2019

Respect for Nottingham Survey 2019

INFORMATION BY DESIGN

INFORMATION BY DESIGN | [Company address]

Respect for Nottingham Survey 2019

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 2020

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

2 | P a g e

Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 4 1 BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY ...... 7

BACKGROUND ...... 7 METHODOLOGY AND SAMPLING ...... 7 Sampling Frame and Sample Size ...... 7 Weighting and analysis ...... 8 2 SURVEY FINDINGS ...... 10

ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR IN THE LOCAL NEIGHBOURHOOD ...... 10 KEY ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR ISSUES BY AGE, GENDER, ETHNICITY, IMD AND AREA ...... 15 ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR - NOTTINGHAM CITY CENTRE ...... 20 ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR AND 16-24 YEAR OLDS ...... 25 OVERALL PERCEPTIONS OF ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR – NI17 ...... 26 Perception of Anti-Social Behaviour by Ward ...... 28 COMPOSITE ASB SCORE FOR LOCAL NEIGHBOURHOODS ...... 29 COMPARISON OF RECORDED CRIME RATE AND PERCEPTIONS OF ASB ...... 33 EXPERIENCING AND REPORTING ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR ...... 35 FEELINGS OF SAFETY – LOCAL NEIGHBOURHOOD (WHEN IT’S DARK) ...... 40 Feelings of Safety by Age, Gender, Ethnicity, IMD and Area ...... 41 Reasons for feeling unsafe in local neighbourhood ...... 42 Drivers of feelings of safety ...... 43 FEELINGS OF SAFETY - NOTTINGHAM CITY CENTRE...... 44 Feelings of Safety by Gender, Age, IMD Ethnicity and Area ...... 45 Reasons for feeling unsafe in City Centre ...... 46 FEELINGS OF SAFETY BY WARD – LOCAL AREA AND CITY CENTRE ...... 47 SENSE OF COMMUNITY ...... 49 Sense of Community by Age, Gender, Ethnicity and IMD ...... 51 Reasons for agreeing and disagreeing that there is a sense of community...... 52 Sense of Community and Anti-Social Behaviour ...... 53 ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN SAFETY, SENSE OF COMMUNITY AND ASB ...... 55 PRIORITIES FOR CRIME AND ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR ...... 56 Identified Issues ...... 56 CONCERNS OF 16-24 YEAR OLDS ...... 58 DEALING WITH ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR AND CRIME ...... 58 Drivers of Agreement that Police and Local Council are dealing with the anti-social behaviour and crime issues that matter ...... 60 SEEKING PEOPLE’S VIEWS ON WHAT MATTERS ...... 61 CRIME IN YOUR LOCAL AREA ...... 63 Perceptions of Crime Rate in your local area ...... 67 Concerns About Crime ...... 70 Concerns About ASB ...... 72 3 CONCLUSIONS ...... 74 APPENDIX A – DEMOGRAPHICS AND SAMPLE SIZES ...... 77 APPENDIX B – BASE SIZES FOR ASB QUESTIONS...... 79

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 October and December 2019. 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.

The ‘Respect for Nottingham’ survey was been conducted annually since 2003, and using a consistent face-to-face interview methodology since 2011. It provides a valuable resource on the changing perceptions of issues relating to crime and anti-social behaviour in the city.

Key findings from the survey include:

Anti-Social Behaviour in the Local Neighbourhood

 Perception of ASB overall using a similar measure to NI171 has decreased by 2% to 5% since 2018, which is a significant difference. There were significant differences in the proportion with a high perception of ASB score by age, deprivation and area.  Respondents aged 55-64 and those from the central area of the city 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 2019 was ‘rubbish and litter lying around’. This is the same as 2018, 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.

Anti-Social Behaviour in the City Centre

 ‘Begging’ was the issue most commonly highlighted by respondents as a problem in the City Centre in 2019, with 46% 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. 37% of respondents thought that ‘people being drunk or rowdy in public spaces’ was a very or fairly big problem and 32% considered ‘street drinking’ to be a very or fairly big problem.  Young people in the 16-24 age group also recognised the issue of ‘people being ‘drunk or rowdy in public spaces’ as being a problem for them; ‘people being ‘drunk or rowdy in public spaces’ and ‘noisy neighbours or loud parties’ were significantly more likely to be considered big issues for residents aged 16-24 than for those in other age groups.  18% of respondents felt that the City Centre had improved as a place to live, work, socialise or spend time in the last twelve months. 44% of respondents felt that the city centre had stayed the same and 16% felt that the city centre had got worse. 22% of respondents did not know.

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

Experiencing and Reporting Anti-Social Behaviour

 Overall, 9% of respondents had been personally targeted by some form of anti-social behaviour in the last six months, an increase from 2018 but not statistically significant. Of these, 39% had experienced verbal abuses, 18% damage to property and 17% targeted noise ASB.  Just over half (54%) had reported the anti-social behaviour to someone, the majority of which (82%) had reported it to the Police.

Perceptions of Safety

 32% were very or fairly satisfied with the response they received (from the police), a decrease from 2018 (45%). For those who did not report it, the main reason was that they thought there was no point as nothing would be done (38%) followed by not thinking it was serious enough to report (31%).  70% of respondents said they felt very or fairly safe in their local neighbourhood after dark in 2019, an increase from 64% in 2018 but is lower than in 2014 to 2017. Women, those aged 65+, respondents living in the most deprived areas and those from white ethnic groups are less likely to feel safe in their neighbourhood when it gets dark, with a 13- percentage point difference between the most and the least deprived areas.  14% of respondents said they felt very or fairly unsafe in their local neighbourhood after dark, with the most common reasons given for feeling unsafe being ‘ASB’ (33%) ‘poor street lighting’ (33%), ‘not enough police presence’ (30%) and ‘people being drunk and/or rowdy’ (26%).  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 ‘dog fouling’, ‘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 13% in perceptions of ASB between those who feel very or fairly safe and those who feel very or fairly unsafe. This is lower than 2018 (16%), 2017 (17%), 2016 (23%), 2015 (22%), 2012 (29%) and 2011 (18%) but higher than 2014 (11%) and similar to 2013 (13%).  Respondents have more concerns about Nottingham City Centre after dark, 46% who said that they feel fairly or very safe in the City Centre compared to 44% in 2018. As in previous years, women are less likely to feel fairly or very safe than men.  16% of respondents said they feel very or fairly unsafe in the city centre when it’s dark, with the the most common reasons given for feeling unsafe being ‘people being drunk and/or rowdy’ (67%), ASB (40%) and ‘not enough police presence’ (34%).

Priorities for Crime and Anti-Social Behaviour

 In terms of crime and community safety in their local area, 24% of residents ranked ‘burglary’ as their primary concern, with ‘weapon /gang related violence’ ranked first by 13% of residents and ‘alcohol related violence and disorder’ ranked first by 13% of residents.

5 | P a g e

 There are some differences in the results between this year and the previous years (2011- 2018). In all nine years, burglary is the top concern but other issues have moved rankings. There are 9 issues which are significantly different to 2018. 3 issues - weapon/gang related violence, hate crime and business crime - are significantly higher than 2018, and 6 issues – burglary, drug use and dealing, robbery, sexual violence, car crime and domestic violence – are significantly lower than 2018.

Social Capital

 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 2018 (60%), 2017 (61%) and 2016 (60%).

Satisfaction with the Police and Council

 Satisfaction with the Police and Council has increased significantly from 2018 but is similar to 2017, with 58% of residents in 2018 agreeing that they are dealing with the anti-social behaviour and crime issues that matter, compared to 53% in 2017 and 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.  49% 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, a significant increase from 43% in 2018.

Perceptions of Crime

 Three-quarters of respondents thought that crime was ‘not a problem at all’ or ‘not much of a problem’ compared 25% who thought that crime was ‘a very big’ or ‘quite a big’ problem.  Three-fifths of respondents thought that levels of crime had stayed the same in their local area over the past few years and 20% thought that crime had gone down. 20% thought that crime had gone up, significantly lower than in 2018 and 2017 when 28% and 25% respectively thought that crime had gone up.  When asked if they were concerned about crime and anti-social behaviour where they live, 33% of respondents were concerned about crime, and 33% were concerned about anti- social behaviour.

Information by Design January 2020

6 | 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 2019, 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 October and December 2019. 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, 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.

7 | P a g e

 Within wards, Output Areas (OAs) were ranked by 2015 IMD2 of the lower-layer Super Output Areas (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.

1.6 A target sample of 2,800 completed interviews was set for the survey, with a sample of approximately 140 interviews in each of the 20 wards. In total, the achieved sample in the 2019 survey was 2,819 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 2,819.

1.7 As a point of reference, the overall confidence interval for this survey of 2,819 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 ±7.0% to ±8.9%, and as such, ward level differences should be treated with caution. Generally, confidence intervals are quoted in this report at the 95% level.

Weighting and analysis 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 140 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 ONS 2018 mid-year population estimate data (the most recent data available for the new 2019 wards) for age and gender at ward level. The previous surveys from 2012 – 2018 were weighted based on the 2011 census data for age and gender at ward level.

1.9 Analysis of the survey was undertaken using the IBM SPSS statistical analysis software. Tables of results were produced including frequency tables and cross- tabulations by age, gender, deprivation, ethnicity and area which are used for the purposes of this report. Appendix A provides a breakdown of the sample sizes for each of the sub-groups used in the analysis.

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). The Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) 2019 was not published until after the sampling scheme had been set. 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. 8 | P a g e

1.10 As detailed earlier, the measure of deprivation was obtained by using the English Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) 2019. This 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). To allow cross-tabulations by deprivation, the LSOAs in Nottingham have been grouped into 5 quintiles, where ‘most deprived’ is the most deprived 20% of LSOAs in Nottingham and ‘least deprived’ is the least deprived 20% of LSOAs in Nottingham.

9 | P a g e

2 SURVEY FINDINGS

Anti-Social Behaviour in the Local Neighbourhood

2.1 When asked if there were any comments they would like to make about anti-social behaviour (ASB) in their local neighbourhood, 63% of respondents gave comments; 37% had no comment to make. 37% 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 ‘noise / loud music / shouting etc.’, which was made by 21% of respondents, and ‘drug dealing and use’, made by 13% of respondents. This was followed by litter and rubbish, with 9% of respondents mentioning this issue. Other issues were around burglaries, parking, drinking, motorbikes and scooters, nuisance behaviour and loitering.

Comments on Anti-Social Behaviour in local neighbourhood (Not including 'no comment' or 'none') (%)

Noise / loud music / shouting etc. 21% Drug dealing and use 13% Litter / rubbish 9% Theft / burglaries / break-ins 7% Other 6% Not a lot of ASB / Not much 6% There's a lot of ASB / it's bad here / it's a big problem 6% Problems with parking 5% Drunks / drinking in the street 5% Motorbikes / scooters / quad bikes 5% Nuisance / nuisance behaviour e.g. knocking on doors,… 5% Loitering / people hanging around 5% Vandalism / damage to property / graffiti 4% Problems with students - drunk / noisy etc. 4% Assaults / violence 4% Amount of ASB has improve / gone down 3% Fly tipping 3% Speeding 3% Dog fouling 3% Fireworks 3% Abuse / swearing 2% Homeless 2% Teenagers / young people / kids - behaviour not specified 2% Problems with neighbours 2% Nothing gets done to sort it out / disappointed with response 2% Need more police / PCSOs / more security 2% Fighting 2% Bikes/people on bikes 1% Mugging 1% Begging/asking for money 1% Playing football / balls games / playing on the street 1% Car crime 1% Dogs 1% Incident has been dealt with / good response from police 0% Prostitutes 0% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

Base size: 731 10 | P a g e

2.2 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 ASB issue is ‘rubbish and litter lying around’ where 30% of respondents respectively think this a fairly or very big problem. Dog fouling is ranked second, with 19% of respondents thinking this is a fairly or very big problem and ‘motorbikes/motorised scooters/mini motos/quad bikes’ is ranked third with 19% of respondents thinking this is a fairly or very big problem.

