The Use and Impact of Dispersal Orders: The communicative

properties of governing anti-social

behaviour

Adam Crawford

Centre for Criminal Justice Studies

Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 • With local authority agreement, a superintendent can

designate a ‘dispersal order’ zone where there is believed to be persistent anti-social behaviour.

• Must be publicised in local newspaper or by notices in area.

• Designation can be for a period of 6 months (renewable).

• In a designated zone a constable or CSO may disperse groups where their ‘presence or behaviour has resulted, or is likely to result, in a member of the public being harassed, intimidated, alarmed or distressed’.

• Individuals not resident in the designated area can be directed to leave and may be excluded for up to 24 hours.

• If individuals refuse to follow the officer’s directions, they will be committing an offence.

Powers in England & Wales compared to Scotland

England & Wales Scotland

Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 Antisocial Behaviour etc. (Scotland) Act 2004

Commenced 20 January 2004 Commenced 1 October 2004

Designation up to 6 months (renewable) Designation up to 3 months (renewable)

Where ASB is significant and persistent. Where ASB is significant, persistent and serious.

Powers extend to police CSOs No equivalent to CSOs in Scotland

Power to remove home any young person under 16 who is out on the streets between 9 pm – 6 am, not under the control of an adult

No equivalent power

No equivalent requirement Requirement on Scottish Ministers to conduct a study into the operation of dispersal orders within 3 years of the powers’ commencement

By April 2006 over 1,000 areas authorised By April 2006 only six areas authorised (increased to 14 by April 2007)

National overview of practice

Two city-based studies

Two case studies

Research data

• National overview of practice drew lesson-learning based on interviews with practitioners and policy makers.

• Two city-based studies explored the development of strategies over time and the distribution across each city.

• Two case study sites provided a detailed analysis of the micro-social interactions and impacts. Drew on surveys of adult residents and young people, focus group interviews and interviews with key local stakeholders and practitioners, plus police observations.

National use

• Wide variety of types of locations to address diverse social problems, including: – racially motivated attacks, drug dealing, alcohol-related violence,

illegal street trading, street robbery, vandalism, vehicle-related disorder, aggressive street begging and prostitution.

– most commonly used in relation to groups of young people and associated anti-social behaviour

• Variations between and within police force areas.• Over time, orders appear to have become used in

more circumscribed and targeted ways.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2004 2004/5 2005/6

London 2006/07

• A total of 85 orders came to an end.• Over 1/3 in residential areas. Majority central locations.

• Nearly 2/3 ran for the maximum duration of 6 months. • More than 1/3 renewals (national average of 1/4).

– One area designated on 6 previous occasions. A further 8 areas designation had been renewed either 3 or 4 times.

• Some 5,000 people formally dispersed across 42 areas.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Residential area

Town/City centre

Shopping area/Parade/Precinct

Car park/Bus/Train station

Park/Sports ground

Beauty spot

Other

Authorisation Process

It affords opportunities to enhance police-community relations and provides openness and prior accountability.

It can serve to:• allow a rigorous examination of the evidence and

consideration of appropriate and proportionate responses;• stimulate multi-agency problem-solving, triggering wider

and longer-term preventive and diversionary strategies; • foster community consultation and dialogue about

appropriate use of public space and the role of community in supporting social cohesion and tolerance;

• reinforces the exceptional nature of the powers

Many of the benefits that derive from dispersal orders stem from the process of authorisation and/or the associated activities that are triggered, rather than the powers per se.

Police Resource implication

• Raised expectations.– Many initiatives planned to police intensively the first few

weeks with the intention to reduce the amount of patrol hours, but found this difficult to realise given raised public expectations.

• The distribution of dispersal orders does not correspond simply to levels of anti-social behaviour.

• It suggests that the capacity of certain communities and business to articulate their demands for a policing response may influence authorisation.

• For some, designation was seen as a means of drawing additional police resources into an area, albeit for a short-period of time.

Implementation challenges

• In practice, police interpreted and implemented the law in a more circumscribed manner than the law might allow. – seeking to make it clear that the dispersal order does not ‘ban groups

from gathering’;– nevertheless much confusion persisted over the criteria for dispersal.– What can groups do before triggering dispersal?

• Discretionary and subjective nature of the powers places significant pressures of professional judgement on police in situations that may precipitate rather than reduce conflict.

• Considerable scope for inconsistent enforcement in ways that undermine perceptions of fairness/procedural justice.

• Most acute where police are drafted into an area to bolster visible patrols, but who may have less local knowledge.

Communication

• Designation provides an important symbolic response that something concrete is being done to address local problems and concerns.

• Can foster local confidence in the community’s capacity to effect change and in the local police to make a difference.

• However, the designation of an area as a dispersal zone communicates powerful messages about a place, its values and dominant interests.

• The mixed messages that different groups invest in such a controversial measure demand careful management.

• Good communication strategies were vital to manage public expectations and allay concerns.

• Managing the local media was often a labour intensive task.

Displacement

• In many localities, orders generated displacement effects, shifting problems to other places, sometimes merely for the duration of the order.

• Young people may be disperse to less safe locations.

• Problems may be displaced to more vulnerable locations.

• Some young people said that dispersal orders introduced an element of ‘cat and mouse’ gaming, whereby flouting authority became a routine pass-time, engendering a more conflictual relationship between young people and police.

Displacement area

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Apr - Sep2004

Oct 2004 -Mar 2005

Apr - Sep2005

Oct 2005 -Mar 2006

Apr - Sep2006 DZ

Oct 2006 -Mar 2007

Criminal damage

Total Crime

Reported ASB

In one neighbouring ‘displacement zone’, crime rose by 148% on the previous 6 months and 83% on the previous year, despite police efforts to forestall displacement, which was most apparent for criminal damage.

