Respect for Nottingham Survey 2013

Transcription

1 Respect for Nottingham Survey 2013

2 Respect for Nottingham Survey 2013 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report was prepared for Nottingham Crime and Drugs Partnership in January Our thanks are given to James Rhodes, and Helen Bell for their help and support in conducting this research. Front cover photographs by Ray Teece - Authors: Dr Steve Wisher, Kate Marshall, and Gillian Roberts Information by Design Main point of contact: kate.marshall@ibyd.co.uk Draft Report January 2014 Head Office Information by Design Newlands Science Park Inglemire Lane HULL HU6 7TQ Telephone: Fax: info@ibyd.com 1 P a g e

3 C o n t e n t s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY... 6 BACKGROUND... 6 METHODOLOGY AND SAMPLING... 6 Sampling Frame and Sample Size... 6 Weighting SURVEY FINDINGS... 8 ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR ISSUES LOCAL NEIGHBOURHOOD... 8 Key Anti-Social Behaviour Issues by Age, Gender, Ethnicity, IMD and Area ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR - NOTTINGHAM CITY CENTRE ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR AND YEAR OLDS OVERALL PERCEPTION OF ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR NI Perception of Anti-Social Behaviour by Ward COMPOSITE ASB SCORE FOR LOCAL NEIGHBOURHOODS COMPARISON OF RECORDED CRIME RATE AND PERCEPTIONS OF ASB EXPERIENCING AND REPORTING ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR FEELINGS OF SAFETY LOCAL NEIGHBOURHOOD (AFTER DARK) Feelings of Safety by Age, Gender, Ethnicity, IMD and Area Drivers of feelings of safety FEELINGS OF SAFETY - NOTTINGHAM CITY CENTRE Feelings of Safety by Age, Gender, Ethnicity, IMD and Area FEELINGS OF SAFETY BY WARD LOCAL AREA AND CITY CENTRE SENSE OF COMMUNITY Sense of Community by Age, Gender, Ethnicity and IMD SENSE OF COMMUNITY AND ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN SAFETY, COMMUNITY AND ASB PRIORITIES FOR CRIME AND ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR Identified Issues Combating Crime and Anti-Social Behaviour CONCERNS OF YEAR OLDS DEALING WITH ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR AND CRIME Drivers of Agreement that Police and Local Council are dealing with the anti-social behaviour and crime issues. 50 SEEKING PEOPLE S VIEWS ON WHAT MATTERS SATISFACTION WITH CLEANLINESS LOCAL NEIGHBOURHOOD Satisfaction Levels by Age, Gender, Ethnicity and IMD SATISFACTION WITH NOTTINGHAM CITY CENTRE SATISFACTION LEVELS BY AGE, GENDER AND IMD COMMUNITY PAYBACK VOLUNTEERING WILLINGNESS TO VOLUNTEER Crime in your local area ARBORETUM AND DUNKIRK AND LENTON...66 ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR ISSUES LOCAL NEIGHBOURHOOD ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR ISSUES NOTTINGHAM CITY CENTRE OVERALL PERCEPTION OF ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR COMPOSITE SCORES EXPERIENCING AND REPORTING ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR FEELINGS OF SAFETY LOCAL NEIGHBOURHOOD (AFTER DARK) FEELINGS OF SAFETY - NOTTINGHAM CITY CENTRE COMMUNITY PAYBACK PRIORITIES FOR CRIME AND ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR Combating Crime and Anti-Social Behaviour SATISFACTION WITH CLEANLINESS LOCAL NEIGHBOURHOOD SATISFACTION WITH NOTTINGHAM CITY CENTRE DEALING WITH ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR AND CRIME P a g e

4 SENSE OF COMMUNITY VOLUNTEERING Crime in your local area CONCLUSIONS...87 APPENDIX A DEMOGRAPHICS AND SAMPLE SIZES...88 APPENDIX B BASE SIZES FOR ASB QUESTIONS...90 APPENDIX C BASE SIZES FOR ASB QUESTIONS FOR ARBORETUM AND DUNKIRK AND LENTON P a g e

5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report contains a summary of the findings from the Respect for Nottingham survey commissioned by the Nottingham Crime and Drugs Partnership and conducted by Information by Design (IbyD), with fieldwork undertaken in November and December The survey was undertaken to explore the views and opinions of local 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 the Police and Council. Key findings from the survey include: Perceptions of ASB overall continue to fall with only 7% of respondents reporting a high perception of Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) as previously measured by NI17, lower than in 2012 and There were significant differences by IMD, with those in the more deprived quintiles in terms of IMD, having higher perceptions of ASB. The top two ranked anti-social behaviour issues in the local neighbourhood continue to be dog fouling and rubbish and litter lying around. For all but one of the issues (fly-posting), the perception of ASB has reduced from As in 2012 and 2011, respondents are clearly most concerned about issues relating to alcohol in relation to Nottingham City Centre, with 40% of respondents agreeing that people being drunk or rowdy in public spaces is a fairly or very big problem and 38% claiming that street drinking is a fairly or very big problem. Young people in the year old age group also recognise the issues in relation to street drinking and rowdiness as being a problem for them indeed, there is an indication that these are more of an issue for younger than older residents. Begging in Nottingham City is also is also an issue that respondents are concerned about, with 38% of respondents agreeing that this is a fairly of very big concern, significantly higher than in both 2012 and Overall, 9.4% of respondents had been personally targeted by some form of anti-social behaviour in the last six months, a fall from 2011 and Around two-thirds (65%) had reported it to someone, the majority of which had reported it to the Police (84%). About half (49%) were very or fairly satisfied with the response, an increase from 2012, but a fall from For those who did not report it, the main reason was that they thought there was no point as nothing would be done There is also some evidence of under-reporting of ASB with 35% of those personally targeted by ASB not reporting it. Almost two-thirds of respondents (68%) said they feel fairly or very safe when walking alone in their local area when it s dark. This is significantly higher than in 2011 and the trend data suggests that perceptions of feelings of safety in the local neighbourhood have improved over the years. Women, the 65+ age group, and respondents living in the most deprived areas are less likely to feel safe in their neighbourhood when it gets dark, with a 15 percentage point difference between the most and the least deprived areas. Respondents who feel very or fairly unsafe rank intimidation by groups/gangs, people being drunk or rowdy, noisy neighbours and loud parties as more of a problem in their local area than respondents who feel safe, the same as in 2012 and Respondents have more concerns about Nottingham City Centre after dark, with less than half (48%) who said that they feel fairly or very safe in the City Centre. However, there was a key difference between 2011 and 2013, with a statistically significant increase in the proportion of residents who feel very safe (rather than fairly safe). As in previous years, women are less likely to feel fairly or very safe than men. In terms of crime and community safety in their local area, over one-third (36%) of residents ranked burglary as their primary concern, with alcohol related violence and disorder ranked first by of residents. In general, as the crime rate at ward level declines, the proportion with a high perception of ASB declines. 4 P a g e

