Young People, Anti-social Behaviour and Public Space_ the Role of Community Wardens in Policing the ‘ASBO Generation’

http://usj.sagepub.com/Urban Studies

http://usj.sagepub.com/content/50/3/538The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0042098012468899

2013 50: 538Urban StudDonna Marie Brown

Wardens in Policing the 'ASBO Generation'Young People, Anti-social Behaviour and Public Space: The Role of Community

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Urban Studies Journal Foundation

can be found at:Urban StudiesAdditional services and information for

http://usj.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://usj.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

What is This?

- Jan 24, 2013Version of Record >>

by guest on January 29, 2013usj.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Young People, Anti-social Behaviour andPublic Space: The Role of CommunityWardens in Policing the ‘ASBO Generation’

Donna Marie Brown

[Paper first received, November 2010; in final form, March 2012]

Abstract

The potential benefits of public space frequently translate into inequitable social andspatial outcomes for specific groups. Young people in particular are being excludedfrom public spaces through a range of explicit and implicit measures. In the UK, onesignificant trend constraining their ability to access such space is the extent to whichthey are commonly perceived as perpetrators of anti-social behaviour. The perceivedlevels of anti-social behaviour associated with the ‘ASBO generation’ are exacerbat-ing concerns over youths’ presence in, as opposed to absence from, public space.Synthesising new ethnographic research with existing debates about the relationshipbetween young people, anti-social behaviour and public space, this paper argues thatit is necessary to address the multifarious discursive processes and material practicesinfluencing young people’s use of public space. The paper demonstrates how, asopposed to eradicating young people from public space, Community Wardens inDundee often provide them with the opportunity for positive and meaningfulencounters with places (and people) in their local communities.

Introduction: Young People, Anti-social Behaviour and the Policingof Public Space

Since the election of New Labour intopower in the UK in 1997 and the subse-quent launch of its ‘urban renaissance’ pro-gramme, urban policy has received renewedlevels of interest within political, popular

and academic circles (Amin et al., 2000;Johnstone and Whitehead, 2004).1 Manycommentators have noted the increasedlevels of securitisation that have been at theheart of contemporary British urban policy

Donna Marie Brown is in the Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Northumbria University, CoachLane Campus, Coach Lane, Benton, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE7 7XA, UK. E-mail:[email protected].

Urban Studies at 5050(3) 538–555, February 2013

0042-0980 Print/1360-063X Online� 2013 Urban Studies Journal Limited

DOI: 10.1177/0042098012468899 by guest on January 29, 2013usj.sagepub.comDownloaded from

(Burney, 2005; MacLeod, 2002; Millie,2007). As Helms et al. have argued

Current debates around urban policy point

towards an increasing entanglement of social

policy and urban regeneration, but also a

creeping criminalisation of urban policy. By

this we mean that what passes as urban policy

today is often suffused with policies which

are designed to address concerns about secu-

rity, management, social regulation and the

containment of disorder (Helms et al., 2007,

p. 272).

The securitisation agenda at the heart of‘urban renaissance’ processes is composedof material, ideological, social and practicalelements (Imrie and Raco, 2003; Lees,2003). These dimensions perhaps revealthemselves most clearly in public spacedesign, management and regulation (Brownand Fyfe, 2010). Such processes have mani-fested themselves in the material landscapein the form of things such as gates, fences,curved benches, closed circuit televisionoperating systems and sprinkler systemswhich are all designed and used to exclude‘undesirable’ groups from public space(Coleman, 2004).2 They are tangible sym-bols of the kinds of people that are wel-comed into contemporary public space.Simultaneously, the increasing range ofindividuals contributing to the ‘mixedeconomy of policing’ (Crawford and Lister,2004) and constituting the ‘extended poli-cing family’ (Crawford and Lister, 2004;Johnston, 2003) hints at the importanceplaced upon improving security and avert-ing risk in current rounds of urban invest-ment. This paper will demonstrate that, byconstituting part of the extended policingfamily, Dundee’s Community Wardensprovide an interesting example of how localpractice can play a fundamental role ininfluencing people’s sense of security andsafety; not least young people’s.

One of the key themes within existing lit-erature examining this new securitisationagenda is the centrality of ‘anti-social beha-viour’ rhetoric, which is used to justify newforms of policing such as CommunityWardens. Anti-social behaviour has becomea major political focal point and a keypolicy concern in UK policing strategies. AsMillie argues

According to some urban writers, the current

focus on ASB in Britain has led to the blur-

ring of boundaries between urban renaissance

objectives aimed at revitalising urban areas

(UTF, 1999), and a revanchism, aimed at

reclaiming public spaces from undesirables

(Millie, 2008, p. 1682; original emphasis).

This ‘‘blurring of boundaries’’ routinelycharacterises young people as a particularly‘undesirable group’.

Understanding new technologies of con-trol, and the values that inform them, is cen-tral to an appreciation of the complex andcontradictory dynamics that inform youthjustice and influence young people’s rightsto, and use of, public space. The deluge ofpolicy which has been produced aroundcrime, anti-social behaviour and incivilitygoes some way in displaying key values usedto police contemporary public space. Whilstthe definition of ‘anti-social behaviour’ inthe Crime and Disorder Act (1998) andAntisocial Behaviour Act Scotland (2004) isgeneric and subjective—as behaviour that is‘‘likely to cause harassment, alarm or dis-tress to others’’ in the former and ‘‘likely tocause alarm and distress’’ in the latter—Squires and Stephen (2005) have arguedthat national initiatives such as the TogetherCampaign and the Respect Agenda are pre-dominantly concerned with questions of‘governing troublesome youth’.

When Tony Blair became British PrimeMinister in 1997 he argued that ‘‘the scourgeof so many communities are young people

YOUNG PEOPLE AND PUBLIC SPACE 539


with nothing to do [but] make life hell forother citizens’’ (quoted in Squires andStephen, 2005, p. 6). Blair’s derogatorycomments about certain youth groups—namely, those in economically and sociallydeprived communities—mirrored popularopinion about the challenges that youngpeople presented to the provision of safeand attractive public space. This popularimagination of young people as the perpe-trators of anti-social behaviour was fuelledby media reports sensationalising storiesabout the reign of terror that young peoplewere exacting over public spaces. As Burneyhas argued, tabloid newspapers frequentlycarried headlines using the words ‘yobs’,‘thugs’ and ‘louts’—with reference to pro-blematic and anti-social youths—making ita ‘‘short step to the demonization of theseneighbours from hell’’ (Burney, 2005, p. 63).Sensational press reporting has providedregular fuel to the popular fire which hasbeen pathologising young people and sup-porting increasingly punitive policies whichhave unfairly targeted this group (Verkaik,2005).