Perception of ASB Issues in Local Community (%)

Rubbish and litter lying around 12% 18% 23% 46% 0%

Dog Fouling 8% 11% 16% 64% 1%

Motorbikes/ motorised scooters/ mini motos/ quad bikes 7% 12% 18% 62% 1%

People using or dealing drugs 8% 9% 12% 63% 7%

Fly Tipping 6% 10% 11% 72% 1%

Parents not taking responsibility for the behaviour of their children 5% 8% 13% 70% 3%

Noisy neighbours or loud parties 5% 8% 15% 72% 1%

People being drunk or rowdy in public spaces 4% 8% 15% 72% 1%

Fly Posting 4% 7% 12% 75% 1%

Street Drinking/ Drinking alcohol in the streets 4% 7% 14% 73% 2%

Vandalism/ Criminal damage 3% 7% 13% 76% 1%

Unkempt gardens 3% 7% 14% 74% 2% Intimidation as a result of groups/ gangs of young people hanging 3%6% 13% 77% 1% around on the street

Begging 3%4% 8% 84% 1%

Graffiti 1%3% 7% 88% 1%

Abandoned or burnt out cars 1%1%5% 90% 2%

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 The results for 2019 show a downward trend for all of the issues with the exception of motorbikes/motorised scooters/mini motos/quad bikes’, ‘fly tipping’ and ‘begging’. The chart below shows the mean scores4 for each of the issues for 2011 to 2019, 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 2019 (of 1.96 out of 4). However, it had a higher score (of 1.98 out of 4) in 2018, (of 2.03 out of 4) in 2016, (of 1.99 out of 4) in 2013, (of 1.98 out of 4) in 2012 and (of 2.09 out of 4) in 2011. The difference between 2019 and 2018 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 ‘rubbish and litter lying around’,

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. 11 | P a g e

‘motorbikes/motorised scooters/mini motos/quad bikes’ (which has seen a gradual upward trend since 2014), ‘people using or dealing drugs’, ‘fly tipping’ and ‘begging’. Perceptions of Anti-Social Behaviour in Local Neighbourhood by Year (Mean Scores)

1.96 1.98 1.89 2.03 1.92 Rubbish and litter lying around 1.81 1.99 1.98 2.09 1.63 1.80 1.81 1.76 1.67 * Motorbikes/ motorised scooters/ mini motos/ quad bikes 1.52 1.56 1.54 1.65 1.63 1.78 1.71 1.94 1.81 * Dog Fouling 1.85 2.05 2.08 2.23 1.60 1.63 1.54 1.66 1.63 People using or dealing drugs 1.51 1.60 1.65 1.70 1.49 1.52 1.42 1.50 1.48 Fly Tipping 1.38 1.45 1.41 1.59 1.46 1.58 1.47 * Parents not taking responsibility for the behaviour of their 1.61 1.65 1.57 children 1.64 1.76 1.85 1.44 1.49 1.45 1.53 1.57 * Noisy neighbours or loud parties 1.47 2019 1.51 1.54 1.57 1.42 2018 1.51 1.47 1.57 1.54 * People being drunk or rowdy in public spaces 1.49 2017 1.57 1.57 1.63 1.41 2016 1.50 1.42 1.57 1.51 * Street Drinking/ Drinking alcohol in the streets 1.47 2015 1.54 1.58 1.64 1.40 2014 1.45 1.49 1.64 1.53 * Fly Posting 1.39 2013 1.52 1.52 1.46 1.38 2012 1.43 1.34 1.52 1.44 * Unkempt gardens 1.36 2011 1.44 1.51 1.58 1.37 1.46 1.39 1.46 1.50 * Vandalism/ Criminal damage 1.47 1.49 1.64 1.78 1.35 1.43 1.39 * Intimidation as a result of groups/ gangs of young people 1.52 1.54 1.45 hanging around on the street 1.50 1.60 1.72 1.25 1.28 1.23 1.35 1.29 Begging 1.21 1.21 1.22 1.25 1.16 1.21 1.14 1.24 1.23 * Graffiti 1.16 1.24 1.29 1.37 1.11 1.14 1.12 1.20 1.17 * Abandoned or burnt out cars 1.11 1.14 1.18 1.23 .00 .50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50

See Appendix B for Base Size * = 2019 significantly different to 2018

12 | P a g e

2.6 The following chart shows the same results, comparing the results for 2011 to 2019, 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 decrease in the proportion of respondents who think they are a fairly or very big problem from 2018 to 2019. There were no (statistically significant) increases in the proportion of respondents who thought issues were a fairly or very big problem from 2018 to 2019. There were a number of areas where there was no change over time in the proportion thinking the issues were a problem – these included ‘rubbish and litter lying around’, ‘people using or dealing drugs’ and ‘fly tipping’.

Perceptions of Anti-Social Behaviour in Local Neighbourhood by Year (very or fairly big problem) - (%) 30% 30%30% Rubbish and litter lying around 28% 33% 24% 31% 31% 35% 19% 22%24% * Dog Fouling 25% 29% 34% 35% 40% 19% * Motorbikes/ motorised scooters/ mini motos/ quad 24%26% 19%21% bikes 16% 14% 18% 17% 16%18% People using or dealing drugs 17%18% 18% 18%19% 16% 13%16% Fly Tipping 13%14% 13% 11% 18% 13% * Parents not taking responsibility for the behaviour of 13%16% 16%17% their children 18% 21% 25% 12% 12%13% Noisy neighbours or loud parties 14%14% 2019 14%15% 15% 2018 11% 14%15% * People being drunk or rowdy in public spaces 14%16% 2017 17% 16%19% 11% 2016 13%16% Fly Posting 16%19% 2015 17% 13%16% 11% 2014 12%14% * Street Drinking/ Drinking alcohol in the streets 14%16% 2013 16% 16%18% 10% 2012 11%12% * Vandalism/ Criminal damage 11%12% 2011 13% 18% 23% 10% 8%11% Unkempt gardens 10%13% 11% 14%15% 9% * Intimidation as a result of groups/ gangs of young people 11%12% 13%14% hanging around on the street 14% 17%20% 7% 7%7% Begging 7%9% 5% 5%6% 4% 3%4% Graffiti 4% 5% 6%8% 2% 2%3% * Abandoned or burnt out cars 3%4% 2% 3%5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

See Appendix B for Base Size * = 2019 significantly different to 2018 13 | P a g e

2.7 The data from 2011- 2019 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 – 2006-2019 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 Dec-19

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 Dec-19

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 Dec-19

See Appendix B for Base Size

14 | P a g e

Key Anti-Social Behaviour Issues by Age, Gender, Ethnicity, IMD and Area 2.8 Rubbish and litter lying around – the top ASB issue amongst survey respondents – appears to be a greater concern for respondents from more deprived areas of the city. The differences by IMD are statistically significant.

Rubbish and litter lying around (Very or fairly big problem) - (%)

Overall 30%

Male 29% Female 31%

16-24 28% 25-34 31% 35-44 33% 45-54 34% 55-64 33% 65+ 25%

Most Deprived 40% 2nd Most Deprived 36% 3rd Most Deprived 31% 4th Most Deprived 27% Least Deprived 20%

White 31% Mixed 29% Asian 24% Black 28% Other 33%

South 27% Central 32% North 31%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

See Appendix A for Sample Size Significant differences by IMD

15 | P a g e

2.9 Overall, 19% of respondents felt that ‘dog fouling’ was a fairly or very big problem in their local area. Women, those aged 35 to 64, those from the most deprived quintile, those from Black ethnic groups and those 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 19%

Male 17% Female 21%

16-24 9% 25-34 15% 35-44 26% 45-54 29% 55-64 28% 65+ 19%

Most Deprived 29% 2nd Most Deprived 23% 3rd Most Deprived 21% 4th Most Deprived 15% Least Deprived 10%

White 20% Mixed 19% Asian 12% Black 24% Other 15%

South 19% Central 14% North 26%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

See Appendix A for Sample Size Significant differences by gender, age, IMD, ethnicity and area

16 | P a g e

2.10 Overall, 19% of respondents felt that ‘motorbikes/motorised scooters/mini-motos/quad bikes' were a fairly or very big problem in their local area. Respondents aged 45 to 64, those from the most deprived quintile, respondents from white 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 19%

Male 18% Female 20%

16-24 12% 25-34 17% 35-44 22% 45-54 27% 55-64 27% 65+ 18%

Most Deprived 28% 2nd Most Deprived 20% 3rd Most Deprived 22% 4th Most Deprived 16% Least Deprived 12%

White 21% Mixed 17% Asian 11% Black 14% Other 17%

South 22% Central 12% North 25% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

See Appendix A for Sample Size Significant differences by age, IMD, ethnic group and area

17 | P a g e

2.11 17% of respondents overall considered ‘people using or dealing drugs’ to be a very or fairly big problem, with respondents aged 45 to 54, from the most deprived quintile and from white and other ethnic groups more likely to perceive this to be a problem.

People using or dealing drugs - (%)

Overall 17%

Male 16% Female 19%

16-24 13% 25-34 16% 35-44 20% 45-54 24% 55-64 22% 65+ 15%

Most Deprived 25% 2nd Most Deprived 19% 3rd Most Deprived 18% 4th Most Deprived 15% Least Deprived 12%

White 18% Mixed 13% Asian 15% Black 13% Other 28%

South 18% Central 18% North 17%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

See Appendix A for Sample Size Significant differences by age, IMD and ethnicity

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 7% (this is a significant difference). ‘Street drinking/drinking alcohol in the streets’ was perceived to be a very or fairly big problem for 8% of residents in the north and 15% of residents in the central area of the city (this is a significant difference).

2.13 This year (2019), the sample size for the survey at ward level has been increased to approximately 140 per ward. This allows some analysis at ward level, although the results need to be viewed with some caution. As an example, the chart below shows the proportion of residents who think that rubbish and litter lying around is a very or fairly big problem for each of the wards of Nottingham. The data shows that the wards with the highest proportions of residents who think for rubbish and litter lying around is 18 | P a g e a very or fairly big problem are Hyson Green & Arboretum, Aspley, Berridge and Sherwood, all significantly higher than Nottingham overall (30%). The wards with the lowest proportions of residents who think rubbish and litter lying around is a very or fairly big problem are Bulwell Forest, Castle, Wollaton West and Clifton West, all significantly lower than Nottingham overall. Rubbish and litter lying around (Very or fairly big problem) - (%)

* Hyson Green & Arboretum 44% * Aspley 44% * Berridge 41% * Sherwood 38% Dales 35% Meadows 35% Bulwell 34% Radford 34% Bestwood 33% Clifton East 31% Bilborough 30% Mapperley 28% Lenton & Wollaton East 27% Basford 27% St. Ann's 24% Leen Valley 23% * Bulwell Forest 20% * Castle 19% * Wollaton West 12% * Clifton West 11% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

Base size: Aspley = 144, Basford = 128, Berridge = 147, Bestwood = 147, Bilborough = 142, Bulwell = 138, Bulwell Forest = 140, Castle = 140, Clifton East = 148, Clifton West = 1139, Dales = 132, Hyson Green & Arboretum = 151, Leen Valley = 141, Lenton & Wollaton East = 136, Mapperley = 140, Meadows = 140, Radford = 133, Sherwood = 149, St. Ann's = 139, Wollaton West = 138 Caution: Small sample sizes *Significant differences to City overall

19 | P a g e

Anti-Social Behaviour - Nottingham City Centre 2.14 ‘Begging’ was the issue most commonly highlighted by respondents as a problem in the City Centre in 2019, with 46%5 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. 37% of respondents thought that ‘people being drunk or rowdy in public spaces’ was a very or fairly big problem and 32% 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 7% identified this as a very or fairly big problem compared to 19% who thought it was a problem locally. 27% of respondents thought that ‘rubbish and litter lying around’ was a very or fairly big problems in the city centre and 24% of respondents thoughts that ‘people using or dealing drugs’ was a 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 city. The proportion who reported ‘don’t know’ is highest for ‘people using or dealing drugs’, with 23% who did not know.

