Ebook Developing effective housing management policies to address problems of anti-social behaviour
This report presents research undertaken by the AHURI Southern Research Centre to develop effective housing management policies to address problems of anti social behaviour (ASB). In recent years, public housing has increasingly become the tenure for individuals with limited incomes and a high level of social need. Furthermore, deinstitutionalisation policies in mental health provision have meant that individuals who in the past would have been provided with institutional care are now often residing in public housing. The intensive needs of many tenants result in a new set of challenges for housing managers in terms of supporting sustainable tenancies.
The term anti social behaviour is used to denote a range of activities from the very minor (such as the dropping of litter) to more extreme forms of criminal behaviour (such as burglary and harassment). Though residents who engage in ASB may be few in number, their activities have a significant negative impact on the quality of life for their neighbours. There is a wide-ranging debate about the causal factors associated with ASB. The dominant view within the Australian housing profession and academia is that ASB is a symptom of wider structural factors such as unemployment and poverty. Therefore, the most desirable policies are those that are community focused and seek to address the causal factors associated with ASB. However, there is a strand of literature based on the ‘underclass’ theory that draws upon the work of Charles Murray (1994) claiming that individual fecklessness is the root causal factor for ASB. Such underclass theories have been especially influential in informing the contemporary practices undertaken by housing authorities in the USA and, to a lesser extent, the UK.
In Australia, State Housing Authorities deploy a range of strategies to address incidences of ASB. These include provisions within Residential Tenancy Acts to enforce conditions of tenancy, ‘good neighbour policies’, tenant complaint procedures, court orders, referrals to independent mediation services and, in extreme cases, eviction. However, while official policy frameworks for addressing ASB are in the public realm, very little is known about the extent of ASB, the ways in which housing managers actually respond to incidents and how tenants view the problem. In order to address these gaps in knowledge two case study investigations were undertaken in Bridgewater, Hobart and Christie Downs, Adelaide.
The findings from the case study investigations confirm that ASB is a serious concern to tenants and housing managers and that considerable time and resources are taken up in responding to ASB. On average, it was estimated that front-line housing managers spend at least an hour a day on ASB issues. This figure can be even higher for senior managers when complex ASB cases are referred to them. Area offices very often deal with at least 10 incidents a week. However, the real extent of ASB is probably far greater than this with tenants noting that many incidents are not reported because of concerns about retribution. Young people under the age 16 are often cited as the most frequent perpetrators of ASB, although some incidents are viewed by staff as a direct consequence of the deinsitutionalisation policies in health care that have meant more individuals with mental health problems are residing in public housing.
Housing managers perform an important role in preventing incidents of ASB and in responding to complaints from tenants. Evidence from the case study investigations show that staff adopt a range of proactive measures to reduce the risk of incidents taking place. The most effective interventions involve:
- Housing staff working directly with tenants on an informal basis and utilising their knowledge of the area to inform their decision-making and harness a sense of communal well being.
- Flexible allocation policies
- Communication and publicity strategies, especially when these are undertaken with the local community.
- The establishment of neighbourhood renewal initiatives (i.e. Bridgewater Urban Renewal Project), which can play a vital part in tackling social stigma and restoring civic pride, both of which, in turn, can result in reduced incidents of ASB activities such as vandalism and damage to communal areas.
Housing managers, when the need arises, utilise other measures to deal with ASB, for example, probationary tenancies, which can be effective in making sure tenants are aware of their responsibilities and transfers for exceptional cases (although it was acknowledged that this might result in simply moving the problem on). The establishment of good working relationships with the police and other professionals (such as educational and welfare professionals) were viewed as being very valuable. The best modes of collaboration were judged to be informal arrangements at the local level alongside innovative practices such as ‘officer next door programmes’ whereby special arrangements were made for police to reside in public housing to increase their presence on an estate. Mediation services were also valued for resolving disputes, but only when both parties were willing to participate.
Finally, there was a view that policies need to be in place to deal with persistent ASB offenders who do not respond appropriately to complaints about their behaviour. In theory, eviction was deemed to be undesirable because the problem was not resolved but merely moved on to another locality or housing tenure. However, in certain circumstances housing managers and tenants felt that legal procedures and the threat of eviction could be useful as a deterrent.
The report concludes that a mix of preventive and responsive strategies is required to tackle ASB and that the institutional barriers that can undermine implementation need to be addressed. For example, issues relating to confidentiality were seen as an impediment to information exchange with the police and staff working in community corrections. Holistic policies informed by social justice perspectives are generally seen as the best forms of intervention in preference to the imposition of stricter sanctions and punitive measures such as those adopted in the USA and to a lesser extent in UK policy settings. However, the active engagement by housing managers in holistic approaches to ASB requires considerable time and expertise. It is therefore important that the necessary training and resources are made available if such policies are to succeed.
CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION
- 1.1 Policy context
1.2 Aims and Methods
2 DISCOURSES OF ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR AND HOUSING MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
- 2.1 Introduction
2.2 The emergence of anti-social behaviour discourses in housing
2.3 Current practices in Australia
2.4 Trends and emerging themes
2.5 Conclusion
3 METHODOLOGY
- 3.1 Introduction
3.2 Research Questions
3.3 Case Study Localities
3.4 Data Analysis
4 THE EXTENT AND IMPACT OF ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR
- 4.1 Introduction
4.2 Perceptions of ASB and emergence of new discourses
4.3 The extent and impact of ASB within social housing
4.4 How tenants address ASB8
4.5 Conclusion and Summary
5 EFFECTIVE HOUSING INTERVENTION STRATEGIES
- 5.1 Introduction
5.2 Allocations policies
5.3 Probationary tenancies
5.4 Transfers
5.5 Effective communication strategies
5.6 Working directly with tenants
5.7 Collaboration between housing and law enforcement agencies
5.8 Mediation services
5.9 Conclusion
6 THE SCOPE FOR MULTI-AGENCY APPROACHES AND INNOVATION
- 6.1 Introduction
6.2 Bridgwater Urban Renewal Programme
6.3 Support partnerships
6.4 Working with schools and community groups
6.5 Conclusion
7 POLICIES FOR PERSISTENT PERPETRATORS OF ASB
- 7.1 Introduction
7.2 Dealing with persistent ASB offenders
7.3 Legal procedures and eviction notices
7.4 Conclusion
8 CONCLUSION AND KEY POLICY ISSUES
- 8.1 Overview of research findings
8.2 Policy issues
9 REFERENCES
Posted in :