Burney claims that

Anxieties about loss of social control find

their focus in loud, uninhibited gatherings of

young people in public space. Youths hang-

ing about have become synonymous with

disorder and public threat and are routinely

used to measure the degree to which people

feel uneasy in their neighbourhoods (Burney,

2005, p. 64).

A case in point is that, in an attempt to mea-sure perceptions of anti-social behaviour,the British Crime Survey (Home Office,2007) lists ‘teenagers hanging around onthe street’ as one of seven key variables.3

This problematically conceptualises themere presence of young people in publicspaces as equating to an actual measureor instance of anti-social behaviour. The

public’s perception of young people wasoverwhelmingly illustrated in their responseto the British Crime Survey, whereby youthanti-social behaviour (i.e. their presence inpublic space) was considered to be a majorproblem by 70 per cent of the respondents(Crawford, 2008).4 The 2007/08 ScottishHousehold Survey (Scottish Government,2009) noted the less extensive yet still signif-icant impact of this in Scotland, with 32 percent of households reporting ‘groups ofyoung people hanging around’ as a majoranti-social behaviour problem in their area.

With such statistics, it is possible to illu-minate the increasing perception of prob-lems associated with young people inrelation to the instance of anti-social beha-viour within public space. However, otherinteresting statistics in this area are basedaround the number of Anti-SocialBehaviour Orders (ASBOs)5 given to youngpeople within the UK.6

Anti-social behaviour has become a conveni-

ent peg on which to hang generalised preju-

dices about young people and their activities

which make restrictive policies popular

(Burney, 2005, p. 67).

Crawford argues that whilst anti-socialbehaviour legislation is not automaticallytargeted towards young people, enforce-ment practices associated with the agendaare often used to discriminate againstyouth groups: ‘‘Although the legislation isnot targeted specifically at young people,the genesis and use of the powers reflectthis preoccupation’’ (Crawford, 2008, p.759). Within England and Wales, over 40per cent of the ASBOs served have beengiven to people under 18 (Crawford, 2008).Alongside the ASBO, a range of otherenforcement measures were introducedunder New Labour, including the DispersalOrder where people (invariably youngpeople) can be moved on if in groups of

540 DONNA MARIE BROWN


two or more and thought likely to behaveanti-socially (see Crawford and Lister,2004). Serving young people with legalnotices that banish them from publicspaces shows how patterns of behaviour,which have been associated with youngpeople for a long time, have become subjectto processes of criminalisation. This is par-ticularly concerning, given that

Recent literature on youth in Western societ-

ies has shown how for many young people

the street is still often the only autonomous

spaces that young people are able to carve

out for themselves (Gough and Franch, 2005,

p. 156).

It is interesting to note that a differentapproach has been taken within Scotland,whereby a very limited number of ASBOshave been handed out to people under 18.From 2003 to 2007, people under 18 con-stituted only 13 per cent of those given anASBO and only 11 ASBOs had beenhanded out to people under 16 (ScottishGovernment, 2007). According to theScottish government’s Community PolicingMinister, Fergus Ewing, this has been adeliberate attempt to avoid pathologisingyoung people and criminalising behaviourssuch as hanging out and congregating inpublic space which ‘come naturally to youngpeople’ (Scottish Government, 2008). Thisdraws on a long history of a more ‘welfare-based’ approach to youth justice inScotland, which stems from the 1960sKilbrandon philosophy that places emphasison the need to address the broader struc-tural causes of youth crime and disorder asopposed to simply targeting the individualsymptoms (McVie and McAra, 2010). AsDeuchar has noted, it continues contempor-aneously within Scotland as New Labour’santi-social behaviour agenda was regardedas ‘too centrist’ and

The coercive elements underpinning the

Respect Agenda [in England and Wales]

were resisted by social workers, civil liberty

groups and even the Scottish Police, all of

whom felt that the national ASB agenda

underestimated the welfare-based initiatives

available in Scotland via the children’s hear-

ing system (Deuchar, 2010, p. 261).7

An examination of Dundee’s CommunityWarden Scheme highlights the importanceof accounting for different national policiesand local practices when considering howsecuritisation processes affect young peo-ple’s ability, and desire, to access publicspace.

Young People as a Risk or YoungPeople as at Risk?

As Jupp notes

Commentators have argued that young peo-

ple’s presence in public space is currently

experienced in particularly charged ways,

which need to be thought of within the con-

text of broader constructions of youth as a

form of ‘difference’ or ‘otherness’ in relation

to adulthood (Jupp 2007, p. 2335).8

In discussions about young people and theirrelationship with public space, two keyideas emerge. On the one hand, youngpeople are considered as posing a threat tothe social order and peace of public space.On the other hand, young people are por-trayed as vulnerable within public space andtherefore in need of protection from a rangeof possible risks and threats (Evans, 2008;Skelton, 2009). In short, young peopleare—sometimes simultaneously—portrayedas being both at risk in public space, andbeing a risk to the successful running ofpublic space and the safety of its other users.



As a number of studies have highlighted,young people report higher levels of victimi-sation of anti-social behaviour than adults(Crawford, 2008; Wilson et al., 2006).Perhaps somewhat ironically, the threat thatyoung people feel in public space—not justfrom other young people, but also adults,police enforcement agents, etc.—contri-butes to their desire to congregate in groupsso that they feel safer (Burney, 2005).Research has frequently noted how youngpeople’s intention to remain safe in publicspace by hanging out in groups, is perceivedas threatening behaviour to other users ofpublic space (Malone, 2002; Pain, 2006).Young people are statistically more likely tobe victims of anti-social behaviour andcrime than perpetrators of such actions;consequently, it is important to remain crit-ical of the popular discourses and policingpractices which have been produced andused to reinforce today’s young people asthe offending ‘ASBO generation’ (Verkaik,2005). We need to appreciate more fullywhat public space means to young people,why they want to use it in certain ways andwhat this means for other users. By openingup the channels of communication betweenyoung people and adults, the groups couldperhaps reach a better understanding ofhow their behaviour in public space affectsone another, thus leading to more inclu-sionary aspirations for, and behaviour in,public space. This paper will go on todemonstrate how Dundee’s CommunityWardens have had a positive impact inthese areas, subsequently improving thedesirability and accessibility of public spacefor many young people.

As Crawford has argued

In the context of growing evidence to suggest

that children and young people’s use of public

space has decreased significantly since the

1970s, and against a background of concerns

over the dangers to young people’s health and

well-being of sitting at home either in front of

television sets or internet-connected com-

puter screens, it seems strange that when

young people venture out into groups they

are perceived as a source of danger to be cur-

tailed (Crawford, 2008, p. 777).

