Respect for Nottingham Survey
2018 Respect for Nottingham Survey 2018
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report was prepared for Nottingham Crime & Drugs Partnership.
Our thanks are given to Philip Broxholme for his help and support in conducting this research, to members of the public who gave their valuable time to complete the survey, and to fieldwork staff who worked across Nottingham to collect the data.
Authors:
Dr Steve Wisher, Kate Marshall, Gillian Roberts Information by Design
Main point of contact: [email protected]
Final Draft – January 2019
Head Office
Information by Design Newlands Science Park Inglemire Lane HULL HU6 7TQ
Telephone: 01482 467467 Fax: 01482 467468 Email: [email protected] www.ibyd.com
1 | P a g e Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 4 1 BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY ...... 6
BACKGROUND ...... 6 METHODOLOGY AND SAMPLING ...... 6 Sampling Frame and Sample Size ...... 6 Weighting ...... 7 2 SURVEY FINDINGS ...... 8
KEY ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR ISSUES BY AGE, GENDER, ETHNICITY, IMD AND AREA ...... 13 ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR - NOTTINGHAM CITY CENTRE ...... 18 ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR AND 16-24 YEAR OLDS ...... 22 OVERALL PERCEPTIONS OF ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR – NI17 ...... 23 Perception of Anti-Social Behaviour by Ward ...... 25 COMPOSITE ASB SCORE FOR LOCAL NEIGHBOURHOODS ...... 26 COMPARISON OF RECORDED CRIME RATE AND PERCEPTIONS OF ASB ...... 31 EXPERIENCING AND REPORTING ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR ...... 33 FEELINGS OF SAFETY – LOCAL NEIGHBOURHOOD (WHEN IT’S DARK) ...... 37 Feelings of Safety by Age, Gender, Ethnicity, IMD and Area ...... 38 Drivers of feelings of safety ...... 40 FEELINGS OF SAFETY - NOTTINGHAM CITY CENTRE...... 41 Feelings of Safety by Gender, Age, IMD Ethnicity and Area ...... 42 FEELINGS OF SAFETY BY WARD – LOCAL AREA AND CITY CENTRE ...... 43 SENSE OF COMMUNITY ...... 45 Sense of Community by Age, Gender, Ethnicity and IMD ...... 47 Sense of Community and Anti-Social Behaviour ...... 47 ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN SAFETY, COMMUNITY AND ASB ...... 49 PRIORITIES FOR CRIME AND ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR ...... 50 Identified Issues ...... 50 Combating Crime and Anti-Social Behaviour ...... 52 CONCERNS OF 16-24 YEAR OLDS ...... 56 DEALING WITH ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR AND CRIME ...... 57 Drivers of Agreement that Police and Local Council are dealing with the anti-social behaviour and crime issues that matter ...... 59 SEEKING PEOPLE’S VIEWS ON WHAT MATTERS ...... 60 Quality of Life and Crime ...... 62 Crime in your local area ...... 64 Perceptions of Crime Rate in your local area ...... 68 Concerns About Crime ...... 71 RESULTS FROM BOOSTER SAMPLES IN ARBORETUM AND BERRIDGE ...... 75
ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR ISSUES – LOCAL NEIGHBOURHOOD ...... 77 ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR ISSUES – NOTTINGHAM CITY CENTRE ...... 83 OVERALL PERCEPTION OF ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR – NI17 ...... 86 OVERALL PERCEPTION OF ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR – COMPOSITE ...... 86 ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR ...... 87 FEELINGS OF SAFETY – LOCAL NEIGHBOURHOOD (AFTER DARK) ...... 88 FEELINGS OF SAFETY - NOTTINGHAM CITY CENTRE...... 88 PRIORITIES FOR CRIME AND ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR ...... 89 Combating Crime and Anti-Social Behaviour ...... 90 SEEKING PEOPLE’S VIEWS ON WHAT MATTERS ...... 91 SENSE OF COMMUNITY ...... 92 Crime in your local area ...... 92
2 | P a g e 3 CONCLUSIONS ...... 95 APPENDIX A – DEMOGRAPHICS AND SAMPLE SIZES ...... 97 APPENDIX B – BASE SIZES FOR ASB QUESTIONS...... 99 APPENDIX C – BASE SIZES FOR ASB QUESTIONS FOR ARBORETUM AND BERRIDGE ...... 100
3 | P a g e EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report contains a summary of the findings from the ‘Respect for Nottingham’ survey commissioned by the Nottingham Crime & Drugs Partnership and conducted by Information by Design (IbyD) with fieldwork undertaken in between September and December 2018. The survey was undertaken to explore the views and opinions of residents about their local area and the city centre in relation to aspects of anti-social behaviour (ASB), crime and community safety and the strategic partnership between Nottinghamshire Police and Nottingham City Council. Key findings from the survey include:
Perception of ASB overall using a similar measure to NI171 has increased by 1% to 7% since 2017, which is a significant difference. There were significant differences in the proportion with a high perception of ASB score by gender, age, deprivation, and ethnic group. Women, those aged 16-44, those from the most and second most deprived IMD quintiles and those from mixed ethnic groups had higher perceptions of ASB. In general, as the crime rate at ward level declines, the proportion with a high perception of ASB declines. The top ranked anti-social behaviour issue in the local neighbourhood in 2017 was ‘rubbish and litter lying around’. This is the same as 2017, 2016 and 2015 but a change from the years 2011 to 2014, when ‘dog fouling’ was ranked as the top anti-social behaviour issue and ‘rubbish and litter lying around’ was ranked second. ‘Dog fouling’ was the second biggest concern in local neighbourhoods. ‘Begging’ was the issue most commonly highlighted by respondents as a problem in the City Centre in 2018, with 49% of respondents thinking this was a very or fairly big problem. Respondents also highlighted issues relating to alcohol in relation to anti-social behaviour in Nottingham City Centre. 40% of respondents thought that ‘people being drunk or rowdy in public spaces’ was a very or fairly big problem and 39% considered ‘street drinking’ to be a very or fairly big problem. Young people in the 16-24 age group also recognised the issues in relation to ‘street drinking’ and ‘people being ‘drunk or rowdy in public spaces’ as being a problem for them; these two issues were significantly more likely to be considered big issues for residents aged 16-24 than for those in other age groups. Nearly a quarter (24%) of respondents felt that the City Centre had improved as a place to live, work, socialise or spend time in the last twelve months. 40% of respondents felt that the city centre had stayed the same and 16% felt that the city centre had got worse. 20% of respondents did not know. Overall, 8% of respondents had been personally targeted by some form of anti-social behaviour in the last six months, a decrease from 2017 but not statistically significant. Just under half (48%) had reported the anti-social behaviour to someone, the majority of which (80%) had reported it to the Police. 45% were very or fairly satisfied with the response they received (from the police), a decrease from 2017 (50%). For those who did not report it, the main reason was that they thought there was no point as nothing would be done. Residents’ perceptions of safety in their local neighbourhood after dark has decreased in 2018. 64% said they felt very or fairly safe in 2018, the lowest since 2011 when 64% felt very or fairly safe. Women, those aged 65+ and respondents living in the most deprived areas are less likely to feel safe in their neighbourhood when it gets dark, with an 8- percentage point difference between the most and the least deprived areas.
1 This is based on a measure calculated from the survey data which is based on the Statutory Performance Indicators for Policing and Community Safety NI17 performance indicator. 4 | P a g e Respondents who feel very or fairly unsafe rank ‘people using or dealing drugs’ ‘people being drunk or rowdy in public spaces’, ‘street drinking’ and ‘intimidation by groups/gangs of young people hanging around on the street’ as more of a problem in their local area than respondents who feel safe. In contrast, respondents who feel very or fairly safe in their local neighbourhood after dark rank ‘motorbikes/motorised scooters/ mini motos/ quad bikes’, ‘dog fouling’, ‘parents not taking responsibility for the behaviour of their children’ ‘fly tipping’ and ‘noisy neighbours or loud parties’ as a bigger problem in the local neighbourhood. There appears to be some correlation between feeling of safety and perception of anti- social behaviour. Those who feel unsafe in their local area have higher perceptions of anti- social behaviour as defined by NI 17, with a gap of 16% in perceptions of ASB between those who feel very or fairly safe and those who feel very or fairly unsafe. This is lower than 2017 (17%), 2016 (23%), 2015 (22%), 2012 (29%) and 2011 (18%) but higher than 2014 (11%) and 2013 (13%). Respondents have more concerns about Nottingham City Centre after dark, 44% who said that they feel fairly or very safe in the City Centre compared to 50% in 2017. As in previous years, women are less likely to feel fairly or very safe than men. In terms of crime and community safety in their local area, 27% of residents ranked ‘burglary’ as their primary concern, with ‘alcohol related violence and disorder’ ranked first by 12% of residents and ‘weapon /gang related violence’ ranked first by 12% of residents. In relation to what could be done to reduce crime and anti-social behaviour, residents were asked to rank a list of different measures. Looking at the top ranked, ‘more CCTV’ was ranked first by 22% of respondents. ‘More visible policing’ was ranked first by 17% of respondents. 60% of respondents said they tend to agree or strongly agree that there is a sense of community where they live. This is similar to 2017 (61%) and 2016 (60%). Satisfaction with the Police and Council has decreased significantly with 53% of residents agreeing that they are dealing with the anti-social behaviour and crime issues that matter, compared to 59% in 2017. Analysis of those respondents who were dissatisfied highlights that they have a higher perception of all of the ASB issues. As such, these issues could be a possible driver of satisfaction. On a scale of 0 to 10 where 0 is ‘no effect’ and 10 is ‘total effect’, just under half (48%) of respondents thought that crime had ‘no effect’ or ‘very little’ effect on their quality of life (a score of 0 or 1) while 10% of respondents thought that crime had a ‘total effect’ or an almost total effect on their quality of life (a score of 7 or higher). Around 7 in 10 (71%) respondents thought that crime was ‘not a problem at all’ or ‘not much of a problem’ compared to 29% who thought that crime was ‘a very big’ or ‘quite a big’ problem. About half (51%) of respondents thought that levels of crime had stayed the same in their local area over the past few years and 21% thought that crime had gone down. 28% thought that crime had gone up, significantly higher than in 2017 when 25% thought that crime had gone up. When asked if they were concerned about crime and anti-social behaviour where they live, 42% of respondents were concerned about crime, and 40% were concerned about anti- social behaviour.
Information by Design January 2019
5 | P a g e 1 BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY
Background 1.1 This report contains a summary of the findings from the ‘Respect for Nottingham’ survey conducted in 2018, which was undertaken to explore the views and opinions of local residents about their local area and the city centre in relation to anti-social behaviour, their concerns and aspirations relating to crime and community safety and their views about the strategic partnership between the Police and the Council.
1.2 The research was commissioned by Nottingham Crime and Drugs Partnership and the work was conducted by Information by Design (IbyD), with fieldwork taking place between September and December 2018. Information by Design is a company partner of the Market Research Society, the national governing body of the market research industry. The research was conducted in compliance with the guidelines and Codes of Conduct of this body.
1.3 The Nottingham Crime & Drugs Partnership (CDP) is a multi-agency organisation with statutory responsibility for tackling crime, anti-social behaviour and substance misuse and reoffending in Nottingham. The partnership is made up of a number of statutory and non-statutory agencies including Nottinghamshire Police, Nottingham City Council, the Fire and Rescue Service, the National Probation Service, Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire and Rutland Community Rehabilitation Company Limited, Public Health, Clinical Commissioning Group, health providers, the city’s two universities, Nottingham City Homes and a number of business, community and voluntary sector organisations.
1.4 A survey has been conducted each year since 2003, which allowed attitudes to be tracked over time. The 2011 Respect for Nottingham Survey, however, marked a change in the questions and how they were asked. The survey was refreshed and some new questions added and due to a changing landscape in relation to ASB, only some of the original indicators remained. The survey was previously undertaken using a telephone methodology – from 2011, the survey has been conducted using a random sample and face-to-face interviewing, in order to obtain better representation across the city. Due to the significant methodological changes, this year’s survey is primarily compared to the results from 2011 onwards, as assessment of results pre-2011 would not provide a like-for-like comparison.
Methodology and Sampling Sampling Frame and Sample Size 1.5 The sampling frame used in the survey was the Local Land and Property Gazetteer (LLPG). This provides a comprehensive list of all households living in the Nottingham city area. It was crucial in this survey to provide a robust sampling method to provide reliable estimates of aspects of crime and community safety in the city. To achieve this, an approach to provide a good geographical coverage of the city was employed using random sampling. This involved using a multi-stage sampling approach which included:
Ensuring all wards in the city were included in the sample.
6 | P a g e Within wards, Output Areas (OAs) were ranked by 2015 IMD2 of the LSOA that they were in. A sample of OAs was selected from the ranked list to provide a sample representative of the city in terms of level of deprivation. Addresses were selected using random sampling.
This approach provided coverage of the LSOAs in the city, with a good geographical spread and with the sample selected to be ‘representative’ in terms of deprivation in the city. This year’s survey included booster samples in Arboretum and Berridge wards and so this approach was not used in those areas as all Output Areas in the wards were included.
1.6 A target sample of 2,000 completed interviews was set for the survey, with an additional sample of 372 interviews in each of two wards – Arboretum and Berridge. In total, the achieved sample in the 2018 survey was 2,751 completed interviews. It should be noted that respondents were able to choose not to answer questions, and so the base size in some of the questions is slightly smaller than 2,751.
1.7 As a point of reference, the overall confidence interval for this survey of 2,751 respondents is ±1.9%. Strictly speaking each question will differ as the confidence interval is also dependent on the individual responses to the question. In addition, the confidence interval is different where a sub-sample of respondents answered the question, for example, the question about reporting ASB was only asked of those who had experienced some form of ASB. In reporting, the base sizes are given on each question or in the Appendix where indicated. It should be noted that confidence intervals3 by ward range from ±9.7% to ±10.1%, apart from Arboretum (±4.5%) and Berridge (±4.5%), and as such, ward level differences should be treated with caution. Generally, confidence intervals are quoted in this report at the 95% level.
Weighting 1.8 The final data set from the survey was weighted to correct for the disproportionate sampling scheme used and to ensure data matches latest estimates of the Nottingham population. The initial sample from the survey set targets of approximately 100 interviews per ward, irrespective of the size of the ward population. Weighting was therefore used to ensure that the final dataset was representative in terms of size of the wards and in terms of age and gender. Weighting was based on the 2011 census data for age and gender at ward level, in line with the previous surveys from 2012 - 2017.
2 The Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) 2015 is the official measure of relative deprivation for lower-layer Super Output Areas (LSOAs) in England. The Index of Multiple Deprivation ranks every LSOA in England from 1 (most deprived area) to 32,844 (least deprived area). 3 A confidence interval gives an estimated range of values which is likely to include an unknown population value. If independent samples are taken repeatedly from the same population, and a confidence interval calculated for each sample, then a certain percentage (confidence level) of the intervals will include the unknown population value. Confidence intervals are usually calculated so that this percentage is 95%, but we can alternatively produce 90% or 99% confidence intervals for the unknown value. In simple terms, a 95% confidence interval is usually interpreted as meaning that when a significant difference is stated, this will be the right decision 95% of the time. In this report, a 90% level is sometimes quoted, which is a lower level of confidence in differences reported. 7 | P a g e 2 SURVEY FINDINGS
2.1 When asked if there were any comments they would like to make about anti-social behaviour (ASB) in their local neighbourhood, just under a half of respondents (47%) gave comments; 53% had no comment to make. 15% of all respondents reported that there were no problems with ASB, or specified ‘none’. Of those who said that there was some form of ASB (not including the respondents who did not comment or thought that there was no ASB), the most common responses were that there was ‘not a lot of ASB / not much’, which was made by 12% of respondents, and ‘drug dealing and use’, also made by 12% of respondents. This was followed by noise, loud music and shouting, with 11% of respondents mentioning this issue. Other issues were around litter/rubbish, motorbikes, speeding and burglaries.
Comments on Anti-Social Behaviour in local neighbourhood (Not including 'no comment' or 'none') (%)
Not a lot of ASB / Not much 12% Drug dealing and use 12% Noise / loud music / shouting etc. 11% Litter / rubbish 7% Motorbikes / scooters / quad bikes 7% Other 7% Speeding 7% Theft / burglaries / break-ins 7% Loitering / people hanging around 5% Teenagers / young people / kids - behaviour not specified 5% Drunks / drinking in the street 5% Vandalism / damage to property / graffiti 5% Amount of ASB has improve / gone down 4% There's a lot of ASB / it's bad here / it's a big problem 4% Problems with parking 4% Problems with students - drunk / noisy etc. 3% Problems with neighbours 3% Nuisance / nuisance behaviour e.g. knocking on doors,… 3% Assaults / violence 3% Fly tipping 3% Dog fouling 2% Abuse / swearing 2% Fighting 2% Bikes/people on bikes 1% Dogs 1% Car crime 1% Fireworks 1% Need more police / PCSOs / more security 1% Nothing gets done to sort it out / disappointed with response 1% Prostitutes 1% Playing football / balls games / playing on the street 1% Homeless 1% Incident has been dealt with / good response from police 0% Begging/asking for money 0%
0% 5% 10% 15%
Base size: 879
8 | P a g e 2.2 Respondents were asked if there were any specific groups or individuals who caused anti-social behaviour in their area. Of those who said there were certain groups or individuals, 20% said that anti-social behaviour in their area was caused by all 3 categories of youths/youngsters/young people, 15% by children/kids/school children, 13% by teenagers, 11% by drug users or dealers, 10% by students and 10% by a specified address/person/family or group.
Groups or individuals who cause ASB in area (%)
Youths/Youngsters/Young people 20%
Children/kids/school children 15%
Teenagers 13%
Drug users/dealers 11%
Student 10%
Specified address/person/family/group 10%
Other 5%
Drunks/people leaving pubs 5%
Minority ethnic groups (e.g. Romanian, Polish, Asians) 4%
Homeless 4%
Neighbours/local residents 4%
Young men 3%
People with motorbikes/mopeds 3%
Beggars 2%
Adults and old age groups 2%
Unspecified groups or gangs 2%
People in their 20s 2%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
Base size: 455
9 | P a g e 2.3 Levels of anti-social behaviour in the local neighbourhood were measured by asking residents for their perceptions of a number of issues. The chart below is ranked by the combined proportion of residents thinking the issue was ‘a very big’ and ‘a fairly big’ problem. With this ranking, the top two ASB issues are ‘rubbish and litter lying around’ and, dog fouling which 30% and 24% of respondents respectively think are a fairly or very big problem. ‘Motorbikes/motorised scooters/mini motos/quad bikes’ is the third ranked issue.
Perception of ASB Issues in Local Community (%)
Rubbish and litter lying around 13% 17% 25% 45% 1%
Dog Fouling 11% 13% 19% 56% 1%
Motorbikes/ motorised scooters/ mini motos/ quad bikes 10% 13% 21% 54% 1%
People using or dealing drugs 9% 9% 12% 61% 9%
Fly Tipping 6% 10% 13% 69% 2%
Parents not taking responsibility for the behaviour of their children 7% 9% 16% 63% 5%
People being drunk or rowdy in public spaces 6% 9% 15% 68% 2%
Street Drinking/ Drinking alcohol in the streets 6% 8% 14% 69% 2%
Fly Posting 5% 8% 13% 72% 2%
Noisy neighbours or loud parties 4% 8% 19% 68% 0%
Vandalism/ Criminal damage 4% 8% 17% 69% 2% Intimidation as a result of groups/ gangs of young people hanging 3% 8% 15% 72% 2% around on the street
Unkempt gardens 5% 6% 15% 71% 3%
Begging 3%4% 10% 82% 1%
Graffiti 2%2% 11% 83% 1%
Abandoned or burnt out cars 1%2%6% 88% 3%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
A very big problem A fairly big problem Not a very big problem Not a problem at all Don't know
See Appendix B for Base Size
2.5 Although the mean score for 14 of the 16 issues is higher in 2018 than in 2017, the results still show a downward trend for all of the issues with the exception of ‘motorbikes/motorised scooters/mini motos/quad bikes’ and ‘begging’. The chart below shows the mean scores4 for each of the issues for 2011 to 2018, where the higher the score the more the issue is felt to be a problem. For example, ‘rubbish and litter lying around’ has the highest mean score in 2018 (of 1.98 out of 4). However, it had a higher score (of 2.03 out of 4) in 2016 and (of 1.99 out of 4) in 2013. The difference between 2018 and 2017 is statistically significant for 12 of the 16 issues. The chart below also shows that there has generally been a decline in the mean score for all issues since 2011 except for ‘motorbikes/motorised scooters/mini motos/quad bikes’ which has seen a gradual upward trend since 2014 and for ‘begging’.
