes to promote positive behaviour, how they had decided on the contents of any agreement and who had been involved in the development process. We also explored how organisations monitored the effectiveness of schemes, what data they collated, and what outcomes they had expected or observed. This chapter outlines:

different motivations for setting up schemes to promote positive behaviour;

development processes – how agreements and schemes were introduced, who was involved, and how the contents were agreed;

time and resources required to set up an agreement or scheme;

how agreements and schemes operate;

how the effectiveness of agreements and other schemes is measured; and

perceived benefits and challenges of putting agreements and positive behaviour schemes in place.

Factors that promoted the development of Good Neighbour Agreements and other positive behaviour schemes In the telephone interviews respondents were asked why they had set up Good Neighbour Agreements or positive behaviour schemes. It became clear that the schemes were driven by a number of different factors.

“New start” Many of our respondents had introduced schemes to promote positive behaviour as part of a much wider process of regeneration and investment, sometimes focusing on single estates, and sometimes part of larger projects (such as Pathfinder schemes). It was also apparent that stock transfer from a local authority to an Arm’s Length Management Organisation (ALMO) or to a housing association had frequently been the catalyst for a programme of change. Where stock had been transferred there was a determination from the new landlord/management organisation to do things differently, and make a new start. They

38

wanted to create a new culture and new expectations among residents and particularly among new tenants. Similarly when refurbishment programmes or projects were completed, there was also a determination to change the culture and expectations of residents, and ensure that the improvements were maintained. Schemes to promote positive behaviour were one of a range of measures introduced as part of packages to promote that cultural change, and by no means the only measure introduced to address anti-social behaviour. Improvements to security had frequently been introduced, including measures such as restricting access to blocks, and employing on-site care-takers. Frequently respondents had re-written tenancy agreements and/or introduced pre-tenancy agreements to add greater emphasis on anti-social behaviour. These measures were intended to give a clear signal about the behaviour that was expected from tenants.

Knowledge transfer It was also clear that awareness of Good Neighbour Agreements and similar initiatives is growing. Often those respondents who were in the early stages of developing a scheme had only introduced them very recently, spoke about how a new member of staff had introduced the idea (drawing on experience in previous areas or organisations), or they had simply heard about such initiatives through seminars, newsletters or through the promotion of good practice in guidance documents or on websites. In these areas, respondents were often using positive behaviour schemes drawn up elsewhere as models, sometimes although not always, adapting particular initiatives for local circumstances. Schemes in York, Glasgow, Brighton, and Manchester were often mentioned. Respondents were often unclear as to how such initiatives would work in practice (for example, what action would be taken if people refused to sign up), or how they would measure their effectiveness. Nevertheless they were eager to adopt positive behaviour schemes because it was seen to be “good practice” to do so. In the specific context of reward or incentive schemes, Irwell Valley’s widely promoted Gold Service Initiative, (Lupton et al, 2003) was consistently mentioned as the model that had generated interest and provided the blueprint for local reward initiatives. This particular scheme was very clearly a key driver in the development of reward schemes in other areas. As well as knowledge of the Irwell Valley initiative, a major incentive for schemes that offered rewards to individual tenants (for example, for clearing rent arrears, leaving properties in a clean state prior to moving and so forth) was to “say thank you” to responsible tenants. Only a small proportion of our respondents had introduced rewards schemes13. Where rewards schemes were not in place, this was usually because respondents were not convinced as to their value. In the National Stakeholders’ Discussion Group, concerns were expressed regarding the equity of such schemes. Participants felt that vulnerable people would be highly unlikely to benefit, and that the schemes were costly to administer.

Assuming that a percentage of anti-social behaviour is when people have some support needs, or some sort of vulnerability issue, rewarding people for

13 See Figure 2.8, Chapter 2. The survey indicated that a similar proportion of survey respondents had reward schemes as had Good Neighbour Agreements.

39

not committing anti-social behaviour seems to be excluding those sorts of people, unless there is some sort of mechanism in place for recognising support needs, and we all know that with the best will in the world that doesn’t always happen as effectively as it should. It’s about whether people understand what is the scheme is about, and making sure it’s equal across the board, what is happening, and what will happen if they don’t behave.

(Participant in National Stakeholder Group)

Positive behaviour schemes as responses to anti-social behaviour? Positive behaviour schemes were often introduced as part of a wider programme to combat anti-social behaviour. It is to be noted that none of our respondents felt that such schemes in isolation would directly address anti-social behaviour, but were one of a number of tools that could be adopted. As noted in the previous chapter, anti-social behaviour was frequently reported to be a main concern of residents (usually second only to repair and refurbishment). Many of our respondents remarked on the reluctance of residents to deal with relatively low-level anti-social behaviour issues themselves. They felt that the media attention on anti-social behaviour was promoting an over-reaction to behaviours that previously would not have generated complaints, but were now categorised by tenants as “anti-social” and thus required action by landlords. Although respondents noted the potential of low-level neighbour dispute to escalate into more serious incidents of violence and harassment, and did not underestimate the potential of anti-social behaviour to make other residents’ lives a misery, they sometimes felt that tolerance in communities, and the capacity of communities and individuals to deal with small incidents of basically nuisance behaviour also need strengthening. Neighbour agreements and positive behaviour schemes were seen as a way of highlighting expectations of behaviour, and an attempt to address “low level” anti-social behaviour that, although it caused considerable annoyance and distress, was not serious enough to warrant landlord or police involvement. One respondent noted that many of the people who were the focus of complaints about anti-social behaviour from their neighbours were people who were vulnerable in one way or another because, for example, of mental health problems, substance misuse or other support needs. In this area the agreement had been introduced as part of a Sustainable Tenancies Strategy, with the intention of highlighting at the very beginning of a tenancy what was expected, and ensuring individuals who might be at risk of losing their tenancy (eg because of mental health issues), had the appropriate support in place and that support workers were also fully aware of what was expected. This landlord also had an information sharing protocol with support services so as to ensure different agencies were aware of the needs and particularly difficulties of individuals. We return to the issue of how positive behaviour schemes work for (or against) vulnerable people below14.

14 An action framework on dealing with anti-social behaviour and racial harassment involving vulnerable victims, witnesses or perpetrators is at www.raceactionnet.co.uk

40

We also interviewed a number of respondents whose organisations were not using any type of agreement or reward schemes. In one area, positive behaviour schemes had been considered but there had been difficulty in agreeing with tenants where the scheme should be piloted. In another the idea was abandoned as “inappropriate” following consultation with tenants. In yet another area the landlord organisation had been unable to generate any interest in introducing such an agreement among their tenants. Of particular interest is an area where stock had been transferred from a local authority to a housing association, the respondent was unclear what such agreements could offer over and above the wide range of measures already taken to improve the stock, reduce anti-social behaviour, and transform life for residents and staff on the estates. Crime and anti-social behaviour had been rife. Extensive resident consultation at stock transfer had resulted in the introduction of a range of specifically designed measures to improve security. There had been massive investment in refurbishment and community development. A significant proportion of the estates had been demolished. Remaining dwellings had been extensively refurbished, and new properties built. Importantly the tenancy agreement had been re-written and re-designed with an increased focus on expectations of behaviour, starter tenancies introduced, and where properties were being sold, clauses had been introduced to the covenants to ensure that expectations of behaviour were “tenure-blind”. The estates were successfully transformed and won an ODPM award).

How were schemes set up? For those schemes where “knowledge transfer” had been the prime motivation for establishing a positive behaviour scheme, the actual content and thinking on how a scheme would operate were most usually generated within organisations. As noted above, ‘model’ Good Neighbour Agreements and other forms of scheme were often adopted and adapted to a greater or lesser extent for local purposes. Although these agreements were often discussed with tenants’ representatives, there did not appear to be much evidence of wider consultation with tenants. Usually the introduction of these schemes was promoted through tenants’ newsletters, tenants’ forums and so forth. These types of agreements usually emphasised what was already stated in the tenancy agreement regarding behaviour. In other areas extensive resident consultation was the starting point for deciding whether or not to put an agreement in place, what the agreement should contain, and how it should work. As noted above, stock transfer often provided opportunities to consult with tenants on a range of issues. Where extensive consultation had taken place, the agreements tended to focus on relatively small areas (for example, a single estate) and reflect particular local concerns – often the same organisation would have a number of agreements in place within different localities, with each reflecting local concerns. These agreements sometimes covered more than specific types of behaviour and tended to be statements of community aspirations, expressing shared intentions to be tolerant, considerate and helpful. In the discussion group with National Stakeholders, it was clear that the participants felt one of the most important benefits of Good Neighbour Agreements and similar initiatives was to establish community “norms” around acceptable behaviour. Participants felt that

41

agreements were a way of allowing local communities to establish their own standards and expectations about behaviour. The process of establishing such agreements could also help build a community infrastructure. Many respondents who had undertaken extensive community consultation around the introduction of agreements and schemes noted that it was not always easy to engage the wider community, and the process could be slow and sometimes challenging. There was a danger that people could lose interest, and respondents highlighted the need for landlords, and other organisations to demonstrate their commitment to the process and the community by providing some “quick hits” that were visible and would indicate that the organisations were not only taking tenants and residents concerns seriously, but were also prepared to take action. Examples included rubbish clearing, removal of graffiti, improving security and restricting access to blocks of flats, and estates. However it was also stressed that it was essential to tackle more serious crime and disorder issues and employ enforcement measures to remove serious offenders, and reduce criminal activities. One respondent talked about the process of establishing an agreement on an estate where crime, drugs and prostitution had been rife.