Perception of ASB Issues in Nottingham City Centre(%)

Begging 25% 22% 14% 23% 17%

People being drunk or rowdy in public spaces 14% 23% 19% 26% 18%

Street Drinking/ Drinking alcohol in the streets 12% 20% 21% 30% 18%

Rubbish and litter lying around 9% 18% 23% 33% 17%

People using or dealing drugs 10% 14% 16% 37% 23%

Intimidation as a result of groups gangs/ of young people hanging 5% 11% 19% 46% 18% around on the street

Vandalism/ Criminal damage 4% 11% 19% 48% 19%

Graffiti 3% 7% 19% 52% 18%

Fly Posting 3%5% 13% 59% 20%

Dog Fouling 2%5% 13% 62% 18%

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 46% due to rounding. To one decimal place the figures are: a very big problem 24.7% and a fairly big problem 21.7%, which add up to 21.7%. 20 | P a g e

2.15 The chart below shows the mean scores for each of the issues for 2011-19, where the higher the score the more the issue is felt to be a problem. There are decreases in all ten issues relating to the City Centre from 2018 to 2019, with 4 of these statistically significant. 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)

2.58 2.63 2.43 2.39 Begging 2.12 2.05 2.30 2.12 2.21 2.29 2.35 2.18 2.21 People being drunk or rowdy in public spaces 2.08 2.12 2.36 2.42 2.41 2.17 2.34 2.10 2.13 * Street Drinking/ Drinking alcohol in the streets 1.97 2.00 2.25 2.30 2.35 2.05 2.10 1.92 2.03 Rubbish and litter lying around 1.82 1.77 1.97 2.04 2.10 2019 1.95 2.08 1.78 1.80 2018 * People using or dealing drugs 1.67 1.64 1.75 2017 1.99 1.94 2016 1.71 1.75 1.60 2015 Intimidation as a result of groups gangs/ of young people hanging 1.69 1.65 around on the street 1.62 2014 1.71 1.97 2.04 2013 1.62 1.67 2012 1.52 1.58 Vandalism/ Criminal damage 1.58 2011 1.48 1.61 1.85 1.93 1.54 1.59 1.42 1.52 * Graffiti 1.45 1.38 1.54 1.66 1.78 1.39 1.47 1.37 1.57 * Fly Posting 1.42 1.37 1.53 1.65 1.77 1.36 1.39 1.30 1.54 Dog Fouling 1.38 1.38 1.49 1.57 1.66 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00

See Appendix B for Base Size * = 2019 significantly different to 2018

21 | P a g e

2.16 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 2011-2019. The proportions are lower than 2019 for all 10 issues, with 6 of the issues significantly lower. The biggest decreases are seen in ‘street drinking/drinking alcohol in the street’ (32% in 2019 and 39% in 2018) and ‘people using or dealing drugs’ (24% in 2019 and 29% in 2018).

Perceptions of Anti-Social Behaviour in Local Neighbourhood by Year (very or fairly big problem) - (%)

46% 49% 43% 42% Begging 31% 28% 38% 30% 34% 37% 40% 35% 35% * People being drunk or rowdy in public spaces 28% 32% 40% 40% 43% 32% 39% 31% 33% * Street Drinking/ Drinking alcohol in the streets 25% 28% 36% 37% 40% 27% 29% 25% 28% Rubbish and litter lying around 19% 19% 25% 26% 30% 2019 24% 29% 21% 2018 19% * People using or dealing drugs 15% 17% 2017 18% 24% 22% 2016 17% 18% 2015 15% Intimidation as a result of groups gangs/ of young people hanging 16% 14% around on the street 15% 2014 17% 25% 29% 2013 14% 2012 16% 12% 12% * Vandalism/ Criminal damage 12% 2011 11% 14% 18% 24% 11% 12% 9% 10% * Graffiti 9% 7% 11% 14% 20% 8% 10% 8% 12% * Fly Posting 8% 7% 12% 13% 19% 7% 8% 6% 11% Dog Fouling 7% 8% 11% 12% 15% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

See Appendix B for Base Size * = 2019 significantly different to 2018

22 | P a g e

2.17 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. 18% of respondents felt that the City Centre had improved. 44% of respondents felt that the city centre had stayed the same and 16%6 felt that the city centre had got worse. 22% of respondents did not know if the city had changed. In 2018, 24% of respondents felt that the City Centre had improved – a significant difference to 18% in 2019. 40% felt that the city centre had stayed the same in 2018 and 16% felt that the city centre had got worse.

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% 44%

40%

30% 22% 20% 15% 11% 10% 6% 3%

0% Improved a lot Improved a little Stayed the same Got a little worse Got a lot worse Don't know

Base size = 2,806

6 Note: Add up to 16% due to rounding. To one decimal place the figures are: got a little worse 10.7%, got a lot worse 5.7%, which add up to 16.4%. 23 | P a g e

2.18 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 and ethnic group. Respondents aged 16 to 44 and those from the mixed, Asian and black ethnic groups were more likely to have felt that the City Centre had improved in the last twelve months. Older respondents were significantly more likely to have answered ‘don’t know’. When don’t know is excluded, the proportion of respondents aged 16 to 44 who felt that the City Centre had improved in the last twelve months was still higher than the proportion for the older age groups, but the differences are not statistically significant.

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 18%

Male 19% Female 17%

16-24 21% 25-34 21% 35-44 22% 45-54 15% 55-64 14% 65+ 11%

Most Deprived 21% 2nd Most Deprived 19% 3rd Most Deprived 16% 4th Most Deprived 15% Least Deprived 19%

White 15% Mixed 25% Asian 26% Black 30% Other 15%

South 18% Central 19% North 17% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

See Appendix A for Base Size Significant differences by age and ethnic group

24 | P a g e

Anti-Social Behaviour and 16-24 Year Olds 2.19 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 5 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 4 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 4 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 1.95 1.97 No Begging 2.45 2.64 (lower)

People being drunk or rowdy in People being drunk or 2 public spaces 1.55 1.37 Yes (higher) rowdy in public spaces 2.33 2.28 No Street Drinking/ Drinking alcohol in the 3 Noisy neighbours or loud parties 1.52 1.41 Yes (higher) streets 2.15 2.18 No

Rubbish and litter lying Yes 4 People using or dealing drugs 1.49 1.63 Yes (lower) around 2.12 2.02 (higher)

Motorbikes/ motorised scooters/ People using or 5 mini motos/ quad bikes 1.46 1.69 Yes (lower) dealing drugs 1.91 1.97 No Intimidation as a result of groups gangs/ of Street Drinking/ Drinking alcohol in young people hanging 6 the streets 1.44 1.40 No around on the street 1.68 1.72 No

Vandalism/ Criminal 7 Fly Posting 1.40 1.40 No damage 1.67 1.61 No

Yes 8 Fly Tipping 1.36 1.54 Yes (lower) Graffiti 1.60 1.51 (higher)

Yes 9 Vandalism/ Criminal damage 1.36 1.37 No Fly Posting 1.34 1.41 (lower)

10 Dog Fouling 1.35 1.73 Yes (lower) Dog Fouling 1.32 1.38 No

Parents not taking responsibility for 11 the behaviour of their children 1.34 1.50 Yes (lower) Intimidation as a result of groups/ gangs of young people hanging 12 around on the street 1.30 1.37 Yes (lower)

13 Begging 1.29 1.23 Yes (higher)

14 Unkempt gardens 1.27 1.42 Yes (lower)

15 Graffiti 1.20 1.14 Yes (higher)

16 Abandoned or burnt out cars 1.06 1.12 Yes (lower)

25 | P a g e

Overall Perceptions of Anti-Social Behaviour – NI17 2.20 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

2.21 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 2019 are the same as those used in 2011-2018. For 2010 and earlier, slightly different wording was used in the statements included in the questionnaire.

2010 Statements 2011 - 2019 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

26 | P a g e

2.22 Overall in 2019, 5% of residents included in the survey had a high perception of ASB (using the indicator as described above). This is lower than in all previous years. The difference between 2019 and 2018 is significant.

High Perception of ASB (%)

15%

10% 9% 9%

7% 8% 7% 7%

6% 6% 5% 5%

0% 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Base size: 2019 = 2,533, 2018 = 2,408, 2017 = 2,447, 2016 = 2,311, 2015 = 2,404, 2014 = 2,416, 2013 = 2,375, 2012 = 1,768, 2011 = 1,663 2019 significantly different to 2018

2.23 There are significant differences in the proportion of respondents with a high perception of ASB score by age, IMD and area. Respondents aged 55 to 64, those from the most deprived quintile and those from the central area of the city had higher perceptions of ASB.

High Perception of ASB (%)

Overall 5%

Male 5% Female 5%

16-24 4% 25-34 4% 35-44 5% 45-54 7% 55-64 9% 65+ 3%

Most Deprived 11% 2nd Most Deprived 6% 3rd Most Deprived 4% 4th Most Deprived 2% Least Deprived 3%

White 5% Mixed 2% Asian 5% Black 3% Other 21%

South 3% Central 7% North 4% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

See Appendix A for Base Size Caution: Small sample for ‘other’ Significant differences by age, IMD and area

27 | P a g e

Perception of Anti-Social Behaviour by Ward 2.24 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 proportion of residents who have a high perception of anti-social behaviour are Hyson Green & Arboretum, Bulwell and Radford, all significantly higher than Nottingham overall (5%). These results at ward level need to be viewed with some caution. The sample sizes at ward level are only approximately 140.

High Perception of ASB by Ward (%)

* Hyson Green & Arboretum 13% * Bulwell 11% * Radford 10% Meadows 8% Aspley 7% Sherwood 7% Berridge 5% Lenton & Wollaton East 4% St. Ann's 4% Bilborough 4% Clifton East 4% Bestwood 3% Castle 3% Dales 3% Leen Valley 3% Basford 2% * Mapperley 1% * Clifton West 1% * Wollaton West 1% * Bulwell Forest 0% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14%

Base size: Aspley = 120, Basford = 122, Berridge = 141, Bestwood = 133, Bilborough = 129, Bulwell = 124, Bulwell Forest = 135, Castle = 129, Clifton East = 130, Clifton West = 128, Dales = 114, Hyson Green & Arboretum = 141, Leen Valley = 129, Lenton & Wollaton East = 122, Mapperley = 125, Meadows = 120, Radford = 121, Sherwood = 133, St. Ann's = 110, Wollaton West = 134 Caution: Small sample sizes *Significant difference to City overall

28 | P a g e

Composite ASB Score for Local Neighbourhoods 2.25 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 2019 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.

2.26 Overall, the average ASB Perceptions Score in 2019 was 22.70. This is a decrease from 23.66 in 2018, but similar to 22.69 in 2017. The change from 2018 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 22.70

20.00

15.00

10.00

5.00

.00 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Base size: 2019 = 2,398, 2018 = 2,279, 2017 = 2,322, 2016 = 2,124, 2015 = 2,229, 2014 = 2,262, 2013 = 2,211, 2012 = 1,644, 2011 = 1,536 2019 significantly different to 2018

29 | P a g e

2.27 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 – Hyson Green & Arboretum, Bulwell, Aspley and Meadows – the score is (significantly) higher; for five wards it is (significantly) lower.

Perceptions of ASB - Composite Score by Ward (Score)

* Hyson Green & Arboretum 26.14 * Bulwell 25.35 * Aspley 25.04 * Meadows 24.57 Sherwood 23.94 Clifton East 23.54 Dales 23.34 Radford 23.10 Bestwood 22.87 Berridge 22.58 Bilborough 22.27 Lenton & Wollaton East 21.90 Basford 21.83 St. Ann's 21.76 Leen Valley 21.58 * Mapperley 21.39 * Castle 21.36 * Bulwell Forest 20.47 * Clifton West 20.16 * Wollaton West 18.98 0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00

Base size: Aspley = 112, Basford = 117, Berridge = 137, Bestwood = 127, Bilborough = 126, Bulwell = 124, Bulwell Forest = 118, Castle = 126, Clifton East = 120, Clifton West = 124, Dales = 104, Hyson Green & Arboretum = 135, Leen Valley = 124, Lenton & Wollaton East = 114, Mapperley = 117, Meadows = 110, Radford = 111, Sherwood = 123, St. Ann's = 105, Wollaton West = 130 Caution: Small sample sizes *Significant difference to City overall

30 | P a g e

2.28 Looking at the results by sub-group shows that there are significant differences by age and deprivation. 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 22.70

Male 22.45 Female 22.95

16-24 21.86 25-34 22.50 35-44 23.17 45-54 23.98 55-64 24.07 65+ 21.71

Most Deprived 24.85 2nd Most Deprived 23.69 3rd Most Deprived 23.02 4th Most Deprived 21.88 Least Deprived 20.75

White 22.85 Mixed 22.20 Asian 22.08 Black 22.03 Other 25.12

South 22.36 Central 22.80 North 22.85 .00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00

See Appendix A for Base Size Caution: Small sample for ‘other’ Significant differences by age and IMD

31 | P a g e

2.29 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, 12% 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). Bulwell, Hyson Green & Arboretum and Meadows are the wards with the highest perception of ASB using this indicator and are significantly different to the city overall. Mapperley, Castle, Bulwell Forest, Wollaton West and Clifton West have a significantly lower perception of ASB compared to the rest of the city.