4 The mean score was calculated by assigning a numerical value to each of the answer categories; i.e. “A very big problem” = 4, “A fairly big problem” = 3, “Not a very big problem” = 2, “Not a problem at all” = 1. “Don’t know” were excluded. The mean score takes all of the data into account across all of the response categories, rather than simply comparing agree/disagree. 10 | P a g e Perceptions of Anti-Social Behaviour in Local Neighbourhood by Year (Mean Scores)
2.09 1.98 1.99 1.81 * Rubbish and litter lying around 1.92 2.03 1.89 1.98 1.65 1.54 1.56 1.52 Motorbikes/ motorised scooters/ mini motos/ quad bikes 1.67 1.76 1.81 1.80 2.23 2.08 2.05 1.85 * Dog Fouling 1.81 1.94 1.71 1.78 1.70 1.65 1.60 1.51 * People using or dealing drugs 1.63 1.66 1.54 1.63 1.46 1.52 1.52 1.39 Fly Posting 1.53 1.64 1.49 1.45 1.85 1.76 1.64 * Parents not taking responsibility for the behaviour of their 1.57 1.65 children 1.61 1.47 1.58 1.63 1.57 1.57 1.49 People being drunk or rowdy in public spaces 1.54 1.57 1.47 2011 1.51 1.57 1.54 1.51 2012 1.47 * Noisy neighbours or loud parties 1.57 1.53 1.45 2013 1.49 1.64 1.58 2014 1.54 1.47 * Street Drinking/ Drinking alcohol in the streets 1.51 1.57 1.42 2015 1.50 1.59 1.41 2016 1.45 1.38 * Fly Tipping 1.48 1.50 2017 1.42 1.52 1.78 1.64 2018 1.49 1.47 * Vandalism/ Criminal damage 1.50 1.46 1.39 1.46 1.72 1.60 1.50 * Intimidation as a result of groups/ gangs of young people 1.45 1.54 hanging around on the street 1.52 1.39 1.43 1.58 1.51 1.44 1.36 * Unkempt gardens 1.44 1.52 1.34 1.43 1.25 1.22 1.21 1.21 * Begging 1.29 1.35 1.23 1.28 1.37 1.29 1.24 1.16 * Graffiti 1.23 1.24 1.14 1.21 1.23 1.18 1.14 1.11 Abandoned or burnt out cars 1.17 1.20 1.12 1.14 .00 .50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50
See Appendix B for Base Size * = 2018 significantly different to 2017
11 | P a g e 2.6 The following chart shows the same results, comparing the results for 2011 to 2018, but with the proportion thinking that each aspect was a fairly or very big problem. There are some changes in the differences between the proportions over time. For 8 of the 16 issues, there is a significant increase in the proportion of respondents who think they are a fairly or very big problem from 2018 to 2017. For ‘motorbikes/motorised scooters/mini motos/quad bikes’ and ‘fly posting’ there is a significant decrease in the proportion of respondents who think they are a fairly or very big problem from 2018 to 2017.
Perceptions of Anti-Social Behaviour in Local Neighbourhood by Year (very or fairly big problem) - (%)
35% 31%31% Rubbish and litter lying around 24% 28% 33% 30%30% 40% 34%35% * Dog Fouling 27% 29% 22%24% 18% 14%16% * Motorbikes/ motorised scooters/ mini motos/ quad bikes 15% 21% 24%26% 19% 18%18% * People using or dealing drugs 15% 18% 16%18% 18% 11%13% * Fly Tipping 11% 14% 13%16% 21% 25% * Parents not taking responsibility for the behaviour of their 16%18% children 16% 13%16% 19% 16%17% People being drunk or rowdy in public spaces 14% 16% 2011 14%15% 18% 2012 16%16% * Street Drinking/ Drinking alcohol in the streets 13% 16% 2013 12%14% 13% 2014 16%17% * Fly Posting 11% 19% 2015 13%16% 15% 2016 14%15% Noisy neighbours or loud parties 13% 14% 2017 12%13% 23% 2018 13% 18% * Vandalism/ Criminal damage 12% 11% 11%12% 17%20% Intimidation as a result of groups/ gangs of young people 12%14% hanging around on the street 13% 11%12% 15% 11%14% * Unkempt gardens 9% 13% 8%11% 6% 5%5% Begging 5% 9% 7%7% 8% 5%6% * Graffiti 3% 4% 3%4% 5% 2%3% Abandoned or burnt out cars 2% 4% 2%3% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
See Appendix B for Base Size * = 2018 significantly different to 2017
12 | P a g e 2.7 The data from 2011- 2018 is directly comparable – and although the data from surveys from prior years was collected using a different methodology and as such, is not directly comparable, it does provide a view of trends in ASB over time. The following charts show the trend data for the different elements of anti-social behaviour. For many of the ASB issues there is a downward trend in the proportion of residents thinking the issue was a very or fairly big problem since the 2006 baseline. For ‘fly posting’ the trend is upwards, though the proportion thinking this is a very or fairly big problem is small. For ‘Motorbikes/motorised scooters/mini motos/quad bikes’ there is also an upward trend since 2014 although still lower than the 2006 baseline.
ASB ISSUES - TRENDS OVER TIME – 2006-2018 Perceptions of Anti-Social Behaviour Issues in Local Area Over Time (very or fairly big problems) - (%) 60% 40% 20% 0% Abandoned cars Street Begging Fly posting Unkempt Gardens Noisy neighbours/loud (Abandoned or burnt out) parties Sep-2006 (Baseline) Mar-07 Sep-07 Mar-08 Sep-08 Mar-09
Sep-09 Oct-10 Dec-11 Dec-12 Dec-13 Dec-14
Dec-15 Dec-16 Dec-17 Dec-18
60% 40% 20% 0% Fly tipping Drinking alcohol in the Motorbikes/motorised Drug dealing/people using Intimidation as a result of streets (people being scooters/quad bikes drugs groups/gangs of young drunk or rowdy in public people places) Sep-2006 (Baseline) Mar-07 Sep-07 Mar-08 Sep-08 Mar-09 Sep-09 Oct-10 Dec-11 Dec-12 Dec-13 Dec-14 Dec-15 Dec-16 Dec-17 Dec-18
60% 40% 20% 0% Vandalism/criminal behaviour People not taking responsibility Litter (rubbish and litter lying Dog Fouling (vandalism/graffiti and damage for children around) to properties or vehicles)*
Sep-2006 (Baseline) Mar-07 Sep-07 Mar-08 Sep-08 Mar-09 Sep-09 Oct-10 Dec-11 Dec-12 Dec-13 Dec-14
Dec-15 Dec-16 Dec-17 Dec-18
See Appendix B for Base Size
Key Anti-Social Behaviour Issues by Age, Gender, Ethnicity, IMD and Area
13 | P a g e 2.8 Rubbish and litter lying around – the top ASB issue amongst survey respondents – appears to be a greater concern for women and for respondents from more deprived areas of the city. The differences by gender and IMD are statistically significant.
Rubbish and litter lying around (Very or fairly big problem) - (%)
Overall 30%
Male 27% Female 33%
16-24 28% 25-34 34% 35-44 32% 45-54 27% 55-64 30% 65+ 28%
Most Deprived 35% 2nd Most Deprived 43% 3rd Most Deprived 27% 4th Most Deprived 27% Least Deprived 19%
White 30% Mixed 39% Asian 31% Black 28% Other 23%
South 29% Central 31% North 30% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
See Appendix A for Sample Size Significant differences by gender and IMD
14 | P a g e 2.9 Overall, 24% of respondents felt that ‘dog fouling’ was a fairly or very big problem in their local area. Women, those aged 35 to 54, those from the most deprived quintile and from the north and south of the city were most likely to consider this a problem, with these differences being statistically significant. Dog Fouling (Very or fairly big problem) - (%)
Overall 24%
Male 20% Female 28%
16-24 16% 25-34 25% 35-44 30% 45-54 31% 55-64 26% 65+ 23%
Most Deprived 32% 2nd Most Deprived 27% 3rd Most Deprived 30% 4th Most Deprived 18% Least Deprived 15%
White 24% Mixed 27% Asian 21% Black 26% Other 18%
South 26% Central 16% North 30% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
See Appendix A for Sample Size Significant differences by gender, age, IMD and area
15 | P a g e 2.10 Overall, 24% of respondents felt that ‘motorbikes/motorised scooters/mini-motos/quad bikes' were a fairly or very big problem in their local area. Women, those aged 55 to 64, those from the first and third most deprived quintiles, respondents from white or other ethnic groups and from the north and south of the city were most likely to consider this a problem.
Motorbikes/ motorised scooters/ mini motos/ quad bikes (Very or fairly big problem) - (%)
Overall 24%
Male 21% Female 26%
16-24 19% 25-34 24% 35-44 27% 45-54 27% 55-64 31% 65+ 18%
Most Deprived 30% 2nd Most Deprived 25% 3rd Most Deprived 33% 4th Most Deprived 18% Least Deprived 14%
White 25% Mixed 22% Asian 19% Black 19% Other 24%
South 28% Central 13% North 31% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
See Appendix A for Sample Size Significant differences by gender, age, IMD, ethnic group and area
16 | P a g e 2.11 18% of respondents overall considered ‘people using or dealing drugs to be a very or fairly big problem, with respondents aged 25 to 44, from the first and second most deprived quintiles and from the south of the city more likely to perceive this to be a problem.
People using or dealing drugs - (%)
Overall 18%
Male 17% Female 19%
16-24 18% 25-34 21% 35-44 20% 45-54 18% 55-64 18% 65+ 12%
Most Deprived 24% 2nd Most Deprived 24% 3rd Most Deprived 20% 4th Most Deprived 12% Least Deprived 11%
White 18% Mixed 21% Asian 21% Black 13% Other 17%
South 21% Central 18% North 15% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
See Appendix A for Sample Size Significant differences by age, IMD and area
2.12 Sections 2.8 to 2.11 (above) detail differences in key groups for the top four ASB issues perceived by residents. There are also some differences by sub-group for other issues. For example, overall 16% of respondents felt that ‘fly tipping’ was a very or fairly big problem. Amongst respondents from the least deprived areas, this proportion drops to 8% (this is a significant difference). ‘Street drinking/drinking alcohol in the streets’ was perceived to be a very or fairly big problem for 11% of residents in the north and 17% of residents in the south area of the city (this is a significant difference).
17 | P a g e Anti-Social Behaviour - Nottingham City Centre 2.13 ‘Begging’ was the issue most commonly highlighted by respondents as a problem in the City Centre in 2018, with 49% of respondents thinking this was a very or fairly big problem. Respondents also highlighted issues relating to alcohol in relation to anti- social behaviour in Nottingham City Centre. 40%5 of respondents thought that ‘people being drunk or rowdy in public spaces’ was a very or fairly big problem and 39% considered ‘street drinking’ to be a very or fairly big problem. The results highlight much less concern around dog fouling in the City Centre compared to local areas - only 8%6 identified this as a very or fairly big problem compared to 24% who thought it was a problem locally. 29% of respondents thought that ‘people using or dealing drugs’ and ‘rubbish and litter lying around’ were very or fairly big problems in the city centre. It should be noted that for all these issues, a substantial proportion indicated that they did not know whether they were a problem in Nottingham city centre, suggesting that a significant proportion of respondents do not visit the centre of town. The proportion who reported ‘don’t know’ is highest for ‘people using or dealing drugs’, with 21% who did not know.
Perception of ASB Issues in Nottingham City Centre(%)
Begging 27% 22% 15% 22% 14%
People being drunk or rowdy in public spaces 16% 23% 19% 26% 16%
Street Drinking/ Drinking alcohol in the streets 16% 23% 19% 27% 15%
People using or dealing drugs 13% 16% 15% 35% 21%
Rubbish and litter lying around 11% 18% 26% 31% 14% Intimidation as a result of groups gangs/ of young people hanging 6% 12% 20% 46% 16% around on the street Vandalism/ Criminal damage 5% 12% 18% 48% 18%
Graffiti 5% 8% 20% 51% 16%
Fly Posting 3% 7% 16% 56% 18%
Dog Fouling 3%4% 14% 63% 16%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
A very big problem A fairly big problem Not a very big problem Not a problem at all Don't know
See Appendix A for Base Size
5 Note: Add up to 40% due to rounding. To one decimal place the figures are: a very big problem 16.3% and a fairly big problem 23.2%, which add up to 21.7%. 6 Note: Add up to 8% due to rounding. To one decimal place the figures are: a very big problem 3.4% and a fairly big problem 4.2%, which add up to 21.7%. 18 | P a g e 2.14 The chart below shows the mean scores for each of the issues for 2011-18, where the higher the score the more the issue is felt to be a problem. There are statistically significant increases in all ten issues relating to the City Centre from 2017 to 2018. The chart shows that for most of the issues there is a downward trend in the perception of ASB in Nottingham City Centre since 2011, but for some aspects, there has been a slight upward trend since 2014 – including begging, rubbish and litter lying around and people using or dealing drugs.
Perceptions of Anti-Social Behaviour in Nottingham City Centre by Year (Mean Scores)
2.21 2.12 2.30 2.05 * Begging 2.12 2.39 2.43 2.63 2.41 2.42 2.36 2.12 * People being drunk or rowdy in public spaces 2.08 2.21 2.18 2.35 2.35 2.30 2.25 2.00 * Street Drinking/ Drinking alcohol in the streets 1.97 2.13 2.10 2.34 2.10 2.04 1.97 1.77 * Rubbish and litter lying around 1.82 2.03 1.92 2.10 1.94 1.99 2011 1.75 1.64 * People using or dealing drugs 1.67 2012 1.80 1.78 2.08 2013 2.04 2014 1.97 1.71 * Intimidation as a result of groups gangs/ of young people 1.62 2015 1.65 hanging around on the street 1.69 1.60 2016 1.75 2017 1.93 1.85 1.61 2018 1.48 * Vandalism/ Criminal damage 1.58 1.58 1.52 1.67 1.78 1.66 1.54 1.38 * Graffiti 1.45 1.52 1.42 1.59 1.77 1.65 1.53 1.37 * Fly Posting 1.42 1.57 1.37 1.47 1.66 1.57 1.49 1.38 * Dog Fouling 1.38 1.54 1.30 1.39
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00
See Appendix B for Base Size * = 2018 significantly different to 2017
19 | P a g e 2.15 The following chart shows the same variable, but showing the proportion thinking that this aspect was a very or fairly big problem for the period 2011-2018. The proportions are significantly higher than 2017 for all 10 issues, with the biggest increases seen in ‘street drinking/ drinking alcohol in the street (39% in 2018 and 31% in 2017) and ‘people using or dealing drugs’ (29% in 2018 and 21% in 2017).
Perceptions of Anti-Social Behaviour in Local Neighbourhood by Year (very or fairly big problem) - (%)
34% 30% 38% 28% * Begging 31% 42% 43% 49% 43% 40% 40% 32% * People being drunk or rowdy in public spaces 28% 35% 35% 40% 40% 37% 36% 28% * Street Drinking/ Drinking alcohol in the streets 25% 33% 31% 39% 22% 24% 18% 17% * People using or dealing drugs 15% 19% 21% 29% 30% 2011 26% 25% 19% 2012 * Rubbish and litter lying around 19% 28% 25% 2013 29% 29% 2014 25% 17% * Intimidation as a result of groups gangs/ of young 15% 2015 14% people hanging around on the street 16% 15% 2016 18% 2017 24% 18% 14% 2018 11% * Vandalism/ Criminal damage 12% 12% 12% 16% 20% 14% 11% 7% * Graffiti 9% 10% 9% 12% 19% 13% 12% 7% * Fly Posting 8% 12% 8% 10% 15% 12% 11% 8% * Dog Fouling 7% 11% 6% 8%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
See Appendix B for Base Size * = 2018 significantly different to 2017
20 | P a g e 2.16 A new question was added in 2018, asking respondents if they felt the City Centre had changed as a place to live, work, socialise or spend time in the last twelve months. Nearly a quarter (24%) of respondents felt that the City Centre had improved. 40% of respondents felt that the city centre had stayed the same and 16% felt that the city centre had got worse. 20% of respondents did not know if the city had changed.
Thinking about the City Centre as place to live, work, socialise or spend time, in the last twelve months do you feel it has: (%)
50%
40% 40%
30%
20% 20% 20%
10% 10% 6% 5%
0% Improved a lot Improved a little Stayed the same Got a little worse Got a lot worse Don't know
Base size = 2,743
2.17 There are significant differences in the proportion who felt that the City Centre had improved a lot or a little as a place to live, work, socialise or spend time in the last twelve months by age, ethnic group and area. Respondents aged 16-34, those from the mixed ethnic groups and residents of the south of the city were more likely to have felt that the City Centre had improved in the last twelve months.
Thinking about the City Centre as place to live, work, socialise or spend time, in the last twelve months do you feel it has: (Improved a lot or a little (%)
Overall 24%
Male 25% Female 23%
16-24 29% 25-34 29% 35-44 25% 45-54 19% 55-64 21% 65+ 15%
Most Deprived 25% 2nd Most Deprived 26% 3rd Most Deprived 26% 4th Most Deprived 23% Least Deprived 21%
White 22% Mixed 41% Asian 29% Black 31% Other 26%
South 28% Central 23% North 22% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
See Appendix A for Base Size Significant differences by age, ethnic group and area
21 | P a g e Anti-Social Behaviour and 16-24 Year Olds 2.18 The views of the 16-24 age group are an important element of the work of the Crime and Drugs Partnership. Their perceptions of key ASB issues in their local neighbourhood and in Nottingham City Centre obtained from the survey are shown in the table below. For their local neighbourhood, 16-24 year olds are more likely to think that 10 of the 16 issues are a problem locally than respondents aged 25+. There are significant differences between the mean scores for young people compared to those aged 25+ for 12 of these 16 issues. In relation to perceptions of ASB in the City Centre, 16-24 year olds are more likely to think that 6 of the 10 issues are a problem than respondents aged 25+. There are significant differences between the mean scores for young people compared to those aged 25+ for 8 of these 10 issues.