If young people are routinely portrayed as‘dangerous’, ‘risky’ and ‘threatening’ toadult and child citizens, we run the risk ofexcluding them from a very importanteveryday resource. Young people frequentlycomplain that they do not have enoughsafe and suitable alternative places in whichto congregate other than public spaces(Crawford, 2008; Millie, 2008; Elsley,2004). If young people are constantlyremoved from public space, they can bedisplaced to more marginal landscapes,which can present them with a range ofpotential threats due to the lack of naturalsurveillance provided by the public’s pres-ence (Sibley, 1995).

Situating the Relationship betweenYoung People, Anti-socialbehaviour and Public Space

This paper aims to contextualise, challengeand extend some of the key arguments inthe existing literature to consider how theanti-social behaviour agenda is affectingyoung people’s relationship with publicspace in an everyday setting. By providingevidence-based insights from primaryresearch, it begins to address the researchgap that characterises this area of study(Bannister et al., 2006; Helms et al., 2007).It does this through an intensive engage-ment with young people, policing actorsand local community members in a casestudy of Dundee, Scotland’s fourth-largestcity. In particular, it concentrates on therelationship between young people andCommunity Wardens in the ‘scheme’ areas



of Dundee.9 Discussing community poli-cing initiatives, Crawford notes that

The contemporary urban predicament has

largely been seen through the lens of socially

deprived housing estates, wherein anti-social

behaviour and crime compound other prob-

lems (Crawford, 2006, p. 958).

I can make no apology for focusing mycase sites in such ‘socially deprived housingestates’, as Dundee’s Community Wardenschemes (and all of the Scottish Wardenschemes) are located in such geographicalareas.

Community Wardens are relatively newmembers of the ‘extended policing family’.Employed by local authorities and definedas a ‘‘uniformed, semi-official presence in aresidential area with the aim of improvingquality of life’’ (Scottish Executive, 2003, p.8), they were introduced in 2003 with fund-ing from the Scottish Executive as part of its‘‘Building strong, safe and attractive com-munities’’ programme (Scottish Executive,2003). This funding has supported just over500 wardens who have been distributedacross Scotland’s 32 local authorities largelyon the basis of levels of deprivation and sizeof population. Typically, these wardens areengaged in a mix of ‘soft policing activities’which include: providing high visibilitypatrols to deter crime and anti-social beha-viour; working with the police and otheragencies to promote community safety;acting as a link between the community andlocal authority departments; working withvulnerable groups; and tackling environ-mental issues. They exert a significant influ-ence on young people’s relationship withpublic spaces in their patrol areas. Whilstthe significance of the local context andpriorities of specific schemes, and the per-sonality and performance of individual war-dens are important, the findings in this

research can be related to other similarareas. So, whereas this case study approachdoes not seek to be representative of othergeographical locales, the research findingsspeak to broader debates within society.The paper, therefore, leads to a set of policyand practice messages that are somewhattransportable.

The research for this paper took place inDundee between November 2007 andNovember 2009, and emerged as part of abroader project exploring the policing ofyoung people in the UK. A multimethod,qualitative and ethnographically basedapproach was developed for data generation.This comprised a mixture of semi-structuredinterviews with key stakeholders and partici-pant observation in the form of ‘walk-outs’with Community Wardens on patrol in localcommunities. The research methodologyattempted to gain access to the personalexperiences, articulations and accounts ofactors involved in the policing of publicspace and to elicit information about howtheir practices influenced local young peo-ple’s use of these spaces. Thirty interviewswere conducted with Community Wardens,Community Police Officers, Dundee CityCouncil Representatives and CommunityRepresentatives and over 50 with local resi-dents (including 25 with young peoplebetween the ages of 13 and 18). I accompa-nied Community Wardens on over 100hours of patrol ‘walk-outs’, which facilitateda unique insight into the multiple ways thatthey translated national guidance into localpractice at the community level. The ‘walk-outs’ allowed unprecedented access to thedaily activities of Dundee’s wardens. Thissupported the aims of the research to cap-ture some of the daily encounters betweenCommunity Wardens and young people. Italso allowed me to identify and contact theyoung people who were interacting with theCommunity Wardens, creating space within



the project for their subjective experiences ofthe wardens’ policing strategies, alongsideany other relevant issues.10

To adhere to health and safety proce-dures, when out on patrol I would wear aCommunity Warden’s uniform (i.e. a high-visibility jacket), but would not participatedirectly in the Community Warden’s work.So as not to distract from the warden’s activ-ities, I would take notes whilst on breaks orafter patrols.11 The ethical standards of theresearch funders—the Scottish Institute forPolicing Research and the Carnegie Trust—were closely followed and all of the individu-als involved in the research granted theirinformed consent to participation in theproject and anonymity has been providedthroughout. As an extensive amount of timewas spent in the field, it is impossible toexamine all of the issues raised; therefore,this paper aims to discuss four of the keythemes that emerged—namely: the signifi-cance of anti-social behaviour rhetoric onyoung people’s use of public space; theimportance of Community Wardens inimproving public spaces for young people;the significance of the wardens in program-ming attractive public space for youngpeople; and, the diverse ways in whichyoung people respond to the wardens. Thepaper will now address each of these issuesin turn.

The Influence of ‘Anti-socialBehaviour’ on Young People’s Useof Public Space

Whilst the young people interviewed forthis research believed that the rise of theanti-social behaviour agenda contributed tohow other members of the community per-ceived them, and subsequently how theyperceived and used public space, it was onlyone of the factors affecting their everydaysocio-spatial experiences of such spaces.

Factors influencing young people’s percep-tion and use of public spaces included per-sonal (for example, family, emotional,financial, identity), physical (for example,context, attractiveness and accessibility),formal control, management and regulation(for example, enforcement officers, CCTV,barriers and gates) and informal control,management and regulation (for example,parental, peer group and community) ele-ments, often in complex combinations.Nevertheless, there was a general consensusamongst the young respondents that therise of ‘the term anti-social youth’, ‘thecommon belief that teenagers are all anti-social’ and ‘the bad media that so-calledASBO kids receive’ all contributed in someway to excluding young people from publicspace. This is echoed by professionals suchas Weller who have fervently argued that

Contemporary ‘hot topics’ such as wearing

hoodies and the Anti-social Behaviour Act

2003 are all highly spatialised issues which dis-

proportionately affect teenagers’ freedom of

movement and status within society (Weller,

2006, p. 105).