High Perception of ASB (Composite) by Ward (%)

* Bulwell 25% * Hyson Green & Arboretum 25% * Meadows 19% Aspley 18% Radford 18% Clifton East 16% Sherwood 16% Dales 14% Bestwood 11% Lenton & Wollaton East 11% St. Ann's 11% Basford 10% Berridge 10% Leen Valley 10% Bilborough 9% * Mapperley 6% * Castle 5% * Bulwell Forest 4% * Wollaton West 2% * Clifton West 2% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Base size: Aspley = 112, Basford = 117, Berridge = 137, Bestwood = 127, Bilborough = 126, Bulwell = 124, Bulwell Forest = 118, Castle = 126, Clifton East = 120, Clifton West = 124, Dales = 104, Hyson Green & Arboretum = 135, Leen Valley = 124, Lenton & Wollaton East = 114, Mapperley = 117, Meadows = 110, Radford = 111, Sherwood = 123, St. Ann's = 105, Wollaton West = 130 Caution: Small sample sizes *Significant difference to City overall

32 | P a g e

Comparison of Recorded Crime Rate and Perceptions of ASB 2.30 The chart below shows the 12-month recorded crime rate7 per 1,000 population for each ward of the city. Hyson Green & Arboretum ward has the highest crime rate, followed by Castle and Bulwell. The chart also shows the proportion of residents in the 2019 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, Hyson Green & Arboretum has the highest recorded crime rate (170 per 1,000) and the second highest proportion (25%) with a high perception of ASB score. Similarly, Wollaton West has the second lowest proportion (2%) with a high perception of ASB score and the lowest recorded crime rate (47 per 1,000). Noting that the sample sizes from the survey are only approximately 140 at ward level, there are a number of exceptions to this trend. For example, Aspley is ranked 4th in terms of perception of ASB but is ranked 14th in terms of recorded crime. Conversely, Castle is ranked 13th in terms of perception of ASB score, but is ranked 2nd 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, or the geographical effect of the city centre – 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) 40% 200

30% 25% 25% 150

19% 18% 18% 20% 16% 16% 100 14% 11% 11% 11% 10% 10% 9% 10% 10% 6% 50 5% 4% 2% 2%

0% 0

Dales

Castle

Aspley

Bulwell

St Anns St

Basford

Radford

Berridge

Meadows

Bestwood

Sherwood

Mapperley

Bilborough

Clifton East Clifton

Leen Valley Leen

Clifton West Clifton

Bulwell Forest Bulwell Wollaton West Wollaton

12 Month Crime Rate

Perception of ASB - Composite Score East Wollaton & Lenton

Hyson Green & Arboretum & Green Hyson Linear (Perception of ASB - Composite Score)

Base size: Aspley = 112, Basford = 117, Berridge = 137, Bestwood = 127, Bilborough = 126, Bulwell = 124, Bulwell Forest = 118, Castle = 126, Clifton East = 120, Clifton West = 124, Dales = 104, Hyson Green & Arboretum = 135, Leen Valley = 124, Lenton & Wollaton East = 114, Mapperley = 117, Meadows = 110, Radford = 111, Sherwood = 123, St. Ann's = 105, Wollaton West = 130 Caution: Small sample sizes

7 Source: Nottinghamshire Police Crime Data, January - December 2019. 33 | P a g e

2.31 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, Hyson Green & Arboretum has a high proportion of residents with a high perception of ASB (composite score >32) and also a high crime rate. Wollaton West 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 .649. This highlights a strong correlation between the two variables. The correlation coefficient is significantly different from 0 (no association between the 2 variables). 34 | P a g e

Experiencing and Reporting Anti-Social Behaviour 2.32 Overall, 9% of respondents said they had been personally targeted by some form of anti-social behaviour in the last six months. This is higher than 2018, when 8% of respondents reported personal experiences of ASB. The increase between this year and 2018 is not a significant difference.

Proportion who were targeted by ASB in the last 6 months (%)

20%

15% 13% 11% 9% 9% 10% 9% 10% 8% 9% 8%

5%

0% 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Base size: 2019 = 2,817, 2018 = 2,729, 2017 = 2,793, 2016 = 2,724, 2015 = 2,719, 2014 = 2,740, 2013 = 2,761, 2012 = 2,011, 2011 = 2,002 2019 not significantly different to 2018

2.33 There were 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, with women more likely to have been targeted. Proportion who were targeted by ASB in the last 6 months (%)

Overall 9%

Male 8% Female 11%

16-24 9% 25-34 8% 35-44 12% 45-54 11% 55-64 11% 65+ 6%

Most Deprived 10% 2nd Most Deprived 9% 3rd Most Deprived 9% 4th Most Deprived 9% Least Deprived 9%

White 9% Mixed 5% Asian 9% Black 11% Other 11%

South 8% Central 10% North 9% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14%

See Appendix A for base size Significant differences by gender

35 | P a g e

2.34 Respondents who said they had been personally targeted by some form of anti-social behaviour in the last six months were asked what the ASB they had experienced was. The most commonly reported types for ASB experienced were verbal abuse (experienced by 39% of respondents), damage to property (experienced by 18% of respondents) and targeted noise ASB (experienced by 17% of respondents). Some respondents reported experiencing a crime rather than ASB. For example, 6% of respondents reported having experienced thefts or burglaries. Type of ASB experienced in the last 6 months (%)

Verbal abuse 39%

Other 24%

Damage to property 18% Targeted noise ASB (e.g. neighbour deliberately banging on 17% walls)

Rubbish thrown in garden 9%

Theft / burglaries / break-ins 6%

Throwing stones 4%

Begging 3%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Base size: 253 ‘Theft / burglaries / break-ins’ and ‘begging’ coded from ‘other’

2.35 54% of respondents who had personally faced some form of ASB in the last six months reported it to someone (46% did not report it). This figure for 2019 is higher than in 2018, when 48% reported the ASB they had experienced to someone. The increase between this year and 2018 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% 54% 48% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Base size: 2019 = 260, 2018 = 228, 2017 = 238, 2016 = 285, 2015 = 218, 2014 = 254, 2013 = 258, 2012 = 227, 2011 = 263 2019 not significantly different to 2018

36 | P a g e

2.36 Of the respondents experiencing ASB, there were significant differences in the proportions reporting it by deprivation. Respondents from the second most deprived areas of Nottingham were more likely to have reported the ASB they experienced. Proportion who reported ASB in the last 6 months (%)

Overall 54%

Male 55% Female 54%

16-24 53% 25-34 58% 35-44 50% 45-54 51% 55-64 62% 65+ 55%

Most Deprived 56% 2nd Most Deprived 75% 3rd Most Deprived 47% 4th Most Deprived 60% Least Deprived 36%

White 59% Mixed 8% Asian 55% Black 44% Other 12%

South 49% Central 53% North 61% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

See Appendix A for base size Caution: Small sample sizes for Mixed, Asian, Black and Other ethnic groups Significant differences by IMD

37 | P a g e

2.37 This year, of those respondents who reported some form of ASB they had faced in the last 6 months, 82% reported it to the Police, 25% to the Council, 3% to their registered social landlord, 1% to a private landlord, and 8% to ‘other’, which included school, security guards, staff where the incident happened and community wardens. These figures are comparable to those found in 2011-2018, and although there are some small differences none of these are statistically significant. Who reported ASB to (%)

100% 90% 87% 88% 90% 83% 84% 82% 82% 82% 80% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 25% 25% 22%21% 18% 16% 18%16% 20% 13% 10% 11%10%9% 11%9% 7% 6% 7% 8%8% 8% 10% 5% 3% 6% 2%2%3%1% 3%2% 1%3% 1% 1%3%1% 0% Police Council Registered Social Private Landlords Other Landlord

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Base size: 2019 = 141, 2018 = 109, 2017 = 124, 2016 = 146, 2015 = 121, 2014 = 166, 2013 = 168, 2012 = 128, 2011 = 151 No significant differences 2019 to 2018

2.38 For the respondents in 2019 who did not report the ASB they had faced, 38% said this was because ‘there was no point - nothing ever gets done’; 31% said ‘it didn’t bother me/wasn’t serious enough to report’; 15% said they ‘didn’t know who to report it to’; 6% said ‘fear of reprisal’ and 16% gave some other reason.

Reasons ASB not reported (%)

No point, nothing ever gets done 38%

It didn’t bother me/wasn’t serious enough to report 31%

Some other reason 16%

Didn’t know who to report it to 15%

Fear of reprisal 6%

Was on hold for too long/ took too long to report 0%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

Base size: 109

38 | P a g e

2.39 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 2019 survey, 32% of those who reported some form of ASB to the police were very or fairly satisfied with the response. This is lower than in all years from 2011 to 2018. The relatively small base size each year is likely to account for some of this variation over time. The difference between 2019 and 2018 is not statistically significant. Satisfaction with response from the police 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% 2019 14% 18% 9% 21% 33% 5%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Don't know

Base Sizes: 2019 = 115, 2018 = 88, 2017 = 110, 2016 = 119, 2015 = 97, 2014 = 149, 2013 = 137, 2012 = 108, 2011 = 124 2019 not significantly different to 2018

9 Base Sizes: Police – 115, Council – 34; Registered Social Landlord – 5; Private Landlord – 2; Other – 7 39 | P a g e

Feelings of Safety – Local Neighbourhood (when it’s dark) 2.40 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, 70% of residents said they feel very or fairly safe. 14%10 of residents said they feel very or fairly unsafe. 10% 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 (%)

10% Very safe 4% 27% Fairly safe 9% Neither safe nor unsafe 7% Fairly unsafe Very unsafe Don't go out alone 43%

Base Size = 2,818

2.41 In 2019, 70% said they felt very or fairly safe. This is a significant increase from 64% in 2018, but is lower than in 2014 to 2017. 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% 70% 64% 64% 60% 51% 51% 55% 47% 46% 49% 49% 50% 42% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Base Size: 2019 = 2,818, 2018 = 2,748, 2017 = 2,789, 2016 = 2,753, 2015 = 2,753 2019 significantly different to 2018

10 Note: Add up to 14% due to rounding. To one decimal place the figures are: fairly unsafe 9.2%, very unsafe 4.4% which add up to 13.6%. 11 It should be noted that there are differences in the question wording and order between the 2011 - 2019 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. 40 | P a g e

Feelings of Safety by Age, Gender, Ethnicity, IMD and Area 2.42 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 to feel very or fairly safe than men – around four-fifths of men feel very or fairly safe compared to around three-fifths 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 a 13-percentage point difference between the most deprived and the least deprived areas of Nottingham (as defined here by IMD quintile groups). Respondents from white ethnic groups were least likely to feel very or fairly safe. Feelings of safety in local neighbourhood after dark (very or fairly safe) - (%)

Overall 70%

Male 82% Female 57%

16-24 67% 25-34 81% 35-44 74% 45-54 71% 55-64 68% 65+ 54%

Most Deprived 61% 2nd Most Deprived 67% 3rd Most Deprived 74% 4th Most Deprived 72% Least Deprived 74%

White 67% Mixed 73% Asian 78% Black 80% Other 75%

South 72% Central 71% North 67% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

See Appendix A for Base Size Significant differences by gender, age, Nottingham IMD and ethnic group

41 | P a g e

Reasons for feeling unsafe in local neighbourhood

2.43 For the first time on the 2019 survey, respondents who feel fairly or very unsafe waking alone in their local neighbourhood when it’s dark were asked why they feel unsafe. The most common reasons given for feeling unsafe were ‘ASB’ and ‘poor street lighting’, both given by a third of respondents. 30% of respondents feel unsafe due to ‘not enough police presence’ and 26% feel unsafe because of ‘people being drunk and/or rowdy’. Reasons for feeling very or fairly unsafe in local neighbourhood after dark (%)

ASB 33%

Poor street lighting 33%

Not enough police presence 30%

People being drunk and/or rowdy 26%

Other 18%

Aware of incidents / crime in the area 12%

Availability of public transport 5%

Groups / gangs / people hanging around 4%

Drug users or dealers 3%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Base Size = 377 ‘Awareness of incidents / crime in the area’, ‘groups / gangs / people hanging around’ and ‘drug users and dealers’ coded from ‘other’

42 | P a g e

Drivers of feelings of safety

2.44 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.