ASB Issues – Comparison of 16-24 and 25+ population views Rank ASB (Local Mean Mean Sig ASB (Nottingham Mean Mean Sig Neighbourhood) Score Score Difference City Centre) Score Score Diff. (16-24) (25+) (16-24) (25+)
Yes 1 Rubbish and litter lying around 1.98 1.99 No Begging 2.53 2.67 (Lower)
People being drunk or rowdy in People being drunk or Yes 2 public spaces 1.73 1.44 Yes (higher) rowdy in public spaces 2.45 2.32 (higher) Street Drinking/ Motorbikes/ motorised scooters/ Drinking alcohol in the Yes 3 mini motos/ quad bikes 1.68 1.84 Yes (Lower) streets 2.41 2.30 (higher)
Rubbish and litter lying Yes 4 People using or dealing drugs 1.65 1.62 No around 2.18 2.06 (higher)
People using or 5 Noisy neighbours or loud parties 1.64 1.44 Yes (higher) dealing drugs 2.08 2.09 No Intimidation as a result of groups gangs/ of Street Drinking/ Drinking alcohol in young people hanging Yes 6 the streets 1.64 1.46 Yes (higher) around on the street 1.81 1.72 (higher) Intimidation as a result of groups/ gangs of young people hanging Vandalism/ Criminal Yes 7 around on the street 1.55 1.39 Yes (higher) damage 1.79 1.62 (higher)
Parents not taking responsibility for Yes 8 the behaviour of their children 1.54 1.59 No Graffiti 1.68 1.56 (higher)
Yes 9 Dog Fouling 1.53 1.87 Yes (Lower) Fly Posting 1.41 1.49 (Lower)
10 Vandalism/ Criminal damage 1.52 1.44 Yes (higher) Dog Fouling 1.34 1.40 No
11 Fly Posting 1.52 1.42 Yes (higher)
12 Begging 1.43 1.23 Yes (higher)
13 Fly Tipping 1.42 1.56 Yes (Lower)
14 Unkempt gardens 1.37 1.45 Yes (Lower)
15 Graffiti 1.32 1.18 Yes (higher)
16 Abandoned or burnt out cars 1.16 1.13 No
22 | P a g e Overall Perceptions of Anti-Social Behaviour – NI17 2.17 A measure of anti-social behaviour was calculated from the survey data and reported in previous reports. This was based on (but with differences to) the Statutory Performance Indicators for Policing and Community Safety 2008/09. The analysis assesses the percentage of people who perceive a high level of ASB in their local area. This combined measure is calculated by allocating scores to the responses to the questions about the seven ASB issues:
Noisy neighbours or loud parties Teenagers hanging around on the streets Rubbish or litter lying around Vandalism, graffiti and other deliberate damage to property or vehicles People using or dealing drugs People being drunk or rowdy in public places Abandoned or burnt out cars
Scores were allocated based on:
0 = Not a problem at all 1 = Not a very big problem 2 = Fairly big problem 3 = Very big problem
2.18 A total score for each respondent is calculated based on the responses to the seven aspects above. The highest maximum score is 21 per respondent and a ‘high perception’ of ASB is classed as a score of 11 or above. The ‘High Perception of ASB’ indicator is therefore based on the percentage of respondents whose score was 11 or above. The statements used to produce the indicator in 2018 are the same as those used in 2011-2017. For 2010 and earlier, slightly different wording was used in the statements included in the questionnaire.
2010 Statements 2011, 2012 and 2013 Statements Noisy neighbours or loud parties Noisy neighbours or loud parties Teenagers hanging around on the streets Intimidation as a result of groups/ gangs of young people hanging around on the street Rubbish or litter lying around Rubbish or litter lying around Vandalism, graffiti and other deliberate Vandalism/ Criminal damage damage to property or vehicles People using or dealing drugs People using or dealing drugs People being drunk or rowdy in public People being drunk or rowdy in public places places Abandoned or burnt out cars Abandoned or burnt out cars
23 | P a g e 2.19 Overall in 2018, 7% of residents included in the survey had a high perception of ASB (using the indicator as described above). This is higher than in 2017 but lower than in 2016. The difference between 2018 and 2017 is significant.
High Perception of ASB (%)
20%
15%
10% 9% 9% 7% 7% 8% 7% 6% 6% 5%
0% 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Base size: 2018 = 2,408, 2017 = 2,447, 2016 = 2,311, 2015 = 2,404, 2014 = 2,416, 2013 = 2,375, 2012 = 1,768, 2011 = 1,663 2018 significantly different to 2017
2.20 There are significant differences in the proportion with a high perception of ASB score by gender, age, deprivation, IMD and ethnic group. Women, those aged 16-44, those from the most and second most deprived quintiles and those from the mixed ethnic groups had higher perceptions of ASB.
High Perception of ASB (%)
Overall 7%
Male 6% Female 8%
16-24 8% 25-34 9% 35-44 9% 45-54 6% 55-64 6% 65+ 4%
Most Deprived 11% 2nd Most Deprived 11% 3rd Most Deprived 6% 4th Most Deprived 6% Least Deprived 3%
White 6% Mixed 15% Asian 10% Black 6% Other 12%
South 9% Central 6% North 6% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16%
See Appendix A for Base Size Significant differences by gender, age, IMD and ethnic group
24 | P a g e Perception of Anti-Social Behaviour by Ward 2.21 The chart below shows the proportion of residents who have a high perception of anti- social behaviour for each of the wards of Nottingham. The data shows that the wards with the highest proportions of residents who have a high perception of anti-social behaviour are Bridge, Arboretum and Aspley, all significantly higher than Nottingham overall (7%). These results at ward level need to be viewed with some caution. The sample sizes at ward level are only approximately 100 for 18 of the 20 wards (higher in Arboretum and Berridge, which have booster samples).
High Perception of ASB by Ward (%)
* Bridge 17% * Arboretum 17% * Aspley 15% St Ann's 12% Bestwood 11% * Berridge 11% Clifton South 10% Bulwell 8% Dales 8% Dunkirk and Lenton 7% Radford and Park 6% Clifton North 3% Bilborough 3% Bulwell Forest 3% Wollaton West 2% Leen Valley 2% Basford 2% * Sherwood 1% * Mapperley 1% * Wollaton East and Lenton Abbey 0%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20%
Base size: Arboretum = 401, Aspley = 74, Basford = 88, Berridge = 410, Bestwood = 91, Bilborough = 95, Bridge = 85, Bulwell = 88, Bulwell Forest = 85, Clifton North = 87, Clifton South = 84, Dales = 89, Dunkirk and Lenton = 86, Leen Valley = 87, Mapperley = 94, Radford and Park = 79, Sherwood = 94, St Ann’s = 81, Wollaton East and Lenton Abbey = 92, Wollaton West = 93 Caution: Small sample sizes *Significant difference to City overall
25 | P a g e Composite ASB Score for Local Neighbourhoods 2.22 A composite score for perceptions of ASB was calculated for the 2011 survey using all the aspects of ASB included in the question on local neighbourhood ASB problems (16 aspects in total). This was designed to be a benchmark for future surveys and has been calculated using the 2017 data. The score was created by assigning a numerical value to each of the anti-social behaviour answer categories and calculating the mean score. These assigned values were as follows: “A very big problem” = 4, “A fairly big problem” = 3, “Not a very big problem” = 2, “Not a problem at all” = 1. “Don’t know” were excluded. The higher the mean score, the greater the perceived problem of anti- social behaviour. The maximum score possible (the highest perception of anti-social behaviour) would therefore be 64, whilst the minimum score possible (the lowest perception of anti-social behaviour) would be 16.
2.23 Overall, the average ASB Perceptions Score in 2018 was 23.66. This is an increase from 22.69 in 2017, but a decrease from 24.57 in 2016. The change from 2017 is statistically significant.
Perceptions of ASB - Composite Score
30.00 25.87 24.76 24.57 25.00 23.94 23.68 23.66 22.60 22.69
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
.00 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Base size: 2018 = 2,279, 2017 = 2,322, 2016 = 2,124, 2015 = 2,229, 2014 = 2,262, 2013 = 2,211, 2012 = 1,644, 2011 = 1,536 2018 significantly different to 2017
26 | P a g e 2.24 The chart below shows the ranked scores at ward level. There are some wards where the ASB Perceptions score is significantly different to the overall city score – for four wards – Aspley, Arboretum, Berridge and Bridge – the score is (significantly) higher; for six wards it is (significantly) lower.
Perceptions of ASB - Composite Score by Ward (Score)
* Aspley 27.31 * Arboretum 27.02 * Berridge 26.22 * Bridge 26.14 Dales 25.20 Bestwood 24.91 St Ann's 24.85 Bulwell 24.54 Clifton South 24.39 Radford and Park 23.78 Dunkirk and Lenton 23.66 Bilborough 23.01 Basford 22.69 Clifton North 22.64 * Mapperley 21.56 * Wollaton West 21.31 * Bulwell Forest 21.26 * Sherwood 21.20 * Wollaton East and Lenton Abbey 21.19 * Leen Valley 19.23 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00
Base size: Arboretum = 365, Aspley = 68, Basford = 86, Berridge = 382, Bestwood = 84, Bilborough = 92, Bridge = 77, Bulwell = 83, Bulwell Forest = 84, Clifton North = 83, Clifton South = 81, Dales = 81, Dunkirk and Lenton = 78, Leen Valley = 83, Mapperley = 87, Radford and Park = 77, Sherwood = 94, St Ann’s = 76, Wollaton East and Lenton Abbey = 86, Wollaton West = 90 Caution: Small sample sizes *Significant difference to City overall
27 | P a g e 2.25 Looking at the results by sub-group shows that there are significant differences by gender, age and IMD. Men, respondents from the 65+ age groups and respondents from the least deprived IMD quintile have a lower perception of ASB using this composite score.
Perceptions of ASB - Composite Score (Mean)
Overall 23.66
Male 23.21 Female 24.12
16-24 24.11 25-34 23.98 35-44 24.37 45-54 23.59 55-64 23.18 65+ 22.12
Most Deprived 25.04 2nd Most Deprived 25.78 3rd Most Deprived 23.41 4th Most Deprived 22.75 Least Deprived 21.79
White 23.68 Mixed 25.08 Asian 23.54 Black 23.17 Other 22.93
South 24.16 Central 23.50 North 23.37 19.00 20.00 21.00 22.00 23.00 24.00 25.00 26.00 27.00
See Appendix A for Base Size Significant differences by gender, age and IMD
28 | P a g e 2.26 The table below shows the composite ASB Perceptions Score for each ward for 2011- 2018. Whilst the sample sizes are small at ward level (apart from Arboretum and Berridge), combining data into a composite score does show some significant differences between 2018 and 2017. Two wards (Aspley, and Dunkirk and Lenton) have seen a significant increase in the composite ASB Perceptions Score from 2017 to 2018.
Perceptions of ASB - Composite Score by Ward (Score) for 2011, 2012, 21013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018
Year 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 Arboretum 27.02 26.85 27.44 27.53 25.98 27.15 29.34 28.17 * Aspley 27.31 23.64 25.48 26.74 24.03 29.70 27.67 29.60 Basford 22.69 21.25 24.67 22.32 21.71 23.92 26.14 27.20 Berridge 26.22 25.22 23.80 25.70 20.40 26.51 26.49 26.78 Bestwood 24.91 24.02 22.22 24.27 21.67 22.26 24.57 25.60 Bilborough 23.01 22.69 23.43 24.03 21.74 24.75 26.10 24.59 Bridge 26.14 23.83 27.50 24.36 25.18 24.06 25.59 27.04 Bulwell 24.54 23.95 26.32 23.16 23.75 24.92 26.30 26.77 Bulwell Forest 21.26 20.42 23.54 21.22 22.14 23.56 22.38 23.26 Clifton North 22.64 22.53 23.64 23.12 18.75 23.31 23.44 22.48 Clifton South 24.39 24.36 25.40 22.34 23.28 22.45 25.70 24.77 Dales 25.20 24.04 25.39 24.15 21.68 23.95 24.23 26.91 * Dunkirk and 23.66 20.72 24.76 22.27 23.14 22.62 27.86 27.47 Lenton Leen Valley 19.23 20.42 23.44 23.68 23.64 22.46 21.06 24.78 Mapperley 21.56 20.94 22.57 21.63 23.05 20.64 21.24 27.24 Radford and Park 23.78 21.93 25.80 24.44 24.84 23.64 23.70 26.78 Sherwood 21.20 21.91 22.26 23.13 23.30 22.26 20.94 25.40 St Ann's 24.85 23.39 29.04 25.24 22.77 26.21 27.40 27.86 Wollaton East 21.19 21.30 23.04 22.60 21.99 23.12 23.29 21.99 and Lenton Abbey Wollaton West 21.31 20.18 21.01 20.59 19.19 20.11 22.01 20.96 * = 2018 significantly different to 2017
29 | P a g e 2.27 The composite indicator scores can be used to calculate a ‘High Perception of ASB’ indicator. In this case, a ‘high perception’ is based on the percentage of respondents whose score was 32 or above. Overall, 16% of respondents had a score of 32 or higher (and hence a high perception of ASB using this new indicator). The chart below shows the indicator at ward level (again note the sample sizes at ward level are small, except for Arboretum and Berridge). Aspley, Arboretum and Berridge are the wards with the highest perception of ASB using this indicator and are significantly different to the city overall. Wollaton West, Sherwood, Wollaton East and Lenton Abbey and Leen Valley have a significantly lower perception of ASB compared to the rest of the city.
High Perception of ASB (Composite) by Ward (%)
* Aspley 30% * Arboretum 27% * Berridge 27% Clifton South 23% Bulwell 23% Bestwood 22% Dales 21% St Ann's 21% Bridge 21% Dunkirk and Lenton 17% Radford and Park 14% Clifton North 13% Mapperley 11% Bulwell Forest 11% Basford 9% Bilborough 8% * Wollaton West 8% * Sherwood 6% * Wollaton East and Lenton Abbey 4% * Leen Valley 3% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Base size: Arboretum = 365, Aspley = 68, Basford = 86, Berridge = 382, Bestwood = 94, Bilborough = 92, Bridge = 77, Bulwell = 83, Bulwell Forest = 84, Clifton North = 83, Clifton South = 81, Dales = 81, Dunkirk and Lenton = 78, Leen Valley = 83, Mapperley = 87, Radford and Park = 77, Sherwood = 94, St Ann’s = 76, Wollaton East and Lenton Abbey = 86, Wollaton West = 90 Caution: Small sample sizes *Significant difference to City overall
30 | P a g e Comparison of Recorded Crime Rate and Perceptions of ASB 2.28 The chart below shows the 12-month recorded crime rate7 per 1,000 population for each ward of the city. Arboretum ward has the highest crime rate, followed by Bulwell. The chart also shows the proportion of residents in the 2018 survey with a high perception of ASB (from the composite score created from the data). In some cases, as the crime rate at ward level declines, the proportion with a high perception of ASB declines. For example, Arboretum has the highest recorded crime rate (216 per 1,000) and the second highest proportion (27%) with a high perception of ASB score. Similarly, Wollaton East and Lenton Abbey has the second lowest proportion (4%) with a high perception of ASB score and the second lowest recorded crime rate (66 per 1,000). Noting that the sample sizes from the survey are only approximately 100 at ward level for 18 of the 20 wards, there are a number of exceptions to this trend. For example, Aspley is ranked 1st in terms of perception of ASB but is ranked 8th in terms of recorded crime. Conversely, Basford is ranked 15th in terms of perception of ASB score, but are ranked 7th in terms of recorded crime. The survey sample sizes at ward level may account for some of this variation, or the possibility that there is an under- reporting of crime in some of those areas – and further monitoring of this in future surveys may support any findings here.
High perception of ASB by Ward (>32 in composite score - %) by Crime Rate (Ranked by Crime Rate) 80% 250 70% 200 60% 50% 150 40% 27% 27% 30% 30% 23% 21% 21% 21% 22% 23% 100 17% 20% 14% 11% 11% 13% 9% 6% 8% 8% 50 10% 3% 4%
0% 0
Dales
Bridge
Aspley
Bulwell
Basford
St Ann's St
Berridge
Bestwood
Sherwood
Mapperley
Bilborough
Arboretum
Leen Valley Leen
Clifton South Clifton
Clifton North Clifton
Bulwell Forest Bulwell
Wollaton West Wollaton
Abbey
Radford and Park and Radford Dunkirk and Lenton and Dunkirk 12 Month Crime Rate
Perception of ASB - Composite Score Wollaton East Lenton and East Wollaton Linear (Perception of ASB - Composite Score) Base size: Arboretum = 365, Aspley = 68, Basford = 86, Berridge = 382, Bestwood = 94, Bilborough = 92, Bridge = 77, Bulwell = 83, Bulwell Forest = 84, Clifton North = 83, Clifton South = 81, Dales = 81, Dunkirk and Lenton = 78, Leen Valley = 83, Mapperley = 87, Radford and Park = 77, Sherwood = 94, St Ann’s = 76, Wollaton East and Lenton Abbey = 86, Wollaton West = 90 Caution: Small sample sizes
7 Source: Nottinghamshire Police Crime Data, January - December 2018. 31 | P a g e 2.29 The scatter plot below shows the relationship between the perceptions of ASB and recorded crime data more clearly. There is a positive correlation8 between perceptions of ASB and crime rate. For example, Arboretum has a high proportion of residents with a high perception of ASB (composite score >32) and also a high crime rate. Wollaton East and Lenton Abbey has a low crime rate and a small proportion of residents who have a high perception of ASB.
8 A correlation coefficient of 0 indicates no association between the two variables and a coefficient of 1 indicates a perfect correlation between the two variables. The Pearson Correlation coefficient for this data is .578. This highlights a strong correlation between the two variables. The correlation coefficient is significantly different from 0 (no association between the 2 variables). 32 | P a g e Experiencing and Reporting Anti-Social Behaviour 2.30 Overall, 8% of respondents said they had been personally targeted by some form of anti-social behaviour in the last six months, such as repeated verbal abuse, including racist abuse, shouting threats and intimidation, damage to property or cars, noisy neighbours or students and aggressive begging. This is lower than 2017, when 9% of respondents reported personal experiences of ASB. The decrease between this year and 2017 is not a significant difference.
Proportion who were targeted by ASB in the last 6 months (%)
20%
15% 13% 11% 9% 10% 10% 9% 8% 9% 8%
5%
0% 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Base size: 2018 = 2,729, 2017 = 2,793, 2016 = 2,724, 2015 = 2,719, 2014 = 2,740, 2013 = 2,761, 2012 = 2,011, 2011 = 2,002 2018 not significantly different to 2017
33 | P a g e 2.31 There were no significant differences in the proportion of respondents who said they had been personally targeted by some form of anti-social behaviour in the last six months by gender, age, IMD, ethnic group or area. Proportion who were targeted by ASB in the last 6 months (%)
Overall 8%
Male 7% Female 10%
16-24 8% 25-34 9% 35-44 10% 45-54 8% 55-64 10% 65+ 6%
Most Deprived 8% 2nd Most Deprived 11% 3rd Most Deprived 8% 4th Most Deprived 8% Least Deprived 7%
White 9% Mixed 15% Asian 8% Black 5% Other 6%
South 10% Central 9% North 7% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16%
See Appendix A for base size No Significant differences
2.32 48% of respondents who had personally faced some form of ASB in the last six months reported it to someone (52% did not report it). This figure for 2018 is lower than in 2017, when 52% reported the ASB they had experienced to someone, and the lowest since the research started in 2011. The decrease between this year and 2017 is not a significant difference. Proportion who reported ASB in the last 6 months (%)
100% 90% 80% 70% 65% 65% 58% 57% 57% 60% 55% 52% 48% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Base size: 2018 = 228, 2017 = 238, 2016 = 285, 2015 = 218, 2014 = 254, 2013 = 258, 2012 = 227, 2011 = 263 2018 not significantly different to 2017
34 | P a g e 2.33 Of the respondents experiencing ASB, there were no significant differences in the proportions reporting it by gender, age, ethnic group, IMD or area. Proportion who reported ASB in the last 6 months (%)
Overall 48%
Male 53% Female 44%
16-24 39% 25-34 49% 35-44 49% 45-54 61% 55-64 48% 65+ 53%
Most Deprived 55% 2nd Most Deprived 47% 3rd Most Deprived 44% 4th Most Deprived 45% Least Deprived 51%
White 47% Mixed 69% Asian 37% Black 71% Other 77%
South 47% Central 48% North 49% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
See Appendix A for base size No Significant differences
35 | P a g e 2.34 This year, of those respondents who reported some form of ASB they had faced in the last 6 months, 80% reported it to the Police, 16% to the Council, 7% to their registered social landlord, 3% to a private landlord, and 13% to ‘other’, which included teachers, school, security guards and community officers. These figures are comparable to those found in 2011-2017, and although there are some small differences none of these are statistically significant. Who reported ASB to (%)
100% 88% 90% 84%87% 90% 80% 82%82% 83% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 25% 30% 21%22% 16%18%18%16% 20% 13% 10% 9%11% 9%10%11% 7% 5% 7%6% 6% 8%8% 10% 2%3% 1%3%2%2% 3%1% 1% 3%1% 0% Police Council Registered Social Private Landlords Other Landlord
2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011
Base size: 2018 = 109, 2017 = 124, 2016 = 146, 2015 = 121, 2014 = 166, 2013 = 168, 2012 = 128, 2011 = 151 No significant differences 2018 to 2017
2.35 For the respondents in 2018 who did not report the ASB they had faced, 51% said ‘there was no point – nothing ever gets done’; 4% said ‘fear of reprisal’ and 46% gave some other reason. Respondents who gave ‘other’ reasons provided further details of why they did not report the incident. The reasons most commonly given were that respondents felt the incident was too minor to be reported, they did not believe the issue would be resolved, or they did not have the time to report the ASB they had experienced.