Tenants had approached the council because they were at their wits end. First of all, we closed crack houses, then we did repairs to the security doors and then the residents were prepared to sit down and listen because until they saw that we were willing to do something to help,....then we throw that back at them and said, ‘How much do you care about your estate? Let’s see you work with one another, let’s see you being proud of your estate’, and they took up the challenge.

(Participant, SE Regional Focus Group) Other agreements were instigated in response to complaints about or requests for action. Here organisations responded to residents’ requests for action – for example, cleaning up graffiti or clearing away rubbish, and then suggested the idea of an agreement to local residents or tenants in that area. Similarly, initiatives to improve security or fire safety could provide the starting point for negotiating with the residents in a particular street or area about their concerns and the possibility of introducing some form of neighbour agreement.

So to start the community agreement process, generally we identify an issue, maybe a letter from a resident about alley gates, then we do a leaflet drop in the area, and ask people to respond to the idea, and provide them with contact details of the team, so basically write and say we are there, and ask them what do they want team to do, Then we say, would the community agree to X, Y, Z if they get the carrot they want at the very end.

(Respondent, Local Authority, NE Region)

It was not always possible to engage local communities or residents in the process of negotiating agreements. Although schemes might be successfully introduced in one estate

42

or one area, this did not mean that residents in other blocks or estates would necessarily want to engage in the same way. Although the evidence is relatively limited, it appears that blocks with predominantly elderly residents, or sheltered housing schemes were reluctant to engage in the process of establishing an agreement. Respondents also felt that areas where there was already a strong tenants’ association or strong sense of community identity would be more likely to be receptive to the idea of a Good Neighbour Agreement. However, in some cases the process of setting up an agreement could promote other community activities and enhance the sense of cohesion in an area. It was also thought that schemes and agreements were most successful if they covered relatively small groups of residents, single estates or blocks, as particular concerns could be addressed, giving a sense of “ownership” of the agreement. Extensive community consultation and the establishment of very local agreements was a time consuming and resource-hungry task, thus even when such agreements were perceived to be successful, it seemed unlikely that something similar could be introduced across a landlord’s entire stock. Evidence also suggests that where positive behaviour schemes or agreements were perceived to be successful, this also generated interest in other localities. It was generally felt that RSL Board Members and local councillors were supportive of the idea of positive behaviour schemes. This was mainly because they were seen to be addressing the problem of anti-social behaviour but also because they were perceived as a means of enhancing tenant involvement if they were locally negotiated. Rarely was ‘organisational’ opposition to the introduction of Good Neighbour Agreements or other such schemes reported, although in one instance the Board had expressed concern about the possibility of families and young children being evicted. Some respondents reported that tenants were on the whole supportive of measures that improved where they lived. A few concerns were noted particularly around how tenants or residents might be expected to monitor their neighbours’ behaviours. As noted above, many respondents highlighted tenant or resident apathy, and tenants’ reluctance to engage in consultation exercises, as a major barrier to the introduction of agreements. In the focus groups with tenants, there was not unanimous support for agreements and rewards schemes. Some participants felt that the tenancy agreement made clear what was expected of tenants, and people should not be rewarded for doing what they were supposed to and adhering to terms of the agreement. Others felt that agreements were worth trying, but were not convinced they added anything to existing anti-social behaviour measures. In relation to reward or incentive schemes, both tenants and Boards were reported to be less receptive, partly because it was felt that people should not be “rewarded” for adhering to tenancy agreement, and behaving as they should anyway. There were also concerns about the introduction of “preferential” treatment for some tenants in key service areas such as repairs or decent home improvement.

43

How were the contents of agreements decided? Chapter 3 discussed the contents of different types of agreement and other schemes and initiatives to promote positive behaviour. Here we outline how different organisations went about agreeing with local communities what agreements should cover. As noted above, some organisations took an “off the peg” approach to agreements, and engaged in less consultation with residents. Often the intention was simply to emphasise what was already in the tenancy agreement. Landlords felt that expectations of acceptable behaviour and the consequences of bad behaviour needed to be stressed and made very explicit. It was also important to highlight what the landlord would do in cases of complaint about anti-social behaviour, and what actions would be taken against perpetrators. In other areas however where there was more extensive community engagement, and often the contents or focus of the agreements were generated by the community with some guidance from the organisations. Many respondents noted that although usually they took on board all or most the tenants’ suggestions sometimes the tenants wanted to take much more punitive action against perpetrators of anti-social behaviour than landlords, or refuse tenancies to people with a criminal record, or history of drug use. An example here was of an agreement where a clause indicated that support would be offered to people whose anti-social behaviour was a consequence of vulnerability of some kind in order to sustain them in their tenancies. Residents felt this was an unnecessary concession. However the landlord insisted that it was included. Generally respondents reported that tenants and residents often pushed for stricter enforcement measures or actions than the landlord was prepared to endorse, although in some areas tenants were concerned that anti-social behaviour measures could be used to evict people who were in need of help. It was clear that some local authorities were reluctant to support clauses or expectations of behaviour that might make it difficult in some cases (for example, people with a conviction for drug use) to secure nominations to RSLs. Sometimes such clauses were dropped following consultation with the local authority, and sometimes opposition was overcome with reassurance of support being offered for vulnerable tenants. As noted earlier, respondents raised the problem of introducing positive behaviour schemes or agreements in areas that are mixed tenure, usually a combination of local authority properties, different housing associations, private landlords, and owner occupiers. Several respondents noted that some of the most intractable anti-social behaviour problems came from owner-occupiers. They felt that there was a wider range of actions that could be taken against social landlords’ tenants, including eviction. However with owner occupiers the measures available to local authorities or Anti-Social Behaviour Teams are more restricted. Social landlords could do little about owner-occupiers who were causing difficulties to their tenants.

We’ve found… people always say it’s [anti-social behaviour] council tenants, council estates, but we’ve found that it’s less than 50% of our [anti-social behaviour] cases are council tenants, because we are able to deal with it a lot

44

quicker and harder and if there is a problem we are actually able to come down on tenants a lot harder than anyone else. There’s probably a lot of owner occupier estates where there’s a more serious problem because it’s not as easy to deal with it…drug dealing, nuisance kids, nuisance adults as well you know buying their kids motor bikes and things like that, and if it’s a tenant property, we can come round and say right, if it carries on you’re going to get a notice seeking possession, if it’s an owner occupier parent, you really are quite stuck…..

(Respondent, East Region)

How much support is needed from the local community? Another key issue is how much support is required from tenants or residents groups before an agreement is introduced. Where agreements or schemes were stock wide and generic in nature, apart from discussion with tenants’ panels and representatives, there was no obvious effort made to gauge community or stock-wide support. In other areas, where more local agreements had been, or were being, introduced, strenuous efforts were obviously being made to engage the community, and garner support. Nevertheless there was no clear pattern regarding how much agreement among residents or tenants was required before a Good Neighbour Agreement was introduced. In some of the schemes which were very locally focused – for example on one street, or one block of flats – sometimes organisations attempted to get 100% consensus from the residents involved, although this was clearly very difficult to achieve. A small minority of residents were reported to feel very strongly that neighbourhood agreements were “big-brother-ish”. Other residents would not engage at all in community consultations, despite the efforts of landlords. One respondent was asked what would happen if half the tenants said that they did not want an agreement while the other half said they did:

We would go ahead, because it’s not just for the benefit of those who live on the estate, it’s for people who are going to come and live on the estate. Even if we get 30 per cent, we still go ahead. Also more people join in as it goes on.

(South East Regional Focus Group) It is difficult to gauge from the interviews what levels of consensus were required, and it is clear from two of the areas where agreements were not in place, that the lack of consensus as to where to pilot potential schemes had halted their introduction. Nevertheless few people reported any great hostility to the schemes from residents or groups representing residents, perhaps the greatest concern was apathy, or lack of engagement on the part of the community. In some areas there was great support for agreements, and a really positive response from those who had become involved.