6 In relation to what could be done to reduce crime and anti-social behaviour, residents were asked to rank a list of different measures. Looking at the top ranked, better parenting was ranked first by respondents with almost a quarter (23%) ranking this aspect first. More CCTV was ranked as the second most effective measure. There are some differences between these first rankings this year and those reported in Most notably, more visible policing has dropped down the ranking to 4th place in 2013 from 1st place in Five out of 10 (53%) of respondents said they tend to agree or strongly agree that there is a sense of community where they live. This is a slight increase from 2012, when 51% respondents agreed or strongly agreed, but a decrease from 2011(59%). 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/fairly safe and those who feel very/fairly unsafe. This is lower than 2012 and 2011, where there was a gap of 29% and 18% respectively. Overall, just one-in-ten respondents (10%) said they were currently involved in formal volunteering. This is the same as in 2012, but a reduction from 13% in In 2013, of respondents said they were involved in more informal volunteering such as joining a neighbourhood watch group or helping an elderly neighbour. This is that same as in 2012, but a reduction from 18% in Satisfaction with the Police and Council remains high with 63% of respondents agreeing that they are dealing with the anti-social behaviour and crime issues that matter. Analysis of those respondents who were dissatisfied highlights that those respondents perceived people using or dealing drugs and intimidation as result of groups/ gangs of young people hanging around on the street to be more of a problem and these issues could be a possible driver of satisfaction. On a scale of 0 to 10 where 0 is no effect and 10 is total effect half (50%) of respondents thought that crime had no effect or very little effect on their quality of life (a score of 0 or 1). Nearly threequarters (73%) of respondent thought that crime has not a problem at all or not much of a problem in their local area. Nearly half (51%) of respondents thought that levels of crime had stayed the same in their local area over the past few years, 32% thought crime had gone down and 17% thought crime had gone up. Information by Design February P a g e

7 1 BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY Background 1.1 This report contains a summary of the findings from the Respect for Nottingham survey conducted in 2013, 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 Council. It also asked about residents knowledge of the Respect for Nottingham campaign, and about their attitudes towards volunteering. Additional questions were added to this year s survey on the Nottingham Police and Crime Commissioner (NPCC). The research was commissioned by Nottingham Crime and Drugs Partnership and the work was conducted by Information by Design (IbyD), with fieldwork taking place during November and December 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. 1.2 The Nottingham Crime and Drugs Partnership (CDP) is a multi-agency organisation responsible for tackling and addressing crime, substance misuse and anti-social behaviour (ASB) in Nottingham. The partnership is made up of a number of statutory and non-statutory agencies including the Police, the City Council, the Fire and Rescue Service, the Probation Service, Public Health and the Clinical Commissioning Group, health providers, the Drug and Alcohol Action Team, the city s two universities, Nottingham City Homes, the Business Community and voluntary sector organisations such as Victim Support and Neighbourhood Watch. 1.3 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 and 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 2011 and 2012 results as assessment of results pre 2011 would not be 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. Within wards, Output Areas (OAs) were ranked by IMD of LSOA that they were in. 6 P a g e

8 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 a number of LSOAs in the city, with a good geographical spread and with the sample selected to be representative in terms of deprivation in the city. This year s survey included a booster sample in Arboretum and Dunkirk and Lenton and so this approach was not used in those areas as all Output Areas in the wards were used. 1.6 A target sample of 2,000 completed interviews was set for the survey, with an additional sample 372 interviews in two wards Arboretum and Dunkirk and Lenton. In total, the achieved sample in the 2013 survey was 2,773 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, As a point of reference, the overall sampling error on this survey of 2,773 respondents is ±1.9%. Strictly speaking, each question will differ, as the sampling error is also dependent on the individual responses to the question. In addition, the sampling error 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. The base sizes are given on each question or in the appendix where indicated. It should be noted that confidence intervals 1 by ward range from ±10.4% to ±8.6%, apart from Arboretum (±4.4%) and Dunkirk and Lenton (±4.3%), and as such, should be treated with caution. Generally, confidence intervals are quoted in this report at the 95% level. Weighting 1.8 The final data set from the survey was weighted to correct for the disproportionate sampling scheme used and to ensure data matches latest estimates of Nottingham population. The initial sample from the survey set targets of approximately 100 interviews per ward, irrespective of the size of the ward population. Weighting was used to ensure that the final dataset was representative in terms of size of the wards and in terms of age and gender. Weighting was based on the 2011 census data for age and gender at ward level, in line with the 2012 survey. 1 A confidence interval gives an estimated range of values which is likely to include an unknown population value. If independent samples are taken repeatedly from the same population, and a confidence interval calculated for each sample, then a certain percentage (confidence level) of the intervals will include the unknown population value. Confidence intervals are usually calculated so that this percentage is 95%, but we can alternatively produce 90% or 99% confidence intervals for the unknown value. In simple terms, a 95% confidence interval is usually interpreted as meaning that when a significant difference is stated, this will be the right decision 95% of the time. In this report, a 90% level is sometimes quoted, which is a lower level of confidence in differences reported. 7 P a g e

