Policies and procedures emphasise taking legal action against perpetrators, with eviction put forward as the preferred sanction. Despite these intentions, civil and criminal action remains relatively uncommon despite a backdrop of increasing numbers of reported incidents. There are several possible explanations.
The threat of action may be enough to deter perpetrators. Then there is the cost of taking action – described as “prohibitive” by social landlords who attended seminars conducted by consultant Lemos and Crane last year for RaceActionNet.
Another problem is that perpetrators of harassment are often younger family members. Only when adult members of the whole family are also implicated is an application for eviction likely to succeed. Exceptionally, where adults are not implicated and the application is successful, the whole family ends up being punished to deal with the behaviour of the youngsters.
Social landlords also argue that evicting perpetrators is not a solution because it passes the problem on to a new set of neighbours and a new landlord.
So what alternatives to eviction are available?
Injunctions (or interdicts in Scotland) are one alternative underused by social landlords. Quickly obtainable, but only against adults, they can be considered in cases where threats of violence have been made. An application needs to show a ‘cause of action’ such as a breach of the tenancy agreement or damage to the property.
Antisocial behaviour orders are another alternative. Their use has been slow and patchy and they have been used most often against young people.
They are intended to change the behaviour of the perpetrator and avoid eviction. Orders do not amount to a criminal conviction and offer a range of options for dealing with perpetrators. With an emphasis on resolving problems rather than punishment, they can prove more rewarding for victims.
The harassing behaviour may stop early in the process, often when the family responsible is told about the intention to apply for an order. Working through the process can also leave the victim feeling more in control and able to cope with being in the presence of the perpetrator. They offer the additional advantage of being applicable to perpetrators who are not social housing tenants.
However, there are disadvantages. They are expensive. At present they are only available to local authorities, though the government has announced its intention to allow registered social landlords to apply. Pursuing an order is time-consuming for all involved. Trials can run for two to three days, and involve multiple defendants each with separate lawyers.
Acceptable behaviour contracts are a simpler and cheaper alternative. The young person enters an individually written agreement with the police and a partner agency not to carry out certain identifiable acts. Landlords say these are speedy and cost-effective. Furthermore, breach of the contract may be used as evidence in support of an application for an antisocial behaviour order.
Action by the police is also available in many cases of racial harassment. Prosecutions are particularly relevant where there has been assault or criminal damage to property, threatening words or behaviour, repeated harassment, letters or nuisance phone calls.
The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 is yet another alternative without widespread or effective application. A study published in 2000 showed that most racially motivated harassment cases in England and Wales involved neighbours, but cases involving neighbour disputes were the most likely to be dropped.
Thirty-nine per cent of harassment cases had been dropped by the prosecuting authorities, compared with the national average for all offences of 14 per cent. The majority of cases were abandoned on grounds of insufficient evidence.
In defence of social landlords, there are stories of success and innovation in dealing with perpetrators. Many have invested time and effort in enforcing tenancy conditions in a variety of ways.
Schemes have been developed to support legal remedies, usually through surveillance and evidence gathering. Others have focused on incentive schemes or have increased individual and community support through neighbourhood wardens or other projects.
But we need to know how effective such schemes are in preventing and reducing racial harassment and in supporting effective legal action, if developing more generally applied practical alternatives to eviction is the objective.
The Housing Corporation has commissioned Lemos and Crane, through RaceActionNet, to work with social landlords to identify alternatives to eviction and to evaluate their effectiveness.
Members of RaceActionNet have so far proved keen to learn from each other’s experience, and to share new ideas and approaches.
This project will draw on the network’s knowledge and experience to find out more about how some of the new schemes and ideas work in practice.
It will also explore the roles of mediation, conflict resolution, and other approaches to challenging and changing racially motivated antisocial behaviour, especially programmes that involve schools, the police and community and voluntary groups.
Rosemary Crawley is senior researcher at Lemos and Crane and content manager of RaceActionNet.
Source
Housing Today
Postscript
We would like to hear from housing associations engaged in anti-harassment initiatives, which are prepared to work with us in evaluation and be featured as case studies. Details: rosemaryc@lemosandcrane.co.uk
www.raceactionnet.co.uk
No comments yet