Time and resources Very few of our respondents could give an accurate estimate of the time and resources involved in setting up a Good Neighbour Agreement. Again “off the peg” agreements were

45

not considered to be particularly ‘resource hungry’ to establish. However, it must be noted that Good Neighbour Agreements were often part of a wider programme of measures put in place either to combat anti-social behaviour or as a wider programme of regeneration and community development. Under these circumstances it is hard to identify what resources were devoted specifically to setting up these agreements. Tenant and community consultation and working with different agencies was a core part of the landlord’s role anyway. Where the Good Neighbour Agreements were stock-wide or organisational-driven, respondents usually felt that they could be put into place within a few months. It is clear however that community consultation was time consuming. Where extensive engagement had been undertaken, various means had been adopted to ensure the engagement of the greatest number of people. Letters were sent to tenants asking them for their views and gauging their interest, followed up by meetings, and visits to people who had not responded to ascertain why they had not expressed an interest. The need to have meetings at different times to allow people to attend who were working, or had caring or family responsibilities was also noted. Some organisations had also tried to engage specifically with younger people, to ensure that they also were involved and allowed to express their concerns. In some cases tenants’ representatives had become involved in generating interest and support for Good Neighbour Agreements among their neighbours – a process thought to be useful in itself as it encourages neighbour interaction. There were also costs associated with the production of leaflets, newsletter, and printing leaflets. Time and resources devoted to rewards schemes were of a different nature, as they required considerable administration and record keeping to function, including new computer systems or IT upgrading. Again this is difficult to quantify.

How do schemes operate? Where schemes were intended to be stock-wide initiatives, they were frequently piloted in one area prior to being introduced elsewhere. Similarly if a scheme had been introduced on one estate or one street, and was perceived to have worked well, then opportunities to replicate the scheme were explored. We discussed with respondents how schemes were made operational. Perhaps the key issue here is whether individuals were required to sign a Good Neighbour Agreement or not. Again there was a useful discussion within the National stakeholder group regarding whether individuals – whatever their tenure – should be required to sign a Good Neighbour Agreement, and whether community values should or could be imposed on individuals. The consensus in the group was that these Good Neighbour Agreements should not be a signed agreement, more a shared statement of community expectations that was visible and widely promoted. They were uncomfortable with the notion that expectations of individual behaviour were being imposed on people, and conversely that signed Good Neighbour Agreements promoted an expectation that people would behave badly.

46

However, as noted in the previous chapter, in practice many of our respondents reported that landlords and other organisations did expect residents to sign Good Neighbour Agreements. The reasons for this were primarily to ensure that people had indicated that they had understood what was expected of them. Where tenants or residents were required to sign a Good Neighbour Agreement this was usually requested when new tenants were signing up for a property. The Good Neighbour Agreement was presented to them along with the tenancy agreement. This offered an opportunity to highlight the behaviour that was expected of tenants (even when the Good Neighbour Agreement contained no more than was in the tenancy agreement). In some cases it was noted that it also provided the opportunity to discuss with tenants any issues that might make it difficult for them to adhere to the Good Neighbour Agreement and discuss what support they might need. In other cases, when people had support workers, support workers were invited to the signing up meeting to ensure that they too were clear about the behaviour expected of their client in their new tenancy. Given that Good Neighbour Agreements do not have any kind of legal status we asked if people ever refused to sign Good Neighbour Agreements when signing up for their new homes, and what happened if they refused. In the first instance, it was reported that people rarely refused to sign a Good Neighbour Agreement, but if they did, it “sounded alarm bells” with the landlord organisation, and often precipitated additional checks on the tenants previous record with other landlords. Often a note was made that the tenant had refused to sign. In other cases, where the Good Neighbour Agreement was simply a reiteration of the tenancy agreement, tenancy was refused. There was a lack of clarity about how existing tenants could be encouraged to sign Good Neighbour Agreements. Some organisations were not sure whether they could achieve full coverage, and simply expected that over time, as tenants moved on, coverage would be achieved. Others were more proactive in promoting the Good Neighbour Agreements with existing tenants, particularly when the agreements were estate - or street-based. Sometimes tenants’ forums or organisations were directly involved in this kind of promotion, sometimes with tenants’ representatives visiting other tenants and encouraging them to sign. In other cases, if tenants visited housing offices for rent payment or to report repairs, or make complaints about anti-social behaviour, they were encouraged on these occasions to sign the agreement. Newsletters were used to promote and introduce the Good Neighbour Agreements, and it was also reported that once the schemes were promoted, existing tenants often volunteered to sign the agreement, as many were willing to indicate they were “good neighbours” and responsible members of their communities. One landlord had sent the Good Neighbour Agreement to all their existing tenants (approximately 5,000 in all). Only 10 per cent of the forms were returned and signed, and there were not the resources available to follow up non-responders. Not all Good Neighbour Agreements were tenure specific, and some were geographically rather than tenure based (for example, among residents living on a particular street). There are few examples of these types of agreement, thus it is difficult to highlight particular

47

mechanisms that were widely adopted to encourage all residents to sign. It seemed that often the approach here was to offer some sort of incentive that was tied to the signing of the agreement. For example in one council area, where residents had requested alleyways to be gated off, the council agreed to do this on condition that the residents agreed to sign up to a number of conditions, usually regarding the maintenance and care of the alleyways – for example, not allowing dogs to foul, not putting rubbish out and so forth. With small groups of residents, a focus on a particular issue, and an incentive, most residents would usually sign. Similarly on a street which had undergone extensive refurbishment, the council had actively engaged with residents about ways of ensuring that once the refurbishment was completed “things would still be kept nice”. Here it was reported that the scheme had been very successful. In one area, representatives of the local tenants’ forum (who were elected by local residents) signed the compact or agreement with the landlord on behalf of the community. Thus individuals were not expected to sign the agreement which was intended to be more of a statement or agreement between the Arms Length Management Organisation and local residents around certain local issues as decided by local residents.

Monitoring compliance We also asked how the Good Neighbour Agreements were enforced, and how landlords monitored whether people were keeping to their Good Neighbour Agreements or not. Again this appeared to be a grey area of practice. Obviously complaints were monitored, and records kept of numbers of complaints, nature of complaints, and if complaints were made against individuals. Thus monitoring compliance of individuals with the Good Neighbour Agreement relied very much on tenants or residents reporting incidents. In one case, a housing association had set up a system of resident street representatives who reported incidents that were causing concern on a mixed-tenure estate.

These street reps will actually ring [Housing Association] who are the housing providers for the rented part of it [estate], to tell them, well actually Mrs So-and-So over the road is letting her kids play ball and they were out to ten o’clock last night, so I guess they are kind of whistle blowers but they will also report, the bin men didn’t pick up the bin at Number 49 last week, or Number 50 is letting her dog foul on the pavement, so it’s all about keeping the area nice and clean, and having a pride in their area.

(Respondent, NE Region) Often as part of the regeneration or improvement, there were newly appointed wardens or estate maintenance teams, who also reported incidents of nuisance or bad behaviour. It was also reported that tenants in some areas were becoming more proactive in dealing with low level nuisance behaviour themselves, and much more willing to report incidents or damage. The Good Neighbour Agreement was thought to have given neighbours new confidence to speak to individuals about behaviour or nuisance, partly because it made clear to everyone

48

what was expected of them and also because residents were more confident that action would be taken. Collating data about incidents of anti-social behaviour allowed organisations to establish patterns - for example, areas, times, and in some cases individuals – that could be targeted for further more strategic action. This information was sometimes shared with other organisations to allow cross-agency responses to particular problems. In some cases extensive monitoring systems were in place and data were regularly shared with partner agencies (see below). Following complaints, a variety of actions were taken, depending on the behaviour that had generated the complaint. Where the anti-social behaviour was serious, a range of enforcement measures were adopted. Good Neighbour Agreements made it clear to both residents and housing managers what behaviour was considered acceptable and unacceptable, and the actions that would be taken to deal with anti-social behaviour. Many respondents said they would use an agreement as evidence in court proceedings, even though they recognised that such agreements had no legal status. It was felt that they indicated that the housing organisation had made some attempts to address anti-social behaviour, and that tenants were aware of what was acceptable behaviour and what was not.