Two Case Studies

• Half adult residents believed the order reduced the number of young people hanging around and said it had reduced ASB and increased perceptions of safety.

• In one case study, crime decreased in comparison with the preceding 6 months (39%) and the same period the previous year (19%).

• Criminal damage showed a year-on-year decrease of 52% and a decline of 42% over the previous 6 months, but in the period after the end of the order it increased by 36%. The number of reported anti-social behaviour incidents declined by 45% on the previous year.

• In the other site, crime decreased during the dispersal order as compared to the preceding 6 months (15.3%), but increased as compared to the same period the previous year (9.3%).

• Few groups were formally dispersed.

Young people’s views (% ‘agreed’)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Unfairly targeted at young people

Increased conflict between young and old people

Police are fair and consistent in their use of dispersalpowers

There are not enough public places for young people togo

Young people need to take more responsibility for the waytheir behaviour can intimidate others

Northston

Southby

Adult residents’ views (% ‘agreed’)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Police were fair and consistent

Unfairly targeted young people for beingout in groups

Not enough appropriate places for youngpeople to go

Prov ided short-term response that didlittle to address longer-term issues

Displaced problems of ASB to otherplaces

Helped bring people together to addressASB

Northston

Southby

Two Case Studies (Cont.)

• In one case study site, over half of young people surveyed said that the dispersal order had had a negative impact on their feelings towards the local police.

• Many of the young people who said they had been dispersed reported feeling unfairly treated.

– Half disagreed that the police listened to what they had to say and two-fifths said that the experience left them less confident with the police.

• Whilst wider initiatives accompanied police enforcement strategies, many professionals felt that more should have been done by way of prevention and diversion, notably with regard to youth provision.

Young people’s perceptions of safety

• Young people reported highest levels of experiences of anti-social behaviour.

• Young people said they felt safer in groups in public.– Girls in particular preferred larger groups.

‘If you’re with a gang, you look intimidating but it’s safer… safety in numbers’

55

27

11

6

47

36

9

7

0

20

40

60

80

100

Southby Northston

Alone

One other person

In small group

In large group

Dispersal Powers

• It is a concern that presence (and appearance), as much as specific behaviour, may be caught by the power.

• Potentially criminalise youthful behaviour on the basis of – the anxieties that young people congregating in groups may

generate among other people. – assumptions that are made about what they might do.

• The offence is failure to comply with police directions:i) There is no direct relationship with the original behaviour –

constitutes a ‘two step prohibition’ (Simester and von Hirsch 2006);

ii) Hence, the manner in which people respond to directions is crucial;

iii) This will be conditioned by experiences of the encounter and perceptions about the legitimate exercise of authority by the police.

Two-Step Prohibitions

• Criminal sanctions arise only in respect of future conduct, not in relation to the conduct that gave rise to the order in the first place (these are decoupled):

1. Step One – Order, direction, agreement or contract.

2. Step Two – Breach or failure to comply gives rise to criminal sanction.

• Step One ‘rule’ tantamount to a ‘personalised penal code’ may be elaborated by court, police or other official (diminishing degrees of oversight, review)

• Step Two ‘breach’ – tantamount to strict liability offence.

‘it is a form of criminalisation: an ex ante criminal prohibition, not an ex post criminal verdict’ (von Hirsch & Simester 2006: 178).

Police encounters

The importance of:• Reasoned explanations for dispersal;

‘You don’t feel so hard done by when [the police] explain why… they have got to split you up. If they just say: “right, you have all got to go back to where you

come from”, you feel a bit hard done by because you think “oh, we haven’t done anything wrong, why should we go back because some police officer decided that we had to?” But then, if they explain why they have got to split you up it is

different.’ (15-year-old male)

• Perceptions of ‘procedural justice’ – listening to young people, treating them fairly and with respect and ensuring consistent implementation.

• Experiences of procedural justice and respect will have positive implications for compliance.

Relations with young people

Dispersal orders can increase police-youth antagonism and foster resentment.

There was evidence that young people in some areas were being targeted as much because their appearance or deportment was perceived by other as ‘intimidating’ or ‘unsightly’, as for specific acts of anti-social behaviour.

The powers can bring young people to police attention on the basis of the (’wrong’) company that they keep.

For many young people, meeting friends in public spaces is a fundamental aspect of developing their sense of identity and control, as well as providing space in which to forge their independent capacity to manage risk and danger.

The use of dispersal powers…

• exposes a tension at the heart of policy debate between the commitments outlined in Every Child Matters and the implementation of the anti-social behaviour agenda.

• convey stark messages about the status of young people in society and the way they are regarded by adults.

• can reinforce a view of young people as a risk to others, obscuring the extent to which they are understood as at risk.

‘The reason why they’re out on the streets is they’ve got to go somewhere, and kids will be kids. And I think that is the basic line. Kids will be kids,

and they will be noisy, and they will show off, and they will damage things, because that’s what they do. And what we’re doing is just sticking

plasters over this.’ (Police officer)

Conclusions & Policy Implications

• The research highlights the importance of:– Authorisation process (evidence base and trigger for action);– Enforcement as a limited and focused element in a wider strategy;– Long-term problem solving;– Communication.

• Any proposed future dispersal powers that circumvent the current authorisation process will remove a fundamental layer of prior accountability and oversight of proportionality that exists within the current framework.

• Need to ensure rigorous monitoring to safeguard against unwarranted discrimination and to assess the impact of powers on the promotion of race equality.

• Consideration should be given to amending the existing law such that dispersal powers apply only to the behaviour of groups rather than merely their presence.