9 2 SURVEY FINDINGS Anti-Social Behaviour Issues Local Neighbourhood 2.1 When asked if there were any comments they would like to make about anti-social behaviour in their local neighbourhood, nearly half of respondents (48%) had no comment to make. 22% of respondents specified none, or that there was no problem with anti-social behaviour. 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 commonly mentioned issue was noise, including loud music and shouting with 13% of respondents mentioning this type of ASB. This was followed by drug dealing and drug use with 10% of respondents mentioning this issue. The next most common response was that there was not a lot of ASB (9%) and there were a further 7% who commented that the amount of ASB in the area had improved. Other issues were around theft/burglaries, loitering and vandalism/damage to property. Comments on Anti-Social Behaviour in local neighbourhood (Not including 'no comment' or 'none') (%) Other Noise / loud music /shouting etc. Drugs dealing and use Not a lot of ASB / Not much Theft / burglaries / break-ins Vandalism / damge to property / graffiti Amount of ASB has improved Loitering / people hanging around Drunks / drinking in the street There's a lot of ASB / it's bad here / it's a big problem Teenages / young people / kids - behaviour not specified Litter / Rubbish Problems with neighbours Problems with students - drunk /noisy etc. Dog fouling Fighting Nuisance / nuisance behaviour e.g. Knocking on doors, throwing Motorbikes / scooters / quad bikes Problems with parking Speeding Nothing gets done to sort it out / dissapointed with response Fly tipping Assaults / violence Abuse / swearing Playing foot ball / ball games / playing on street Incident has been dealt with / good response from police Need more police / PCSOs / more seccurity Dogs Muggings 5% 5% 5% 4% 4% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% 9% 9% 8% 7% 10% 13% 18% 0% 5% 10% 15% Base size: P a g e

10 2.2 Respondents were asked if there were any specific groups or individuals who caused anti-social behaviour in their area. Seventeen percent (17%) (n=462) of respondents thought that there were specific groups or individuals who cause anti-social behaviour in their area. Of these 35% said that anti-social behaviour in their area was caused by teenagers and youths (19% and 16% respectively), followed by specific addresses, people or family groups. Students were mentioned by 12% of respondents who thought that anti-social behaviour was caused by specific groups or individuals. Teenagers Youths/Youngsters/Young people Specified address/person/family/group Students Children/kids/school children Other Minority ethnic groups (e.g. Romanian, Polish, Neighbours/local residents Drug users/dealers Young men People in their 20s Drunks/people leaving pubs Unspecified groups or gangs Adults and older age groups Unemployed Homeless Base size: 462 Groups or individuals who cause ASB in area (%) 5% 4% 4% 3% 3% 3% 3% 2% 2% 1% 16% 12% 10% 10% 2.3 Levels of anti-social behaviour in the local neighbourhood were measured by asking residents for their perceptions of a number of issues. The chart below is ranked by the combined proportion of residents thinking the issue was a very big and a fairly big problem. With this ranking, the top two ASB issues are dog fouling and rubbish and litter lying around, each of which have at least 30% of respondents who think that these are a fairly or very big problem. Dog Fouling 17% 16% Rubbish and litter lying around 12% Parents not taking responsibility for the behaviour of their children 8% 10% 17% People using or dealing drugs 8% 10% 12% People being drunk or rowdy in public spaces 6% 17% Fly Posting 7% 9% Street Drinking /Drinking alcohol in the streets 6% 10% 16% Motorbikes/ motorised scooters/ mini motos/ quad bikes 6% 10% 18% Intimidation as a result of groups/ gangs of young people hanging 5% 9% 17% Noisy neighbours or loud parties 6% 8% 18% Vandalism/ Criminal damage 4% 8% 18% Fly Tipping 5% 8% Unkempt gardens 4% 8% 17% Graffiti 1% 4% Begging 1% 4% 9% Abandoned or burnt out cars 1% 8% 19% 0% 5% 10% 15% 25% Perception of ASB Issues in Local Community (%) 19% 24% 46% 44% 60% 62% 65% 71% 66% 65% 68% 68% 67% 72% 69% 82% 84% 87% 1% 0% 4% 9% 2% 2% 2% 1% 1% 0% 2% 2% 3% 1% 1% 2% 0% 40% 60% 80% 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 9 P a g e

11 2.5 Comparing the results for 2011, 2012 and 2013 shows that for all but one of the issues ( fly posting ), the perception of ASB has reduced. The chart below shows the mean scores 2 for each of the issues for 2011, 2012 and 2013, where the higher the score the more the issue is felt to be a problem. For example, dog fouling has the highest mean score in all three years, but has a lower score (of 2.05 out of 4) in 2013 than in 2012 (where the score was 2.08) and 2011 (where the score was 2.23) the difference between 2013 and 2012 is statistically significant. The chart below also shows that the ranking of ASB issues has changed slightly between the three years. For example, in 2011 vandalism/criminal damage was ranked 4 th out of the issues; in 2012 vandalism/criminal damage was ranked 5 th and in 2013 vandalism/criminal damage is ranked 11 th. Perceptions of Anti-Social Behaviour in Local Neighbourhood by Year (Mean Scores) Dog Fouling # Rubbish and litter lying around # Parents not taking responsibility for the behaviour of their children */# People using or dealing drugs # People being drunk or rowdy in public spaces # Motorbikes/ motorised scooters/ mini motos/ quad bikes # Street Drinking /Drinking alcohol in the streets # Fly Posting # Noisy neighbours or loud parties # Intimidation as a result of groups/ gangs of young people hanging around on the street */# Vandalism/ Criminal damage */# Fly Tipping # Unkempt gardens */# Graffiti */# Begging # Abandoned or burnt out cars */# See Appendix B for Base Size * = 2013 significantly different to 2012, #=2013 significantly different to 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 all of the response categories, rather than simply comparing agree/disagree. 10 P a g e