Proving and measuring effectiveness Although it was rarely reported that other organisations were involved in any great depth in the development of agreements and their contents, or in their operation, it was clear that they were never used in isolation. Agreements and positive behaviour schemes were always part of a wider programme of anti-social behaviour measures, and/or community development and regeneration initiatives. Apart from changes to the tenancy agreement or the introduction of starter tenancies and local lettings policies, respondents referred to the range of enforcement measures they had at their disposal (ABCs, ASBOs, Injunctions, evictions etc), and how these were important in demonstrating to both offenders and to victims that action could and would be taken. Apart from the enforcement measures, all our respondents spoke about other initiatives that were on-going, and other resources that were being employed to target anti-social behaviour. At a local level, the various initiatives that were reported included:

• investment in improved security on estates (new locks, concierge systems, the introduction of estate based care-takers, etc);

• junior warden schemes (where young people were engaged in community activities and rewarded with outings or activities);

• a range of diversion activities for young people including a Leadership Skills course run by a local fire service, a bus with computers and other activities;

• intergeneration schemes to help introduce young people to older members of the community;

49

• support for people providing witness statements; • ‘sweeps’ where a team including community wardens and the police would target

particular black spots of anti-social behaviour; • schemes to support parents; and • schemes to support young people on the verge of offending.

At a more strategic level, there were clear indications of multi-agency working, and landlords taking part in local Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership forums, Anti-Social Behaviour Strategy groups, Community Safety Partnerships and Community Safety Teams, and regular contact both informal and formal with a range of organisations including: the police, the fire service, social services, Youth Offending Teams, probation services, education services, and, in one instance, the RSPCA. There is a question here regarding the role that agreements and positive behaviour schemes play in these wider strategies, and how integral they are to the broader anti-social behaviour agenda. Clearly our respondents felt that they were useful in setting local standards of acceptable behaviour, and encouraging the community to take action against anti-social behaviour (see Benefits below), but there was far less clarity about their wider role. Many were convinced that agreements and schemes ‘in isolation’ were not going to achieve very much regarding a reduction in anti-social behaviour. However, they were widely regarded as another tool that could be used to promote good behaviour rather than prevent serious disorder. Given that positive behaviour schemes and agreements were operating alongside a wide range of other initiatives and measures, it is hardly surprising that respondents felt measuring their effectiveness was problematic, as it was difficult to unravel which particular initiative had promoted any particular effect. It should also be noted that in many areas, the various schemes had not been in place long enough (frequently no more than a few months) for any particular effects to be noted. It was clear from our respondents that there was no single set of indicators, or effectiveness measures that were routinely applied. Where schemes or agreements had been in place for some time (the longest in our sample was three years), respondents were eager to highlight that where Good Neighbour Agreements and other initiatives had been introduced, there was a new “feel” to the estates, or neighbourhoods, and that residents’ perceptions and expectations were noticeably different. Staff felt that attitudes had changed, and that the appearance of the area or estate was improved (due either to refurbishment or initiatives to clean up litter and graffiti very quickly), and importantly these improvements were being maintained. Although these “feel good” impressions were difficult to measure, they felt that surveys of satisfaction among residents, or crime surveys where people were asked about their perceptions of safety and levels of crime could be undertaken and results compared year on year. Such surveys would give some an indication of changes in residents’ perceptions, which would otherwise be difficult to measure. One area had undertaken such a survey, and residents’ levels of satisfaction with their area had shown a small improvement in recent years. One area in the Midlands had asked residents in a survey whether they felt the local Good Neighbour Agreement had been effective, and 90 per cent reported that they felt it had been.

50

It is worth noting one area, that had not introduced a positive behaviour scheme of any kind, had measured resident satisfaction following an extensive programme of refurbishment, improved security, and revisions to the tenancy agreement. Resident satisfaction had risen dramatically since the programme was completed. The respondent questioned how much more a Good Neighbour Agreement or other scheme could have added. Many respondents did collate data about the number of complaints or reports of damage. It was clear that, contrary to the expectations of those who had only recently introduced agreements, the number of complaints and reported incidents of anti-social behaviour did not fall. Indeed many respondents felt that an increased number of complaints in some ways reflected the success of schemes. They felt people were more likely to complain about behaviour, report rubbish being dumped or graffiti, if they were confident that some action would be taken, whereas previously they would not have bothered to register their concerns. In one area, reports of anti-social behaviour were being collated to allow the development of an overview of patterns of behaviour, and this had been successful in allowing targeting of black spots. Information sharing between different agencies also allowed inter-agency strategies and approaches to be developed. Respondents who had introduced some form of rewards scheme, did feel that there were quantifiable improvements in rent arrears, and in reducing voids in their stock. These are perhaps more ‘organisational’ outcomes rather than ‘community’ outcomes, and respondents with rewards schemes were less likely to point to community outcomes or perceptions of change in areas or neighbours. However, some of these landlords reported wider community benefits of reward schemes. For example, one respondent had conducted research which found that all sections of the community including ethnic minority groups had participated in the reward scheme that had been introduced. Here community grants (made to communities rather than individuals) were seen to have brought sections of the community together.

Benefits and challenges Despite the lack of “hard evidence” to support the positive impact of positive behaviour schemes on anti-social behaviour, respondents believed the benefits of introducing these could be felt in a number of ways. Where agreements and schemes were locally agreed with the community it was felt that this was empowering to local communities as they were setting their own standards about what was acceptable behaviour. Where there had been extensive consultation, the consultation process itself had been highly useful in promoting cohesion among tenants’ groups, and allowing people to meet and get to know their neighbours. Similarly it had facilitated a dialogue between landlord and tenants and greater clarity about what residents could and should expect from their landlords, making landlords more accountable to their tenants. It was also noted in some areas that communities were more confident in tackling anti-social behaviour themselves. Schemes and agreements had raised the profile of what was acceptable behaviour and what was not. Although some people were concerned that introducing a scheme might suggest an area had a problem, others felt that it encouraged new tenants and residents by demonstrating that anti-social

51

behaviour was not going to be accepted, thus creating a more positive perception of the area and the community. It was less clear whether there had been significant benefits to organisations. Again the clarity of what was expected was thought to be highly useful, particularly with new tenants, and by making it clear what was expected from the start. Opportunities to work with communities and other organisations had also been helpful. As noted above, in one area a tough approach to drug use, particularly using a property for selling drugs, was felt to have reduced the number of people selling cannabis from their homes. Respondents also described the challenges they faced in developing and introducing agreements and schemes. Engaging the community in consultation was not easy. Apathy among residents was often noted, and respondents felt this could be difficult to combat. It was also felt that even if a particular agreement had worked well in one estate or one area, it would be highly difficult to roll it out across an entire district or entire stock of a landlord. Respondents believed that ideally the content of agreements should be regularly revisited. Communities change, people come and go, and concerns might be directed at different issues over time. Again, where extensive consultation had been used, it was daunting to think that this was an exercise that needed to be regularly repeated. Perhaps the most significant challenge that was consistently reported by respondents was how agreements and schemes worked with people whose anti-social behaviour was the consequence of a mental health problem, or a personality disorder. Respondents frequently reported that support workers were requested to be at the signing up process and were made aware of the behaviours expected of all new tenants. In some cases agreements offered opportunities for people to request support and discuss reasons why they might find it difficult to adhere to the agreement. Respondents noted their willingness to try and find ways of working with and supporting people who were mentally ill or who had other support needs. However, some respondents noted that many people will not accept support, or have been excluded from services. In addition many respondents reported difficulties in engaging with social services if they asked for assistance when someone’s behaviour was causing distress to neighbours. There were several examples reported of ‘brinkmanship’ where only after the threat of eviction, would support services be put into place. Some agreements included the principle of tolerance, attempting to encourage neighbours to be tolerant of people whose behaviours were perceived to be strange, but these were unusual. We know very little about how well agreements work for people with eccentric or strange behaviours, and whether the introduction of such agreements might increase their likelihood of losing their home unless they can or are willing to access appropriate support.

Conclusions The introduction of positive behaviour schemes and agreements was seen to be driven by a number of factors: the determination to make a “new start” following stock transfer, refurbishment or investment; growing (although not always full) awareness of schemes in other areas; and the need to respond to tenants’ and residents’ concerns about anti-social

52

behaviour. Organisations took a variety of approaches to developing agreements and schemes. Many took a “top-down” approach, with the content and focus of the agreement or scheme being largely determined within the organisation, with support and consultation with resident representatives. Others however undertook extensive community consultation to ensure the initiative closely reflected local concerns, and was felt to be “owned by the community”. Clearly extensive community consultation required more time and resources than the “top-down” approach to development. Different types of data were collated to monitor the impact of these initiatives, for example, the number of complaints about neighbours and reported incidents of anti-social behaviour. However it is not clear to what extent these schemes and agreements influenced behaviour as they were always used in conjunction with a range of other measures designed to tackle anti-social behaviour. Nevertheless respondents were convinced of the value of Good Neighbour Agreements and the range of other schemes as one of a number of tools available to address anti-social behaviour and promote positive behaviour in communities, despite there being little ‘hard’ evidence as to their effectiveness.