The rise of the anti-social behaviour agendahas been harnessed in a number of implicitand explicit ways to (in)directly excludeyoung people from public space in subtleand complex manners. As one participantnoted

It’s not just the words ‘anti-social behaviour’

that’s the problem it’s how it makes people

feel and act towards us [young people]. Half

of the locals are scared stiff of us because of

the stuff what they read in the papers. The

others won’t give us the time of day because

they think we’re scum, I mean they don’t

even know us (male, 16, 2008).

As this quotation suggests, many youngpeople are negatively affected by the



growing fear amongst members of theircommunity, which can be partiallyexplained by the rise in the rhetoric of‘youth anti-social behaviour’ (Burney,2005; Crawford, 2006). In this sense, it isnot simply the case that young people areformally policed by the ‘extended policingfamily’ and forcibly removed from publicspaces. Significantly, this research demon-strated that young people are sensitive tohow their presence in public space—mostlyunintentionally—negatively impacts uponmembers of their local communities, evok-ing a range of responses from hostility toignorance.

The rising levels of ‘fear’ associated withthe congregation of young people in resi-dential public spaces concerned the youngresearch participants. They felt as thoughtheir activities were considered as ‘mali-cious’, ‘threatening’, ‘dangerous’ and ‘risky’by others even though they believed thatthey constituted the ‘normal behaviour’ ofyoung people hanging out in open space.Indeed, the views of the CommunityWardens supported these contentions.Some of the young people tried to ‘changetheir behaviour’ and ‘appear more friendly’by ‘looking at people’, ‘smiling’ or evensaying ‘hello’, but there was a general con-sensus that such activities were ill receivedor ignored and sometimes even served tointimidate people further.

I have argued elsewhere (Brown and Fyfe,2010) that one of the major advantages ofthe Community Wardens is their ability toidentify and intervene in situations wherethey perceive a breakdown in social relationsbetween marginal members of the commu-nity and the wider community. When itcomes down to restoring the broken rela-tionships between young people and thebroader community, the role of CommunityWardens appears to be particularly impor-tant. As one warden summarised

The young people are, well they’re young.

Sometimes they don’t know what to do if

their community is turning against them.

Some of the older residents are often too

intimidated to make the effort to speak to

the young ones so things break down. We

can help fix things, as we will usually know

both groups and we can start to build up the

communication between them (Community

Warden A, 2008).

The Community Warden’s broad overviewof the community, its members and anypotential problems, combined with the highlevels of trust that they had gained from abroad range of residents through regularcontact, mean that they are useful media-tors and negotiators in times of communitydispute. To draw on a pertinent example,when an elderly couple in Kirkton calledone of the Community Wardens becausethey believed that they were being victi-mised by a group of local young people whowere playing football against their gardenwall, the Wardens were able to respondeffectively and minimise the impact of theyoung people’s actions. As the wardenswere able to respond immediately theyestablished contact with the group of youngpeople and discussed the scenario withthem. As one of the young people described

Aye [Yes] well we didn’t really think we were

doing anything, just playing. Then

[Community Warden] came along and

explained that we were disturbing some of

the neighbours and asked if we would move

on to the grass to play. They [elderly couple]

should have just said and we would have

shifted (male, 13, 2008).

Unfortunately, the elderly couple were tooafraid to address the young people them-selves and, whilst this raises issues in itsown right, the Community Wardens were



able to address the problem for the coupleand make them once again feel safe andsecure in their own home. This was done atno cost to the young people involved, asonce they realised that they were upsettingthe elderly residents they were happy tomove on to the local park to play football.

This is not an isolated example of howthe wardens were able to use their diplo-matic skills to mediate between youngpeople and the broader community.Wardens were regularly called upon topacify situations involving young people in(potential) disputes and, through theirestablished connections with a broad spec-trum of the community, were able to satisfythe needs of diverse groups. The work ofthe wardens regularly included bridging therelationship between young people andtheir communities as they often introducedthem to complainants and created an envi-ronment in which both parties couldexplain their responses to a given incident(be that the ball bouncing off the wall, alarge group congregating and drinkingalcohol in a bus stand, large levels of nui-sance noise, etc.). By opening up the linesof communication between groups, mutualunderstanding was often established and, asone resident emphasised

Well talking to the kids breaks down the barriers.

They see our point, we see theirs, and we can usu-

ally come to an agreement. Even if we can’t, at

least we’re speaking to each other, rather than

shutting down completely. Communication is

important, it’s a great soother (male, 47, 2008).

This research highlighted how wardens chal-lenged people’s perceptions of young peopleas perpetrators of anti-social behaviour, andcontributed to building up relationshipsbetween young people and the broader com-munity, which often had the effect of easingyoung people’s relationship with publicspace as they became more accepted in it.

Young People and the State ofPublic Space: Community Wardensand Environmental Monitoring andImprovement

As much of the academic literature high-lights, a key challenge facing young people’srelationship with public space is the factthat (where it does exist) it is often unsuita-ble for, or unattractive to, young people(Skelton and Valentine, 1998). Travlou et al.propose that

A growing literature on adolescent studies

shows that young people are seemingly invi-

sible from public space in the UK and USA,

provided only with token spaces, often inap-

propriate to their needs and aspirations

(Travlou et al., 2008, p. 309).

In Dundee, young community membersplaced high importance on the provision ofgood public spaces in facilitating their abil-ity to link in with, and be part of, the socialand spatial community. As one respondenthighlighted

We need free places to hang out with our

mates as we don’t have loads of money to

pay for organised activities. Even if we did,

we would still want somewhere we could go

regularly to socialise and meet our friends

and new people. We need places close to

home, places which are part of where we live

(female, 14, 2008).

Echoing the results from other studies, formany of the young people having ‘some-where to go’, spaces where they can enjoysocialising and relaxing with their peergroups, meeting existing friends and devel-oping new friendships was very importantin making them feel part of the local com-munity (Holloway and Valentine, 2000).That the provision of such spaces was lim-ited in many communities, and non-existent



in others, was a key frustration amongst theyoung people.

Throughout this research, the CommunityWardens demonstrated a clear and on-goingcommitment to the improvement of the localenvironments in which they worked. Thistask is cemented within their remit at thenational level (Scottish Executive, 2003),reinforced as essential within the overallDundee Warden Scheme (Dundee CityCouncil, 2006) and translated into profes-sional commitment at the level of practice.As one warden discussed

There is a clear link between environment and

behaviour. If people have a good environment

they’re more likely to respect it and look after

it. If the environment is rubbish, well they’re

more inclined to treat it that way, especially

young people (Community Warden B, 2008).