2.45 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 4th compared to 9th by respondents who feel very/fairly safe), ‘street drinking’ (ranked 6th compared to 10th) and ‘intimidation by groups/gangs of young people hanging around on the street’ (ranked 9th compared to 13th) 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 ‘dog fouling (ranked 2nd compared to 5th of those who feel unsafe after dark), ‘fly tipping’ (ranked 5th compared to 7th) and ‘noisy neighbours or loud parties’ (ranked 6th compared to 10th) 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 1.85 1 2.19 2.43 1 Dog Fouling 1.57 2 1.65 1.82 5 (lower) Motorbikes/ motorised scooters/ mini motos/ quad bikes 1.56 3 1.82 1.88 3 People using or dealing drugs 1.49 4 1.69 2.05 2 (higher) Fly Tipping 1.43 5 1.54 1.79 7 (lower) Noisy neighbours or loud parties 1.38 6 1.60 1.75 10 (lower) Parents not taking responsibility for the behaviour of their children 1.37 7 1.68 1.77 8 (lower) Fly Posting 1.36 8 1.47 1.57 13 (lower) People being drunk or rowdy in public spaces 1.34 9 1.47 1.85 4 (higher) Street Drinking/ Drinking alcohol in the streets 1.33 10 1.43 1.81 6 (higher) Unkempt gardens 1.32 11 1.41 1.62 12 (lower) Vandalism/ Criminal damage 1.30 12 1.46 1.73 11 (higher) Intimidation as a result of groups/ gangs of young people hanging around on the street 1.26 13 1.50 1.76 9 (higher) Begging 1.23 14 1.30 1.37 14 Graffiti 1.14 15 1.25 1.28 15 Abandoned or burnt out cars 1.09 16 1.15 1.19 16

43 | P a g e

Feelings of Safety - Nottingham City Centre 2.47 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 46% feeling very or fairly safe (compared to 70% who feel safe in their local neighbourhood). 16% said they feel very or fairly unsafe in the city centre when it’s dark, and 27% reported that they don’t go out alone at night.

Feelings of safety in Nottingham City Centre when it's dark (%)

12% Very safe 27% Fairly safe Neither safe nor unsafe Fairly unsafe 5% 34% Very unsafe 11% Don't go out alone 11%

Base Size = 2,807

2.48 In 2019, 46% said they felt very or fairly safe in the City Centre when it’s dark, a small increase from 44% in 2018. The difference between 2019 and 2018 is not statistically significant, but there are some changes in the results to this question between this year and previous years. A higher proportion of residents felt very or fairly safe in the city centre when it’s dark in 2013 to 2017. The differences between 2019 and 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 are 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 (16%) is lower than 17% in 2018 but 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 increased slightly to 27% in 2019 from 25% in 2018. 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% 46% 45% 44%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0% 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Base Size: 2019 = 2,807, 2018 = 2,699,2017 = 2,776, 2016 = 2,739, 2015 = 2,727, 2014 = 2,727, 2013 = 2,738, 2012 = 1993, 2011 = 1967 2019 not significantly different to 2018

44 | P a g e

Feelings of Safety by Gender, Age, IMD Ethnicity and Area 2.49 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 quintile, those from white 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 46%

Male 58% Female 35%

16-24 60% 25-34 58% 35-44 51% 45-54 39% 55-64 33% 65+ 18%

Most Deprived 40% 2nd Most Deprived 45% 3rd Most Deprived 49% 4th Most Deprived 51% Least Deprived 46%

White 43% Mixed 66% Asian 51% Black 61% Other 53%

South 50% Central 51% North 37% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

See Appendix A for Base Size Significant differences by gender, age, IMD, ethnic group and area

45 | P a g e

Reasons for feeling unsafe in City Centre

2.50 For the first time on the 2019 survey, respondents who feel fairly or very unsafe waking alone in Nottingham City Centre when it’s dark were asked why they feel unsafe. The most common reason given for feeling unsafe in the City Centre was ‘people being drunk and/or rowdy’, with two-thirds of respondents feeling unsafe due to this. 40% of respondents feel unsafe because of ‘ASB’ and 34% of respondents feel unsafe due to ‘not enough police presence’. Respondents were more likely to feel unsafe because of ‘people being drunk and/or rowdy’ in the City Centre than in their local neighbourhood (67% in the City Centre compared to 33% in their local neighbourhood) and less likely to feel unsafe because of poor street lighting in the City Centre than in their local neighbourhood (16% in the City Centre compared to 33% in their local neighbourhood). Reasons for feeling very or fairly unsafe in City Centre after dark (%)

People being drunk and/or rowdy 67%

ASB 40%

Not enough police presence 34%

Poor street lighting 16%

Other 16%

Availability of public transport 7%

Aware of incidents / crime 7%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Base Size = 377

46 | P a g e

Feelings of Safety by Ward – Local Area and City Centre 2.51 Whilst the sample sizes at ward level are relatively small, 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 56% of residents in Radford ward feeling safe compared to 83% of residents in Wollaton West. The proportion of respondents in Wollaton West, Clifton West and Sherwood who feel very or fairly safe walking in their local area at night is significantly higher than the 70% across the city overall, while the proportion of respondents in Bulwell and Radford who feel very or fairly safe walking in their local area at night is significantly lower than the 70% average. Proportion who feel fairly/very safe walking alone in their local area at night by ward (%)

* Wollaton West 83% * Clifton West 81% * Sherwood 79% St. Ann's 75% Lenton & Wollaton East 74% Castle 73% Basford 73% Bestwood 71% Berridge 70% Leen Valley 70% Mapperley 70% Clifton East 69% Dales 68% Bulwell Forest 67% Meadows 66% Bilborough 65% Hyson Green & Arboretum 64% Aspley 62% * Bulwell 60% * Radford 56% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Base size: Aspley = 144, Basford = 131, Berridge = 147, Bestwood = 147, Bilborough = 142, Bulwell = 139, Bulwell Forest = 140, Castle = 140, Clifton East = 149, Clifton West = 140, Dales = 132, Hyson Green & Arboretum = 152, Leen Valley = 140, Lenton & Wollaton East = 136, Mapperley = 140, Meadows = 140, Radford = 133, Sherwood = 149, St. Ann's = 139, Wollaton West = 138 Caution: Small sample sizes *Significant difference to City overall

47 | P a g e

2.52 Looking at perceptions of feeling very or fairly safe walking alone in the city centre after dark, the proportion of residents from Castle, St Ann’s, Hyson Green & Arboretum and Radford was significantly higher than the 46% 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. Clifton East, Clifton West, Bilborough, Wollaton West, Aspley and Bestwood 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 (%)

* Castle 66% * St. Ann's 65% * Hyson Green & Arboretum 57% * Radford 56% Mapperley 53% Meadows 51% Lenton & Wollaton East 51% Sherwood 51% Basford 48% Berridge 43% Dales 43% Bulwell Forest 43% Leen Valley 42% Bulwell 38% * Clifton East 38% * Clifton West 38% * Bilborough 32% * Wollaton West 31% * Aspley 30% * Bestwood 28% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Base size: Aspley = 143, Basford = 131, Berridge = 147, Bestwood = 147, Bilborough = 141, Bulwell = 138, Bulwell Forest = 140, Castle = 138, Clifton East = 149, Clifton West = 140, Dales = 132, Hyson Green & Arboretum = 149, Leen Valley = 139, Lenton & Wollaton East = 135, Mapperley = 140, Meadows = 139, Radford = 133, Sherwood = 149, St. Ann's = 139, Wollaton West = 138 Caution: Small sample sizes *Significant difference to City overall

48 | P a g e

Sense of Community 2.53 60% of respondents said they tend to agree or strongly agree that there is a strong sense of community where they live. This is similar to the 60% in 2018, 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% 60% 51% 53% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

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 2019 not significantly different to 2018

2.54 Whilst the sample sizes by ward are small, there are some differences in results for the sense of community – ranging from 74% of respondents in Bulwell Forest and Sherwood who agree or strongly agree with this statement compared to just 40% and 37% of respondents in Radford and Castle respectively. As shown in the second chart below, there is some, but not 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 proximity to the city centre and the size of the student population. (See charts overleaf).

49 | P a g e

Sense of Community by Ward (strongly agree / tend to agree with statement) - (%)

* Bulwell Forest 74% * Sherwood 74% * Meadows 73% * Wollaton West 72% * Clifton West 72% * Dales 72% Bulwell 68% Mapperley 67% Berridge 65% Bilborough 63% Basford 63% Clifton East 60% Leen Valley 59% St. Ann's 58% Bestwood 55% Lenton & Wollaton East 53% * Hyson Green & Arboretum 49% * Aspley 44% * Radford 40% * Castle 37% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Base size: Aspley = 144, Basford = 131, Berridge = 147, Bestwood = 147, Bilborough = 141, Bulwell = 139, Bulwell Forest = 139, Castle = 139, Clifton East = 149, Clifton West = 140, Dales = 132, Hyson Green & Arboretum = 152, Leen Valley = 140, Lenton & Wollaton East = 136, Mapperley = 139, Meadows = 139, Radford = 133, Sherwood = 148, St. Ann's = 138, Wollaton West = 138 Caution: Small sample sizes *Significant differences to City overall

Sense of Community by Ward (Ranked by IMD Score)

80 80% 70 70% 60 60% 50 50% 40 40% 30 30% 20 20% 10 10% 0 0%

2019 Mean IMD Score Strong sense of community Linear (Strong sense of community)

Base size: Aspley = 144, Basford = 131, Berridge = 147, Bestwood = 147, Bilborough = 141, Bulwell = 139, Bulwell Forest = 139, Castle = 139, Clifton East = 149, Clifton West = 140, Dales = 132, Hyson Green & Arboretum = 152, Leen Valley = 140, Lenton & Wollaton Caution: Small sample sizes

50 | P a g e

Sense of Community by Age, Gender, Ethnicity and IMD 2.55 There are significant differences in agreement that there is a strong sense of community by age, ethnic group and area. Respondents aged 16 to 24, respondents from black and other ethnic groups and respondents from the central area of the city were less likely to agree with the statement. Sense of Community (tend to agree or strongly agree) - (%)

Overall 60%

Male 59% Female 60%

16-24 48% 25-34 57% 35-44 68% 45-54 63% 55-64 64% 65+ 69%

Most Deprived 59% 2nd Most Deprived 57% 3rd Most Deprived 59% 4th Most Deprived 58% Least Deprived 63%

White 60% Mixed 63% Asian 66% Black 53% Other 45%

South 65% Central 55% North 60% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

See Appendix A for Base Size Significant differences by age, ethnic group and area

51 | P a g e

Reasons for agreeing and disagreeing that there is a sense of community

2.56 For the first time, in the 2019 survey, respondents were asked why they agreed or disagreed that there is a strong sense of community where they live.