53

Chapter 5 Conclusions and Recommendations

It should be noted that this research was not intended to evaluate the effectiveness of Good Neighbour Agreements but to gain some understanding of how agreements are being used and developed. The research suggests that Good Neighbour Agreements are increasingly being used as an additional tool in tackling anti-social behaviour by all types and size of landlord organisation across England. The recommendations presented here are based on the reported experiences and perceptions of practitioners who have used such schemes. Whilst Good Neighbour Agreements were generally seen as a good thing by interview respondents, it was evident that some respondents knew very little about such schemes, how they might be used, or how they might work. It is clear that successful agreements require some time and effort to research, plan, develop, implement and evaluate. The research findings also highlight the importance of engaging tenants/residents if agreements are to succeed in promoting positive behaviour. Further, respondents were clear that Good Neighbour Agreements have to be part of a wider anti-social behaviour strategy that encompasses prevention, early intervention and enforcement. It also appeared that the more successful schemes were those that addressed local concerns and issues and where tenants and local residents were consulted. The remainder of this chapter presents recommendations and highlights key issues arising from the research.

Aims of the Good Neighbour Agreement Landlords and other organisations wishing to introduce Good Neighbour Agreements need to be clear about what they want to achieve; what types of behaviour they are intended to address; who will be the key players (e.g. landlord led or involving tenants’/residents’ groups or all tenants/ residents); which other stakeholders might be involved (e.g. Community Safety Partnerships, private landlords, Neighbourhood Watch schemes, schools etc); and, importantly, how the agreement would fit in with the wider anti-social behaviour strategy. The intention of agreements can differ, from those that seek to promote community cohesion and set principles for neighbourly conduct, and others that reinforce the terms of the tenancy agreement. The latter type of agreements tend to be prescriptive about behaviour that is considered anti-social, clarifying the content of the tenancy agreement and sometimes highlighting the actions landlords can take if tenants break the terms of their tenancy agreement. Whilst there may be some merit in revising and clarifying the content of existing tenancy agreements such initiatives did not appear to achieve the wider benefits of agreements that sought to engage tenants/residents, for example:

54

by reassuring them that local concerns around anti-social behaviour would be addressed;

presenting a statement of ‘desirable’ behaviours (rather than just ‘undesirable’

behaviour) to promote a greater sense of neighbourliness;

promoting a set of shared community standards and expectations around behaviour and highlighting the rights and responsibilities of tenants, residents, landlords and other service providers.

Coverage of Good Neighbour Agreement It is also important to consider how wide the coverage of the Good Neighbour Agreement should be. The study showed that Good Neighbour Agreements can be used to cover small areas, e.g. particular streets or small estates, large estates or the whole of a landlord’s stock; used in mixed tenure areas and include tenants of other social landlords and (although less often) residents and tenants from the private sector. The area of coverage clearly depends on local concerns and issues and the views of the landlord and tenant, however, it appeared that agreements that addressed specific local concerns were more successful and had additional benefits over more generic agreements that covered large areas and which could become meaningless.

I think we take a view that it (the area where an agreement is to be introduced) does need to be an area with a strong community feel and an identity and an area where there are issues to address. We don’t want to use it too widely as it would lose its impact and become just another piece of paper.

(Housing Provider).

Developing and promoting Good Neighbour Agreements and engaging tenants and residents The research found that there were two main approaches to the development of agreements: ‘top down’ management-led approaches and community consultation. The former approach tended to be used most often where the agreement was intended to reinforce the tenancy agreement and was drawn up by the landlord with little, if any, consultation with tenants and residents. These agreements were often stock wide agreements and tended to be targeted at new tenants. The second approach tended to be used to develop agreements covering smaller areas. Where agreements are intended to be locally focused and to reflect community concerns, it is important to consult with local tenants and residents regarding their views on setting up an agreement and what the agreement should cover. Tenants and residents can be encouraged to become involved in a number of ways including:

55

taking the opportunity to introduce an agreement if there have been a number of requests for changes or improvements, for example, installing alley gates, or complaints about anti-social behaviour;

sending letters to all everyone in the area to tell them about the requests/complaints and asking for their views;

open meetings with local residents to discuss their concerns and their views on what should be done to bring about changes;

agree with local tenants/residents that the landlord will do certain things – if residents agree to ensure that improvements are maintained, and sign up to a Good Neighbour Agreement.

Whichever approach is adopted, it is clearly important to promote the agreement once it is set up, to make local residents aware of the agreement and to encourage tenants/residents to adhere to the agreement. Landlords and other stakeholders can employ a variety of strategies to promote agreements including:

launch parties or celebrations for local residents; using local landlord forums to promote shared agreements; using local tenants’ and residents’ forums to promote agreements features in tenants’ and residents’ newsletters; local media coverage; leaflets produced by the landlord promoting agreements; individual visits by housing officers or members of tenants’ or residents’ forums to

introduce and explain the agreement; involving support workers to help people understand and adhere to agreements introducing the agreements during routine visits to the housing office (e.g., to pay

rent); linking agreements to improvements, e.g., refurbishment or clean up campaigns;

It is also important to invest some time and resources into the design and production of agreements and associated literature. Professionally produced, accessible and attractive documents help to present the agreement as something both valued and taken seriously by the landlord.

Making agreements work Good Neighbour Agreements are usually voluntary agreements and this is seen as one of their strengths because tenants and residents choose to become involved. The agreements do not contain any provisions for enforcement, although some landlords require a new tenant to sign up before giving them a tenancy and it would be possible to make compliance with the Good Neighbour Agreement a condition of the tenancy. In practice, behaviour which breaches the Good Neighbour Agreement will, in many cases, be a breach of the tenancy agreement so that landlords can take appropriate action. This might include seeking support for individuals and/or families or, where necessary, enforcement action. Similarly, if the behaviour constitutes a criminal offence the offender can be prosecuted.

56

It will not always be practical or realistic to get all tenants and residents to sign a Good Neighbour Agreement, especially if the agreement is to cover a large area and many properties. One solution is to secure the signatures of tenant and resident representatives on behalf of existing residents or to use tenant groups to promote the scheme amongst their neighbours. An unwillingness to sign up to agreements might indicate a problem and in these cases landlords can investigate the background of households unable to or unwilling to sign up to Good Neighbour Agreements in order to identify any previous history of anti-social behaviour and/or unmet support needs that might have to be addressed. How to monitor and evaluate the Good Neighbour Agreement It was clear that some respondents had not considered how to evaluate the effectiveness of their Good Neighbour Agreement and many acknowledged the difficulties associated with monitoring agreements that are very generic or that cover a wide area. Further, as with any measure to tackle anti-social behaviour, it is difficult to measure the effect of one intervention within a host of other initiatives to deal with the problem. Nevertheless, many respondents explained that they had developed ways of monitoring and evaluating their agreements, for example:

• encouraging residents and tenants to report incidents of anti-social behaviour (reports from local residents can be regarded as an indication of success in areas where previously residents had been reluctant to complain about anti-social behaviour;

• monitoring the number of complaints about incidents of anti-social behaviour over

time to identify any changes in numbers of reported incidents and the specific type of complaint;

• monitoring the number of voids and the number of applications for housing in a

particular area to identify changes in the level of demand;

• using Community Safety Officers, Neighbourhood Wardens or estate caretakers and/or residents’ and tenants’ representatives to report incidents and changes in levels of anti-social behaviour; and

• undertaking resident/tenant satisfaction surveys.

Areas for practice development It was clear from the project that Good Neighbour Agreements in their various forms are an evolving area of practice, and as yet there are a number of areas of practice that need further clarification and refinement. As noted above, agreements are usually voluntary and do not contain any provision for enforcement. Our respondents were often unable to say what would happen if individuals

57

broke the conditions of the agreements. Obviously if a particular behaviour is in breach of the tenancy agreement, or is a criminal offence then there are obvious courses of action, but for “low level” anti-social behaviours (and often these are the types of behaviour that cause the most widespread annoyance and distress, and generate the most complaints) there appeared to be very little that could be done, other than perhaps an ‘informal’ visit to remind individuals of the agreement. Perhaps the most that can be expected is that agreements set out a shared expectation of what is and what is not acceptable behaviour, and acknowledge that there will always be some individuals who will pay little heed to a voluntary agreement. Vulnerable people were also a cause for concern for our respondents. Difficulties with engaging with social services were consistently reported by housing officers, and others engaged in anti-social behaviour initiatives. While agreements can emphasise tolerance, and also offer opportunities for individuals to highlight their support needs, and for landlords to meet with support workers, it seems likely that some vulnerable people, particularly those with mental health problems and associated strange or eccentric behaviours will not always be able to meet the conditions of agreements. An action framework on dealing with anti-social behaviour and racial harassment involving vulnerable victims, witnesses or perpetrators is at www.raceactionnet.co.uk and offers some further thinking on this area of practice. Not all anti-social behaviour can be attributed to the tenants of social landlords. Our respondents were particularly struggling with finding solutions to address anti-social behaviour in the owner occupied sector. This is an area that needs further consideration and research. Similarly with regard to the private rented sector, there were examples where private sector landlords were involved in initiatives to address anti-social behaviour, although such initiatives were relatively rare, and these too need further exploration. It was also apparent that the older agreements needed to be periodically reviewed by the landlords in conjunction with tenants, which was happening in some areas where it was necessary to restate and publicise ongoing commitment to the principles of the Good Neighbour Agreements.