36 | P a g e 2.36 Respondents who did report the ASB they had personally faced in the last 6 months were asked to say how satisfied they were with the response they received. Base sizes are small for this question for some of the agencies, given that relatively low proportions of respondents reported issues they faced to the Council, their landlord or someone else9. The number of respondents who reported ASB incidents to the police is higher and allows levels of satisfaction with the response to the incident to be examined in more detail. Overall, in the 2018 survey, 45% of those who reported some form of ASB to the police were very or fairly satisfied with the response. This is lower than in 2017 (50%) but similar to 2014-16 - 48% in 2016, 42% in 2015, 48% in 2014. The relatively small base size each year is likely to account for some of this variation over time. The difference between 2018 and 2017 is not statistically significant. Satisfaction with Response to report of ASB (%)
2011 29% 28% 4% 13% 24% 1% 2012 33% 12% 15% 13% 25% 2% 2013 22% 27% 12% 13% 24% 1% 2014 23% 24% 9% 15% 28% 0% 2015 19% 22% 16% 14% 27% 2% 2016 22% 26% 14% 12% 26% 0% 2017 25% 25% 8% 14% 25% 3% 2018 18% 27% 9% 15% 28% 3%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Don't know
Base Sizes: 2018 = 88, 2017 = 110, 2016 = 119, 2015 = 97, 2014 = 149, 2013 = 137, 2012 = 108, 2011 = 124 2018 not significantly different to 2017
2.37 Respondents who reported ASB they had personally faced in the last 6 months were asked to give further details. These were manually coded into the four categories of low level ASB, high level ASB, low-level crime and high-level crime10. In total, 43% of those who had personally been targeted by ASB in the last six months were actually experiencing crime rather than ASB. ASB Experienced in Last Six Months
36% 40% 32% 30% 26% 20% 7% 10% 0% Low level ASB High level ASB Low level crime High level crime
Base Sizes: 196
Feelings of Safety – Local Neighbourhood (when it’s dark)
9 Base Sizes: Police – 88, Council – 17; Registered Social Landlord – 8; Private Landlord – 3; Other – 14 10 The first time this analysis was included in the report the different incidents reported by respondents were coded by Nottingham Crime and Drugs Partnership. In subsequent years, Information by Design coded the responses using this coding as a basis. Any new incidents not covered in the original coding were categorised using our judgement. 37 | P a g e 2.38 Respondents were asked about two aspects of community safety – feelings of safety in their local neighbourhood and in the city centre. When asked how safe or unsafe they felt walking alone in their local neighbourhood when it's dark, 64% of residents said they feel very or fairly safe. 13% of residents said they feel very or fairly unsafe. 12% said they ‘don’t go out alone’ in their local area when it is dark.
Feelings of safety in local area when it's dark (%)
12% 4% 26% Very safe Fairly safe 9% Neither safe nor unsafe Fairly unsafe 11% Very unsafe Don't go out alone 38%
Base Size = 2,748
2.39 In 2018, 64% said they felt very or fairly safe. This is a significant decrease from 73% in 2017, and the lowest since 2011. This question has also been asked in previous surveys of the public in Nottingham, though with different forms of wording over the years11. Whilst the results are not directly comparable, the results over time suggest that perceptions of safety in the local neighbourhood have improved since 2006. Feelings of safety in the neighbourhood after dark (proportion who feel very or fairly safe) - (%) 73% 74% 73% 80% 67% 68% 71% 70% 64% 64% 60% 51% 51% 55% 47% 46% 49% 49% 50% 42% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
Base Size in 2018 = 2,748, 2017 = 2,789, 2016 = 2,753, 2015 = 2,753 2018 significantly different to 2017 Feelings of Safety by Age, Gender, Ethnicity, IMD and Area 2.40 There are some significant differences in the perceptions of safety in the local neighbourhood after dark by key sub-groups of residents. Women are much less likely
11 It should be noted that there are differences in the question wording and order between the 2011, 2012 and 2013 IbyD surveys and previous surveys (conducted by JRA) which may explain some differences in the data. The question about feelings of safety in the local neighbourhood is asked after some questions about ASB in both the IbyD and JRA surveys, although the JRA survey considers a greater number of ASB issues and also explores some issues around policing. The JRA survey also asks respondents to consider how safe they feel during the day and then at night, whereas the IbyD survey only asks for how safe or unsafe they feel at night. The question about safety in Nottingham City Centre is asked at the very end of the JRA survey (2010) after all the ASB questions, whereas it is asked around halfway through the IbyD survey. The JRA survey also asked about walking with others first, then about walking alone, which could lead to a reduction in those who feel safe. 38 | P a g e to feel very or fairly safe than men – three-quarters of men feel very or fairly safe compared to around half of women. The 65+ age group were least likely to feel very or fairly safe. Respondents living in the most deprived areas were less likely to feel safe in their neighbourhood when it’s dark, with an 8-percentage point difference between the most deprived and the least deprived areas (as defined here by IMD quintile groups). Feelings of safety in local neighbourhood after dark (very or fairly safe) - (%)
Overall 64%
Male 75% Female 54%
16-24 62% 25-34 70% 35-44 71% 45-54 73% 55-64 66% 65+ 46%
Most Deprived 60% 2nd Most Deprived 59% 3rd Most Deprived 69% 4th Most Deprived 66% Least Deprived 68%
White 63% Mixed 59% Asian 67% Black 70% Other 73%
South 66% Central 64% North 64% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
See Appendix A for Base Size Significant differences by gender, age and IMD
39 | P a g e Drivers of feelings of safety 2.41 By examining respondents’ perceptions of safety with the issues they see as problems in their local neighbourhood we are able to determine what appears to be driving perceptions of community safety.
2.42 Looking at the mean scores for those who feel very or fairly unsafe in their local neighbourhood after dark, some patterns emerge. Respondents who feel very/fairly unsafe rank ‘people using or dealing drugs’ (ranked 2nd compared to 4th by respondents who feel very/fairly safe, ‘people being drunk or rowdy in public spaces’ (ranked 3rd compared to 8th by respondents who feel very/fairly safe), ‘street drinking’ (ranked 7th compared to 9th) and ‘intimidation by groups/gangs of young people hanging around on the street’ (ranked 8th compared to 13th) and as more of a problem in their local area than respondents who feel safe. The table below shows the feelings of safety for those who feel very/fairly safe, neither, and very/fairly unsafe, with their rankings of the ASB issues in their local neighbourhood. In contrast, respondents who feel very or fairly safe in their local neighbourhood after dark rank ‘Motorbikes/ motorised scooters/ mini motos/ quad bikes’ (ranked 2nd compared to 4th of those who feel unsafe after dark) and ‘dog fouling’ (ranked 3rd compared to 5th) as bigger problems in the local neighbourhood.
Drivers of Perceptions of Safety Feelings of Safety Question 6: ASB issues Very/ Very/ Neither Very/ Very/ Fairly Fairly safe Fairly Fairly safe safe nor Unsafe Unsafe – - Rank unsafe Rank Rubbish and litter lying around 1.83 1 2.38 2.34 1 Motorbikes/ motorised scooters/ mini motos/ quad bikes 1.76 2 1.93 2.02 4 (lower) Dog Fouling 1.72 3 1.97 1.99 5 (lower) People using or dealing drugs 1.49 4 2.05 2.05 2 (Higher) Parents not taking responsibility for the behaviour of their children 1.48 5 1.69 1.98 6 (lower) Fly Tipping 1.46 6 1.73 1.77 11 (lower) Noisy neighbours or loud parties 1.44 7 1.62 1.82 9 (lower) People being drunk or rowdy in public spaces 1.40 8 1.73 2.03 3 (higher) Street Drinking/ Drinking alcohol in the streets 1.38 9 1.80 1.91 7 (higher) Fly Posting 1.38 10 1.60 1.79 10 Vandalism/ Criminal damage 1.37 11 1.77 1.76 12 (lower) Unkempt gardens 1.37 12 1.56 1.64 13 (lower) Intimidation as a result of groups/ gangs of young people hanging around on the street 1.31 13 1.66 1.91 8 (higher) Begging 1.23 14 1.48 1.48 14 Graffiti 1.18 15 1.31 1.30 15 Abandoned or burnt out cars 1.11 16 1.24 1.24 16
40 | P a g e Feelings of Safety - Nottingham City Centre 2.44 Respondents were also asked about their perceptions of safety in Nottingham City Centre when it is dark. The results suggest that residents have more concerns about safety in Nottingham City Centre after dark than safety in their local neighbourhood, with 44% feeling very or fairly safe (compared to 64% who feel safe in their local neighbourhood). 17% said they feel very or fairly unsafe in the city centre when it’s dark, and 25% reported that they don’t go out alone at night.
Feelings of safety in Nottingham City Centre when it's dark (%)
13% 25% Very safe Fairly safe Neither safe nor unsafe Fairly unsafe 6% 31% Very unsafe 11% Don't go out alone
14%
Base Size = 2,699
2.45 There are some changes in the results to this question between this year and previous years. The proportion of residents who feel very or fairly safe in the city centre when it’s dark decreased to 44% in 2018 from 50% in 2016. This difference is statistically significant and suggests a declining trend from the 55% who felt very or fairly safe in 2014. The proportion of residents who feel fairly or very unsafe (17%) is higher than 13% in 2017, 14% in 2016 and the 13% in both 2015 and 2014. These two years were a marked decrease from previous years (18% in 2013, 19% in 2012, and 21% in 2011). The proportion of residents who don’t go out in the city centre alone when it is dark has decreased slightly to 25% in 2018 from 28% in 2016.
Feelings of safety in Nottingham City Centre when it's dark (very or fairly safe) by Year (%)
60% 55% 53% 51% 48% 50% 50% 46% 45% 44%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0% 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Base Size: 2018 = 2,699,2017 = 2,776, 2016 = 2,739, 2015 = 2,727, 2014 = 2,727, 2013 = 2,738, 2012 = 1993, 2011 = 1967 2018 significantly different 2017
41 | P a g e Feelings of Safety by Gender, Age, IMD Ethnicity and Area 2.46 There are significant differences in perceptions of safety in Nottingham City Centre when it’s dark by gender, age, IMD, ethnic group and area. Women are again less likely to feel very or fairly safe than men, while there is a downward trend in age from younger to older residents. Perceptions of safety in the city centre after dark are also lower amongst those from the most deprived and least deprived quintiles, those from white, mixed and other ethnic groups and residents living in the north of the city. Feelings of safety in Nottingham City Centre after dark (very or fairly safe) - (%)
Overall 44%
Male 56% Female 33%
16-24 52% 25-34 53% 35-44 49% 45-54 46% 55-64 31% 65+ 21%
Most Deprived 39% 2nd Most Deprived 50% 3rd Most Deprived 47% 4th Most Deprived 45% Least Deprived 40%
White 42% Mixed 42% Asian 47% Black 57% Other 42%
South 50% Central 45% North 38% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
See Appendix A for Base Size Significant differences by gender, age, IMD, ethnic group and area
42 | P a g e Feelings of Safety by Ward – Local Area and City Centre 2.47 Whilst the sample sizes at ward level are relatively small (except for Arboretum and Berridge), the results suggest some differences by ward in the perceptions of safety in the local neighbourhood when walking alone when it is dark, with only 50% of residents in Radford and Park ward feeling safe compared to 81% of residents in Dales. The proportion of respondents in Dales, Wollaton West, Wollaton East and Lenton Abbey, Sherwood and Clifton North who feel very or fairly safe walking in their local area at night is significantly higher than the 64% across the city overall, while the proportion of respondents in Arboretum and Radford and Park who feel very or fairly safe walking in their local area at night is significantly lower than the 64% average. Proportion who feel fairly/very safe walking alone in their local area at night by ward (%)
* Dales 81% * Wollaton West 79% * Wollaton East and Lenton Abbey 78% * Sherwood 78% * Clifton North 75% Basford 73% Leen Valley 67% Mapperley 67% Aspley 65% Bilborough 64% Bulwell Forest 64% Bridge 61% Bestwood 59% * Berridge 59% Dunkirk and Lenton 59% Bulwell 59% St Ann's 57% Clifton South 55% * Arboretum 53% * Radford and Park 50% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Base size: Arboretum = 485, Aspley = 97, Basford = 95, Berridge = 480, Bestwood = 104, Bilborough = 105, Bridge = 93, Bulwell = 89, Bulwell Forest = 99, Clifton North = 102, Clifton South = 96, Dales = 98, Dunkirk and Lenton = 99, Leen Valley = 98, Mapperley = 104, Radford and Park = 95, Sherwood = 100, St Ann’s = 98, Wollaton East and Lenton Abbey = 104, Wollaton West = 98 Caution: Small sample sizes *Significant difference to City overall
43 | P a g e 2.48 Looking at perceptions of feeling very or fairly safe walking alone in the city centre after dark, the proportion of residents from Dales, St Ann’s, Arboretum, Mapperley and Berridge was significantly higher than the 44% city average. Again noting that the sample sizes are relatively small at ward level, the results point to increased perceptions of safety in the city centre amongst residents who live in some wards which are close to the centre of the city. Aspley, Clifton South and Wollaton wards had a significantly lower proportion of residents who said they felt safe in the centre at night. The differences in perceptions of safety in the city centre may also be driven by the age of residents – some wards have a younger age profile than others. Proportion who feel fairly/very safe walking alone in Nottingham City Centre at night by ward (%)
* Dales 59% * St Ann's 56% * Arboretum 55% * Mapperley 54% * Berridge 53% Bridge 52% Sherwood 48% Bulwell Forest 45% Dunkirk and Lenton 45% Radford and Park 44% Clifton North 44% Leen Valley 43% Wollaton East and Lenton Abbey 42% Basford 40% Bilborough 38% Bulwell 36% Bestwood 34% * Aspley 32% * Clifton South 30% * Wollaton West 26% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Base size: Arboretum = 482, Aspley = 95, Basford = 95, Berridge = 478, Bestwood = 104, Bilborough = 105, Bridge = 91, Bulwell = 94, Bulwell Forest = 95, Clifton North = 97, Clifton South = 95, Dales = 97, Dunkirk and Lenton = 99, Leen Valley = 97 Mapperley = 101, Radford and Park = 95, Sherwood = 92, St Ann’s = 98, Wollaton East and Lenton Abbey = 104, Wollaton West = 93 Caution: Small sample sizes *Significant difference to City overall
44 | P a g e Sense of Community 2.49 60% of respondents said they tend to agree or strongly agree that there is a sense of community where they live. This is similar to the 61% in 2017, 60% in 2016 and 62% in 2015 of respondents who agreed or strongly agreed with the statement. Agreement with the statement: "There is a strong sense of community where I live" (stongly agree or tend to agree) (%) 70% 62% 59% 58% 60% 61% 60% 60% 51% 53% 50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0% 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Base Size: 2018 = 2,730, 2017 = 2,788, 2016 = 2,740, 2015 –=2,734, 2014 = 2,714, 2013 = 2,761, 2012 = 2,005, 2011 = 1,986 2018 not significantly different to 2017
2.50 Whilst the sample sizes by ward are small, there are some differences in results for the sense of community – ranging from 80% of respondents in Sherwood and 77% in Wollaton East and Lenton Abbey who agree or strongly agree with this statement compared to just 44% and 42% of respondents in Arboretum and Bridge respectively. As shown in the second chart below, there is no strong correlation between IMD and sense of community at ward level; the differences in sense of community at ward level are likely to be influenced by other factors, possibly including the size of the student population. (See charts overleaf).
45 | P a g e Sense of Community by Ward (strongly agree / tend to agree with statement) - (%)
* Sherwood 80% * Wollaton East and Lenton Abbey 77% * Bulwell Forest 73% * Wollaton West 71% * Clifton North 70% Dales 69% Leen Valley 67% Clifton South 63% St Ann's 62% Basford 62% Berridge 59% Bestwood 58% Mapperley 57% Bilborough 56% Bulwell 53% * Radford and Park 49% * Aspley 49% * Dunkirk and Lenton 48% * Arboretum 44% * Bridge 42% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Base size: Arboretum = 483, Aspley = 94, Basford = 92, Berridge = 480, Bestwood = 104, Bilborough = 104, Bridge = 94, Bulwell = 98, Bulwell Forest = 97, Clifton North = 102, Clifton South = 92, Dales = 98, Dunkirk and Lenton = 98, Leen Valley = 98, Mapperley = 104 Radford and Park = 95, Sherwood = 100, St Ann’s = 98, Wollaton East and Lenton Abbey = 104, Wollaton West = 97 Caution: Small sample sizes *Significant differences to City overall Sense of Community by Ward (Ranked by IMD Score)
80 90% 70 80% 60 70% 50 60% 50% 40 40% 30 30% 20 20% 10 10% 0 0%
2015 Mean IMD Score Strong sense of community Linear (Strong sense of community)
Base size: Arboretum = 483, Aspley = 94, Basford = 92, Berridge = 480, Bestwood = 104, Bilborough = 104, Bridge = 94, Bulwell = 98, Bulwell Forest = 97, Clifton North = 102, Clifton South = 92, Dales = 98, Dunkirk and Lenton = 98, Leen Valley = 98, Mapperley = 104 Radford and Park = 95, Sherwood = 100, St Ann’s = 98, Wollaton East and Lenton Abbey = 104, Wollaton West = 97 Caution: Small sample sizes *Significant differences to City overall
46 | P a g e Sense of Community by Age, Gender, Ethnicity and IMD 2.51 There are significant differences in agreement that there is a strong sense of community by age, deprivation and ethnic group. Respondents aged 16 to 24, respondents from the least deprived quintile and respondents from mixed and other ethnic groups were less likely to agree with the statement. Sense of Community (tend to agree or strongly agree) - (%)
Overall 60%
Male 60% Female 60%
16-24 54% 25-34 57% 35-44 62% 45-54 64% 55-64 62% 65+ 66%
Most Deprived 53% 2nd Most Deprived 56% 3rd Most Deprived 65% 4th Most Deprived 59% Least Deprived 65%
White 58% Mixed 54% Asian 67% Black 65% Other 54%
South 60% Central 60% North 59% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
See Appendix A for Base Size Significant differences by age, IMD and ethnic group
Sense of Community and Anti-Social Behaviour 2.52 This section looks at the correlation between sense of community and perception of anti-social behaviour – the chart below shows the proportion who agree or strongly agree that there is a strong sense of community compared to the proportion who have a score of +32 in the (new) composite score of ASB. Whilst there are some exceptions, the chart suggests that there is some correlation between the two variables, with wards with a stronger sense of community having a lower perception of ASB. There is additional evidence of this when grouping wards into quartiles (see second chart below) based on their sense of community. This demonstrates that respondents in the 5 wards with the highest sense of community (the highest quartile) have the lowest perception of anti-social behaviour. (See charts overleaf).