2.57 The reason most commonly given for agreeing that there is a strong sense of community where they live was ‘I get on well with my neighbours’, which was given by 70% of respondents. 46% of respondents agreed there is a strong sense of community because ‘I have lived here a while’, 40% because ‘I have neighbours I can rely on in emergencies’ and 35% because ‘people look out for each other’. Reasons for agreeing there is a strong sense of community (%)

I get on with my neighbours 70%

I have lived here for a while 46%

I have neighbours I can rely on in emergencies 40% People look out for each other (e.g. in power cuts, heavy 35% snow) Local people look after the area 32%

I have local friends and/or family 31%

There are lots of community events/parties in my area 14% I have a wider support network (e.g. LGBT groups, faith groups, 6% shared interests) Other 2%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Base Size: 1,642

52 | P a g e

2.58 The most commonly given reasons for disagreeing that there is a strong sense of community where they live were ‘people don’t look after each other’ and ‘there are few chances to meet people’, with 28% of respondents giving these as a reason. 24% of respondents disagreed there is a strong sense of community because ‘people don’t look after the area/ASB issues undermine the sense of community’ and 20% of respondents disagreed because ‘I don’t have local friends and/or family’. Reasons for disagreeing there is a strong sense of community (%)

People don’t look after each other (e.g. in power 28% cuts, heavy snow) There are few chances to meet people (e.g. at 28% community events) Local people don’t look after the area/ASB issues 24% undermine the sense of community

I don’t have local friends and/or family 20%

I don’t have anyone local I can rely on in 15% emergencies

I’m new to the area 14%

I don’t know my area 11%

Other 8%

People keep to themselves / don't talk to each other 7%

Student area / people do not live in the area for long 5%

I have another support network outside of my area 4% (e.g. LGBT groups, faith groups, shared interests)

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Base Size: 509 ‘People keep to themselves / don’t talk to each other’ and ‘student area / people do not live in the area for long’ coded from ‘other’

Sense of Community and Anti-Social Behaviour 2.59 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).

53 | P a g e

Strong sense of community (agree / strongly agree - %) and High perception of ASB (>32 in composite score - %)

Bulwell Forest Sherwood Meadows Wollaton West Clifton West Dales Bulwell Mapperley Berridge Bilborough Strong sense of community Basford High perception of ASB Clifton East Linear (High perception of ASB) Leen Valley St. Ann's Bestwood Lenton & Wollaton East Hyson Green & Arboretum Aspley Radford Castle 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Sense of community Base size: Aspley = 144, Basford = 131, Berridge = 147, Bestwood = 147, Bilborough = 141, Bulwell = 139, Bulwell Forest = 139, Castle = 139, Clifton East = 149, Clifton West = 140, Dales = 132, Hyson Green & Arboretum = 152, Leen Valley = 140, Lenton & Wollaton East = 136, Mapperley = 139, Meadows = 139, Radford = 133, Sherwood = 148, St. Ann's = 138, Wollaton West = 138 High perception of ASB Base size: Aspley = 112, Basford = 117, Berridge = 137, Bestwood = 127, Bilborough = 126, Bulwell = 124, Bulwell Forest = 118, Castle = 126, Clifton East = 120, Clifton West = 124, Dales = 104, Hyson Green & Arboretum = 135, Leen Valley = 124, Lenton & Wollaton East = 114, Mapperley = 117, Meadows = 110, Radford = 111, Sherwood = 123, St. Ann's = 105, Wollaton West = 130 Significant differences by ward

High Perception of ASB (>32 in composite score) by strong sense of community quartile 25%

20% 16% 15% 12% 13% 10% 8%

5%

High High PerceptionofASB 0% Lowest Quartile 2nd Quartile 3rd Quartile Highest Quartile Sense of Community

Base size: Lowest Quartile = 750, 2nd Quartile = 573, 3rd Quartile = 590, Highest Quartile = 486

54 | P a g e

Associations between Safety, Sense of Community and ASB 2.60 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 13% in perceptions of ASB between those who feel very/fairly safe and those who feel very/fairly unsafe. This is lower than 2018 (16%), 2017 (17%), 2016 (23%), 2015 (22%), 2012 (29%) and 2011 (18%) but higher than 2014 (11%) and similar to 2013 (13%). Respondents in 2019 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 17% 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%

80%

60% 84% 97% 94% 40%

20% 16% 0% 3% 6% Very + fairly safe Neither Very + fairly unsafe

High perception of ASB Not high perception of ASB

Base size: Very + fairly safe = 1,804, Neither = 165, Very + fairly unsafe = 331 Significant differences by feeling of safety

Agreement that there is a stong sense of community by Feeling of Safety in Local Area 70% 64% 60% 47% 50% 42% 40% 30% 20%

Sense ofCommunity 10% 0% Very + fairly safe Neither Very + fairly unsafe Feeling of Safety

Base size: Very + fairly safe = 1,960, Neither = 197, Very + fairly unsafe = 379 Significant differences by feeling of safety

55 | P a g e

Priorities for Crime and Anti-Social Behaviour Identified Issues 2.61 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’, ‘weapon/gang related violence’ and ‘alcohol related violence and disorder’ were ranked most highly as issues that residents were most concerned about. Crime and Community Safety Issues - Ranked 1st (%) Burglary 24% Weapon/gang related violence 13% Alcohol related violence and disorder 13% Drug use and dealing 11% Nuisance and Anti-social Behaviour 8% Sexual violence 7% Youth Crime 7% Hate crime 6% Robbery 4% Car crime 4% Domestic Violence 3% Business crime 1% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Base Size: 2,498

2.62 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 two ranked issues are still ‘burglary’ and ‘weapon/gang related violence’, the ranking changes to highlight a greater concern about ‘drug use and dealing’; ‘alcohol-related violence and disorder’ is now in fourth place. Crime and Community Safety Issues - Mean Scores Burglary 2.08 Weapon/gang related violence 1.55 Drug use and dealing 1.51 Alcohol related violence and disorder 1.36 Nuisance and Anti-social Behaviour 1.21 Robbery 1.06 Youth Crime 1.02 Hate crime 1.00 Sexual violence 0.95 Car crime 0.76 Domestic Violence 0.56 Business crime 0.23 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50

Base Size: 2,498 56 | P a g e

2.63 There are some differences in the mean scores between this year and the previous years (2011-2018). In all nine years, burglary is the top concern but other issues have moved rankings. Weapon/gang related violence has moved up to second place – the highest it has ever been ranked – from third place in 2018. Drug use and dealing has moved down to third place from second place in 2018, 2017 and 2016. Nuisance and anti-social behaviour has moved up to fifth place from sixth place in 2018 and robbery has moved down to sixth place from fifth place in 2018 (third place in 2017, fourth place in 2016 and second place in 2015, third place in 2014, second place in 2013, second place in 2012). There are 9 issues which are significantly different to 2018. 3 issues - weapon/gang related violence, hate crime and business crime - are significantly higher than 2018, and 6 issues – burglary, drug use and dealing, robbery, sexual violence, car crime and domestic violence – are significantly lower than 2018.

Crime and Community Safety Issues By Year - Mean Scores

2.08 2.20 2.52 * Burglary 2.58 2.89 2.772.88 2.812.82 1.55 1.02 1.40 * Weapon/gang related violence 0.760.94 1.041.17 1.111.16 1.51 1.42 1.64 * Drug use and dealing 1.401.46 1.241.37 1.321.36 1.36 1.241.29 Alcohol related violence and disorder 1.341.36 1.351.41 1.28 1.69 1.21 1.161.17 Nuisance and Anti-social Behaviour 1.071.09 1.031.14 1.311.32 1.06 1.17 1.36 * Robbery 2019 1.17 1.02 0.981.00 2018 Youth Crime 0.820.84 0.81 1.02 1.121.20 2017 1.00 0.870.90 * Hate crime 0.810.96 0.630.73 2016 0.550.56 0.95 1.051.07 2015 * Sexual violence 1.201.25 1.021.06 0.750.83 2014 0.76 1.091.17 * Car crime 0.850.90 2013 0.981.08 1.091.23 0.56 2012 0.620.66 * Domestic Violence 0.760.79 0.660.78 0.610.65 2011 0.23 0.140.17 * Business crime 0.190.24 0.160.28 0.170.26 Road safety (2016 only) 1.13

Online safety (2016 only) 0.39

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Base Size: 2019 = 2,498, 2018 = 2,513, 2017 = 2,551 ,016 = 2,537, 2015= 2,625, 2014 = 2,555, 2013 = 2,548, 2012 = 1,861, 2011 = 1,814 * = 2019 significantly different to 2018

57 | P a g e

Concerns of 16-24 Year Olds 2.64 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, sexual violence, robbery and domestic violence higher than the older age group, and drug use and dealing, nuisance and anti-social behaviour, hate crime, youth crime and car crime lower than the older age group.

Ranking of crime and community safety issues and measures to address ASB and crime 16-24 25+ Rank Crime and community safety Mean Crime and community safety Mean issues most concerned about Score issues most concerned about Score 1 Burglary 1.89 Burglary 2.15 2 Weapon/gang related violence 1.54 Drug use and dealing 1.58 3 Sexual violence 1.51 Weapon/gang related violence 1.55 4 Alcohol related violence and disorder 1.50 Alcohol related violence and disorder 1.30 5 Drug use and dealing 1.33 Nuisance and Anti-social Behaviour 1.24 6 Robbery 1.30 Youth Crime 1.06 7 Nuisance and Anti-social Behaviour 1.14 Hate crime 0.99 8 Hate crime 1.00 Robbery 0.97 9 Youth Crime 0.93 Car crime 0.84 10 Domestic Violence 0.66 Sexual violence 0.74 11 Car crime 0.54 Domestic Violence 0.52 12 Business crime 0.13 Business crime 0.26

Dealing with Anti-Social Behaviour and Crime 2.65 Overall, 58%12 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. 21% 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% 45%

40%

30% 22% 20% 12% 14% 10% 7%

0% Strongly Agree Tend to Agree Neither Tend to Disagree Strongly Disagree

Base Size = 2,750

12 Note: Add up to 58% due to rounding. To one decimal place the figures are: strongly agree 12.4%, tend to agree 45.3%, which add up to 57.6%. 58 | P a g e

2.66 Considering the data by year, in 2019, 58% of residents strongly agreed or agreed with the statement. This is an increase from 2018, when 53% agreed (combining strongly agree and agree) with the statement, but lower than all other years from 2013 to 2017. The increase between 2019 and 2018 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% 58% 60% 53%

40%

20%

0% 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Base Size: 2019 = 2,750, 2,2018 = 2,678, 2017 = 2,702, 2016 = 2,679, 2015=2,687, 2014 = 2,724, 2013 = 2,744, 2012 = 1,996, 2011 = 1,993 2019 significantly difference to 2018

2.67 There are no significant differences 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’ by gender, age, deprivation, ethnic group or area. 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 58%

Male 59% Female 56%

16-24 59% 25-34 60% 35-44 61% 45-54 53% 55-64 53% 65+ 57%

Most Deprived 57% 2nd Most Deprived 61% 3rd Most Deprived 53% 4th Most Deprived 57% Least Deprived 60%

White 57% Mixed 53% Asian 63% Black 58% Other 57%

South 56% Central 59% North 57% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

See Appendix A for Base Size No significant differences 59 | P a g e

Drivers of Agreement that Police and Local Council are dealing with the anti-social behaviour and crime issues that matter

2.68 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.