58

59

References

Bastow, S., Beck, H. Dunleavy, P and Richardson, L. (2006) The Role of Individual Incentives Within Strategies Promoting Civil Renewal, http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/LSEHousing/pdf/theRoleOfIndividualIncentivesWithinStrategiesPromotingCivilRenewal.pdf

Blandy, S., Green, S. and MCoulough, E. (2004) Boundary Building in NDC Areas, Research Report 39, Sheffield: CRESR, Sheffield Hallam University.

Cole, I., McCoulough, E and Southworth, J. (2000) Neighbourhood Agreements in Action: A case study of Foxwood, York., York: York Publishing Services.

Dillane, J., Hill, M., Bannister, J. and Scott, S. (2001) Evaluation of the Dundee Families Project, Edinburgh: Scottish Executive, Dundee City Council and NCH Action for Children.

Flint, J. (2006) ‘Housing and the new governance of conduct’ in Flint, J. (ed) Anti-social Behaviour and Housing: Theory, Policy and Practice, Bristol: Policy Press.

Flint, J. (2004) The Responsible Tenant: Housing governance and the politics of behaviour, CNR Paper 20, August, ESRC Centre for Neighbourhood Research.

Home Office (2004: 47) Confident Communities in a Secure Britain: The Home Office Strategic Plan 2004, London: Home Office.

Hunter, C. and Nixon, J (2001) Social Landlords’ Anti-social Behaviour Services, Social Landlords’ Use of Information Exchange Schemes and Anti-social Behaviour Orders, Coventry: Social Landlords Crime and Nuisance group.

Jones, A., Pleace, N. and Quilgars, D. (2006, forthcoming) An Evaluation of Shelter Inclusion Project, London: Shelter.

Lupton, M., Hale, J. and Sprigings, N. (2003) Incentives and Beyond? The Transferability of the Irwell Valley Gold Service to Other Social Landlords. London: ODPM.

Nixon, J., Blandy, S., Hunter, C., Jones, A. and Reeves, K. (2003), Tackling Anti-Social Behaviour in Mixed Tenure Areas, London: ODPM.

Nixon, J., Hunter, C., Parr, S., Myers, S, Whittle, S. and Sanderson, D. (2006) Interim

Evaluation Of Rehabilitation Projects for Families at Risk Of Losing their Homes as a Result of Anti-Social Behaviour, London: ODPM.

ODPM (2005) Sustainable Communities: People, Places and Prosperity, Norwich: The Stationery Office.

ODPM (2006) A Respect Standard for Housing Management, Consultation Paper, London: ODPM.

60

Pawson, H., Flint, J., Scott, S., Atkinson, R., Bannister, J., McKenzie, C. and Mills, C. (2005) The Use of Possession Actions and Evictions by Social Landlords, London: ODPM.

Renewal.net (undated) Creating a Sense of Belonging: The experience of NDC Partnerships, http://www.renewal.net/Documents/RNET/Solving%20the%20Problem/Creatingsensebelonging.doc

Respect Task Force (2006a) Respect Action Plan, London: Home Office.

Respect Task Force (2006b) Tackling Anti-social Behaviour: The story so far and the move to respect, London, Home Office.

Scottish Executive (2003a) Not Reinventing the Wheel: A Directory of Current Practice in Tackling Anti-social Behaviour, Edinburgh: Scottish Executive.

Scottish Executive (2003b) Tackling Anti-social Behaviour: An Audit of Scottish Local Authority Practice 2001-2002, Edinburgh: Scottish Executive.

SEU (2000) Report of Policy Action Team 8: Anti-social Behaviour, London: The Stationery Office.

Steele, A., Somerville, P. and Galvin, G. (1995) Estate Agreements: A New Arrangement for Tenant Participation, Salford: Department of Housing, University of Salford.

TPAS, http://www.tpas.org.uk/sub_page.asp?artid=161&id=1&cat=1&nameCat

61

Appendix 1 Glossary

ABC Acceptable Behaviour Contract (sometimes called an Acceptable Behaviour Agreement or ABA (see http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/antisocialbehaviour/antisocialbehaviour55.pdf)) ALMO Arms Length Management Organisation (see

http://www.communities.gov.uk/index.asp?id=1152504) ASBO Anti-social Behaviour Order (see

http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/antisocialbehaviour/antisocialbehaviour55.pdf) CDRP Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership (see http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/regions/regions00.htm ODPM Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (now Communities and Local Government) RSL Registered Social Landlord SEU Social Exclusion Unit TMO Tenancy Management Organisation (see http:/www.nftmo.com/tmo.html )

62

63

Appendix 2 Electronic Survey

APPENDIX C:

RESPECT: Good Neighbour Agreements and the Promotion of

Positive Behaviour in Communities

Email Survey The Centre of Housing Policy has been commissioned by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) and the Home Office to examine the use of various forms of Good Neighbour Agreements amongst social landlords. These initiatives may employ a variety of tools and be known by different names e.g. Tenants Charters, Community Declarations, Tenants Incentives or Rewards Schemes or may be part of wider Estate Agreements. The initiatives that this study is concerned with share the aims of reinforcing the terms of the tenancy agreement and promoting positive behaviour amongst tenants and/or residents, as part of the drive to reduce anti-social behaviour. The research aims to explore the range and extent of existing schemes, the perceived benefits they may provide and challenges such initiatives may face. This survey represents the first stage of the project and aims to provide an overview of the range of service provision in this area. The next stage will explore the various forms of Good Neighbour Agreements in more depth through short telephone interviews with key actors. This survey should take no more than ten minutes to complete. Please complete the form in Word and return via email by Friday 20 January 2006. Thank you, your assistance with this is much appreciated.

64

GOOD NEIGHBOUR AGREEMENTS AND PROMOTION OF POSITIVE BEHAVIOUR IN COMMUNITIES

1. Name of Organisation and contact?

Organisation: Address: Contact Name: Position held:

2. Type of Organisation?

□ Local authority (LA) □ Registered Social Landlord (RSL) □ Arms Length Management Organisation (ALMO) □ Housing Action Trust (HAT) □ Tenant Management Organisation (TMO) □ Private Finance Initiative (PFI) □ Crime and Disorder Partnership

3. Please indicate size of housing stock managed?

………………………….No. of units

4. Which of the following penalties do you use to remedy anti-social behaviour? (Cross all that apply)

□ Acceptable Behaviour Contracts/Agreements? □ Anti-Social Behaviour Orders? □ Housing Act injunctions? □ Demotion? □ Possession Action? □ Suspension of Right to Buy? □ Section 222 injunctions? □ Other, please specify.

5. Have you employed any of the following initiatives to promote good behaviour? (Cross all that apply)

□ Good Neighbour Agreement? □ Tenant’s Code of Conduct/Charter? □ Tenant Incentives or Rewards Schemes

(i.e. Gold Service type schemes)? □ Tenant or Community Declaration? □ Estate agreements that require households to

behave in an acceptable manner? □ Other, please specify.

6. Please give an estimate of the number of households covered by any such Good Neighbour Agreements?

7. If not, have you ever actively considered the use of any such schemes? (After

□ Yes, have considered but decided against. □ Yes, currently being considered. □ No

65

completing this box, please go to Q14).

If you have considered such a scheme, please tell us briefly which one and your reasons for not going ahead.

8. If you do run a type of Good Neighbour Agreement, what were the key motivations behind the scheme? (Cross all that apply)

□ Management issues (i.e. voids, rent arrears, turnover)?

□ Anti-social behaviour? □ Community cohesion/Neighbourhood management

issues? □ Protect investment or regeneration (sustainability)? □ Customer retention or marketing tool? □ Part of organisational change? □ Scheme requested by tenants or residents? □ Other, please specify.