12 2.6 The following chart shows the same results, comparing the results for 2011, 2012 and 2013, but with the proportion thinking that this aspect was a fairly or very big problem. There are some changes in the ranking and significant differences between the mean scores. Perceptions of Anti-Social Behaviour in Local Neighbourhood by Year (very or fairly big problem) -(%) Dog Fouling # 35% 34% 40% Rubbish and litter lying around # Parents not taking responsibility for the behaviour of their children */# 25% 21% 18% 35% 31% 31% People using or dealing drugs 19% 18% 18% People being drunk or rowdy in public spaces 19% 16% 17% Fly Posting # 13% 16% 17% Street Drinking /Drinking alcohol in the streets # Motorbikes/ motorised scooters/ mini motos/ quad bikes # Intimidation as a result of groups/ gangs of young people hanging around on the street */# Noisy neighbours or loud parties 18% 16% 16% 18% 16% 17% 15% 15% Vandalism/ Criminal damage */# 13% 18% 23% Fly Tipping # 13% 18% Unkempt gardens */# 15% Graffiti # 8% 6% 5% Begging 6% 5% 5% Abandoned or burnt out cars */# 5% 3% 2% 0% 5% 10% 15% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% See Appendix B for Base Size * = 2013 significantly different to 2012, #=2013 significantly different to The data from 2013, 2012 and 2011 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 allow 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 of fairly big problem since the 2006 baseline. For others including dog fouling, there is not downward trend in the data. For fly posting the trend is upwards, though the proportion thinking this is a very or fairly big problem is small. The charts are shown on the following page. 11 P a g e

13 ASB ISSUES - TRENDS OVER TIME % 40% 0% Perceptions of Anti-Social Behaviour Issues in Local Area Over Time (very or fairly big problems) -(%) Abandoned cars (Abandoned or burnt out) 2% 5% 17% Street Begging Fly posting Unkempt Gardens Noisy neighbours/loud parties Sep-2006 (Baseline) Mar-07 Sep-07 Mar-08 Sep-08 Mar-09 Sep-09 Oct-10 Dec-11 Dec-12 Dec-13 60% Perceptions of Anti-Social Behaviour Issues in Local Area Over Time (very or fairly big problems) -(%) 40% 13% 16% 16% 18% 0% Fly tipping Drinking alcohol in the streets (people being drunk or rowdy in public places) Motorbikes/motorised scooters/quad bikes Drug dealing/people using drugs Sep-2006 (Baseline) Mar-07 Sep-07 Mar-08 Sep-08 Mar-09 Sep-09 Oct-10 Dec-11 Dec-12 Dec-13 Intimidation as a result of groups/gangs of young people 60% 40% 0% Perceptions of Anti-Social Behaviour Issues in Local Area over Time (very or fairly big problems) -(%) Vandalism/criminal behaviour (vandalism/graffiti and damage to properties or vehicles)* 13% 18% People not taking responsibility for children Litter (rubbish and litter lying around) 31% 34% Dog Fouling Sep-2006 (Baseline) Mar-07 Sep-07 Mar-08 Sep-08 Mar-09 Sep-09 Oct-10 Dec-11 Dec-12 Dec-13 See Appendix B for Base Size 12 P a g e

14 Key Anti-Social Behaviour Issues by Age, Gender, Ethnicity, IMD and Area 2.8 Dog fouling the top ASB issue amongst survey respondents appears to be a greater concern for women, those in the age groups 35-54, residents living in areas of higher deprivation, those from Mixed or Black ethnic groups and those from the north area. The differences by gender, age group, IMD, ethnicity and area are statistically significant. Dog fouling (Very or fairly big problem) -(%) Overall 34% Male Female 27% 40% % 32% 36% 39% 41% 45% Most Deprived 2nd Most Deprived 3rd Most Deprived 4th Most Deprived Least Deprived 21% 29% 38% 36% 45% White Mixed Asian Black Other 13% 31% 34% 37% 45% South Central North See Appendix A for Sample Size Significant differences by gender, age, IMD, ethnicity & area 22% 34% 46% 0% 10% 30% 40% 50% 13 P a g e

15 2.9 There are fewer differences between key groups of respondents for the issue rubbish/litter lying around. Those from the more deprived areas and the central and north areas of the city were most likely to consider it a problem. Overall Male Female Most Deprived 2nd Most Deprived 3rd Most Deprived 4th Most Deprived Least Deprived White Mixed Asian Black Other South Central North See Appendix A for Sample Size Significant differences by IMD & area 2.10 Overall, 18% of respondents felt that parents not taking responsibility for their children' was a fairly or very big problem in their local area. Those aged 35-64, from the more deprived areas and the north area of the city were most likely to consider this a problem. Most Deprived 2nd Most Deprived 3rd Most Deprived 4th Most Deprived Least Deprived Rubbish and litter lying around (Very or fairly big problem) -(%) See Appendix A for Sample Size Significant differences by age, IMD & area 22% 25% 28% 28% 31% 31% 32% 30% 31% 35% 30% 31%33% 32% 32% 33% 33% 34% 35% 35% 37% 36% 0% 10% 30% 40% Parents not taking responsibility for the behaviour of their children (Very or fairly big problem) -(%) Overall Male Female White Mixed Asian Black Other South Central North 9% 9% 16% 18% 18% 17% 18% 18% 19% 15% 15% 18% 18% 23%24% 21% 22% 24% 30% 0% 5% 10% 15% 25% 30% 35% 14 P a g e

16 2.11 Fewer than one-in-five (18%) considered people using or dealing drugs to be a very or fairly big problem. Those aged and 35-64, residents from more deprived areas and residents from the south of the city were more likely to perceive this to be a problem. There are some differences by ethnic group, but these are likely to be a result of small sample sizes (particularly for the mixed ethnic group). Most Deprived 2nd Most Deprived 3rd Most Deprived 4th Most Deprived Least Deprived See Appendix A for Sample Size Significant differences by age, IMD and area People using or dealing drugs (Very or fairly big problem) - (%) Overall Male Female White Mixed Asian Black Other South Central North 13% 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 of respondents felt that intimidation as a result of groups/ gangs of young people hanging around on the street was a very or fairly big problem. Amongst respondents from Asian groups, this proportion rises to 21% (significant difference). People being drunk or rowdy in public spaces was perceived to be a very or fairly big problem for 17% of respondents. This figure rises to 22% amongst those aged and to 25% amongst residents from the 2 nd most deprived IMD quintile (significant difference). 9% 13% 15% 16% 18% 16% 16% 23% 25% 17% 18% 19% 19% 19% 21% 28% 0% 5% 10% 15% 25% 30% 15 P a g e