2.69 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 1.51 (out of 413) compared to a mean score of 2.01 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 1.87 1 1.82 2.42 1 People using or dealing drugs 1.51 4 1.45 2.01 2 (Higher) Dog Fouling 1.57 3 1.50 1.95 3 Motorbikes/ motorised scooters/ mini motos/ quad bikes 1.59 2 1.50 1.91 4 (Lower) Fly Tipping 1.42 5 1.36 1.86 5 Parents not taking responsibility for the behaviour of their children 1.39 6 1.35 1.79 6 Noisy neighbours or loud parties 1.37 7 1.41 1.69 7 Street Drinking/ Drinking alcohol in the streets 1.34 9 1.35 1.69 8 (Higher) People being drunk or rowdy in public spaces 1.37 8 1.36 1.67 9 (Lower) Unkempt gardens 1.31 12 1.35 1.63 10 (Higher) Fly Posting 1.34 10 1.38 1.61 11 (Lower) Intimidation as a result of groups/ gangs of young people hanging around on the street 1.29 13 1.30 1.61 12 (Higher) Vandalism/ Criminal damage 1.33 11 1.30 1.58 13 (Lower) Begging 1.24 14 1.23 1.33 14 Graffiti 1.14 15 1.11 1.27 15 Abandoned or burnt out cars 1.09 16 1.09 1.17 16

13 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. 60 | P a g e

Seeking People’s Views on What Matters 2.70 49% 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. 27%14 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" (%) 40% 38% 35% 30% 24% 25% 20% 18% 15% 11% 10% 10% 5% 0% Strongly Agree Tend to Agree Neither Tend to Disagree Strongly Disagree

Base Size = 2,724

2.71 The proportion who agreed with the statement in 2019 is higher than in 2018 and 2017, when 43% and 43% respectively agreed. The increase from 2018 to 2019 is 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%

60% 52% 48% 48% 48% 48% 49% 49% 45% 43% 40%

20%

0% 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Base Size: 2019 = 2,7242018 = 2,685, 2017 = 2,716, 2016 = 2,669, 2015 = 2,670, 2014 = 2,709, 2013 = 2,739, 2012 = 1,995, 2011 = 1,983 2019 significantly different to 2018

14 Note: Add up to 27% due to rounding. To one decimal place the figures are: tend to disagree 17.7%, strongly disagree 9.7%, which add up to 27.4%. 61 | P a g e

2.72 There are significant differences by age, IMD, ethnic group and area in terms of agreement with this statement. Respondents age 16 to 44, from the least deprived areas of Nottingham, from Asian ethnic groups and from the central area of the city are more likely to agree that ‘the Police and Local Council seek people’s views about the 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 49%

Male 50% Female 47%

16-24 51% 25-34 51% 35-44 52% 45-54 43% 55-64 43% 65+ 46%

Most Deprived 47% 2nd Most Deprived 49% 3rd Most Deprived 46% 4th Most Deprived 46% Least Deprived 55%

White 47% Mixed 42% Asian 60% Black 45% Other 47%

South 46% Central 53% North 44% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

See Appendix A for Base Size Significant differences by age, IMD, ethnic group and area

62 | P a g e

Crime in your local area 2.73 Respondents were asked how much of a problem crime is in their local area. 75%15 of respondents thought that crime was ‘not a problem at all’ or ‘not much of a problem’ compared to 25%16 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 2019 is higher than in 2018 and 2017, but lower than in 2014 to 2016. How much of a problem if at all do you think crime is in your local area? (%) 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 60% 50% 40%

30% 20% 20% 16% 10% 4% 0% A very big problem Quite a big problem Not much of a problem Not a problem at all

Base Size: 2,797

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% 75% 80% 73% 71% 71% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Base Size: 2019 = 2,797, 2018 = 2,726, 2017 = 2,769, 2016 = 2,726, 2015 = 2,701, 2014 = 2,714, 2013 = 2,754 2019 significantly different to 2018

15 Note: Add up to 75% due to rounding. To one decimal place the figures are: not much of a problem 59.8%, not a problem at all 15.6% which add up to 75.4%. 16 Note: Add up to 25% due to rounding. To one decimal place the figures are: a very big problem 4.1%, quite a big problem 20.4%, which add up to 24.5%. 63 | P a g e

2.74 There are significant differences by gender, age, deprivation, ethnic group and area in the proportion of respondents who think that crime is a very or quite big problem in their local area. Women, respondents age 16 to 24, residents from most deprived IMD quintile, respondents from mixed ethnic groups and residents living in the central area 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 25%

Male 22% Female 27%

16-24 29% 25-34 23% 35-44 24% 45-54 25% 55-64 26% 65+ 18%

Most Deprived 35% 2nd Most Deprived 28% 3rd Most Deprived 19% 4th Most Deprived 22% Least Deprived 20%

White 26% Mixed 34% Asian 20% Black 17% Other 30%

South 22% Central 27% North 24% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

See Appendix A for Base Size Significant differences by gender, age, IMD, ethnic group and area

64 | P a g e

2.75 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, Aspley, Hyson Green & Arboretum and Bulwell who think that crime is a problem in their area are significantly higher than the 25% city average, while the proportion in St. Ann’s, Bulwell Forest, Clifton West, Basford and Wollaton West 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 47% * Aspley 36% * Hyson Green & Arboretum 35% * Bulwell 34% Dales 29% Meadows 27% Clifton East 26% Lenton & Wollaton East 26% Castle 25% Bilborough 25% Mapperley 21% Leen Valley 21% Sherwood 21% Bestwood 21% Berridge 18% * St. Ann's 16% * Bulwell Forest 15% * Clifton West 12% * Basford 12% * Wollaton West 11%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%

Base size: Aspley = 144, Basford = 129, Berridge = 146, Bestwood = 145, Bilborough = 141, Bulwell = 139, Bulwell Forest = 139, Castle = 138, Clifton East = 147, Clifton West = 139, Dales = 132, Hyson Green & Arboretum = 150, Leen Valley = 139, Lenton & Wollaton East = 135, Mapperley = 139, Meadows = 140, Radford = 132, Sherwood = 148, St. Ann's = 138, Wollaton West = 136 Caution: Small sample sizes *Significant differences to City overall

65 | P a g e

2.76 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 140 at ward level, there are some exceptions to this trend. For example, Radford is ranked 1st in thinking that crime is a big problem, but is ranked 13th in terms of recorded crime. Similarly, Aspley is ranked 2nd for respondents who think that crime is a problem, but is ranked 14th 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 50% 47% 300 40% 250 35% 34% 36% 200 29% 30% 25% 27% 26% 25% 26% 150 21% 21% 21% 21% 18% 20% 100 16% 15% 12% 12% 11% 10% 50

0 0%

Dales

Castle

Aspley

Bulwell

Basford

Radford

Berridge

St. Ann's St.

Meadows

Bestwood

Sherwood

Mapperley

Bilborough

Clifton East Clifton

Leen Valley Leen

Clifton West Clifton

Arboretum

Bulwell Forest Bulwell

Wollaton West Wollaton Hyson Green & Green Hyson

12 Month Crime Rate Crime a very big or quite big problem in local area East Wollaton & Lenton

Base size: Aspley = 144, Basford = 129, Berridge = 146, Bestwood = 145, Bilborough = 141, Bulwell = 139, Bulwell Forest = 139, Castle = 138, Clifton East = 147, Clifton West = 139, Dales = 132, Hyson Green & Arboretum = 150, Leen Valley = 139, Lenton & Wollaton East = 135, Mapperley = 139, Meadows = 140, Radford = 132, Sherwood = 148, St. Ann's = 138, Wollaton West = 136 Caution: Small sample sizes

66 | P a g e

Perceptions of Crime Rate in your local area 2.77 When asked what they thought had happened to crime in their local area over the past few years, three-fifths (60%) of respondents thought that crime had ‘stayed about the same’. 20% of respondents thought that crime had gone down, either ‘a lot’ or ‘a little’, while 20% 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% 60% 50% 40% 30% 16% 20% 14% 6% 10% 4% 0% Gone up a lot Gone up a little Stayed about the Gone down a little Gone down a lot same

Base Size: 2,693

2.78 In 2019, 20% of respondents thought that crime in their local area had gone up either ‘a lot’ or ‘a little’ – significantly lower than in 2018 and in 2017 but higher than 2013 to 2016. There was an increase in the proportion of respondents who thought that crime in their local area had stayed the same in 2018, from 51% in 2018 to 60% in 2019. A similar proportion of respondents (20% in 2019 and 21% in 2018) thought crime had gone down in both 2019 and 2018. 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% 20% 17% 17% 16% 15% 13% 10% 5% 0% 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Base Size: 2019 = 2,693, 2018 = 2,578, 2017 = 2,587, 2015 = 2,527, 2014 = 2,550, 2013 = 2,619 2019 significantly different to 2018

67 | P a g e

2.79 There are significant differences in the proportion of respondents who thought that crime in their local area had gone up by gender, age, deprivation and ethnic group. Women, respondents aged 45 to 64 and respondents from the most deprived areas of the city were more likely to think that crime had increased in their local area over the past few years. Respondents from black ethnic groups were less 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 20%

Male 16% Female 24%

16-24 16% 25-34 18% 35-44 22% 45-54 24% 55-64 25% 65+ 19%

Most Deprived 29% 2nd Most Deprived 18% 3rd Most Deprived 19% 4th Most Deprived 19% Least Deprived 15%

White 21% Mixed 20% Asian 19% Black 13% Other 28%

South 20% Central 18% North 22% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

See Appendix A for Base Size Caution: Small sample size for other ethnic group Significant differences by gender, age, IMD and ethnic group

68 | P a g e

2.80 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 20% average in Clifton East, Bulwell and Aspley while in Clifton West and Basford 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) (%)

* Clifton East 28% * Bulwell 27% * Aspley 27% Dales 26% Bilborough 23% Bulwell Forest 23% Hyson Green & Arboretum 23% Bestwood 21% Leen Valley 20% Meadows 20% Mapperley 19% Castle 18% Radford 18% Lenton & Wollaton East 17% Berridge 17% St. Ann's 17% Sherwood 16% Wollaton West 13% * Clifton West 12% * Basford 12%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Base size: Aspley = 141, Basford = 129, Berridge = 147, Bestwood = 143, Bilborough = 140, Bulwell = 138, Bulwell Forest = 136, Castle = 121, Clifton East = 141, Clifton West = 134, Dales = 131, Hyson Green & Arboretum = 145, Leen Valley = 137, Lenton & Wollaton East = 115, Mapperley = 138, Meadows = 138, Radford = 122, Sherwood = 147, St. Ann's = 132, Wollaton West = 132 Caution: Small sample sizes *Significant differences to City overall

69 | P a g e

Concerns About Crime 2.81 When asked if they were concerned about crime where they live, 33% of respondents were concerned about crime, a significant decrease on the 42% in the previous year. 64% were not concerned about crime and 3% 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 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% 3% 80% 63% 61% 54% 64% 60% 75% Don’t know 40% No Yes 20% 34% 36% 42% 33% 21% 0% 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Base size: 2019 = 2,817, 2018 = 2,744, 2017 = 2,789 2019 significantly different to 2018

2.82 There are significant differences in the proportion of respondents who are concerned about crime where they live by gender and age. Women and respondents aged 35-64 were more likely to be concerned about crime where they live. Are you concerned about crime where you live? - Yes (%)

Overall 33%

Male 30% Female 36%

16-24 32% 25-34 31% 35-44 36% 45-54 37% 55-64 41% 65+ 26%

Most Deprived 37% 2nd Most Deprived 34% 3rd Most Deprived 32% 4th Most Deprived 34% Least Deprived 30%

White 33% Mixed 40% Asian 36% Black 30% Other 36%

South 32% Central 36% North 31% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

See Appendix A for Base Size Significant differences by gender and age 70 | P a g e

2.83 Whilst the sample sizes by ward are small, there are some differences by ward level in the proportion of residents who are concerned about crime where they live. The proportion of residents who are concerned about crime was significantly higher than the city’s 33% average in Radford and Aspley while in Bestwood, Bulwell Forest and Clifton West the proportions were significantly lower. Are you concerned about crime where you live? - Yes (%) * Radford 51% * Aspley 42% Lenton & Wollaton East 41% Dales 36% Berridge 36% Hyson Green & Arboretum 35% Clifton East 35% Meadows 35% Mapperley 33% Bulwell 33% Bilborough 31% St. Ann's 31% Leen Valley 30% Basford 30% Sherwood 28% Castle 27% Wollaton West 25% * Bestwood 25% * Bulwell Forest 24% * Clifton West 19% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Base size: Aspley = 144, Basford = 130, Berridge = 147, Bestwood = 147, Bilborough = 142, Bulwell = 139, Bulwell Forest = 140, Castle = 140, Clifton East = 149, Clifton West = 140, Dales = 132, Hyson Green & Arboretum = 152, Leen Valley = 141, Lenton & Wollaton East = 136, Mapperley = 139, Meadows = 140, Radford = 133, Sherwood = 149, St. Ann's = 139, Wollaton West = 138 Caution: Small sample sizes *Significant differences to City overall

2.84 As shown in the chart below, there is no strong correlation between crime rate and the proportion of respondents who are concerned about crime at ward level.

Concerned about crime where you live by Crime Rate (Ranked by Crime Rate) 80% 350 70% 300 51% 60% 250 50% 42% 41% 35% 33% 35% 36% 36% 35% 33% 200 40% 27% 31% 30% 28% 31% 30% 25% 24% 25% 150 30% 19% 20% 100 10% 50

0% 0

Dales

Castle

Aspley

Bulwell

Basford

Radford

Berridge

St. Ann's St.