9. Who is the scheme aimed at? (Cross all that apply)

□ All tenants of your organisation? □ Tenants on particular estate/neighbourhood? □ Tenants of more than one social landlord in area? □ All residents of particular estate/neighbourhood (all

tenures) □ Homeowners/leaseholders? □ Private tenants?

10. How was the scheme agreed?

(Cross all that apply)

□ Developed out of extensive community participation?

□ Drawn up with other agencies? □ Drawn up by landlord with wide tenant

consultation? □ Drawn up by landlord with consultation with tenant

representatives? □ Other, please specify.

11. How is your type of Good Neighbour Agreement used? (Cross all that apply)

□ Reinforce landlord’s tenancy agreement? □ Reinforce Communities’ own values (i.e. self-

policing)? □ As part of Estate Agreement (i.e. to secure

commitment of community to area, in addition to service providers)?

□ To provide incentives for positive behaviour? □ Non- participation in scheme triggers support or

management intervention? □ Other, please specify.

66

□ Yes? □ No? If yes, is the support? □ Residential support? □ Floating support? □ Mixed support?

13. Can you give an estimate of the resources your organisation used to set up the scheme (i.e. staff time or estimate of costs etc)?

14. What would be your principal good practice learning point when considering forms of Good Neighbour Agreement to promote positive behaviour?

15. If you operate such a Good Neighbour Agreement scheme (or a similar scheme) or have actively considered introducing such a scheme, please indicate whether you would be willing to participate in a short telephone interview (30-40 minutes).

□ Yes, I would be willing to participate in a follow up telephone interview.

Contact Name:

Contact Telephone Number:

□ No, I would not like to take any further part in the

project.

THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO COMPLETE THIS FORM. THE INFORMATION YOU PROVIDE WILL BE VERY HELPFUL. PLEASE RETURN THE FORM TO ONE OF THE EMAIL ADDRESSES BELOW. Should you have any queries regarding the project or require any further information then please do not hesitate to contact Alison Wallace (aw152@york.ac.uk). Centre for Housing Policy, University of York, Heslington, York. YO10 5DD. Tel. 01904 321480.

67

Appendix 3 Topic Guides

RESPECT: GOOD NEIGHBOUR AGREEMENTS AND THE PROMOTION OF POSITIVE BEHAVIOUR IN THE COMMUNITY TOPIC GUIDE FOR TENANTS FOCUS GROUP Introductions, explanation of the purpose of the research and the focus group, confidentiality and permission to record the discussion. Outcomes (report etc). TOPIC 1: Context: Anti-social behaviour How big an issue is anti-social behaviour for your organisation?

Is ASB a major concern (over-hyped at all)? Localised or generic problem? Priority or not for tenants? What types of anti-social behaviour cause the most concern to tenants? Are a lot of resources directed towards anti-social behaviour?

TOPIC 2: Good Neighbour Agreements Can you tell us about your good neighbour scheme or agreement?

How much do you know about the other types of similar agreements? Level of interest amongst tenants Level of knowledge

What do you think are, or should be the key components of a good neighbour scheme?

Types of behaviour covered Cover all tenants, or just certain estates, certain individuals Way they are developed, agencies and tenants involved Ways to monitor

68

Types of agreement – which are most appropriate?

Type A: Declarations/Charters/Codes of Conduct – tend to be generic lists of expected “good” behaviours, aimed across the Board at all tenants, or all tenants

Type B: Estate Based agreements, often tied to service agreement with landlord

Type C: Rewards and incentives, tend to be voluntary, tenants elect to join

Combination of the above. What might be the pros and cons of using different types of agreements?

Might work in some places but not others? Might work for some tenants and not others? Might work or not for different types of behaviours? Might work for some types of organisation but not others? Outcomes?

TOPIC 3: Decision Making Process Where did the idea for your agreement come from?

• Visiting other organisations, landlords, from TPAS, other? How did your organisations go about setting up the various schemes?

Bottom up/community involvement? Top-down approach? How were tenants involved/consulted? To what extent did the terms of the scheme/behaviour come from tenants? How should agreements be developed - who (agency/organisations/tenants) should

be involved, or take the lead? Topic 4: Operation of Good Neighbour Agreements and other schemes In terms of how Good Neighbour Agreements or similar schemes operate, should these agreements apply to all residents in social rented housing, or should they just be targeted on certain places?

Reasons for targeting on a particular place Reasons for not targeting on a particular place

What about either types of tenure: private rented sector, home ownership, areas of

mixed tenure, different landlords?

69

How do you think individuals’ “compliance” with Good Neighbour Agreements can or should be monitored?

What role should tenants have? Does the existence of such agreements and schemes make you as tenants more

confident to approach neighbours who may be breaking the agreements? TOPIC 5: Effectiveness of schemes What has changed as a result of the scheme being introduced?

Has it worked better in some places more than others? What sort of things has it not changed? Why do you think that is?

IN SUMMARY What do you think are the main benefits of Good Neighbour Agreements?

For organisations? For tenants? Other?

What do you think are the main challenges/weakness of Good Neighbour Agreements?

For organisations? For tenants?

If tenant groups of other organisations came to you for advice about developing a scheme is there anything else that you think they should consider? Is there anything else you would like to add? THANK YOU AND CLOSE

70

RESPECT: GOOD NEIGHBOUR AGREEMENTS AND THE PROMOTION OF POSITIVE BEHAVIOUR IN THE COMMUNITY

TELEPHONE INTERVIEW TOPIC GUIDE – SOCIAL LANDLORDS Introductions

• Introduce self • Explain purpose of project • 40-45 minutes interview. Ask for permission to record the interview and explain

confidentiality. • Job description/Role • Where based

Background / context setting

• How much of a problem is ASB in your area? • What types of ASB are most common?

What type of scheme Can you tell us a bit about the type of Good Neighbour/ estate agreement/ reward scheme you have

• What is it called? • How long has it been running? • What are its basic features? • Are there any variations in the agreements or what people are asked to sign?

How would you describe the type of areas or estates where the scheme is operating?

• For example, suburban cul-de-sac or group of houses to large system built estate or tower blocks, rural area, type of tenure in area etc

Are all tenants/residents invited to join the scheme? If not universal, what is the coverage of the scheme?

Decision making process Where did the idea for the scheme come from?

• Management, from tenants, a conference, media?

Was there anything in particular that prompted your organisation’s interest in such schemes? • Was it a response to particular problems? If so, what sort of ASB problems existed? • If not, do you see it as a preventative measure?

Did you consider any other sorts of schemes to promote positive behaviour?

• Rewards schemes, code of conduct, estate agreements, anything else?

71

What made you finally decide this was the best option? Could you tell me how you went about getting approval from the councillors or Board?

• What was the typical response of Board or councillors? • What do you think attracted them to the scheme? Were there any concerns?

Did you involve tenants and residents in the decision to adopt the scheme? • How did you do this? • What was a typical response from tenants or residents?

What kinds of behaviour is the agreement trying to address? Are there any behaviours the agreement does not cover and why not? Can you tell me more about how you decided on the content of the agreement?

• Were tenants involved in deciding on the content? If so how did this work? • Were there any clauses that tenants wanted that were not adopted? Why was this? • Now it is up and running is there anything you wish you had added?

Were any other agencies involved in the development of scheme? • If so, which agencies? • How did you go about getting them involved? • What contribution did they make?

o Were there any problems (e.g. deciding content of agreements) o Do these agencies assist in promoting schemes? How?

Can you tell us more about the time and other resources spent on developing the scheme?

• Staff time, what level of staff, time for meetings, legal advice. • Any particular problems apart from those mentioned above?

Operation of scheme How are tenants encouraged to sign or join the scheme?

• Can you tell me more about the sign up process? • How are existing tenants or residents encouraged to join? • What type of media do you use to promote the scheme? • To what extent are tenants involved in encouraging their neighbours to join?

What happens if tenants or residents decline invitations to join scheme?

• Does this act as an early warning of difficulties? • If so, what happens? Are other agencies or support services involved?

Are some types of tenants more likely than others to sign up?

• How do you go about reaching other groups of people, for example, ethnic groups? If English is not their first language, how do you ensure they understand the terms?

• How have you involved those with learning disabilities, mental health problems or drug and alcohol users, low literacy levels?

o Are support agencies involved in explaining terms of agreement or sign up?

72

How do you monitor if tenants or residents are sticking to the agreement? • Routine housing officer/caretaker inspections or work? • Community wardens, dedicated officers, other? • To what extent are tenants or residents involved in monitoring each others’

behaviour?

What do you think the agreement offers over and above the terms of the tenancy agreement?

• What happens if people breach the agreement? • How does it fit in with other ASB work? • Are signed agreements used in court? How are they used? • What types / levels of sanctions are used? Is there a spectrum of responses? E.g.,

are tenants giving a warning/ visit first, with the ultimate sanction being loss of tenancy or a demoted tenancy?