The wardens were of the opinion that therewas a clear connection between dilapidatedenvironments and an increase in anti-socialbehaviour and low-level crime. As Donnelly(2008) has argued, without falling into envi-ronmental determinism, one of the keystrengths of Scotland’s Community Wardenprogrammes has been their ability to iden-tify and tackle ‘criminogenic environments’.

To draw on a relevant example, the trans-formation of Little Theatre Park demonstratesthe wardens’ significance in identifying, nego-tiating and addressing issues of environmentaldegradation that are negatively impactingupon the local communities’ relationshipswith the environment (and also to a lesserextent with each other). Little Theatre Park islocated at the bottom of Hilltown, one ofDundee’s most economically disadvantagedand socially deprived neighbourhoods. It wasbuilt in the 1960s alongside the prefabricatedtower blocks that were constructed to providesocial housing. Having functioned as a suc-cessful play space for young people throughoutthe 1960s and 1970s, the public park became

dilapidated during the 1980s onwards, leavingit in a ‘‘state of disrepair, danger and neglect’’by 2002 (Dundee City Council employee,2008). The Community Wardens deployed tothe Hilltown area quickly identified the LittleTheatre Park as both a ‘hotspot’ for anti-socialand criminal activity and, therefore, as a zoneof exclusion for most members of the public.Drug dealers and drug users predominantlyused the area for selling and using heroin, andthe evidence of the drug-based activity was tobe found in the used syringes, needles andother paraphernalia that could be found inand around the site (Community Wardens Cand D, 2008). The extent of the drug para-phernalia meant that the area was consideredas unsafe and hence a no-go zone for mem-bers of the local community. The park wasoriginally created for local children (in thehigh-rise flats) to play in, so to a large extent itwas the younger members of the communitythat suffered most from the park’s demise.

As one of Hilltown’s CommunityWardens noted, a number of factors con-tributed to the demise of the park

Well to be honest it was just left to rack and

ruin by the Council, the hedges were over-

grown, the play area had been heavily vanda-

lised and the green spaces were not

maintained. It was a basket case of an area,

and ideal for drug dealing and taking

because of the seclusion that the hedges pro-

vided (Community Warden C, 2008).

After liaising with the local community, thewardens believed that transforming the parkshould be at the top of the community’sdevelopment agenda and they therefore dis-cussed the possibility for regenerating andimproving the area with Dundee CityCouncil. Due to the wardens’ good relation-ship with both the local community and thelocal authority, they were able to act asmediators between the two groups to arriveat an agreement over the transformation of



the park. Following discussions between thestakeholders (which included groups oflocal young people), it was decided that thehedges surrounding the park would becleared and that new play equipment(including swings, a see-saw and a climbingframe) would be installed in a new greenpark. Since this intervention, Little TheatrePark now acts as an

ideal play area for the young people in the

Hilltown, they now have a freely available,

well-designed, safe and functional space that

is attractive to a range of young people

(Community Youth Worker, 2008).

Dundee’s Community Wardens were con-sidered as an essential resource in environ-mental improvement amongst the residentsincluded in this research project. Theyoung people in particular were generallyimpressed at the wardens’ commitment tolobbying for the improvement of playspaces within the residential areas that theypatrolled. By being well connected with thelocal community and the local authority,the wardens were suitably positioned tounderstand both the needs of the commu-nity (including young people) and how thelocal authority could best address thoseneeds. As opposed to excluding youngpeople from residential public spaces, byinstigating environmental improvementsthe wardens aimed actively to encourageyoung people to use these spaces.

Programming Public Space forYoung People: CommunityWardens and the Production ofActivity Programmes

One of the key functions of CommunityWardens is to address the ‘reassurance gap’that characterises large swathes of Britishneighbourhoods.12 High-visibility patrols

are an essential element of reassurance poli-cing as local policing authorities and munic-ipal councils attempt to demonstrate thatthere is a policing presence within areas withhigh levels of fear of crime. With time andlocal knowledge acting as two of the keyresources of Community Wardens withinDundee’s scheme, they were well placed tofind out the priorities and needs of localcommunities. Whilst on ‘walk-outs’ withthe wardens, I would witness how they wereregularly asked if it would be possible to pro-vide a programme of activities for localyoung people. These requests would comefrom the young people themselves and fromother members of the communities thatwanted the wardens to reduce teenage drink-ing over the weekends. As one of Pitkeroo’sCommunity Wardens emphasised

A key cause of anti-social behaviour in the

young people here is boredom. There is very

little for them to do of an evening or a week-

end. This boredom can translate into binge

drinking and the low-level nuisance activities

associated with it (Community Warden E,

2008).

Within criminological and psychologicalliterature on young people and anti-socialbehaviour, boredom is frequently cited as amajor instigator of such activity (Burney,2005; Squires and Stephen, 2005). Having‘nowhere to go’ and ‘nothing to do’ isbroadly conceived of as a major contributorto low-level incivilities. In order to combatthis, Dundee’s Community Wardens triedto organise and run activity sessions thatwould attract young people and thereforedivert them away from any potential anti-social encounters. As one of the SeniorCommunity Wardens noted

We try to engage young people in diversion-

ary activities at times when youth anti-social

behaviour is usually at its peak—that is on a



Friday and Saturday night. If there’s nothing

better for them to do, many of the young

people will drink over the weekend and this

causes a lot of trouble for them and other

residents (Senior Community Warden A,

2008).

Acknowledging the (lack of) social opportu-nities available to local young people, whooften depend on the provision of local ser-vices and activities because of their restrictedmobility (and, in the case of the schemeareas, financial capital to purchase consumerservices), the Community Wardens wereable to identify ‘potential problem times andlocations’ for young people and to developstrategies to reduce the potential risks. Todraw on a relevant example, when a group ofyoung people from Stobswell alerted thewardens to the fact that the reason for suchhigh levels of ‘binge-drinking’ and the asso-ciated ‘loud noise and fighting’ on a Fridayand Saturday night was based on the situa-tion where ‘‘there’s nothing to dee [do]around here’’ (male, 15, 2008), the wardenswere able to draw on a local sports anddevelopment scheme to provide activities atthe local leisure centre on these eveningsbetween 7pm and 9.30pm.

Whilst the wardens would only attend thebeginning and the end of the session, theywere able to utilise their knowledge of localauthority provisions and their contacts withservice providers to give the young peoplean opportunity to engage in positive socialactivity. As one participant noted

I mean I don’t even play sport, but this is great

as it gives us [young people in Stobswell]

something to do with our weekend once we’re

finished school. It’s great fun just to get

together without having any hassle (female,

13, 2008).