Meadows

Bestwood

Sherwood

Mapperley

Bilborough

Clifton East Clifton

Leen Valley Leen

Clifton West Clifton

Bulwell Forest Bulwell

Wollaton West Wollaton Lenton & Wollaton East Wollaton & Lenton

Hyson Green & Arboretum & Green Hyson 12 Month Crime Rate Concerned about crime Linear (Concerned about crime)

Base size: Aspley = 144, Basford = 130, Berridge = 147, Bestwood = 147, Bilborough = 142, Bulwell = 139, Bulwell Forest = 140, Castle = 140, Clifton East = 149, Clifton West = 140, Dales = 132, Hyson Green & Arboretum = 152, Leen Valley = 141, Lenton & Wollaton East = 136, Mapperley = 139, Meadows = 140, Radford = 133, Sherwood = 149, St. Ann's = 139, Wollaton West = 138 Caution: Small sample sizes

71 | P a g e

Concerns About ASB 2.85 When asked if they were concerned about anti-social behaviour where they live, 33% of respondents were concerned about anti-social behaviour, a significant decrease on the 40% in the previous year. 64% were not concerned about anti-social behaviour and 3% did not know. As in the section 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% 3% 80% 62% 60% 57% 64% Don’t know 60% 76% 40% No

20% 35% 37% 40% 33% Yes 20% 0% 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Base size: 2019 = 2, 816, 2018 = 2,745, 2017 = 2,800 2019 not significantly different to 2018

2.86 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 and those from the most deprived and second most deprived IMD quintiles were more likely to be concerned about anti-social behaviour where they live. Are you concerned about ASB where you live? - Yes (%)

Overall 33%

Male 31% Female 35%

16-24 31% 25-34 31% 35-44 38% 45-54 39% 55-64 39% 65+ 26%

Most Deprived 39% 2nd Most Deprived 39% 3rd Most Deprived 34% 4th Most Deprived 29% Least Deprived 27%

White 33% Mixed 34% Asian 35% Black 33% Other 33%

South 32% Central 34% North 33% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

See Appendix A for Base Size Significant differences by gender, age and IMD 72 | P a g e

2.87 Whilst the sample sizes by ward are small, there are some differences at ward level in the proportion of residents who were concerned about anti-social behaviour where they live. The proportion of residents who are concerned about anti-social behaviour was significantly higher than the city’s 33% average in Hyson Green & Arboretum and Aspley while in Wollaton West and Clifton West the proportions were significantly lower. Are you concerned about ASB where you live? - Yes (%)

* Hyson Green & Arboretum 48% * Aspley 44% Dales 41% Radford 40% Clifton East 37% Meadows 36% Berridge 34% Bilborough 34% Basford 32% Castle 32% Leen Valley 31% Bulwell Forest 31% St. Ann's 30% Bulwell 30% Mapperley 30% Bestwood 29% Lenton & Wollaton East 28% Sherwood 26% * Wollaton West 21% * Clifton West 17%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Base size: Aspley = 144, Basford = 130, Berridge = 147, Bestwood = 147, Bilborough = 142, Bulwell = 139, Bulwell Forest = 140, Castle = 140, Clifton East = 149, Clifton West = 140, Dales = 132, Hyson Green & Arboretum = 152, Leen Valley = 141, Lenton & Wollaton East = 136, Mapperley = 139, Meadows = 140, Radford = 133, Sherwood = 149, St. Ann's = 139, Wollaton West = 138 Caution: Small sample sizes *Significant differences to City overall

73 | P a g e

3 CONCLUSIONS

3.1 This report details the findings from the 2019 Respect for Nottingham survey. The survey was been conducted annually since 2003, and using a consistent face-to-face interview methodology since 2011. It provides a valuable resource on the changing perceptions of issues relating to anti-social behaviour and crime in the city.

3.2 The findings from this 2019 survey show some positive results for the perceptions of ASB in local neighbourhoods. For many of the ASB issues asked about, the survey results show a decline in the proportion of residents thinking the issue was a problem in their area.

3.3 Rubbish and litter lying around continues to be a key ASB issue for residents. Whilst other key issues such as dog fouling have continued to decline since 2011, rubbish and litter has remained static as an issue of importance for the last three years. Fly-tipping also shows no evidence of decline as an issue for residents over recent years.

3.4 For dog fouling, there has clearly been a change in perceptions over time. The proportion thinking that this was a problem has halved since 2011. Similarly, the perception of parents not taking responsibility for the behaviour of their children is seen as a problem by a reducing proportion of residents.

3.5 ASB issues related to alcohol also show positive trends. The proportion of residents thinking that street drinking and people being drunk or rowdy in public places shows a downward trend since 2011.

3.6 In contrast, the perception of people using drugs or dealing drugs as an ASB issue shows no decline since 2011. Around one-in-six residents think this is a problem in their neighbourhood.

3.7 For many of the ASB issues asked about in the survey, residents from the most deprived neighbourhoods were more likely to think the issue was a problem. For example, residents from the most deprived quintile of neighbourhoods were twice as likely (as those from the least deprived quintile of neighbourhoods) to think that rubbish and litter lying around, dog fouling, motorbikes, and people using or dealing drugs were a problem in their neighbourhood.

3.8 For the composite measure of ASB – which assesses overall perceptions of ASB – the results are also positive. They highlight a downward trend in perceived ASB at local neighbourhood level. However, for those residents from the most deprived neighbourhoods, perceived ASB is higher. Similarly, residents from four wards (Hyson Green and Arboretum, Bulwell, Aspley and Meadows) have significantly higher perceptions of ASB than the city average.

3.9 ‘Begging’ continues to be the main perceived ASB issue in the City Centre and has been since 2015 when it overtook ‘people being drunk or rowdy in public places’ as the main issue. Positively, the results in 2019 show a reduction (from 2018) in the proportion of residents who think that ‘begging’ is an issue in the City Centre (though not statistically significant). This is also the case for other ASB issues – there has been a reduction in the proportion of residents who think that each of the ten ASB issues in the City Centre are a problem. For six of the ten issues, the reduction between 2018 and 2019 is statistically significant.

74 | P a g e

3.10 Coupled with the improvements in perceptions of ASB in the local neighbourhoods, the survey results also show an improvement over the last year in perceptions of safety in the neighbourhood after dark. The latest results are now more in-line with the improving trend in perceptions of safety since 2011. However, an area of concern is the lower proportion of some sub-groups who are less likely to feel safe in their local neighbourhood after dark. These include women, those aged 65+, and residents from the most deprived quintile of neighbourhoods. The 2019 survey, for the first time, explored why residents feel unsafe in their local neighbourhood. The key reasons were anti-social behaviour generally, poor street lighting and insufficient police presence. Further qualitative work would help to understand these issues in more detail and allow development of possible appropriate interventions. This work should also focus on differences in the perceptions of safety at ward level. Whilst results at ward level from the survey should be viewed with some caution, the results highlight two wards – Radford and Bulwell – where local neighbourhood perceived safety is significantly lower than the city average.

3.11 The results on social capital (measured through ‘sense of community’ in the survey) show great stability over time. For the last five years, the proportion of residents thinking that there is a strong sense of community where they live has remained almost the same at around sixty percent of residents. The results by ward (again subject to caveats on sample sizes) show some areas with a much lower sense of community. Some of this may be explained by proximity to the city centre, to deprivation, or to the high proportion of students in some wards.

3.12 In all years of the survey since 2011, burglary has been the top crime and ASB issue for residents interviewed. However, since 2015, burglary has fallen in importance (in terms of the proportion of residents highlighting it as a priority). This year (2019), six issues are significantly lower in importance than last year – burglary, drug use and dealing, robbery, sexual violence, car crime and domestic violence. Three issues show a significant increase in importance – weapon/gang related violence, hate crime and business crime.

3.13 The 2019 survey showed an increase in the proportion of residents who agreed that ‘the Police and local council are dealing with ASB and crime issues that matter’. Similarly, this year also saw and increase in the perception that the Police and Council ‘seek people’s views about ASB and crime issues that matter in this area’.

3.14 One-in-five residents included in the survey thought that crime in their local area had gone up over the past few years. This is a fall of one-in-four or higher in 2017 and 2018. For some subgroups, the perception that crime had increased was more prominent – these included women, residents aged 45-64 and those from the most deprived quintile of neighbourhoods. Similarly, at a local level, residents in some wards were more likely to think that crime had gone up in their area – this was the case for residents from Clifton East, Bulwell and Aspley; perceptions that crime had increased were significantly higher than the city average. Noting that this data relates to residents’ perceptions, it would be useful to compare the results with changes in recorded crime in these wards.

3.15 This year the sample size for the survey has allowed the presentation of some results at ward level. In Nottingham City, ward boundaries were changed in some areas in 2019. As further annual surveys are conducted in the future, it would be worthwhile combining the survey data over a number of years to provide additional data at ward level. Although this combining of data would disregard changes over time, it would give more 75 | P a g e robust sample sizes at ward level and both give greater statistical confidence in the survey data at this level and allow further exploration of the data for the different wards of the city.

Information by Design January 2020

76 | P a g e

APPENDIX A – DEMOGRAPHICS AND SAMPLE SIZES The survey used random sampling and in total, 2,819 residents were interviewed in the survey, of which 1,426 were male and 1,393 female (no respondents self-described their gender). 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 2,798 Age 2,812 Gender 2,819 IMD 2,819

Ward Level Data (No.)

Ward Sample Size Aspley 144 Basford 131 Berridge 147 Bestwood 147 Bilborough 142 Bulwell 139 Bulwell Forest 140 Castle 140 Clifton East 149 Clifton West 140 Dales 132 Hyson Green & Arboretum 152 Leen Valley 141 Lenton & Wollaton East 136 Mapperley 140 Meadows 140 Radford 133 Sherwood 149 St. Ann's 139 Wollaton West 138

Weighted Age (%)

Age Range % 16-24 27% 25-34 20% 35-44 14% 45-54 14% 55-64 11% 65+ 14% Base size 2,812

77 | P a g e

Weighted Ethnicity (%)

Ethnicity % White 73% Mixed 4% Asian 12% Black 8% Other 2% Base size 2,798

Weighted Employment Status (%)

Work Status % Employee in full-time job (30 hours plus per week) 35% Employee in part-time job (under 30 hours per week) 10% Self-employed full or part-time 4% On a government supported training programme 0% Full-time education at school college or university 21% Unemployed and available for work 4% Permanently sick/disabled 3% Wholly retired from work 15% Looking after the home 7%

Doing something else 1%

Base Size 2,801

Weighted religion/belief

Religion/Belief % No religion 48% No belief 2% Christian 36% Buddhist 1% Hindu 2% Jewish 0% Muslim 9% Sikh 1% Other religion 1% Other belief 1% Base Size 2,798

Tenure

Tenure % Owns outright 27% Owns with a mortgage or loan 15% Pays part rent and part mortgage shared ownership 1% Rents 55% Lives here rent free 2% Base Size 2,804

78 | 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 2,813 2,728 Noisy neighbours or loud parties 2,815 2,801 Intimidation as a result of groups/ gangs of young people hanging around on the street 2,811 2,780 Vandalism/ Criminal damage 2,812 2,785 Motorbikes/ motorised scooters/ mini motos/ quad bikes 2,808 2,779 People using or dealing drugs 2,809 2,606 Street Drinking/ Drinking alcohol in the streets 2,807 2,751 People being drunk or rowdy in public spaces 2,809 2,770 Abandoned or burnt out cars 2,807 2,749 Fly Posting 2,807 2,773 Rubbish and litter lying around 2,813 2,799 Dog Fouling 2,812 2,785 Unkempt gardens 2,799 2,742 Fly Tipping 2,807 2,772 Graffiti 2,805 2,778 Begging 2,805 2,772

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 2,789 2,292 Vandalism/ Criminal damage 2,791 2,252 People using or dealing drugs 2,793 2,160 Street Drinking/ Drinking alcohol in the streets 2,784 2,297 People being drunk or rowdy in public spaces 2,795 2,299 Rubbish and litter lying around 2,790 2,308 Dog Fouling 2,795 2,285 Fly Posting 2,790 2,233 Graffiti 2,792 2,284 Begging 2,800 2,338

END OF DOCUMENT

79 | P a g e