47 | P a g e Strong sense of community (agree / strongly agree - %) and High perception of ASB (>32 in composite score - %)
Sherwood Wollaton East and… Bulwell Forest Wollaton West Clifton North Dales Leen Valley Clifton South Strong sense of St Ann's community Basford High perception of Berridge ASB Bestwood Mapperley Linear (High Bilborough perception of ASB) Bulwell Radford and Park Aspley Dunkirk and Lenton Arboretum Bridge 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Sense of community Base size: Arboretum = 483, Aspley = 94, Basford = 92, Berridge = 480, Bestwood = 104, Bilborough = 104, Bridge = 94, Bulwell = 98, Bulwell Forest = 97, Clifton North = 102, Clifton South = 92, Dales = 98, Dunkirk and Lenton = 98, Leen Valley = 98, Mapperley = 104 Radford and Park = 95, Sherwood = 100, St Ann’s = 98, Wollaton East and Lenton Abbey = 104, Wollaton West = 97 High perception of ASB Base size: Arboretum = 365, Aspley = 68, Basford = 86, Berridge = 382, Bestwood = 94, Bilborough = 92, Bridge = 77, Bulwell = 83, Bulwell Forest = 84, Clifton North = 83, Clifton South = 81, Dales = 81, Dunkirk and Lenton = 78, Leen Valley = 83, Mapperley = 87, Radford and Park = 77, Sherwood = 94, St Ann’s = 76, Wollaton East and Lenton Abbey = 86, Wollaton West = 90 Significant differences by ward High Perception of ASB (>32 in composite score) by strong sense of community quartile 25% 21% 20% 18% 16% 15%
10% 8%
5% High High PerceptionofASB 0% Lowest Quartile 2nd Quartile 3rd Quartile Highest Quartile Sense of Community
Base size: Lowest Quartile = 561, 2nd Quartile = 613, 3rd Quartile = 570, Highest Quartile = 535
48 | P a g e Associations between Safety, Community and ASB 2.53 The data suggests that there is an association between feelings of safety, sense of community and perceptions of anti-social behaviour: although the direction of the association is less clear - safety may be a driver of other perceptions, or other perceptions may be a driver of feelings of safety. Those who feel unsafe in their local area have higher perceptions of anti-social behaviour (as defined by NI 17), with a gap of 16% in perceptions of ASB between those who feel very/fairly safe and those who feel very/fairly unsafe. This is lower than 2017 (17%), 2016 (23%), 2015 (22%), 2012 (29%) and 2011 (18%) but higher than 2014 (11%) and 2013 (13%). Respondents in 2018 who indicated that they feel very/fairly unsafe after dark in their local neighbourhood are also less likely to agree that there is a strong sense of community, with a 24% gap in agreement that there is a sense of community between those who feel very/fairly safe and those who feel very/fairly unsafe (see second chart below). NI 17 High/Low Perception of Anti-Social Behaviour by Feeling of Safety in Local Area 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 80% Not high perception of 96% 88% 50% ASB 40% 30% High perception of ASB 20% 10% 20% 12% 0% 4% Very + fairly Neither Very + fairly safe unsafe
Base size: Very + fairly safe = 1,591, Neither = 247, Very + fairly unsafe = 309 Significant differences by feeling of safety
Agreement that there is a stong sense of community by Feeling of Safety in Local Area 70% 65% 60% 50% 45% 41% 40% 30% 20%
Sense ofCommunity 10% 0% Very + fairly safe Neither Very + fairly unsafe Feeling of Safety
Base size: Very + fairly safe = 1,760, Neither = 297, Very + fairly unsafe = 358 Significant differences by feeling of safety
49 | P a g e Priorities for Crime and Anti-Social Behaviour Identified Issues 2.54 Respondents were asked to identify up to five issues they were most concerned about in terms of crime and community safety. Respondents were given a list and were asked to rank the five issues they were most concerned about (rank 1 being the most important to them, rank 2 next most, and so on). The chart below shows the proportion of these issues which were ranked first from the issues respondents were asked about. ‘Burglary’, ‘alcohol related violence and disorder’ and ‘weapon/gang related violence’ were ranked most highly as issues that residents were most concerned about. Crime and Community Safety Issues - Ranked 1st (%)
Burglary 27% Alcohol related violence and disorder 12% Weapon/gang related violence 12% Drug use and dealing 11% Sexual violence 8% Car crime 7% Nuisance and Anti-social Behaviour 6% Robbery 5% Youth Crime 5% Hate crime 4% Domestic Violence 3% Business crime 1% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Base Size: 2,513
2.55 The chart below shows the same question but uses the mean score to show the extent to which respondents are concerned about each of the issues, thereby taking into account all of the issues they selected. Rank number one was assigned a score of 5; rank two was given a score of 4, and so on, allowing a mean score for each of the issues to be calculated. Although the top ranked issue is still ‘burglary’, the ranking changes to highlight a greater concern about ‘drug use and dealing’ and ‘weapon/gang related violence’; ‘alcohol-related violence and disorder’ is now in fourth place. Crime and Community Safety Issues - Mean Scores
Burglary 2.20 Drug use and dealing 1.64 Weapon/gang related violence 1.40 Alcohol related violence and disorder 1.29 Robbery 1.17 Nuisance and Anti-social Behaviour 1.16 Car crime 1.09 Sexual violence 1.05 Youth Crime 1.00 Hate crime 0.90 Domestic Violence 0.66 Business crime 0.14 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50
Base Size: 2,513
50 | P a g e 2.56 There are some differences in the mean scores between this year and the previous years (2011-2017). In all eight years, burglary is the top concern but other issues have moved rankings. As with 2017 and 2016, drug use and dealing has remained second in the ranking order (up from third in 2015, 2013 and 2012 and from fourth in 2014 and 2011). Weapon/gang related violence has move up to third place – the highest it has ever been ranked. Robbery has moved down to fifth place from third place in 2017 (fourth in 2016, second in 2015, 2013 and 2012; sixth in 2011). There are 4 issues which are significantly different to 2017 – burglary (lower), drug use and dealing (higher), weapon/gang related violence (higher) and robbery (lower).
Crime and Community Safety Issues By Year - Mean Scores
2.812.82 * Burglary 2.772.88 2.58 2.89 2.20 2.52 1.321.36 * Drug use and dealing 1.241.37 1.401.46 1.421.64 1.111.16 * Weapon/gang related violence 1.041.17 0.760.94 1.02 1.40 1.28 1.69 Alcohol related violence and 1.351.41 disorder 1.341.36 1.241.29 1.17 1.48 * Robbery 1.401.42 1.221.44 1.171.36 1.32 Nuisance and Anti-social 1.31 2011 Behaviour 1.16 2012 1.23 1.081.09 Car crime 0.900.98 2013 0.85 1.17 1.09 2014 0.750.83 Sexual violence 1.021.06 1.201.25 2015 1.051.07 1.121.20 2016 Youth Crime 0.811.02 0.820.84 2017 0.981.00 0.550.56 2018 Hate crime 0.630.73 0.810.96 0.870.90 0.610.65 Domestic Violence 0.660.78 0.760.79 0.620.66 0.170.26 Business crime 0.160.28 0.190.24 0.140.17
Road safety (2016 only) 1.13
Online safety (2016 only) 0.39
0 1 2 3
Base Size: 2018 = 2,513, 2017 = 2,551 ,016 = 2,537, 2015= 2,625, 2014 = 2,555, 2013 = 2,548, 2012 = 1,861, 2011 = 1,814 * = 2017 significantly different to 2017
51 | P a g e Combating Crime and Anti-Social Behaviour 2.57 Respondents were asked to identify up to three ways that they felt crime and anti- social behaviour could be reduced from a list of options. ‘More CCTV’ was ranked first with 22% of respondents ranking this aspect first. ‘More visible policing was ranked as the second most effective measure (17%), and ‘better parenting/encourage discipline’ third ranked (14%). Ways to Reduce Crime and Anti-Social Behaviour - Ranked 1st (%)
More CCTV 22%
More visible policing 17%
Better Parenting/encourage discipline 14%
More activities for young people 14%
Tougher enforcement/sentencing 8%
More help for drug/alcohol users 8% Improved Neighbourhood Watch Schemes/ 5% Neighbourhood Alert
More community pay back schemes 5%
More evictions of perpetrators 2%
Other 2% Tighter management of offenders by 1% probation
More forensics in first 24 hours 1%
Photo/posters displayed locally of offenders 1%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
Base Size: 2,668
52 | P a g e 2.58 Mean scores were again calculated for each of the aspects that respondents felt could potentially reduce crime and ASB (by allocating a score of 3 to the top rank, 2 to the second and 3 to the third, and taking the average). The chart below shows the mean scores – a higher mean score indicating that the aspect was placed higher in terms of its perceived impact in reducing crime and ASB. While ‘more CCTV’ and ‘more visible policing’ are still seen as the two most effective ways to reduce crime, ‘more visible policing’ is now ranked first and ‘more CCTV is ranked second. ‘More activities for young people’ is now ranked third. Ways to Reduce Crime and Anti-Social Behaviour - Mean Score
More visible policing 0.97
More CCTV 0.95
More activities for young people 0.82
Better Parenting/encourage discipline 0.60
More help for drug/alcohol users 0.58
Tougher enforcement/sentencing 0.57 Improved Neighbourhood Watch Schemes/ 0.36 Neighbourhood Alert More community pay back schemes 0.30
Tighter management of offenders by probation 0.16
More evictions of perpetrators 0.14
More forensics in first 24 hours 0.13
Photo/posters displayed locally of offenders 0.10
Other 0.08
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20
Base Size: 2,668
53 | P a g e 2.59 There are some differences in the mean scores between this year and previous years. In 2018 the top four items are the same rank as for previous years, but there are differences in the ranking. ‘More visible policing’ has more to first place from second place in 2017, 2016, 2015 and 2014, while ‘more CCTV’ has more down to second place (this was ranked first in 2017, 2016, 2015 and 2014). More help for drug and alcohol users has moved up to fifth place, above ‘tougher enforcement/sentencing’ which was ranked fifth in all previous years. There is also a significant difference in ‘more CCTV’ with this having a lower mean score than in 2017. Ways to Reduce Crime and Anti-Social Behaviour - Mean Score
0.73 1.10 0.87 0.91 More visible policing 0.88 0.86 0.95 0.97 0.87 0.84 0.95 0.98 * More CCTV 1.01 0.95 1.07 0.95 0.91 0.95 0.85 0.77 More activities for young people 0.85 0.75 0.81 0.82 1.03 0.74 0.86 0.91 Better Parenting/encourage discipline 0.79 0.81 0.58 0.60 0.34 0.37 0.38 0.37 More help for drug/alcohol users 0.44 0.46 0.53 0.58 0.65 2011 0.65 0.60 0.52 Tougher enforcement/sentencing 0.56 0.57 2012 0.56 0.57 2013 0.30 0.29 0.27 Improved Neighbourhood Watch Schemes/ 0.29 0.33 2014 Neighbourhood Alert 0.37 0.36 0.36 2015 0.38 0.30 0.35 2016 0.38 More community pay back schemes 0.35 0.38 0.28 0.30 2017 0.18 0.14 2018 0.15 Tighter management of offenders by 0.17 0.17 probation 0.17 0.17 0.16 0.23 0.17 0.21 0.15 More evictions of perpetrators 0.18 0.16 0.17 0.14 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.13 More forensics in first 24 hours 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.17 0.11 0.14 0.13 Photo/posters displayed locally of offenders 0.14 0.15 0.11 0.10 0.04 0.06 0.07 0.04 Other 0.04 0.07 0.06 0.08
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 Base Size: 2018 = 2,668, 2017 = 2,665, 2016 = 2,551, 2015=2,704, 2014 = 2,682, 2013 = 2,682, 2012 = 1,960, 2011 = 1,887 * = 2018 significantly different to 2017
54 | P a g e 2.60 To summarise the previous section, the table below shows the ranking of mean scores for perceived crime and community safety issues alongside the ranking of measures which residents think are for best for addressing crime and ASB issues. As reported earlier, the top 3 issues from the 2018 survey are burglary, drug use and dealing and weapon/gang related violence. The top three things that residents think should be done to reduce crime and ASB are more visible policing, more CCTV and more activities for young people.
Ranking of crime and community safety issues and measures to address ASB and crime Rank Crime and community safety Mean Ways to Reduce crime and ASB Mean issues most concerned about Score Score 1 Burglary 2.20 More visible policing 0.97 2 Drug use and dealing 1.64 More CCTV 0.95 3 Weapon/gang related violence 1.40 More activities for young people 0.82 4 Alcohol related violence and Better Parenting/encourage disorder 1.29 discipline 0.60 5 Robbery 1.17 More help for drug/alcohol users 0.58 6 Nuisance and Anti-social Behaviour 1.16 Tougher enforcement/sentencing 0.57 7 Improved Neighbourhood Watch Car crime 1.09 Schemes/ Neighbourhood Alert 0.36 8 Sexual violence 1.05 More community pay back schemes 0.30 9 Tighter management of offenders by Youth Crime 1.00 probation 0.16 10 Hate crime 0.90 More evictions of perpetrators 0.14 11 Domestic Violence 0.66 More forensics in first 24 hours 0.13 12 Photo/posters displayed locally of Business crime 0.14 offenders 0.10 13 Other 0.08
55 | P a g e Concerns of 16-24 Year Olds 2.62 As shown in the table below, the top ASB issue (burglary) is the same for respondents in the 16-24 age group as for those who are in the older age groups. Respondents aged 16-24 ranked weapon/gang related violence, robbery, sexual violence, hate and youth crime and domestic violence higher than the general population, and drug use and dealing, alcohol related violence and disorder, nuisance and anti-social behaviour and car crime lower than the general population. The most popular measure to reduce crime and anti-social behaviour amongst the 16-24 age group is more CCTV as opposed to more visible policing which was suggested by the greatest proportion of city residents overall. There are some differences in the ranking of other measures; interestingly more activities for young people is ranked fourth by respondents aged 16- 24 and third by the general population.
Ranking of crime and community safety issues and measures to address ASB and crime – 16-24 year olds Rank Crime and community safety Mean Ways to Reduce crime and ASB Mean issues most concerned about Score Score 1 Burglary 2.10 More CCTV .97 2 Weapon/gang related violence 1.65 More visible policing .91 3 Robbery 1.54 More help for drug/alcohol users .73 4 Drug use and dealing 1.49 More activities for young people .68 5 Alcohol related violence and 1.48 Tougher enforcement/sentencing .57 disorder 6 Sexual violence 1.47 Improved Neighbourhood Watch .56 Schemes/ Neighbourhood Alert 7 Hate crime .98 Better Parenting/encourage discipline .44 8 Youth Crime .94 More community pay back schemes .28 9 Nuisance and Anti-social .93 Tighter management of offenders by .21 Behaviour probation 10 Domestic Violence .75 More forensics in first 24 hours .16 11 Car crime .64 More evictions of perpetrators .14 12 Business crime .11 Photo/posters displayed locally of .10 offenders 13 Other .04
56 | P a g e Dealing with Anti-Social Behaviour and Crime 2.63 Overall, 53% of respondents strongly agreed or tended to agree that ‘the Police and Local Council are dealing with the anti-social behaviour and crime issues that matter’ in their local area. 20% of respondents tended to disagree or strongly disagree.
Level of agreement with the statement: "The Police and Local Council are dealing with the anti- social behaviour and crime issues that matter in this area" (%) 50% 41% 40%
30% 26%
20% 12% 12% 8% 10%
0% Strongly Agree Tend to Agree Neither Tend to Strongly Disagree Disagree
Base Size = 2,678
2.64 The 2018 results show a decrease in the proportion of residents who agree (combining strongly agree and agree) with the statement in comparison to previous years. In 2017, 59% agreed, in 2016 and 2015, 64% agreed, 66% in 2014, 63% in 2013, and 63% in 2011. The decrease between 2018 and 2017 is a significant difference.
Level of agreement with the statement: "The Police and Local Council are dealing with the anti-social behaviour and crime issues that matter in this area" (Strongly or tend to agree) By Year (%) 100%
80% 63% 63% 66% 64% 64% 58% 59% 60% 53%
40%
20%
0% 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Base Size: 2018 = 2,678, 2017 = 2,702, 2016 = 2,679, 2015=2,687, 2014 = 2,724, 2013, 2,744 2012 = 1,996, 2011 = 1,993 2018 significantly difference to 2017
57 | P a g e 2.65 There are significant differences by age in the proportion of respondents who agree or strongly agree with the statement ‘the Police and Local Council are dealing with the anti-social behaviour and crime issues that matter in this area’. Respondents aged 55 to 64 were less likely to agree with this statement, while respondents aged 16 to 24 were more likely to agree. Level of agreement with the statement: "The Police and Local Council are dealing with the anti-social behaviour and crime issues that matter in this area" (tend to agree or strongly agree) - (%)
Overall 53%
Male 52% Female 55%
16-24 57% 25-34 54% 35-44 54% 45-54 49% 55-64 47% 65+ 55%
Most Deprived 52% 2nd Most Deprived 55% 3rd Most Deprived 55% 4th Most Deprived 50% Least Deprived 54%
White 52% Mixed 49% Asian 59% Black 57% Other 53%
South 52% Central 54% North 54% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
See Appendix A for Base Size Significant differences by age
58 | P a g e Drivers of Agreement that Police and Local Council are dealing with the anti-social behaviour and crime issues that matter 2.66 By examining respondents’ levels of agreement with the statement that ‘the Police and Council are dealing with ASB issues’ jointly with the issues respondents see as problems in their local neighbourhood, we are able to determine what appears to be driving satisfaction with the Police and Council.
2.67 The table below shows the mean scores for various ASB issues reported earlier, and here broken down by levels of agreement with the statement ‘the Police and Local Council are dealing with the anti-social behaviour and crime issues that matter in this area’. A higher mean score reflects a higher perception that this issue is a problem. For example, those who tend to agree or strongly agree that the Police and Council are dealing with ASB and crime issues have a mean score for ‘people using and dealing drugs’ of 1.48 (out of 412) compared to a mean score of 2.09 for those who tend to disagree or strongly disagree that ‘the Police and Council are dealing with ASB and crime issues in this area’. Those who think the Police and Council are dealing with ASB and crime issues locally have a lower perception that each of the issues is a problem – for each ASB issue, the mean scores are lower for those who agree with the statement than those who disagree. For those residents who do not feel that the Police and Council are dealing with ASB issues locally, the rank positions of some of the ASB issues are different from those who do. For example, for those who do not feel that the Police and Council are dealing with ASB issues locally, ‘people using or dealing drugs’ is ranked second most important, compared to a rank of fourth amongst residents who strongly or tend to agree with the statement.
Drivers of Agreement that Police and Local Council are dealing with the anti-social behaviour and crime issues that matter in this area Agreement that Police and Local Council are dealing with the anti-social behaviour and crime issues that matter in this area Question 6: ASB issues Strongly/ Strongly/ Neither Strongly/ Strongly/ Tend to Tend to Tend to Tend to Agree Agree Disagree Disagree - Rank – Rank Rubbish and litter lying around 1.88 1 2.01 2.29 1 People using or dealing drugs 1.48 4 1.62 2.09 2 (Higher) Motorbikes/ motorised scooters/ mini motos/ 1.73 2 1.75 2.07 3 (Lower) quad bikes Dog Fouling 1.69 3 1.81 2.03 4 (Lower) Parents not taking responsibility for the 1.48 5 1.50 1.96 5 behaviour of their children People being drunk or rowdy in public spaces 1.46 6 1.40 1.82 6 Fly Tipping 1.43 7 1.49 1.82 7 Street Drinking/ Drinking alcohol in the streets 1.43 9 1.45 1.80 8 (Higher) Intimidation as a result of groups/ gangs of 1.34 13 1.41 1.71 9 (Higher) young people hanging around on the street Noisy neighbours or loud parties 1.43 8 1.46 1.70 10 (Lower) Vandalism/ Criminal damage 1.40 11 1.44 1.68 11 Unkempt gardens 1.37 12 1.43 1.63 12 Fly Posting 1.40 10 1.40 1.63 13 (Lower) Begging 1.24 14 1.30 1.37 14 Graffiti 1.19 15 1.21 1.27 15 Abandoned or burnt out cars 1.12 16 1.15 1.20 16
12 The mean score was calculated by assigning a numerical value to each of the answer categories; i.e. “A very big problem” = 4, “A fairly big problem” = 3, “Not a very big problem” = 2, “Not a problem at all” = 1. “Don’t know” were excluded. 59 | P a g e Seeking People’s Views on What Matters 2.68 43% of respondents strongly agreed or tended to agree that ‘the Police and Local Council seek people’s views about anti-social behaviour and crime issues that matter’ in their local area. 36% of respondents tended to disagree or strongly disagree with this statement. Level of agreement with the statement: "The Police and Local Council seek people's views about the anti-social behaviour and crime issues that matter in this area" (%) 35% 32% 30% 25% 22% 20% 20% 15% 15% 11% 10% 5% 0% Strongly Agree Tend to Agree Neither Tend to Strongly Disagree Disagree
Base Size = 2,685
2.69 The proportion who agreed with the statement in 2018 is lower than that found in previous years. The decrease from 45% in 2017 to 43% in 2018 is not a significant difference.