As well as diverting a number of youngpeople off the streets, the activities that the

wardens programmed for young people—which included an arts and crafts club, afootball tournament, a sports programmeand a computer club across the differentresidential sites—generated respect fromthe users. Members of the wider commu-nity were also grateful to the wardens formoving young people away from the localshops, reducing the levels of binge-drinkingand the associated nuisance, noise andvandalism.

Whilst the wardens were successful inthe short term in establishing attractiveactivities for large groups of young peopleto get involved in, with increasing pressureson local authority funding the sustainabilityof such schemes is uncertain. Equally, theseprogrammes were treated with apprehen-sion by some young people, who, in thewords of one participant, were perceivedmerely as a ‘‘sweetener to the fact that wecan’t even hang about in our neighbour-hood’’ (female, 15, 2008). It is true thatremoving young people ‘off the streets’raises questions about how equitable thesestreets are for these marginal citizens, butthe issue to which this paper now turns ishow young people perceived the wardensand their policing strategies in a variety ofways.

Working with Diversity: YoungPeople’s Responses to CommunityWardens

By establishing regular contact and goodrelationships with the local community,Dundee’s Community Wardens were gener-ally well received and respected by theresearch participants. Such relationships,however, were always open to change andwere an on-going negotiation for the war-dens. Many of the young people reportedthat they were initially rather suspicious ofthe role of the wardens, believing them to be



nothing more than the ‘eyes and ears of thepolice’ (echoing the original remit of thewardens; Scottish Government, 2008). Thisis something which has been noted by otherresearchers in the field, such as Crawfordwho has argued that

The fact that wardens report incidents to the

police and call upon them to intervene in cer-

tain situations can reinforce the perception of

some youth that wardens are ultimately an

arm of the police (Crawford, 2006, p. 967).

The element of suspicion that characterisedmany young people’s first interactions withthe wardens was something that proved anon-going issue in maintaining strong rela-tionships. As one Community Wardennoted

Yes, we are part of the Crime Reduction

Partnership in Dundee, so we do have a role

in policing, but really it is ‘soft’ policing. We

gather information and pass it on to the

police if we think it’s useful. We’re really

trying to do what is best for the local people

(Community Warden F, 2008).

What is best for the ‘local community’ can,however, be difficult if not impossible todiscern in any clear or universal manner,given the range of individuals that consti-tute the ‘local community’ and the varietyof needs, aspirations and desires that theyhave. As one young person commented

We are never 100 per cent sure if the wardens

are on our side; it depends on what we’re

doing. Sometimes they turn a blind eye to

our hanging about late at night, and other

times we’re moved on because they say we’re

being a nuisance (female, 13, 2008).

In some cases, the flexibility that the war-dens had to respond to situations wasdeemed as a positive attribute; however, the

subjective nature of the decision-makingprocess, especially when it came to takingmore of a formal policing role, was some-times conceived as a weakness among theyoung people who were unsure how thewardens would react to their behaviour.

Some of the major differences amongstthe young people that the wardens liaisedwith were also as, if not more, significantthan the difference between young peopleand other members of the community whenit came to accounting for the needs of thegroup. Some young people, perhaps unsur-prisingly given the heterogeneity of such agroup, did not engage with the wardens atall. As one young participant argued

They’re just the police in disguise, I’ve got no

time for them. They just try and boss me

around and tell me what to dee [do] and

where to go. I can’t be arsed with them (male,

16, 2008).

The identity of the wardens and their rolewere considered by a number of the partici-pants to be too ambiguous. Thisambiguity—rather than being consideredas a tool for flexibility—was considered bysome as a source of suspicion and evenconcern. A handful of young people viewedthe wardens as a formal part of the‘extended policing family’—which legallythey are—and this produced a barrier inestablishing open and mutually respectfulrelations. It was often the most vulnerable,the most scared and the highly excludedyoung people that were left feeling this wayabout wardens (see Brown and Fyfe, 2010).In turn, this left some of the most margina-lised young people in the local commu-nities feeling ostracised even further. Ratherthan joining in the programmed activitiesor discussing their needs with the wardens,some of these young people would withdrawfurther from their communities. There issome irony in the fact that the young people



who were perhaps most in need of accessingthe wardens, and the resources and advicethat they could provide, were the very onesthat the wardens found it most difficult, ifnot impossible, to reach.

Conclusion

As many commentators have noted, thesecuritisation of contemporary urbanpolicy has had a profound impact upon cit-izens’ relationship with the public realm(Bannister et al., 2006; Helms et al., 2007).Arguably, nowhere is this more pro-nounced than in young people’s (in)abilityto use public space. The onslaught of anti-social behaviour rhetoric, and the associ-ated programmes and practices developedto eradicate these low-level incivilities, havehad real (and divergent) effects for youngpeople’s everyday socio-spatial experiences.As Woolley has argued

Some policies such as ASBOs, are not

designed to increase young people’s use of

public open space, but indeed to keep young

people away from certain open public spaces

(Woolley, 2006, p. 57).

Through sensationalist press reporting,political debates and popular discussion,young people have been portrayed as themajor perpetrators of anti-social behaviour.The threat that they (supposedly) pose tothe general public, by hanging out, loiteringin and taking over public space is perceivedby large swathes of the British public as asignificant and pressing social problem(Burney, 2005). The very presence of youngpeople in public space is now routinelyused to justify punitive policies, which aimfor their expulsion from these spaces.

The exclusionary impacts of anti-socialbehaviour policies, programmes and dis-courses are, however, uneven in the kinds of

young people that they affect. As Hollowayand Valentine observed

Whilst young people as a social group may

share similar experiences their characteristics

are unique and differentiatied by other factors

such as gender, ethnicity and class (Holloway

and Valentine, 2000, p. 12).

This is certainly the case in relation toexperiences of anti-social behaviour, asyoung males from lower socioeconomicgroups, and of ethnic minority descent, aremore likely to be perceived and hencetreated as the perpetrators, whereas statisti-cally they are more likely to be the victims,of anti-social behaviour (Crawford, 2008;Millie, 2008). Perhaps unsurprisingly then,it is precisely these kinds of young peoplewho have become increasingly excludedfrom public spaces through implicit meanssuch as community hostility and explicitmeans such as formal policing and theenforcement of ASBOs (Crawford andLister, 2004).

These broad trends point to the increas-ingly exclusionary nature of public spacefor (certain) young people. As Crawfordhas argued, this is particularly problematicgiven that

For many young people, meeting their peers

in local public space constitutes a funda-

mental aspect of developing their own sense

of identity. It provides space in which to

forge an independent capacity to manage

risk and danger. In the absence of suitable

alternative venues, public spaces constitute

key resources for young people (Crawford,

2008, p. 777).