17 Anti-Social Behaviour - Nottingham City Centre 2.13 Respondents most commonly highlighted issues relating to alcohol in relation to antisocial behaviour in Nottingham City Centre. 39% of respondents thought that people being drunk or rowdy in public spaces was a very or fairly big problem and 36% 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 identified this as a very or fairly big problem compared to 34% who thought it was a problem locally. 38% of respondents thought that begging was a very or fairly big problem and a quarter of respondents (25%) thought that rubbish and litter lying around was a very or fairly big problem. It should be noted that for all these issues, a substantial proportion indicated that they did not to know whether they were a problem in Nottingham City Centre suggesting that a significant proportion of respondents do not visit the centre of town. The proportion who do not know is higher for people using or dealing drugs, with around one-quarter (26%) who did not know. Perception of ASB Issues in Nottingham City Centre(%) People being drunk or rowdy in public spaces 15% 24% 19% 25% Begging 16% 22% 18% 28% Street Drinking/ Drinking alcohol in the streets 13% 23% 19% 28% Rubbish and litter lying around 9% 16% 23% 37% People using or dealing drugs 6% 43% Intimidation as a result of groups gangs/ of young 6% 12% 19% 47% Vandalism/ Criminal damage 3% 10% 19% 49% Fly Posting 3% 8% 16% 54% Graffiti 3% 8% 19% 53% Dog Fouling 5% 6% 15% 58% 17% 15% 17% 15% 26% 17% 19% 18% 17% 16% 0% 10% 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 16 P a g e

18 2.14 Comparing the results for 2013, 2012 and 2011 shows that for most of the issues the perception of ASB in Nottingham City Centre has reduced, except for begging in the City Centre. The chart below shows the mean scores for each of the issues for 2013, 2012 and 2011 where the higher the score the more the issue is felt to be a problem. There are statistically significant decreases in a number of the issues relating to the City Centre including in street drinking, rubbish, intimidation, vandalism, graffiti, fly posting and dog fouling. There is a significant increase in the mean score for begging in Perceptions of Anti-Social Behaviour in Nottingham City Centre by Year (Mean Scores) People being drunk or rowdy in public spaces in City Centre Begging in City Centre */# Street Drinking/ Drinking alcohol in the streets in City Centre/# Rubbish and litter lying around in City Centre */# People using or dealing drugs in City Centre */# Intimidation as a result of groups gangs/ of young people hanging around on the street in City Centre */# Vandalism/ Criminal damage in City Centre */# Graffiti in City Centre */# Fly Posting in City Centre */# Dog Fouling in City Centre */# See Appendix B for Base Size * = 2013 significantly different to 2012, #=2013 significantly different to P a g e

19 2.15 The following chart shows the same results, comparing the results for 2013, 2012 and 2011, but with the proportion thinking that this aspect was a fairly or very big problem. Fly posting and graffiti change rank and all aspects of ASB in 2013 are (statistically significantly) different to 2011, and - apart from begging - are all showing a downward trend. It should be noted however that the mean score shown above takes in to account all of the data, rather than just those who consider it a fairly or very big problem. Perceptions of Anti-Social Behaviour in the City Centre by Year (very or fairly big problem) -(%) People being drunk or rowdy in public spaces # 43% 40% 40% Begging */# 30% 34% 38% Street Drinking / Drinking alcohol in the streets # 40% 37% 36% Rubbish and litter lying around # 26% 25% 30% People using or dealing drugs */# Intimidation as a result of groups/ gangs of young people hanging around on the street */# 18% 17% 22% 24% 25% 29% Vandalism/ Criminal damage */# 18% 24% Fly Posting # 13% 12% 19% Graffiti */# Dog Fouling # 15% 12% 0% 5% 10% 15% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% See Appendix B for Base Size * = 2013 significantly different to 2012, #=2013 significantly different to 2011 Anti-Social Behaviour and Year Olds 2.16 The views of the year old 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, year olds are more likely to think that 9 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 and over for 7 of these 9 issues. In relation to perceptions of ASB in the City Centre, year olds are more likely to think that 6 of the 10 issues are a problem than respondents aged 25+. There are significant differences between the mean scores for young people compared to those aged 25 and over for 5 of these 6 issues. 18 P a g e

20 ASB Issues Comparison of and 25+ population views Rank ASB (Local Neighbourhood) Mean Score (16-24s) Mean Score (25+) Sig Difference ASB (Nottingham City Centre) 1 Rubbish and litter lying around No People being drunk or rowdy in public spaces in City Centre 2 People being drunk or rowdy in public spaces Yes (Higher) 3 Dog Fouling Yes (Lower) Street Drinking/ Drinking alcohol in the streets in City Centre Mean Score (16-24s) Mean Score (25+) Sig Difference Yes (Higher) Yes (Higher) Begging in City Centre Yes (Lower) 4 Fly Posting Yes (Higher) Rubbish and litter lying around in City Centre No 5 Street Drinking/ Drinking alcohol in the streets Yes (Higher) People using or dealing drugs in City Centre Yes (Higher) 6 People using or dealing drugs No Intimidation as a result of groups gangs/ of young people hanging around 7 Noisy neighbours or loud parties Yes (Higher) Vandalism/ Criminal damage in City Centre No Yes (Higher) 8 Parents not taking responsibility for the behaviour of their children Yes (Lower) Graffiti in City Centre Yes (Higher) 9 Intimidation as a result of groups/ gangs of young people hanging around on the street Yes (Higher) 10 Vandalism/ Criminal damage Yes (Higher) Fly Posting in City Centre No Dog Fouling in City Centre No 11 Motorbikes/ motorised scooters/ mini motos/ quad bikes Yes (Lower) 12 Fly Tipping No 13 Unkempt gardens Yes (Lower) 14 Begging No 15 Graffiti Yes (Higher) 16 Abandoned or burnt out cars No 19 P a g e