Level of agreement with the statement: "The Police and Local Council seek people's views about the anti-social behaviour and crime issues that matter in this area" (tend to agree or strongly agree) By Year (%) 100%
80%
52% 60% 48% 48% 48% 48% 49% 45% 43% 40%
20%
0% 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Base Size: 2018 = 2,685, 2017 = 2,716, 2016 = 2,669, 2015 = 2,670, 2014 = 2,709, 2013 = 2,739, 2012 = 1,995, 2011 = 1,983 2018 not significantly different to 2017
60 | P a g e 2.70 There are significant differences by ethnic group in terms of agreement with this statement. Respondents from White ethnic groups are less likely to agree that ‘the Police and Local Council seek people’s views about anti-social behaviour and crime issues’ in their local area. Level of agreement with the statement: "The Police and Local Council seek people's views about the anti-social behaviour and crime issues that matter in this area" (tend to agree or strongly agree) - (%)
Overall 43%
Male 42% Female 43%
16-24 45% 25-34 40% 35-44 45% 45-54 40% 55-64 38% 65+ 45%
Most Deprived 40% 2nd Most Deprived 44% 3rd Most Deprived 45% 4th Most Deprived 39% Least Deprived 45%
White 41% Mixed 46% Asian 47% Black 47% Other 59%
South 40% Central 45% North 42% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
See Appendix A for Base Size Significant differences by ethnic group
61 | P a g e Quality of Life and Crime 2.71 When asked how much their quality of life is affected by crime on a scale of 0 to 10 where 0 is ‘no effect’ and 10 is ‘total effect’, just under half (48%) of respondents thought that crime had ‘no effect’ or ‘very little’ effect on their quality of life (a score of 0 or 1). 10% of respondents thought that crime had a ‘total effect’ or an almost total effect on their quality of life (a score of 7 or higher). How much is your own quality of life affected by crime? (%) 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 36% 40% 30% 14% 20% 12% 11% 8% 10% 5% 4% 5% 2% 1% 1% 0% 0 - No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 - effect Total effect
Base size: 2,747
2.72 The chart below shows how much respondents thought their own quality of life was affected by crime on a scale of 0 to 10, but this time with the results shown as a mean score. The higher the mean score the greater the effect of crime on their quality of life. The mean score of 2.34 in 2017 was higher than the mean scores in previous years. The difference between the mean scores in 2018 and 2017 is statistically significant. How much is your own quality of life affected by crime? - Mean Score 5.00
4.00
3.00 2.25 2.27 2.34 2.04 2.03 1.96 2.00
1.00
0.00 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Base size: 2018 = 2,747, 2017 = 2,798, 2016 = 2,758, 2015 = 2,736. 2014 = 2,730, 2,769 2018 significantly different to 2017
62 | P a g e 2.73 The chart below shows how much different sub-groups of respondents thought their own quality of life was affected by crime on a scale of 0 to 10, with the results shown as a mean score. The higher the mean score the greater the effect of crime on their quality of life. Overall, respondents gave a mean score of 2.34. Looking at the results by sub-group shows that there are significant differences by gender, age, ethnic group, and area. Women, respondents aged 35-54, those from mixed and Asian ethnic groups and residents of the south and central areas of the city were more likely to think that crime affects their quality of life. In contrast, residents in the 65+ age group, those from white and black ethnic groups and from the north area of the city were least likely to feel that crime affects their quality of life. How much is your own quality of life affected by crime? - Mean Score
Overall 2.34
Male 2.19 Female 2.48
16-24 2.49 25-34 2.21 35-44 2.64 45-54 2.51 55-64 2.33 65+ 1.73
Most Deprived 2.23 2nd Most Deprived 2.51 3rd Most Deprived 2.18 4th Most Deprived 2.37 Least Deprived 2.35
White 2.18 Mixed 3.01 Asian 2.90 Black 2.30 Other 2.63
South 2.43 Central 2.50 North 2.07 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50
See Appendix A for Base Size Significant differences by gender, age, ethnic group and area
63 | P a g e Crime in your local area 2.74 Respondents were asked how much of a problem crime is in their local area. 71% of respondents thought that crime was ‘not a problem at all’ or ‘not much of a problem’ compared to 29% who thought that crime was ‘a very big’ or ‘quite a big’ problem. Looking at the second chart below, the proportion of respondents who thought that crime was ‘not a problem at all’ or ‘not much of a problem’ in 2018 is the same as 2017, but lower than in 2013-2016. How much of a problem if at all do you think crime is in your local area? (%) 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 55% 50% 40% 30% 24% 15% 20% 5% 10% 0% A very big problem Quite a big problem Not much of a Not a problem at all problem
Base Size: 2,726
How much of a problem if at all do you think crime is in your local area? - (not much of a problem & not a problem at all (%) 100% 90% 78% 76% 78% 80% 73% 71% 71% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Base Size: 2018 = 2,726, 2017 = 2,769 2018 not significantly different to 2017
64 | P a g e 2.75 There are significant differences by gender, age, deprivation and area in the proportion of respondents who think that crime is a very or quite big problem in their local area. Women, respondents from the under 65 age group, residents from the first and second most deprived IMD quintile and residents living in the south and central areas of the city were more likely to think that crime is a problem in their local area.
How much of a problem if at all do you think crime is in your local area? (very & quite big problem) (%)
Overall 29%
Male 27% Female 32%
16-24 35% 25-34 27% 35-44 32% 45-54 32% 55-64 32% 65+ 16%
Most Deprived 32% 2nd Most Deprived 35% 3rd Most Deprived 28% 4th Most Deprived 27% Least Deprived 27%
White 29% Mixed 43% Asian 31% Black 26% Other 35%
South 29% Central 34% North 25% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
See Appendix A for Base Size Significant differences by gender, age, IMD and area
65 | P a g e 2.76 Whilst the sample sizes by ward are small, there are some differences in the proportion of residents at ward level who think that crime is a problem in their local area. The proportion of residents from Radford and Park, Arboretum, Clifton South and Berridge who think that crime is a problem in their area are significantly higher than the 29% city average, while the proportion in Wollaton East and Lenton Abbey, Bilborough, Dales, Bulwell Forest and Sherwood is significantly lower.
How much of a problem if at all do you think crime is in your local area? (very & quite big problem) (%)
* Radford and Park 50% * Arboretum 50% * Clifton South 40% Aspley 38% * Berridge 36% Dunkirk and Lenton 36% Bridge 36% St Ann's 30% Clifton North 28% Bestwood 26% Bulwell 26% Mapperley 24% Basford 24% Leen Valley 21% Wollaton West 21% * Wollaton East and Lenton Abbey 20% * Bilborough 20% * Dales 20% * Bulwell Forest 19% * Sherwood 13%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Base size: Arboretum = 481, Aspley = 96, Basford = 94, Berridge = 476, Bestwood = 103, Bilborough = 104, Bridge = 94, Bulwell = 97, Bulwell Forest = 99, Clifton North = 102, Clifton South = 94, Dales = 97, Dunkirk and Lenton = 95, Leen Valley = 97, Mapperley = 103, Radford and Park = 95, Sherwood = 100, St Ann’s =97, Wollaton East and Lenton Abbey = 104, Wollaton West = 96 Caution: Small sample sizes *Significant differences to City overall
66 | P a g e 2.77 The chart below shows the 12-month recorded crime rate per 1,000 of the population for each ward of the city and the proportion of residents who think that crime is ‘a very big’ or ‘quite’ a big problem in their area. In general, as the crime rate at ward level declines, the proportion who think that crime is ‘a very big’ or ‘quite a big’ problem in their area declines. Noting that the sample sizes from the survey are only approximately 100 at ward level for 18 of the 20 wards, there are some exceptions to this trend. For example, Radford and Park is ranked 1st in thinking that crime is a big problem, but is ranked 6th in terms of recorded crime. Similarly, Aspley is ranked 4th for respondents who think that crime is a problem, but is ranked 8th in terms of recorded crime and Clifton South is ranked 3rd for respondents who think that crime is a problem, but is ranked 15th in terms of recorded crime. The survey sample sizes at ward level may account for some of this variation.
Crime a very big or quite big problem in local area by Crime Rate (Ranked by Crime Rate)
350 60%
300 50% 50% 50% 250 40% 40% 38% 200 36% 36% 36% 30% 28% 30% 150 26% 26% 24% 24% 20% 20% 19% 21% 20% 21% 20% 100 13% 50 10%
0 0%
Dales
Bridge
Aspley
Bulwell
Basford
St Ann's St
Berridge
Bestwood
Sherwood
Mapperley
Bilborough
Arboretum
Leen Valley Leen
Clifton South Clifton
Clifton North Clifton
Bulwell Forest Bulwell
Wollaton West Wollaton
Radford and Park and Radford Dunkirk and Lenton and Dunkirk
12 Month Crime Rate
Crime a very big or quite big problem in local area Wollaton East and Lenton Abbey Lenton and East Wollaton Linear (Crime a very big or quite big problem in local area)
Base size: Arboretum = 481, Aspley = 96, Basford = 94, Berridge = 476, Bestwood = 103, Bilborough = 104, Bridge = 94, Bulwell = 97, Bulwell Forest = 99, Clifton North = 102, Clifton South = 94, Dales = 97, Dunkirk and Lenton = 95, Leen Valley = 97, Mapperley = 103, Radford and Park = 95, Sherwood = 100, St Ann’s =97, Wollaton East and Lenton Abbey = 104, Wollaton West = 96 Caution: Small sample sizes
67 | P a g e Perceptions of Crime Rate in your local area 2.78 When asked what they thought had happened to crime in their local area over the past few years, over half (51%) of respondents thought that crime had ‘stayed about the same’. 21% of respondents thought that crime had gone down, either ‘a lot’ or ‘a little’, while 28% of respondents thought that crime had gone up ‘a lot’ or ‘a little’. What do you think has happened to crime in your local area over the past few years? (%) 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 51% 50% 40% 30% 18% 15% 20% 9% 10% 6% 0% Gone up a lot Gone up a little Stayed about the Gone down a Gone down a lot same little
Base Size: 2,578
2.79 In 2018, 28% of respondents thought that crime in their local area had gone up either ‘a lot’ or ‘a little’ – significantly higher than in the previous year and the highest since the start of the research in 2013. What do you think has happened to crime in your local area over the past few years? (got up a lot and gone up a little) - By Year (%) 30% 28% 25% 25%
20% 17% 17% 16% 15% 13%
10%
5%
0% 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Base Size: 2018 = 2,578, 2017 = 2,587, 2015 = 2,527, 2014 = 2,550, 2013 = 2,619 2018 significantly different to 2017
68 | P a g e 2.80 There are significant differences in the proportion of respondents who thought that crime in their local area had gone up in the different sub-groups. Women, respondents aged 35 to 64 and those from mixed ethnic groups were more likely to think that crime had increased in their local area over the past few years.
What do you think has happened to crime in your local area over the past few years? (gone up a lot & a little) (%)
Overall 28%
Male 23% Female 32%
16-24 24% 25-34 26% 35-44 31% 45-54 33% 55-64 32% 65+ 25%
Most Deprived 28% 2nd Most Deprived 28% 3rd Most Deprived 27% 4th Most Deprived 26% Least Deprived 28%
White 27% Mixed 44% Asian 30% Black 25% Other 30%
South 28% Central 29% North 26% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
See Appendix A for Base Size Significant differences by gender, age and ethnic group
69 | P a g e 2.81 Whilst the sample sizes by ward are small, there are some differences by ward level in the proportion of residents who think crime has gone up over the past few years. The proportion of residents thinking that crime had gone up a lot or a little was significantly higher than the city’s 28% average in Arboretum, Clifton South, Clifton North, Leen Valley and Berridge while in Basford, Dunkirk and Lenton and St Ann’s the proportions were significantly lower.
What do you think has happened to crime in your local area over the past few years? (gone up a lot & a little) (%)
* Arboretum 41% * Clifton South 41% * Clifton North 38% * Leen Valley 37% * Berridge 35% Aspley 33% Wollaton West 29% Mapperley 29% Bulwell Forest 29% Bridge 28% Radford and Park 26% Bestwood 25% Bilborough 25% Wollaton East and Lenton Abbey 24% Sherwood 24% Dales 23% Bulwell 23% * Basford 17% * Dunkirk and Lenton 17% * St Ann's 15%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Base size: Arboretum = 447 Aspley = 92, Basford = 87, Berridge = 448, Bestwood = 101, Bilborough = 97, Bridge = 92, Bulwell = 92, Bulwell Forest = 96, Clifton North = 94, Clifton South = 94, Dales = 95, Dunkirk and Lenton = 77, Leen Valley = 95, Mapperley = 94, Radford and Park = 90, Sherwood = 90, St Ann’s = 94, Wollaton East and Lenton Abbey = 93, Wollaton West = 96 Caution: Small sample sizes *Significant differences to City overall
70 | P a g e Concerns About Crime 2.82 When asked if they were concerned about crime where they live, 42% of respondents were concerned about crime, a significant increase on the 36% in the previous year. 54% were not concerned about crime and 4% did not know. Looking at the chart below, it should be noted that in 2015 this question was asked in the section of the questionnaire about the Nottinghamshire Police and Crime Commissioner whereas in 2016 to 2018 it was placed in the section just after questions on theft and violence. This may explain the large increase in the proportion of respondents who said they were concerned about crime where they live between 2015 and 2016. Are you concerned about crime where you live? By Year (%)
100% 5% 3% 2% 4% 90% 80% 70% 54% 63% 61% 60% 75% 50% 40% 30% 42% 20% 34% 36% 10% 21% 0% 2015 2016 2017 2018
Base size: 2018 = 2,744, 2017 = 2,789 2018 significantly different to 2017
71 | P a g e
2.83 There are significant differences in the proportion of respondents who thought that crime in their local area had gone up between different sub-groups. Women, respondents aged 35-64, those from the second most deprived IMD quintile, respondents from mixed, Asian, or black ethnic groups and those from the central and south areas of the city were more likely to be concerned about crime where they live.
Are you concerned about crime where you live? - Yes (%)
Overall 42%
Male 40% Female 45%
16-24 45% 25-34 34% 35-44 44% 45-54 48% 55-64 50% 65+ 34%
Most Deprived 40% 2nd Most Deprived 48% 3rd Most Deprived 38% 4th Most Deprived 40% Least Deprived 43%
White 40% Mixed 50% Asian 50% Black 48% Other 42%
South 43% Central 47% North 35% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
See Appendix A for Base Size Significant differences by gender, age, IMD, ethnic group and area
72 | P a g e 2.84 When asked if they were concerned about anti-social behaviour where they live, 40% of respondents were concerned about anti-social behaviour, a slight (but not significantly different) increase on the 37% in the previous year. 57% were not concerned about anti-social behaviour and 3% did not know. As per the question above, it should again be noted that in 2015 this question was asked in the section of the questionnaire about the Nottinghamshire Police and Crime Commissioner and therefore might explain the large increase in the proportion of respondents who said they were concerned about anti-social behaviour where they live between 2015 and 2016. Are you concerned about anti-social behaviour where you live? By Year (%)
100% 5% 3% 2% 3%
80% 62% 60% 57% 60% 76%
40%
20% 35% 37% 40% 20% 0% 2015 2016 2017 2018
Base size: 2018 = 2,745, 2017 = 2,800 2018 not significantly different to 2017
73 | P a g e
2.85 There are significant differences in the proportion of respondents who were concerned about anti-social behaviour where they live between different sub-groups. Women, respondents aged 35-64, those from the second most deprived IMD quintile, residents from mixed ethnic groups and those from the south of the city were more concerned about anti-social behaviour where they live.
Are you concerned about ASB where you live? - Yes (%)
Overall 40%
Male 37% Female 43%
16-24 38% 25-34 33% 35-44 47% 45-54 47% 55-64 46% 65+ 32%
Most Deprived 41% 2nd Most Deprived 47% 3rd Most Deprived 39% 4th Most Deprived 36% Least Deprived 35%
White 38% Mixed 53% Asian 40% Black 47% Other 43%
South 44% Central 40% North 36% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
See Appendix A for Base Size Significant differences by gender, age, IMD, ethnic group and area
74 | P a g e
RESULTS FROM BOOSTER SAMPLES IN ARBORETUM AND BERRIDGE
2.86 Booster samples were introduced in 2013, in two wards of the City each year. This was due to the sample size at ward level giving large confidence intervals for ward level data (approximately -/+10%). The booster samples within these wards allow a greater level of confidence in the results13. In 2013 the booster wards were Dunkirk and Lenton and Arboretum, in 2014 they were Dunkirk and Lenton and Aspley, in 2015 they were Dunkirk and Lenton and Arboretum and in 2016 and 2017 they were Arboretum and Berridge.
2.87 Arboretum and Berridge were again selected as the wards for the booster samples in 2018. This chapter presents the results from these two booster samples. Since Arboretum includes a significant proportion of student households (49% of respondents in Arboretum were in full-time education) this chapter also compares the results for students and other residents (non-students) in this ward with the figures for Nottingham overall. Where appropriate, comparisons are also given for students across the whole of Nottingham.