However, an in-depth investigation intohow young people are policed in contempo-rary public space yields fresh insights, whichdemonstrate the complexity of how youngpeople’s relationships with public space are



mediated through anti-social behaviourrhetoric and policing practices (alongsideand amidst a range of other factors).Drawing on ethnographic material from‘walk-outs’ with Community Wardens inDundee, it becomes apparent that anti-social behaviour policy is translated intodifferent practices at the level of the neigh-bourhood, and that these diverse practicescan both encourage and discourage youngpeople from using public space.

This investigation into young people’srelationships with public space in the‘scheme’ areas of Dundee, Scotland—withspecific reference to the role of CommunityWardens in influencing these relations—has illustrated the complex, mutable andsubjective elements involved in these every-day encounters. As opposed to actingpurely as an enforcement agent in the fightagainst youth anti-social behaviour, thisresearch suggests that the wardens have hada predominantly positive impact on youngpeople’s relationship with the public spacesin their residential areas. This echoes thefindings of national evaluations that

neighbourhood wardens work particularly

well in communities in which there are

high levels of distrust between residents and

the police and/or housing management.

Reinforcing findings of national research, it

demonstrated that wardens can help build

sustained relationships between people and

places within such communities (Crawford,

2006, p. 966).

Using their key resources (of time andknowledge) and skills (of open communica-tion, diplomacy and mediation) Dundee’swardens appear to have been successful inbuilding relationships with young peopleand, in turn, in restoring young people’srelationships with public space and mem-bers of their communities. The examplesincluded in this paper have illustrated how

wardens have listened to young people’sneeds, desires, fears and concerns and haveattempted to address these issues eitherthemselves or by working with relevantbodies within the local authority. Thesedecisions and actions have been taken inlight of, and with consideration for, the con-cerns of the broader community. Wardensappear to have contributed to the improve-ment of public spaces that are now attractiveto, and used by, groups of young people.They have instigated the development ofactivity programmes that deter youngpeople from drinking on the streets and,instead, engage them in more socially pro-ductive and fulfilling activities such as play-ing sport, practising drama or developingartistic skills. On the whole, Dundee’sCommunity Warden scheme has addressedthe problem of so-called youth anti-socialbehaviour in new and successful ways.

Whilst wardens cannot be a universalremedy for the problems of all commu-nities, if wardens are as enthusiastic as thosein Dundee, they can offer an effective andalternative way to mediate between youngpeople and other members of the commu-nity. Like any member of the extended poli-cing family, they will probably never beaccepted by, or accessible to, all members ofour increasingly diverse communities, but anumber of lessons can be learned from theempathetic, open and contextually sensitiveways in which they respond to problemsraised under the guise of ‘youth anti-socialbehaviour’. It is true that some of the anti-social behaviour attributed to society’syoung people is damaging to the youngpeople themselves, their neighbourhoodand society more broadly. Nonetheless, byintervening in low-level incivilities andtrying to understand what causes them, andeven questioning whether or not they con-stitute genuine ‘anti-social behaviour’, wecan hope to present young people with abetter opportunity to become respected and



respectful members of their communities inprecisely the ways that many of Dundee’sCommunity Wardens have strived for.

Notes

1. For an overview of the key features of NewLabour’s ‘urban renaissance’, see Imrie andRaco, 2003; or Johnston and Whitehead,2004.

2. See Davis, 1990, for a nuanced discussion ofhow curved benches were designed to makeit impossible for homeless people to usethem as makeshift beds.

3. See Mackenzie et al., 2010, for a detaileddiscussion.

4. The subjective and context-specific nature ofanti-social behaviour has been critiqued by anumber of scholars (Bannister et al., 2006;Millie, 2007, 2008). In fact, the Home Officehave even argued that what counts as anti-social behaviour is ‘‘determined by a series offactors including context, location, commu-nity tolerance and quality of life expecta-tions’’ (Home Office, 2004, p. 3).

5. An Anti-Social Behaviour Order (ASBO) is astatutory community-based civil order toprotect the public against behaviour thatcauses or is likely to cause harassment, alarmor distress to an individual householder or aneighbourhood. It restricts someone fromgoing to particular places and/or being withparticular people. It is applicable to anyoneover the age of 10. Breach of the order is acriminal offence, with a maximum penalty offive years in prison.

6. For a discussion of the key features ofASBOs, see Crawford, 2007.

7. For a critical discussion of the welfare-basedapproach to youth justice in Scotland, seeDeuchar 2010, and McVie and McAra, 2010.

8. For a comprehensive discussion of thesocial construction of ‘young people’ as amutable and complex identity group, seeEvans, 2008.

9. The ‘scheme’ areas in Dundee are the majorsocial housing residential areas of the city,housing over 40 per cent of Dundee’s popu-lation (Dundee City Council, 2006).

10. Conducting research with young peopleraises specific methodological issues and,whereas I do not have the space to discussthese in full, it is important to note that anattempt was made to develop a ‘transparentand fully inclusive research strategy’ as pro-posed by Holloway and Valentine (2000).

11. Whilst it could be argued that the delaybetween the field experience and note-taking could lead to a distortion of theresults, the findings were routinely checkedwith wardens and young people to ensurethat what I had written down was a soundreflection of the interactions that had takenplace.

12. The ‘reassurance gap’ relates to a situationwhere there is low confidence in policing,despite falling crime rates. For furtherinformation, see Innes, 2004; Millie andHerrington, 2005.

Funding Statement

This research was supported by the CarnegieTrust and the Scottish Institute for Policingresearch.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank two anonymousreferees for their positive and constructive com-ments on an earlier draft of this paper.

References

Amin, A., Massey, D. and Thrift, N. (2000) Citiesfor the Many Not the Few. Bristol: Policy Press.

Bannister, J., Fyfe, N. and Kearns, A. (2006)Respectable or respectful? (In)civility and thecity, Urban Studies, 43(5/6), pp. 919–937.

Brown, D. M. and Fyfe, N. R. (2010) Renaissance,reassurance and restoration? Communitywardens and the urban realm in Scotland,Journal of Police Studies, 16(3), pp. 307–322.

Burney, E. (2005) Making People Behave: Antiso-cial Behaviour, Politics and Policy. Cullomp-ton: Willan Publishing.

Coleman, R. (2004) Reclaiming the Streets: Sur-veillance, Social Control, and the City. Cul-lompton: Willan Publishing.



Crawford, A. (2006) ‘Fixing broken promises?’Neighbourhood wardens and social capital,Urban Studies, 43(5/6), pp. 957–976.