Monitoring of effectiveness Has the scheme met your initial expectations?

• If so, in what way? What do you think has changed as a consequence of the agreements being in place?

• How quickly did these changes become apparent? • Has the change been lasting or have effects tailed off at all?

Has the schemes existence in any way strengthened tenants’ ability or confidence to resolve neighbourhood problems? How do you evaluate the success of the scheme? What do you use to measure or gauge success?

• Do you collect data specifically for this purpose? (ASB reports, housing officer impressions, other agency data?)

• What, if any, other information/data would be useful for monitoring purposes?

Do you think the scheme has worked in some areas, or with some people, better than others?

• If so, what do you think accounts for these differences? Where/ who does it work better for? Where/ who does the scheme not work for and why? Are you aware of any other schemes in the same areas aiming to tackle anti-social behaviour (e.g. parenting schemes, youth schemes, curfews, dispersal etc)?

• What contribution do you think they may have had to the changes seen on the estate or in your stock?

• How/what do you think your scheme adds to other interventions to prevent/tackle ASB in the area?

73

Benefits and challenges • What would you highlight as the main benefits of such a scheme?

• What would you highlight as the main challenges of such a scheme?

• Have there been any unexpected consequences?

• If you were to develop the scheme again, is there anything you would do differently?

• If another housing organisation asked your advice about how or whether to set up

such a scheme, do you have any further advice for them? • What would you like to see in a Good Practice Guide? What sort of format?

Is there anything else you would like to add? THANK YOU

74

RESPECT: GOOD NEIGHBOUR AGREEMENTS AND THE PROMOTION OF POSITIVE BEHAVIOUR IN THE COMMUNITY TOPIC GUIDE FOR REGIONAL PRACTITIONERS FOCUS GROUP Introductions, explanation of the purpose of the research and the focus group, confidentiality and permission to record the discussion. Outcomes (report etc). TOPIC 1: Context: Anti-social behaviour agenda – 10-15 minutes How big an issue is anti-social behaviour for your organisation?

Is ASB a major concern (over-hyped at all)? Localised or generic problem? Priority or not for your tenant members? What types of anti-social behaviour are cause biggest concern to their members? Are a lot of resources directed towards anti-social behaviour?

TOPIC 2: Good Neighbour Agreements Can you tell us about the type of good neighbour scheme or agreements? (Estate agreements, rewards, declarations have to sign etc.)

How much do you know about the other types of Good Neighbour Agreements? Level of interest amongst tenants and staff in preventative measures? Is it something interested in finding more about?

What do you think are, or should be the key components of a Good Neighbour Agreement?

Types of behaviour covered Cover all tenants, or just certain estates, certain individuals Way they are developed, agencies and tenants involved Ways to monitor

Types of agreement - typology:

Type A: Declarations/Charters/Codes of Conduct – tend to be generic lists of expected “good” behaviours, aimed across the Board at all tenants, or all tenants

Type B: Estate Based agreements, often tied to service agreement with landlord

Type C: Rewards and incentives, tend to be voluntary, tenants elect to join Combination of the above. Are these distinctions you are aware of?

75

What might be the pro and cons of using different types of agreements?

Might work in some places but not others? Might work for some tenants and not others? Might work or not for different types of behaviours? Might work for some types of organisation but not others? Outcomes? What other things do you think might work to change behaviour?

TOPIC 3: Decision Making Process Where did the idea come from?

Visiting other organisations, landlords, from TPAS, other? How did your organisations go about setting up the various schemes?

Getting board/councillor involvement? Bottom up/community involvement? Top-down approach? How were tenants involved/consulted? To what extent did the terms of the scheme/behaviour come from tenants? How should agreements be developed - who (agency/organisations/tenants) should

be involved, or take the lead?

What level of resources was needed to develop the scheme (time, staff, money)? Topic 4: Operation of Good Neighbour Agreements In terms of how Good Neighbour Agreements operate, should these agreements apply to all residents in social rented housing, or should they just be targeted on certain places?

Reasons for targeting on a particular place Reasons for not targeting on a particular place What about either types of tenure: private rented sector, home ownership, areas of

mixed tenure, different landlords. How do you think individuals’ “compliance” with Good Neighbour Agreements can or should be monitored?

How are people invited to join scheme? what role should tenants have? What happens if people don’t comply? Does the existence of such agreements and schemes make you as tenants more

confident to approach neighbours who may be breaking the agreements?

76

TOPIC 5: Effectiveness of schemes Do you think the schemes in your organisation have been successful?

• In tackling ASB? • And/or for dealing with other problems e.g., rent arrears, voids?

What sort of things have changed as a result of the scheme being introduced to your organisation?

Has it worked better in some places more than others? What sort of things has it not changed? Why do you think that is? Are you aware of other strategies or activities to tackle ASB in your estates or areas?

What sort of evidence have you used, or do you plan to use, to measure success in this area? IN SUMMARY What do you think are the main benefits of Good Neighbour Agreements?

For organisations For tenants

What do you think are the main challenges/weakness of Good Neighbour Agreements?

For organisations? For tenants?

If other organisations came to you for your opinion is there anything else that we’ve not covered that you think they should consider before agreeing to scheme? Are there any lessons learned you’d like to pass on?

77

RESPECT: GOOD NEIGHBOUR AGREEMENTS AND THE PROMOTION OF POSITIVE BEHAVIOUR IN THE COMMUNITY TOPIC GUIDE FOR NATIONAL STAKEHOLDERS FOCUS GROUP Introductions, explanation of the purpose of the research and the focus group, confidentiality and permission to record the discussion. Outcomes (report etc). TOPIC 1: Context: Anti-social behaviour agenda – 10-15 minutes How big an issue is anti-social behaviour for your organisation?

Is it a major concern (over-hyped at all?) Localised or generic problem? Priority or not for organisation? What types of anti-social behaviour are cause biggest concern to their members? Resources that directed towards anti-social behaviour?

How much do you know about Good Neighbour Agreements?

Level of interest within organisation Level of knowledge

What do you think are, or should be the key components of a Good Neighbour Agreement?

Types of behaviour covered Cover all tenants, or just certain estates, certain individuals Way they are developed, agencies and tenants involved Ways to monitor

TOPIC 2: Introduce Progress Report Thinking behind the commissioning Stress is work in progress What are you initial impressions of the findings so far?

Anything surprising or shocking Anything that runs contrary to their experience Extent of use of Good Neighbour Agreements

Types of agreement - typology:

Type A: Declarations/Charters/Codes of Conduct – tend to be generic lists of expected “good” behaviours, aimed across the Board at all tenants, or all tenants

78

Type B: Estate Based agreements, often tied to service agreement with landlord

Type C: Rewards and incentives, tend to be voluntary, tenants elect to join

Combination of the above. Does this framework ring true with your experience?

Any types of agreement missing? What might be the pro and cons of using different types of agreements? Type A:

Might work in some places but not others? Might work for some tenants and not others? Might work or not for different types of behaviours? Might work for some types of organisation but not others? Outcomes?

Type B:

Might work in some places but not others? Might work for some tenants and not others? Might work or not for different types of behaviours? Might work for some types of organisation but not others? Outcomes?

Type C

Might work in some places but not others? Might work for some tenants and not others? Might work or not for different types of behaviours? Might work for some types of organisation but not others? Outcomes?

TOPIC 3: Operation and of Good Neighbour Agreements Who do you think should be involved in setting up Good Neighbour Agreements?

Bottom up/community involvement? Top-down approach? What agency/organisations should be involved, or take the lead?

In terms of how Good Neighbour Agreements operate, should these agreements apply to all residents in social rented housing, or should they just be targeted on certain places?

79

Reasons for targeting on a particular place Reasons for not targeting on a particular place What about either types of tenure: private rented sector, home ownership, areas of

mixed tenure, different landlords. How do you think individuals’ “compliance” with Good Neighbour Agreements can or should be monitored?

What role should tenants have? Do you have any thoughts about the resources being directed towards Good Neighbour Agreements?

Any ideas about costs? Are they a worthwhile investment Priority compared to other anti-social behaviour initiative?

What do you think Good Neighbour Agreements can or will achieve?

How best do you think you can monitor the effectiveness of these agreements? Where would expect to see changes? Types of data to prove changes?

What do you think are the main benefits of Good Neighbour Agreements?

For organisations For tenants

What do you think are the main challenges/weakness of Good Neighbour Agreements?

For organisations? For tenants?

If you were looking for/developing Good Practice Guidelines what would you expect them to be like?

Format? Topics covered? Other?

THANK YOU AND CLOSE