13 The confidence intervals for Arboretum and Berridge are +/- 4.5% and +/-4.5% respectively. 75 | P a g e
76 | P a g e Anti-Social Behaviour Issues – Local Neighbourhood 2.88 Of the respondents who said that there was some form of ASB (not including the respondents who did not comment or thought that there was no ASB), in Arboretum the most common issue involved students creating noise, being drunk, playing loud music and shouting, which was made by 21% of respondents in Arboretum overall who commented on some form of ASB in the area (27% of non-student population). Comments on Anti-Social Behaviour in local neighbourhood (Not including 'no comment' or 'none') (%)
Not a lot of ASB / Not much Drug dealing and use Noise / loud music / shouting etc. Litter / rubbish Motorbikes / scooters / quad bikes Other Speeding Theft / burglaries / break-ins Loitering / people hanging around Teenagers / young people / kids - behaviour not… Drunks / drinking in the street Vandalism / damage to property / graffiti Amount of ASB has improve / gone down There's a lot of ASB / it's bad here / it's a big problem Problems with parking Problems with students - drunk / noisy etc. Problems with neighbours Nuisance / nuisance behaviour e.g. knocking on… Assaults / violence Fly tipping Dog fouling Abuse / swearing Fighting Bikes/people on bikes Dogs Car crime Fireworks Need more police / PCSOs / more security Nothing gets done to sort it out / disappointed with… Prostitutes Playing football / balls games / playing on the street Homeless Incident has been dealt with / good response from… Begging/asking for money None / no problem with ASB Mugging No comment
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Nottingham Overall Berridge Arboretum Arboretum Student Arboretum Non-student
Base size: Arboretum – Non-students = 140, Arboretum Student =79, Arboretum = 224, Berridge = 208, Nottingham = 879
77 | P a g e 2.89 Respondents in Arboretum overall, non-students in Arboretum were significantly more likely to think that there were specific groups or individuals who cause anti-social behaviour in their area than Nottingham overall. 27% of Arboretum, 37% of non- students in Arboretum and 18% of Nottingham overall thought that there were specific groups or individuals who cause anti-social behaviour in their area. 23% of residents in Berridge also thought there were specific groups or individuals causing ASB, which is also statistically higher than the city average. Are there any specific groups or individuals who cause Anti Social Behaviour in your area? (%)
40% 37%
30% 27% 23% 19% 20% 18%
10%
0% Arboretum - Non- Arboretum - Arboretum * Berridge * Nottingham student * Student
Base size: Arboretum – Non-students = 243, Arboretum Student =235, Arboretum = 444, Berridge = 481, Nottingham = 2,743 *Significant difference to City overall
78 | P a g e 2.90 Although the sample sizes are small, of the respondents who thought that there were specific groups or individuals who cause ASB in their area, in Arboretum both students and non-students were significantly more likely to think that students cause anti-social behaviour than Nottingham respondents overall. 37% of Arboretum overall, 42% of non-students in Arboretum and 27% of students in Arboretum thought that students cause anti-social behaviour in their area compared to 10% of Nottingham overall. Groups or individuals who cause ASB in area (%)
20% 20% Youths/Youngsters/Young people 11% 15% 9% 15% 9% Children/kids/school children 5% 6% 4% 13% 11% Teenagers 2% 0% 2% 11% 11% Drug users/dealers 9% 7% 11% 10% 3% Student 37% 27% 42% 10% 8% Specified address/person/family/group 4% 9% 2% 5% 8% Other 4% 4% 4% 5% 10% Drunks/people leaving pubs 5% 4% 6% 4% 18% Minority ethnic groups (e.g. Romanian, Polish, Asians) 14% 5% 19% 4% 1% Homeless 5% 8% 4% 4% 6% Neighbours/local residents 2% 6% 0% 3% 3% Young men 3% 2% 3% 3% 4% People with motorbikes/mopeds 1% 0% 2% 2% 1% Beggars(coded) 2% 6% 0% 2% 2% Adults and old age groups 2% 2% 2% 2% 1% Unspecified groups or gangs 1% 4% 0% 2% 1% People in their 20s 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Unemployed 0% 0% 0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Nottingham Berridge Arboretum Arboretum - Student Arboretum - Non-student
Base size: Arboretum – Non-students =84, Arboretum Student =41, Arboretum = 125, Berridge = 102, Nottingham = 455 Caution – Small sample sizes
79 | P a g e 2.91 The chart below shows the combined proportion of residents in Arboretum who think that each issue is ‘a very big’ or ‘a fairly big’ problem. There were some key differences: Residents in Arboretum thought that 13 of the 16 issues were more of a problem than Nottingham overall. The only issues that residents of Arboretum thought were less of a problem than Nottingham overall were ‘dog fouling’, ‘motorbikes/motorised scooters/mini motos/quad bikes’ and ‘parents not taking responsibility for the behaviour of their children’. The issue the most residents of Arboretum thought was a problem was ‘rubbish and litter lying around’, which was also the top issue for Nottingham overall. ‘People being drunk and rowdy in public spaces’ and ‘street drinking’ were considered to be the next biggest problems in Arboretum. These issues were considered less of a problem for Nottingham overall, where they were considered the seventh and eighth biggest problems respectively.
There were also differences between students and other residents in Arboretum:
Over a half (55%) of non-students felt ‘rubbish and litter lying around’ was the biggest problem in the area, compared with one-third (33%) of students. ‘People being drunk and rowdy in public spaces’ was considered the second biggest issue by non-students and third biggest issue by student (40% students vs. 41% non-students). ‘Fly tipping was considered the third biggest issue by non-students and ninth biggest issue by student (11% students vs. 38% non-students). All 16 issues were bigger issues for non-students in Arboretum than students. Perceptions of Anti-Social Behaviour in Local Neighbourhood (very or fairly big problem) - Arboretum (%)
30% 44% * Rubbish and litter lying around 33%
15% 40% * People being drunk or rowdy in public spaces 40% 41% 14% 35% * Street Drinking/ Drinking alcohol in the streets 33% 37% 18% 31% * People using or dealing drugs 27% 35% 13% 29% * Noisy neighbours or loud parties 28% 30% 7% 26% * Begging 24% 27% 16% 25% * Fly Tipping 11% 38% 12% 21% * Intimidation as a result of groups/ gangs of young people hanging… 20% 22% 12% 20% * Vandalism/ Criminal damage 14% 26% 24% 17% * Dog Fouling 8% 25% 24% 15% * Motorbikes/ motorised scooters/ mini motos/ quad bikes 10% 21% 16% 14% Parents not taking responsibility for the behaviour of their children 7% 21% 13% 14% Fly Posting 11% 16% 11% 11% Unkempt gardens 6% 17% 4% 7% * Graffiti 5% 7% 3% 4% Abandoned or burnt out cars 3% 4% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
Nottingham Overall Arboretum Arboretum Student Arboretum Non-student
See Appendix C for Base Size * = Arboretum significantly different to City overall
80 | P a g e 2.92 The chart below shows the combined proportion of residents in Berridge who think that each issue is ‘a very big’ or ‘a fairly big’ problem. There were some key differences between various groups:
Residents in Berridge thought that 14 of the 16 issues were more of a problem than Nottingham overall, 9 of which were significantly higher than the city average. Like Arboretum and Nottingham overall, ‘rubbish and litter lying around’ was considered to be the major issue in Berridge. ‘Fly tipping was ranked second by residents of Berridge (ranked fifth Nottingham overall) and ‘dog fouling was ranked third (lower than Nottingham overall where ‘dog fouling was ranked second).
Perceptions of Anti-Social Behaviour in Local Neighbourhood (very or fairly big problem) - Berridge (%)
* Rubbish and litter lying around 30% 50%
* Fly Tipping 16% 33%
* Dog Fouling 24% 29%
* People using or dealing drugs 18% 26%
* Fly Posting 13% 20%
* People being drunk or rowdy in public spaces 15% 20%
* Street Drinking/ Drinking alcohol in the streets 14% 20%
* Motorbikes/ motorised scooters/ mini motos/ quad bikes 24% 18%
Parents not taking responsibility for the behaviour of their 16% children 18%
* Begging 7% 17%
* Intimidation as a result of groups/ gangs of young people 12% hanging around on the street 15%
Noisy neighbours or loud parties 13% 15%
Vandalism/ Criminal damage 12% 14%
Unkempt gardens 11% 13%
Graffiti 4% 5%
Abandoned or burnt out cars 3% 4%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Nottingham Overall Berridge
See Appendix C for Base Size * = Berridge significantly different to City overall
81 | P a g e 2.93 The table below shows the mean score for ASB issues. In Arboretum, both students and non-students perceived ‘rubbish and litter lying around’ as more of a problem than Nottingham overall, though students ranked it lower than the non-students. ‘Rubbish and litter lying around’ was ranked as the biggest problem in Arboretum overall and for non-students, although students ranked ‘people being drunk or rowdy in public spaces’ as the biggest problem. Rubbish and litter lying around was also ranked as the biggest problem in Berridge. ‘Dog fouling’ was perceived as less of a problem by respondents in Arboretum overall and by students in Arboretum than in Nottingham overall. This was also the case for ‘motorbikes/motorised scooters/mini motos/quad bikes’; this issue was ranked second across the city overall but was ranked 8th, 14th and 3th in Arboretum by non-students, students and the overall population in Arboretum respectively. The proportion of residents who felt ‘people using and dealing drugs’ was an issue was also statistically higher than the city average amongst Arboretum (both non-students and non-students) and Berridge residents. As well as differences in rank there were a number of significant differences in the mean scores. These are highlighted in the table below.
ASB Issues in Local Neighbourhood – Mean Scores Arboretum – Arboretum – Arboretum Berridge Nottingham Non-student Student Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank Rubbish and litter lying around 2.64 1 2.03 3 2.34 1 2.49 1 1.98 1 Motorbikes/ motorised scooters/ mini motos/ quad bikes 1.69 12 1.41 9 1.55 11 1.62 9 1.80 2 Dog Fouling 1.84 8 1.27 14 1.58 10 1.97 3 1.78 3 People using or dealing drugs 2.15 5 1.85 5 2.00 5 1.88 4 1.63 4 Parents not taking responsibility for the behaviour of their children 1.72 11 1.31 12 1.53 12 1.65 8 1.58 5 Fly Tipping 2.16 4 1.38 11 1.79 6 2.01 2 1.52 6 People being drunk or rowdy in public spaces 2.26 2 2.24 1 2.24 2 1.71 6 1.51 7 Street Drinking/ Drinking alcohol in the streets 2.22 3 2.07 2 2.14 3 1.74 5 1.50 8 Noisy neighbours or loud parties 2.03 6 2.00 4 2.02 4 1.60 11 1.49 9 Vandalism/ Criminal damage 1.88 7 1.52 8 1.70 9 1.54 13 1.46 10 Fly Posting 1.52 14 1.38 10 1.46 13 1.68 7 1.45 11 Unkempt gardens 1.56 13 1.27 13 1.43 14 1.53 14 1.43 12 Intimidation as a result of groups/ gangs of young people hanging around on the street 1.78 10 1.67 7 1.73 8 1.61 10 1.43 13 Begging 1.79 9 1.71 6 1.76 7 1.55 12 1.28 14 Graffiti 1.30 15 1.25 15 1.28 15 1.24 15 1.21 15 Abandoned or burnt out cars 1.19 16 1.13 16 1.17 16 1.16 16 1.14 16 Significantly higher than Nottingham Significantly lower than Nottingham
82 | P a g e
Anti-Social Behaviour Issues – Nottingham City Centre 2.94 Considering ASB in the city centre, ‘begging’ was perceived to be a problem by the highest proportion of respondents in Arboretum, and was also ranked first by Nottingham overall. 7 of the 10 issues were considered to be more of a problem by residents of Arboretum than by residents in Nottingham overall, however the differences were fairly small. ‘Graffiti’ was considered significantly less of a problem by residents of Arboretum than by residents in Nottingham overall. Begging was also perceived to be a problem by the highest proportion of both non-students and students in Arboretum. 5 of the 10 issues were considered to be more of a problem by students than by non-students in Arboretum. ‘Dog fouling’, ‘fly posting’ and ‘graffiti’ were considered slightly bigger issues for the non-student population in Arboretum. Perceptions of Anti-Social Behaviour in Nottingham City Centre (very or fairly big problem) - Arboretum - (%)
49% 51% Begging 53% 49%
40% 44% People being drunk or rowdy in public spaces 47% 40%
39% 43% Street Drinking/ Drinking alcohol in the streets 45% 42%
29% 33% Rubbish and litter lying around 33% 32%
29% 31% People using or dealing drugs 35% 27%
18% Intimidation as a result of groups gangs/ of young people 19% 20% hanging around on the street 19%
16% 17% Vandalism/ Criminal damage 16% 17%
10% 10% Fly Posting 6% 13%
12% 9% * Graffiti 7% 10%
8% 8% Dog Fouling 5% 10%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Nottingham Overall Arboretum Arboretum Student Arboretum Non-student
See Appendix C for Base Size *Arboretum significantly different to City overall
83 | P a g e
2.95 Like Arboretum and Nottingham overall, ‘begging’ was perceived to be a very or fairly big problem by the highest proportion of respondents in Berridge. Five issues were perceived to be a slightly bigger problem amongst Berridge residents than residents across the city overall, but there were no significant differences.
Perceptions of Anti-Social Behaviour in Nottingham City Centre (very or fairly big problem) - Berridge (%)
Begging 49% 51%
People being drunk or rowdy in public spaces 40% 39%
Street Drinking/ Drinking alcohol in the streets 39% 39%
Rubbish and litter lying around 29% 30%
People using or dealing drugs 29% 30%
Vandalism/ Criminal damage 16% 17%
Intimidation as a result of groups gangs/ of young people 18% hanging around on the street 16%
Fly Posting 10% 11%
Graffiti 12% 10%
Dog Fouling 8% 9%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Nottingham Overall Berridge
See Appendix C for Base Size * Berridge significantly different to City overall
84 | P a g e
2.96 The table below shows the mean score for ASB issues in Nottingham City Centre. As with Nottingham as a whole, ‘begging’ was perceived as the biggest problem in the city centre by Arboretum and Berridge respondents. Compared to the rest of the city, a significantly lower proportion of respondents in Arboretum (both students and non- students) and in Berridge felt that ‘graffiti’ was a very or fairly big problem. A significantly lower proportion of students in Arboretum also felt that ‘fly posting’ and ‘dog fouling’ were less of a problem than other residents across the city overall.
ASB Issues in Nottingham City Centre – Mean Scores Arboretum – Arboretum – Arboretum Berridge Nottingham Non-student Student Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank Begging 2.64 1 2.49 1 2.56 1 2.61 1 2.63 1 People being drunk or rowdy in public spaces 2.41 2 2.44 2 2.42 2 2.31 2 2.35 2 Street Drinking/ Drinking alcohol in the streets 2.40 3 2.33 3 2.36 3 2.29 3 2.34 3 Rubbish and litter lying around 2.15 4 2.10 4 2.13 4 2.11 4 2.10 4 People using or dealing drugs 1.95 5 2.04 5 2.00 5 2.11 5 2.08 5 Intimidation as a result of groups gangs/ of young people hanging around on the street 1.70 6 1.74 6 1.72 6 1.69 6 1.75 6 Vandalism/ Criminal damage 1.70 7 1.66 7 1.67 7 1.69 7 1.67 7 Graffiti 1.46 9 1.44 8 1.45 8 1.48 9 1.59 8 Fly Posting 1.53 8 1.30 9 1.41 9 1.51 8 1.47 9 Dog Fouling 1.45 10 1.26 10 1.36 10 1.44 10 1.39 10 Significantly higher than Nottingham Significantly lower than Nottingham
85 | P a g e
Overall Perception of Anti-Social Behaviour – NI17 2.97 Using the indicator described in section 2.17, the proportion with a high perception of ASB has been calculated for the two wards with booster samples. In Arboretum and Berridge respectively, 17% and 11% of respondents had a high perception of ASB, higher than Nottingham overall. The results for students and non-students in Arboretum is also significantly higher than the Nottingham figure overall. High Perception of ASB - NI17 (%)
25% 23%
20% 17%
15% 12% 11% 10% 7%
5%
0% Arboretum - Non- Arboretum - Arboretum * Berridge * Nottingham student * Student *
Base size: Arboretum Non-students = 198, Arboretum Student = 198, Arboretum = 401, Berridge = 410, Nottingham = 2,408 *Significant difference to City overall
Overall Perception of Anti-Social Behaviour – Composite 2.98 Using the indicator described in section 2.22 there were significant differences in the proportion with a high perception of ASB using the composite score. In Arboretum, for non-students and the ward overall, as well as residents in Berridge, had a significantly higher perception of ASB than Nottingham overall. For example, in Arboretum there was a 24% percentage point difference between the non-student population and the overall city figure. High Perception of ASB (>32 in composite score) (%)
45% 40% 40% 35% 30% 27% 27% 25% 20% 15% 16% 15% 10% 5% 0% Arboretum - Non- Arboretum - Arboretum * Berridge * Nottingham student * Student
Base size: Arboretum – Non-students = 180 Arboretum Student =180, Arboretum = 365, Berridge = 382, Nottingham = 2,279 *Significant difference to City overall
86 | P a g e 2.99 There were also significant differences using the mean composite score for perceptions of ASB. Non-students in Arboretum, Arboretum overall and Berridge overall had a significantly higher mean score than Nottingham overall.
Perceptions of ASB - Composite Score 29.04 30.00 27.02 26.22 24.82 23.66 25.00 20.00 15.00 10.00 5.00 .00 Arboretum - Non- Arboretum - Student Arboretum * Berridge * Nottingham student *
Base size: Arboretum – Non-students = 180 Arboretum Student =180, Arboretum = 365, Berridge = 382, Nottingham = 2,279 *Significant difference to City overall
Anti-social behaviour 2.100 When looking at the proportion of residents in Arboretum and Berridge who had personally been targeted by ASB in the last six months, there were significant differences between non-students in Arboretum, Arboretum overall and Berridge overall and Nottingham overall with 18%, 13% and 13% of residents respectively stating they had been personally targeted compared to 8% of Nottingham overall. Personally targeted by ASB in the last 6 months (%) 30%
20% 18% 13% 13% 8% 10% 8%
0% Arboretum - Non- Arboretum - Arboretum * Berridge * Nottingham student * Student
Base size: Arboretum – Non-students =243, Arboretum Student =237, Arboretum = 485, Berridge = 475, Nottingham = 2,729 *Significant difference to City overall
87 | P a g e Feelings of Safety – Local Neighbourhood (after dark) 2.101 Residents in Arboretum (both student and non-student) and Berridge overall were significantly less likely to feel very or fairly safe in their neighbourhood after dark than for Nottingham overall. Feelings of safety in the neighbourhood after dark (very or fairly safe) - (%) 100% 80% 64% 53% 59% 60% 51% 53% 40% 20% 0% Arboretum - Non- Arboretum - Student Arboretum * Berridge * Nottingham student * *
Base size: Arboretum – Non-students =243, Arboretum Student =237, Arboretum = 485, Berridge = 480, Nottingham = 2,748 *Significant difference to City overall
Feelings of Safety - Nottingham City Centre 2.102 Students in Arboretum, Arboretum overall and Berridge overall were significantly more likely to feel safe in Nottingham City Centre after dark than residents from Nottingham as a whole, with 61% of students in Arboretum, 55% of residents from Arboretum overall, 53% of Berridge overall and 44% of those from the rest of the city feeling very or fairly safe after dark in the city centre. A higher proportion of students in Arboretum felt safe in the city centre than non-students. For all of Nottingham, students were significantly more likely to feel safe in the city centre after dark than non-students. Feelings of safety in Nottingham City Centre after dark (very or fairly safe) - (%) 100%
80% 61% 60% 55% 53% 49% 44% 40%
20%
0% Arboretum - Non- Arboretum - Student * Arboretum * Berridge Nottingham student
Base size: Arboretum – Non-students =240, Arboretum Student =237, Arboretum = 482, Berridge = 478, Nottingham = 2,699 *Significant difference to City overall
88 | P a g e Priorities for Crime and Anti-Social Behaviour 2.103 The table below shows the mean score for each of the crime and community safety issues, taking into account the order in which they were selected. As with Nottingham as a whole, ‘burglary’ is the top issue that respondents were concerned about students in Arboretum, Arboretum overall and Berridge overall while ‘alcohol related violence and disorder’ was ranked top by non-students in Arboretum. The mean score for ‘burglary’ is significantly lower for non-students and Arboretum overall than for Nottingham overall. Like Nottingham overall, ‘drug use and dealing’ was ranked second by non-students in Arboretum and residents in Berridge but ranked fifth and third by students and Arboretum overall respectively. ‘Weapon/gang related violence’ was ranked second by students in Arboretum, one place higher than Nottingham overall, and had a significantly higher mean score. The mean score for ‘alcohol related violence and disorder’ was significantly higher than for Nottingham overall for non-students in Arboretum, students in Arboretum and Arboretum overall. Other significant differences by mean score are highlighted in the table below.