Crawford, A. (2007) Dispersal orders, in: T.Newburn and P. Neyroud (Eds) Dictionaryof Policing, pp. 192–194. Cullompton: WillanPublishing.

Crawford, A. (2008) Dispersal powers and thesymbolic role of anti-social behaviourlegislation, The Modern Law Review, 71(5),pp. 753–784.

Crawford, A. and Lister, S. C. (2004) TheExtended Policing Family: Visible Patrols inResidential Areas. York: Joseph RowntreeFoundation.

Davis, M. (1990) City of Quartz: Excavating theFuture in Los Angeles. London: Verso.

Deuchar, R. (2010) ‘It’s just pure harassment.As if it’s a crime to walk in the street’: antiso-cial behaviour, youth justice andcitizenship—the reality for young men in theEast End of Glasgow, Youth Justice, 10(3),pp. 258–274.

Donnelly, D. (2008) Municipal Policing in Scot-land. Dundee: Dundee University Press.

Dundee City Council (2006) Dundee antisocialbehaviour strategy. Dundee City Council.

Elsley, S. (2004) Children’s experience of publicspace, Children and Society, 18, pp. 155–164.

Evans, B. (2008) Geographies of youth/young people, Geography Compass, 2(5), pp.1659–1680.

Gough, K. and Franch, M. (2005) Spaces of thestreet: socio-spatial mobility and exclusion ofyouth in Recife, Children’s Geographies, 3(2),pp. 149–166.

Helms, G., Atkinson, R. and Macleod, G. (2007)Editorial: securing the city: urban renais-sance, policing, and social regulation,European Urban Regional Studies, 14, pp.267–276.

Holloway, S. and Valentine, G. (Eds) (2000) Chil-dren’s Geographies: Living, Playing, Learning.London: Routledge.

Home Office (2004) Defining and measuringanti-social behaviour. Home Office, London.

Home Office (2007) British Crime Survey.London: HMSO.

Imrie, R. and Raco, M. (Eds) (2003) UrbanRenaissance? New Labour, Community andUrban Policy. London: The Policy Press.

Innes, M. (2004) Reinventing tradition? Reas-surance, neighbourhood security and poli-cing, Criminology and Criminal Justice, 4(2),pp. 151–171.

Johnston, L. (2003) From ‘pluralisation’ to ‘thepolice extended family’: discourses on thegovernance of community policing in Brit-ain, International Journal of the Sociology ofLaw, 31(3), pp. 185–204.

Johnstone, C. and Whitehead, M. (Eds) (2004)New Horizons in British Urban Policy: Per-spectives on New Labour’s Urban Renaissance.Aldershot: Ashgate.

Jupp, E. (2007) Participation, local knowledgeand empowerment: researching public spacewith young people, Environment and Plan-ning A, 39, pp. 2832–2844.

Lees, L. (2003) The ambivalence of diversity andthe politics of urban rennaissance: the case ofyouth in downtown Portland, Maine, USA,International Journal of Urban and RegionalResearch, 27(3), pp. 613–634.

Mackenzie, S., Bannister, J., Flint, J., Millie, A.and Fleetwood, J. (2010) The drivers of per-ceptions of antisocial behaviour. Home Office,London.

MacLeod, G. (2002) From urban entrepreneuri-alism to a ‘revanchist city’? On the spatialinjustices of Glasgow’s renaissance, Antipode,34(4), pp. 602–624.

Malone, K. (2002) Street life: youth, culture andcompeting uses of public space, Environmentand Urbanization, 14(2), pp. 157–168.

McVie, S. and McAra, L. (2010) Youth crimeand justice: key messages from the Edin-burgh study of youth transitions and crime,Criminology and Criminal Justice, 10(2),pp. 179–209.

Millie, A. (2007) Tackling anti-social behaviourand regenerating neighbourhoods, in: R.Atkinson and G. Helms (Eds) Securing anUrban Renaissance: Crime Community andBritish Urban Policy, pp. 107–124. Bristol:The Policy Press.

Millie, A. (2008) Anti-social behaviour inBritish cities, Geography Compass, 2(5),pp. 1681–1696.

Millie, A. and Herrington, V. (2005) Bridgingthe gap: understanding reassurance policing,Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 44(1),pp. 41–56.



Pain, R. (2006) Paranoid parenting? Remateria-lizing risk and fear for children, Social andCultural Geography, 7, pp. 221–243.

Scottish Executive (2003) Building strong, safeand attractive communities: a consultation doc-ument on other community based initiatives totackle anti-social behaviour. Scottish Execu-tive, Edinburgh.

Scottish Executive (2007) Use of Antisocial Beha-viour Orders in Scotland. Scottish Executive,Edinburgh.

Scottish Government (2008) Review of antisocialbehaviour strategy. Scottish Government,Edinburgh.

Scottish Government (2009) Scotland’s people:annual report: results from 2007/2008 ScottishHousehold Survey. Edinburgh: Scottish Gover-nment (http://www.scotland.gov.uk/resource/Doc/282618/0085510.pdf; accessed 23 August2010).

Sibley, D. (1995) Geographies of Exclusion:Society and Difference in the West. London:Routledge.

Skelton, T. (2009) Children’s geographies/geo-graphies of children: play, work, mobilitiesand migration, Geography Compass, 3(4),pp. 1430–1448.

Skelton, T. and Valentine, G. (Eds) (1998) CoolPlaces: Geographies of Youth Cultures.London: Routledge.

Squires, P. and Stephen, D. (2005) Rougher Jus-tice: Young People and Anti-social Behaviour.Cullompton: Willan Publishing.

Travlou, P., Owens, P., Thompson, C. andMaxwell, L. (2008) Place mapping with teen-agers: locating their territories and document-ing their experiences of the public realm,Children’s Geographies, 6(3), pp. 309–326.

UTF (Urban Task Force) (1999) Towards anUrban Renaissance. London: E and F N Spon.

Verkaik, R. (2005) The Asbo generation, TheIndependent, 20 June, p. 10.

Weller, S. (2006) Situating (young) teenagers ingeographies of children and youth, Children’sGeographies, 4(1), pp. 97–108.

Wilson, D., Sharp, C. and Patterson, A. (2006)Young people and crime: findings from the2005 offending, crime and justice survey. HomeOffice, London.

Woolley, H. (2006) Freedom of the city: con-temporary issues and policy influences onchildren and young people’s use of publicopen space in England, Children’s Geogra-phies, 4(1), pp. 45–59.



Documents

Young People, Anti-social Behaviour and Public Space_ the Role of Community Wardens in Policing the ‘ASBO Generation’