21 Overall Perception of Anti-Social Behaviour NI A measure of anti-social behaviour was calculated from the survey data and reported in previous reports. This was based on (but with differences to) the Statutory Performance Indicators for Policing and Community Safety 2008/09. The analysis assesses the percentage of people who perceive a high level of ASB in their local area. This combined measure is calculated by allocating scores to the responses to the questions about the seven ASB issues: Noisy neighbours or loud parties Teenagers hanging around on the streets Rubbish or litter lying around Vandalism, graffiti and other deliberate damage to property or vehicles People using or dealing drugs People being drunk or rowdy in public places Abandoned or burnt out cars Scores were allocated based on: 0 = Not a problem at all 1 = Not a very big problem 2 = Fairly big problem 3 = Very big problem 2.18 A total score for each respondent is calculated based on the responses to the seven aspects above. The highest maximum score is 21 per respondent and a high perception of ASB is classed as a score of 11 or above. The High Perception of ASB indicator is therefore based on the percentage of respondents whose score was 11 or above. The statements used to produce the indicator in 2013 are the same as those used in 2012 and For 2010 and earlier, slightly different wording was used in the statements included in the questionnaire Statements 2011, 2012 and 2013 Statements Noisy neighbours or loud parties Noisy neighbours or loud parties Teenagers hanging around on the streets Intimidation as a result of groups/ gangs of young people hanging around on the street Rubbish or litter lying around Rubbish or litter lying around Vandalism, graffiti and other deliberate Vandalism/ Criminal damage damage to property or vehicles People using or dealing drugs People using or dealing drugs People being drunk or rowdy in public People being drunk or rowdy in public places places Abandoned or burnt out cars Abandoned or burnt out cars 2.19 Overall in 2013, 7% of residents included in the survey had a high perception of ASB (using the indicator as described above). This was lower than in 2012 when 9% had a high perception of ASB and 2011 when 9% had a high perception of ASB. This decrease is a significant difference. 20 P a g e

22 2.20 There are significant differences in the proportion with a High Perception of ASB score by IMD. Those in the more deprived quintiles in terms of IMD have higher perceptions of ASB. High Perception of ASB (%) Overall 7% Male Female 7% 8% % 8% 7% 7% 6% 10% Most Deprived 2nd Most Deprived 3rd Most Deprived 4th Most Deprived Least Deprived 3% 5% 7% White Mixed Asian Black Other 3% 6% 7% 9% South Central North See Appendix A for Base Size Significant differences by IMD 7% 7% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 8% 21 P a g e

23 Perception of Anti-Social Behaviour by Ward 2.21 The chart below shows the proportion of residents who have a high perception of antisocial behaviour by each of the wards of Nottingham. The data shows that the wards with the highest proportions of residents who have a high perception of anti-social behaviour are Aspley, Arboretum and St. Ann s. For the ward with the highest perception of ASB Aspley the perception of ASB is more than twice the Nottingham average of 7%. These results at ward level need to be viewed with some caution. The sample sizes at ward level are only approximately 100 for 18 of the 20 wards (higher this year in Arboretum and Dunkirk and Lenton). High Perception of ASB by Ward (%) Aspley * Arboretum * St Ann's * Berridge * Dales Bilborough Clifton South Bulwell Bridge Basford Wollaton East and Lenton Abbey Radford and Park Dunkirk and Lenton Clifton North Bulwell Forest Bestwood Sherwood Mapperley * Wollaton West * Leen Valley * 6% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 4% 3% 3% 1% 1% 0% 12% 9% 9% 8% 18% 17% 15% 0% 5% 10% 15% Base size: Arboretum = 423, Aspley = 71, Basford = 92, Berridge = 92, Bestwood = 99, Bilborough = 78, Bridge = 81, Bulwell = 86, Bulwell Forest = 86, Clifton North = 88, Clifton South = 77, Dales = 66, Dunkirk and Lenton = 417, Leen Valley = 82, Mapperley = 70, Radford and Park = 87, Sherwood = 89, St Ann s = 95, Wollaton East and Lenton Abbey = 99, Wollaton West = 96 Caution: Small sample sizes *Significant difference to City overall 22 P a g e

24 Composite ASB Score for Local Neighbourhoods 2.22 A composite score for perceptions of ASB was calculated for the 2011 survey using all the categories of ASB included in the question on local neighbourhood ASB problems. This was designed to be a benchmark for future surveys and has been calculated using the 2013 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 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 antisocial behaviour) would be Overall, the average ASB Perceptions Score was This compares with a score of in 2012 and in 2011, suggesting that there has been a fall in general perceptions of ASB problems over the three years. This change is statistically significant. The charts below show the scores at ranked ward level and, overleaf, by sub-group. Perceptions of ASB - Composite Score by Ward (Score) Aspley * Arboretum * Berridge * St Ann's * Bulwell Bilborough Bridge Dales Basford Radford and Park Bulwell Forest Clifton North Wollaton East and Lenton Abbey Dunkirk and Lenton Leen Valley * Clifton South Bestwood * Sherwood * Mapperley * Wollaton West * Base size: Arboretum = 377, Aspley = 65, Basford = 87, Berridge = 86, Bestwood = 96, Bilborough = 72, Bridge = 69, Bulwell = 81, Bulwell Forest = 81, Clifton North = 79, Clifton South = 71, Dales = 63, Dunkirk and Lenton = 375, Leen Valley = 78, Mapperley = 65, Radford and Park = 81, Sherwood = 83, St Ann s = 88, Wollaton East and Lenton Abbey = 91, Wollaton West = 93 Caution: Small sample sizes *Significant difference to City overall See Appendix A for Base Size Significant differences by gender, age, IMD, ethnicity 23 P a g e

25 2.24 Looking at the results by sub-group above shows that there are significant differences by gender, age, deprivation and ethnicity. Women, respondents from the age age group, those from more deprived areas and respondents from mixed ethnic groups consider ASB issues a greater problem. Perceptions of ASB - Composite Score (Score) Overall Male Female Most Deprived 2nd Most Deprived 3rd Most Deprived 4th Most Deprived Least Deprived White Mixed Asian Black Other South Central North P a g e

26 2.25 The table below shows the ASB Composite Score for each ward for 2013, 2012 and Whilst the sample sizes are small at ward level (apart from Dunkirk and Lenton and Arboretum, combining data into a composite score does show significant differences between 2013 and 2012 for three wards, and significant differences between 2013 and 2011 for eight wards. These are marked with an asterisk or hash next to the ward name. For example, in Dales ward, the composite score falls from in 2011 to in 2013, and in Clifton South the composite score falls from in 2012 to in For all of the wards where there is a significant difference between 2013 and 2011 or 2012, the perception of ASB (as measured by the score) has fallen. Perceptions of ASB - Composite Score by Ward (Score) for 2011, 2012 and 2013 Year Aspley Arboretum Berridge St Ann's Bulwell Bilborough Bridge # Dales # Basford # Radford and Park # Bulwell Forest Clifton North Wollaton East and Lenton Abbey Dunkirk and Lenton */# Leen Valley Clifton South * Bestwood */# Sherwood # Mapperley # Wollaton West * * = 2013 significantly different to 2012, # = 2013 significantly different to P a g e