Crime and community safety issues – Mean Scores Arboretum – Arboretum – Arboretum Berridge Nottingham Non-student Student Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank Burglary 1.77 3 1.92 1 1.85 1 2.05 1 2.20 1 Drug use and dealing 1.89 2 1.71 5 1.78 3 1.71 2 1.64 2 Weapon/gang related violence 1.26 5 1.83 2 1.56 4 1.44 3 1.40 3 Alcohol related violence and disorder 1.92 1 1.72 4 1.83 2 1.30 4 1.29 4 Robbery 0.97 8 1.48 6 1.22 6 1.03 9 1.17 5 Nuisance and Anti-social Behaviour 1.44 4 0.96 7 1.18 7 1.21 6 1.16 6 Car crime 1.02 6 0.43 11 0.73 10 0.94 10 1.09 7 Sexual violence 0.69 10 1.74 3 1.24 5 1.24 5 1.05 8 Youth Crime 1.00 7 0.88 8 0.95 8 1.06 8 1.00 9 Hate crime 0.91 9 0.78 9 0.84 9 1.18 7 0.90 10 Domestic Violence 0.38 11 0.45 10 0.42 11 0.78 11 0.66 11 Business crime 0.19 12 0.15 12 0.17 12 0.12 12 0.14 12 Significantly higher than Nottingham Significantly lower than Nottingham
89 | P a g e Combating Crime and Anti-Social Behaviour 2.104 The table below shows the mean score for ways to reduce crime and anti-social behaviour and shows that there are some differences in the ranking between the wards and between students and other residents. The top ranked across all sub- groups in Arboretum and in Berridge was ‘more CCTV’ (ranked second for Nottingham overall). The mean score for ‘more CCTV’ is significantly higher for students in Arboretum and Arboretum overall than for Nottingham overall. The second ranked across all sub-groups in Arboretum and in Berridge was ‘more visible policing’ (ranked first for Nottingham overall). The mean score for ‘more visible policing’ is significantly higher for students in Arboretum and significantly lower for Berridge than for Nottingham overall. Like Nottingham overall, ‘more activities for young people’ was ranked third by non-students in Arboretum and residents in Berridge but ranked sixth and fourth by students and Arboretum overall respectively. The mean score for ‘more activities for young people’ was significantly lower for these two groups. Other significant differences by mean score are highlighted in the table below.
Ways to Reduce Crime and Anti-Social Behaviour – Mean Scores Arboretum – Arboretum – Arboretum Berridge Nottingham Non-student Student Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank More visible policing 0.93 2 1.18 2 1.06 2 0.84 2 0.97 1 More CCTV 1.12 1 1.22 1 1.17 1 0.93 1 0.95 2 More activities for young people 0.87 3 0.40 6 0.63 4 0.79 3 0.82 3 Better Parenting/encourage 0.46 5 0.28 7 0.37 7 0.60 5 0.60 4 discipline More help for drug/alcohol users 0.69 4 0.84 3 0.75 3 0.72 4 0.58 5 Tougher enforcement/sentencing 0.44 6 0.54 5 0.49 6 0.49 6 0.57 6 Improved Neighbourhood Watch 0.44 7 0.62 4 0.53 5 0.48 7 0.36 7 Schemes/ Neighbourhood Alert More community pay back schemes 0.27 8 0.25 8 0.26 8 0.28 8 0.30 8 Tighter management of offenders by 0.19 9 0.14 10 0.17 9 0.18 9 0.16 9 probation More evictions of perpetrators 0.08 13 0.14 9 0.11 11 0.15 11 0.14 10 More forensics in first 24 hours 0.13 10 0.13 11 0.13 10 0.15 10 0.13 11 Photo/posters displayed locally of 0.08 12 0.08 12 0.08 12 0.11 12 0.10 12 offenders Other 0.09 11 0.02 13 0.05 13 0.11 13 0.08 13 Significantly higher than Nottingham Significantly lower than Nottingham
90 | P a g e
Seeking People’s Views on What Matters 2.105 Non-student residents in Arboretum were significantly less likely than residents across the city to strongly agree or tend to agree that ‘the Police and Local Council are dealing with the anti-social behaviour and crime issues that matter in this area’ than Nottingham in general, while students in Arboretum were significantly more likely to agree. 36% of non-students in Arboretum and 63% of students in Arboretum strongly agreed or tended to agree with the statement compared to 53% of Nottingham overall. 'The Police and Local Council are dealing with the anti-social haviour and crime issues that matter in this area' (strongly & tend to agree) (%) 100%
80% 63% 60% 49% 50% 53% 36% 40%
20%
0% Arboretum - Non- Arboretum - Student Arboretum Berridge Nottingham student * *
Base size: Arboretum – Non-students =241, Arboretum Student =230, Arboretum = 477, Berridge = 472, Nottingham = 2,678 *Significant difference to City overall
2.106 Non-student residents in Arboretum were significantly less likely to strongly agree or tend to agree that ‘the Police and Local Council seek people’s views about anti-social behaviour and crime issues’ in their local area than Nottingham in general. A third of non-students in Arboretum strongly agreed or tended to agree with the statement compared to 43% of Nottingham overall. 'The Police and Local Council seek people's views about the anti-social behaviour and crime issues that matter in this area' (strongly & tend to agree) (%) 100%
80%
60% 47% 43% 40% 38% 40% 33%
20%
0% Arboretum - Non- Arboretum - Student Arboretum Berridge Nottingham student *
Base size: Arboretum – Non-students =240, Arboretum Student =229, Arboretum = 475, Berridge = 476, Nottingham = 2,685 *Significant difference to City overall
91 | P a g e
Sense of Community 2.107 Residents in Arboretum, including non-students, students and the overall population were significantly less likely to agree that there was a strong sense of community where they live than Nottingham in general. 44% of all residents in Arboretum strongly agreed or tended to agree that ‘there is a strong sense of community where I live’, compared to 60% of Nottingham overall. "There is a strong sense of community where I live" (strongly or tend to agree) - (%) 100%
80% 59% 60% 60% 47% 40% 44% 40%
20%
0% Arboretum - Non- Arboretum - Student * Arboretum * Berridge Nottingham student *
Base size: Arboretum – Non-students =242, Arboretum Student =236, Arboretum = 483, Berridge = 480, Nottingham = 2,730 *Significant difference to City overall
Crime in your local area 2.108 The chart below shows how much respondents thought their own quality of life was affected by crime on a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is ‘no effect’ and 10 is ‘total effect’, with results given as a mean score. The higher the mean score the greater the effect of crime on their quality of life. Non-students in Arboretum, and residents in Arboretum overall, had a significantly higher mean score than the Nottingham mean score overall – 3.01 for non-students in Arboretum and 2.83 for Arboretum overall compared to 2.34 for the rest of the city. How much is your own quality of life affected by crime? - Mean Score 3.50 3.01 3.00 2.83 2.61 2.55 2.50 2.34 2.00 1.50 1.00 .50 .00 Arboretum - Arboretum - Arboretum * Berridge Nottingham Non-student * Student
Base size: Arboretum – Non-students =243, Arboretum Student =237, Arboretum = 485, Berridge = 481, Nottingham = 2,747 *Significant difference to City overall
92 | P a g e 2.109 Respondents in Arboretum, including non-students, students, and the overall population, and those living in Berridge, were significantly more likely to think that crime in their local area was a big problem. 56% of non-students and 44% of students in Arboretum, 50% of residents in Arboretum overall and 36% of Berridge residents thought that crime in their local area was a very big or quite a big problem, compared to 29% of Nottingham overall. Crime in local area (very big & quite big problem) (%) 60% 56% 50% 50% 44% 40% 36% 29% 30%
20%
10%
0% Arboretum - Non- Arboretum - Student * Arboretum * Berridge * Nottingham student *
Base size: Arboretum – Non-students =240, Arboretum Student =236, Arboretum = 481, Berridge = 476, Nottingham = 2,726 *Significant difference to City overall
2.110 Non-student residents in Arboretum, Arboretum overall and Berridge were significantly more likely to think that crime in their local area had gone up in the past few years. 48% of non-students in Arboretum, 41% of residents in Arboretum overall and 35% of residents in Berridge thought that crime had gone up either a lot or a little compared to 28% of Nottingham residents overall. What do you think has happened to crime in your local area over the past few years? (gone up a lot & a little) (%) 48% 50% 41% 40% 35% 33% 30% 28%
20%
10%
0% Arboretum - Non- Arboretum - Student Arboretum * Berridge * Nottingham student *
Base size: Arboretum – Non-students =232, Arboretum Student =210, Arboretum = 447, Berridge = 448, Nottingham = 2,578 *Significant difference to City overall
93 | P a g e 2.111 Non-students, students, and residents in Arboretum overall and residents in Berridge were significantly more likely to be concerned about crime where they live, with 61% of non-students in Arboretum, 51% of students in Arboretum, 56% of residents in Arboretum overall and 49% of those in Berridge concerned about crime compared to 42% of Nottingham overall. Concerned about crime where you live (%)
70% 61% 60% 56% 51% 49% 50% 42% 40%
30%
20%
10%
0% Arboretum - Non- Arboretum - Student * Arboretum * Berridge * Nottingham student *
Base size: Arboretum – Non-students =242, Arboretum Student =237, Arboretum = 484, Berridge = 480, Nottingham = 2,744 *Significant difference to City overall
2.112 Similarly, non-students, students, and residents in Arboretum overall and residents in Berridge overall were significantly more likely to be concerned about ASB where they live, with 64% of non-students in Arboretum, 49% of students in Arboretum, 56% of residents in Arboretum overall and 50% of those in Berridge concerned about ASB compared to 40% of Nottingham overall. Concerned about anti-social behaviour where you live (%)
70% 64% 60% 56% 49% 50% 50% 40% 40%
30%
20%
10%
0% Arboretum - Non- Arboretum - Student * Arboretum * Berridge * Nottingham student *
Base size: Arboretum – Non-students =242, Arboretum Student =237, Arboretum = 484, Berridge = 480, Nottingham = 2,745 *Significant difference to City overall
94 | P a g e 3 CONCLUSIONS
3.1 This report details the findings from the 2018 Respect for Nottingham survey. This is the eighth annual survey to be conducted using the approach first utilised in 2011 and this eight-year series of results now provides valuable information on the trends in ASB over time.
3.2 This year’s survey shows an increase since 2017 in the proportion of residents who think that there are anti-social behaviour problems for many of the types of ASB asked about. However, there is still a downward trend for many aspects in the data from 2011 to 2018. Some of the key changes over time are detailed below:
While there has been an increase in the proportion of respondents with a high perception of ASB since 2018, the proportion in 2018 is lower than in 2011, 2012 and 2016 and the general trend in perceptions of the level of ASB continues to decline. Two measures were calculated using the survey data – one comparable to the previous NI17 and a composite ASB score which has been calculated since 2011. For both, the results show an increase in the perceived level of ASB in local neighbourhoods in 2018, but there is a general downward trend since 2011. The most commonly identified issue at neighbourhood level continues to be litter and rubbish. Dog fouling was second biggest issue for residents, after dropping to third in 2017, with motorbikes/motorised scooters/mini motos/quad bikes the third biggest issue. Within the city centre there has also been an increase in the proportion of respondents who consider all of the types of ASB to be a problem, however, there is still a general downward trend for a many type of ASB. There is a general downward trend in the proportion of respondents targeted by some form of ASB in the last six months. The proportion of residents who reported ASB is at its lowest level since 2015. The key reason for non-reporting was ‘no point, nothing ever gets done’ – and for those who do report, less than half (45%) are satisfied with the response they receive. Residents’ perceptions of safety in their local neighbourhood after dark have been decline in 2018, with 64% feel very or fairly safe, the lowest since 2011. The groups with the lowest proportion feeling safe in their neighbourhoods after dark include women and older residents. The proportion of residents who feel safe in the city centre after dark has declined to its lowest level since 2011. This suggests that feelings of safety in the city centre are declining. There are some indications in the ward level data that suggest that those who live in some wards which are close to the centre of the city have increased perceptions of safety, whereas others have lower proportions. Further consideration of this data would support understanding of perceptions. In terms of combating crime and ASB, more CCTV and more visible policing are again the top ranked aspects which residents would like to see in their communities. The survey results for 2018 show a decrease in the level of agreement with the statement ‘the Police and Local Council are dealing with the ASB and crime issues that matter in this area’ compared to previous years. There is also a small decline, from 45% in 2017 to 43% in 2017 in the proportion who agree with the statement that ‘the Police and local Council seek people’s views about the anti-social behaviour and crime issues that matter in this area.” There are significant differences by demographics, which need further consideration.
95 | P a g e 3.3 There is a need to consider whether further analysis of the data would now bring some additional insight into why these improvements or reductions are occurring. For example, whilst ward level analysis is included, the analysis is based on small sample sizes. Further analysis of drivers of ASB and safety could be conducted by combining the eight years data. Analysis on the combined data would allow ward level analysis and exploration of the drivers of differences between the ward level results.
January 2019
96 | P a g e APPENDIX A – DEMOGRAPHICS AND SAMPLE SIZES The survey used random sampling and in total, 2,751 residents were interviewed in the survey, of which 1,377 were male and 1,337 female. As questions can be unanswered in accordance with ethical guidance, the following table shows the questions where respondents gave their ethnicity, age, gender and postcode (from which IMD was assigned). It also shows the percentage of respondents where data are weighted in accordance with the profile of Nottingham.
Demographic Data (No.)
Demographic Sample Size Ethnicity 2,721 Age 2,743 Gender 2,751 IMD 2,751
Ward Level Data (No.)
Ward Sample Size Arboretum 127 Aspley 133 Basford 142 Berridge 164 Bestwood 146 Bilborough 145 Bridge 139 Bulwell 137 Bulwell Forest 124 Clifton North 118 Clifton South 125 Dales 145 Dunkirk and Lenton 112 Leen Valley 93 Mapperley 146 Radford and Park 209 Sherwood 142 St Ann's 178 Wollaton East and Lenton Abbey 94 Wollaton West 133
Weighted Age (%)
Age Range % 16-24 26% 25-34 19% 35-44 16% 45-54 14% 55-64 10% 65+ 15% Base size 2,743
97 | P a g e Weighted Ethnicity (%)
Ethnicity % White 73% Mixed 3% Asian 15% Black 8% Other 1% Base size 2,721
Weighted Employment Status (%)
Work Status % Employee in full-time job (30 hours plus per week) 34% Employee in part-time job (under 30 hours per week) 10% Self-employed full or part-time 5% On a government supported training programme 0% Full-time education at school college or university 20% Unemployed and available for work 5% Permanently sick/disabled 3% Wholly retired from work 15% Looking after the home 5%
Doing something else 1%
Base Size 2,718
Weighted religion/belief
Religion/Belief % No religion 51% No belief 3% Christian 31% Buddhist 1% Hindu 2% Jewish 0% Muslim 10% Sikh 1% Other religion 1% Other belief 1% Base Size 2,727
Tenure
Tenure % Owns outright 27% Owns with a mortgage or loan 18% Pays part rent and part mortgage shared ownership 0% Rents 52% Lives here rent free 2% Base Size 2,732
98 | P a g e APPENDIX B – BASE SIZES FOR ASB QUESTIONS
Base sizes for ASB questions
Question Sample Sample (n) (n) – Excluding ‘Don’t Know’ Parents not taking responsibility for the behaviour of their children 2,742 2,619 Noisy neighbours or loud parties 2,743 2,729 Intimidation as a result of groups/ gangs of young people hanging around on the street 2,740 2,698 Vandalism/ Criminal damage 2,739 2,693 Motorbikes/ motorised scooters/ mini motos/ quad bikes 2,736 2,701 People using or dealing drugs 2,741 2,499 Street Drinking/ Drinking alcohol in the streets 2,737 2,678 People being drunk or rowdy in public spaces 2,739 2,693 Abandoned or burnt out cars 2,739 2,660 Fly Posting 2,734 2,678 Rubbish and litter lying around 2,742 2,722 Dog Fouling 2,738 2,712 Unkempt gardens 2,733 2,649 Fly Tipping 2,739 2,692 Graffiti 2,741 2,701 Begging 2,741 2,701
Q - Thinking about Nottingham City Centre, how much of a problem do you think the following issues are? You can say a very big problem, a fairly big problem, not a very big problem, or not a problem at all.
Question Sample Sample (n) (n) – Excluding ‘Don’t Know’ Intimidation as a result of groups gangs/ of young people hanging around on the street 2,722 2,297 Vandalism/ Criminal damage 2,727 2,250 People using or dealing drugs 2,727 2,158 Street Drinking/ Drinking alcohol in the streets 2,723 2,303 People being drunk or rowdy in public spaces 2,718 2,295 Rubbish and litter lying around 2,725 2,336 Dog Fouling 2,725 2,298 Fly Posting 2,726 2,223 Graffiti 2,725 2,283 Begging 2,728 2,339
99 | P a g e APPENDIX C – BASE SIZES FOR ASB QUESTIONS FOR ARBORETUM AND BERRIDGE
Base sizes for ASB questions
Question Sample (N) Arboretum - Arboretum - Non-student Student Arboretum Berridge Parents not taking responsibility for the behaviour of their children 243 236 484 481 Noisy neighbours or loud parties 243 236 484 481 Intimidation as a result of groups/ gangs of young people hanging around on the street 243 236 484 481 Vandalism/ Criminal damage 243 236 484 480 Motorbikes/ motorised scooters/ mini motos/ quad bikes 243 236 484 480 People using or dealing drugs 243 236 484 481 Street Drinking/ Drinking alcohol in the streets 243 236 484 481 People being drunk or rowdy in public spaces 241 236 483 481 Abandoned or burnt out cars 243 235 484 481 Fly Posting 243 235 484 481 Rubbish and litter lying around 240 235 481 481 Dog Fouling 243 236 484 480 Unkempt gardens 243 236 484 481 Fly Tipping 243 236 483 481 Graffiti 243 236 484 481 Begging 243 236 484 481
100 | P a g e Question Sample (n) – Excluding ‘Don’t Know’ Arboretum - Arboretum - Non-student Student Arboretum Berridge Parents not taking responsibility for the behaviour of their children 225 217 446 455 Noisy neighbours or loud parties 240 234 479 475 Intimidation as a result of groups/ gangs of young people hanging around on the street 238 230 474 466 Vandalism/ Criminal damage 240 224 470 462 Motorbikes/ motorised scooters/ mini motos/ quad bikes 238 227 471 466 People using or dealing drugs 216 218 439 431 Street Drinking/ Drinking alcohol in the streets 235 229 469 467 People being drunk or rowdy in public spaces 240 232 478 471 Abandoned or burnt out cars 229 215 451 463 Fly Posting 239 225 469 474 Rubbish and litter lying around 239 232 477 480 Dog Fouling 240 226 471 475 Unkempt gardens 232 221 457 459 Fly Tipping 238 228 470 475 Graffiti 233 229 467 474 Begging 238 232 475 471
101 | P a g e Q - Thinking about Nottingham City Centre, how much of a problem do you think the following issues are? You can say a very big problem, a fairly big problem, not a very big problem, or not a problem at all.
Question Sample (n) Arboretum - Arboretum - Non-student Student Arboretum Berridge Intimidation as a result of groups gangs/ of young people hanging around on the street 241 233 480 478 Vandalism/ Criminal damage 241 233 480 480 People using or dealing drugs 241 233 480 480 Street Drinking/ Drinking alcohol in the streets 241 233 480 479 People being drunk or rowdy in public spaces 240 233 478 480 Rubbish and litter lying around 241 233 480 478 Dog Fouling 241 233 480 477 Fly Posting 241 233 480 478 Graffiti 241 233 480 478 Begging 241 233 480 479
Question Sample (n) – Excluding ‘Don’t Know’ Arboretum - Arboretum - Non-student Student Arboretum Berridge Intimidation as a result of groups gangs/ of young people hanging around on the street 206 225 437 414 Vandalism/ Criminal damage 199 223 426 408 People using or dealing drugs 189 217 410 388 Street Drinking/ Drinking alcohol in the streets 203 227 436 415 People being drunk or rowdy in public spaces 199 227 431 416 Rubbish and litter lying around 205 227 438 423 Dog Fouling 204 223 433 416 Fly Posting 198 216 420 402 Graffiti 199 223 426 410 Begging 202 225 433 424
END OF DOCUMENT
102 | P a g e