27 2.26 As in earlier work using NI17, we can use the new composite indicator scores 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, 17% 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 noting the sample sizes at ward level are small except for Arboretum and Dunkirk and Lenton). Aspley, Berridge and Arboretum are the wards with the highest perception of ASB using this new indicator. High Perception of ASB (Composite) by Ward (%) Aspley * Berridge * Arboretum * St Ann's * Bilborough Dales Bestwood Clifton North Bulwell Basford Bridge Mapperley Clifton South Wollaton East and Lenton Abbey Bulwell Forest Dunkirk and Lenton Sherwood * Leen Valley * Radford and Park * Wollaton West * 2% 18% 17% 16% 15% 13% 12% 12% 12% 12% 9% 7% 6% 24% 24% 23% 30% 29% 44% 0% 5% 10% 15% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% Base size: Arboretum = 377, Aspley = 65, Basford = 87, Berridge = 86, Bestwood = 96, Bilborough = 72, Bridge = 69, Bulwell = 81, Bulwell Forest = 81, Clifton North = 79, Clifton South = 71, Dales = 63, Dunkirk and Lenton = 375, Leen Valley = 78, Mapperley = 65, Radford and Park = 81, Sherwood = 83, St Ann s = 88, Wollaton East and Lenton Abbey = 91, Wollaton West = 93 Caution: Small sample sizes *Significant difference to City overall 2.27 Residents of Aspley were more likely to think that 15 of the 16 issues were more of a problem locally than Nottingham overall. The only issue that Aspley does not have a higher mean score for is begging. There are significant differences between the mean scores for Aspley and Nottingham for 9 of the 16 issues. There are also some differences in the ranking. Parents not taking responsibility for the behaviour of their children, motorbikes, unkempt gardens, intimidation and vandalism were ranked higher than the residents of Aspley than by those of Nottingham overall (see overleaf). 26 P a g e

28 Drivers of high perception of ASB in Aspley Aspley Nottingham Significant Mean Rank Mean Rank difference Dog Fouling Yes Parents not taking responsibility for the behaviour of their children Yes Rubbish and litter lying around Yes Motorbikes/ motorised scooters/ mini motos/ quad bikes Yes People using or dealing drugs Yes Unkempt gardens Yes Intimidation as a result of groups/ gangs of young people hanging Yes around on the street Vandalism/ Criminal damage Yes Street Drinking/ Drinking alcohol in the streets Yes People being drunk or rowdy in public spaces No Noisy neighbours or loud parties No Fly Tipping No Fly Posting No Graffiti No Abandoned or burnt out cars No Begging No Comparison of Recorded Crime Rate and Perceptions of ASB 2.28 The chart below (overleaf) shows the 12 month reported crime rate 3 per 1,000 for the population for each ward of the city. Arboretum ward has the highest crime rate, followed by Bulwell. The chart also shows the proportion of residents in the 2013 survey with a high perception of ASB (from the composite score created from the data). In general, as the crime rate at ward level declines, the proportion with a high perception of ASB declines. Noting that the sample sizes from the survey are only approximately 100 at ward level for 18 of the 20 wards, there are some exceptions to this trend. Aspley has the highest score in terms of perception of ASB, but is only ranked 5th in recorded crime. Similarly, Berridge has a perception of ASB score ranked 2nd, but is ranked 7th in terms of recorded crime. Radford and Park has a very low score for perception of ASB, but is ranked 9th in terms of crime. The survey sample sizes at ward level may account for some of this variation, but further monitoring of this in future surveys may support any findings here. 3 Source: Nottinghamshire Police Crime Data, January - December P a g e

29 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 10% 0% 29% Arboretum 16% 13% Bulwell Bridge Dunkirk and Lenton 44% Aspley 24% 30% 9% 6% 12% 15% 24% St Ann's High perception of ASB by Ward (>32 in composite score -%) by Crime Rate (Ranked by Crime Rate) Berridge Sherwood Radford and Park 12 Month Crime Rate Base size: Arboretum = 377, Aspley = 65, Basford = 87, Berridge = 86, Bestwood = 96, Bilborough = 72, Bridge = 69, Bulwell = 81, Bulwell Forest = 81, Clifton North = 79, Clifton South = 71, Dales = 63, Dunkirk and Lenton = 375, Leen Valley = 78, Mapperley = 65, Radford and Park = 81, Sherwood = 83, St Ann s = 88, Wollaton East and Lenton Abbey = 91, Wollaton West = 93 Caution: Small sample sizes 2.29 The scatter plot below shows the relationship between the perceptions of ASB and recorded crime data clearly. There is a positive correlation4 between perceptions of ASB and crime rate. For example, Aspley has a high proportion of residents with a high perception of ASB (composite score >32) and also a high crime rate. Bulwell ward has a high crime rate and an average proportion of residents who have a high perception of ASB. Sherwood and Radford and Park are in the mid-range in terms of crime rate, but have a small proportion of residents with high perceptions of ASB. Mapperley Basford Bilborough Perception of ASB - Composite Score 7% Leen Valley 23% Dales 12% 18% 12% 17% 12% Bulwell Forest Bestwood Clifton South Clifton North Wollaton East and Lenton Abbey 2% Wollaton West 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.445. This highlights a strong correlation between the two variables. The correlation coefficient is significantly different from 0 (no association between the 2 variables). 28 P a g e

30 Experiencing and Reporting Anti-Social Behaviour 2.30 Overall, 9.4% of respondents said they had been personally targeted by some form of anti-social behaviour in the last six months, such as repeated verbal abuse, damage to property or throwing of eggs. This is a reduction from both 2012 and 2011 when 11.5% (2012) and 13.4% (2011) of respondents reported personal experiences of ASB. These are both significant differences The survey data shows significant differences by deprivation and area of the city in the proportion of residents targeted by some form of ASB those living in more deprived areas and those from the north of the city were more likely to report being targeted in the last six months. Most Deprived 3rd Most Deprived Least Deprived See Appendix A for base size Significant differences by IMD and area Proportion who were targeted by ASB in the last 6 months (%) Overall Male White Asian Other South North 6% 7% 8% 10% 7% 7% 8% 9% 9% 8% 10% 8% 9% 9% 10% 10% 9% 10% 12% 12% 0% 5% 10% 15% % of respondents who personally faced some form of ASB in the last six months reported it to someone (35% did not report it). This figure for 2013 is higher than in 2012 when 57% reported some form of ASB and 2011 when 58% reported some form of ASB they faced. 29 P a g e

31 2.33 Of the respondents experiencing ASB, there are significant differences by age and deprivation in the proportions reporting it. Older age groups and respondents from more deprived areas were more likely to report ASB when they were targeted. Proportion who reported ASB in the last 6 months (%) Overall Male Female Most Deprived 2nd Most Deprived 3rd Most Deprived 4th Most Deprived Least Deprived 42% 48% 55% 65% 68% 63% 60% 63% 65% 73% 79% 81% 88% 81% White Mixed Asian Black Other 43% 44% 68% 68% 62% South Central North See Appendix A for base size Significant differences by age & IMD 71% 62% 65% 0% 40% 60% 80% 100% 2.34 This year (in the 2013 survey), of those respondents who reported some form of ASB they had faced in the last 6 months, the majority (84%) reported it to the Police, 21% to the Council, 6% to a private landlord, 3% to their registered social landlord, and 9% to other, which included a Police Community Support Officer, parents, schools and Environmental Health. These figures are comparable to those found in 2012 and 2011, and although there are some small differences these are not statistically significant For the respondents in 2013 who did not report the ASB they had faced, 46% said there was no point nothing ever gets done ; 5% said fear of reprisal and 53% gave some other reason. Respondents who gave other reasons provided further details of why they did not report the incident. Responses grouped around 4 key themes which can be summarized as: Didn t know who to report it to, Don t have the time, Thought it too small an issue to report, and Sorted it out themselves 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 else 5. 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 2013 survey, 49% of those who reported some form of ASB to the police were very or fairly satisfied with the response. This is 5 Base Sizes: Police 137; Council 31; Private Landlord 10; Registered Social Landlord 5 30 P a g e

32 an increase from 2012 when 45% were very or fairly satisfied with the response, but a fall from 2011 when 57% were very or fairly satisfied with the response. The difference between 2013 and 2012 is significant at the 90% level (but not at the 95% level). Satisfaction with Response to report of ASB (%) % 28% 4% 13% 24% % 12% 15% 13% 25% % 27% 12% 13% 24% 0% 40% 60% 80% 100% Base Sizes: , , Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Don't know 2.37 Respondents who reported the ASB they had personally faced in the last 6 month were asked to give further details. These were manually coded into the four categories of low level ASB, high level ASB, low level crime and high level crime. In total, 48% of those who had personally been targeted by ASB in the last six month were actually experiencing crime rather than ASB. ASB Experienced in Last Six Months 40% 30% 10% 0% 32% 28% 21% Low level ASB High level ASB Low level crime High level crime Base Sizes: P a g e

33 Feelings of Safety Local Neighbourhood (after dark) 2.38 Respondents to the survey were asked about two aspects of community safety feelings of safety in their local neighbourhood and in the town centre. When asked how safe or unsafe they felt walking alone in their local neighbourhood when it's dark, over two-thirds of respondents (68%) said they feel fairly or very safe in their local area when it s dark. A quarter of residents (25%) said they feel very or fairly unsafe. One in ten () said they don t go out alone in their local area when it is dark. Feelings of safety in local area when it is dark (%) 9% 6% 10% 27% Very safe Fairly safe Neither safe nor unsafe 7% Fairly unsafe Very unsafe 41% Don't go out alone Base Size = 2, Residents perceptions of safety in their local neighbourhood after dark have improved slightly since 2012 and In 2013, 68% said they felt very or fairly safe, compared to 67% in 2012 and 65% in 2011 the difference between 2013 and 2011 is a statistically significant difference. This question has also been asked in previous surveys of the public in Nottingham, though with different forms of wording over the years 6. Whilst the results are not directly comparable, the results over time suggest that perceptions of safety in the local neighbourhood have improved since % 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 10% 0% 42% Sep-2006 (Baseline) Feelings of safety in the neighbourhood after dark (proportion who feel very or fairly safe) -(%) 47% 46% Base Size in 2013 = 2, significantly different % 49% 51% 51% Mar-07 Sep-07 Mar-08 Sep-08 Mar-09 Sep-09 55% 65% 67% 68% Oct-10 Dec-11 Dec-12 Dec-13 6 It should be noted that there are differences in the question wording and order between the 2011, 2012 and 2013 IbyD surveys and previous surveys (conducted by JRA) which may explain some differences in the data. The question about feelings of safety in the local neighbourhood is asked after some questions about ASB in both the IbyD and JRA surveys, although the JRA survey considers a greater number of ASB issues and also explores some issues around policing. The JRA survey also asks respondents to consider how safe they feel during the day and then at night, whereas the IbyD survey only asks for how safe or unsafe they feel at night. The question about safety in Nottingham City Centre is asked at the very end of the JRA survey (2010) after all the ASB questions, whereas it is asked around halfway through the IbyD survey. The JRA survey also asked about walking with others first, then about walking alone, which could lead to a reduction in those who feel safe. 32 P a g e

34 Feelings of Safety by Age, Gender, Ethnicity, IMD and Area 2.40 There are some significant differences in the perceptions of safety in the local neighbourhood after dark by key sub-groups of residents. Women are less likely to feel fairly or very safe than men over four-fifths of men feel fairly or very safe compared to 56% of women. The 65+ age group are least likely to feel fairly or very safe. Respondents living in the most deprived area are less likely to feel safe in their neighbourhood when it s dark, with a 15 percentage point difference between the most deprived and the least deprived areas (as defined here by IMD quintile groups). Respondents from mixed ethnic groups were less likely to feel fairly or very safe. Feelings of safety in local neighbourhood after dark (very or fairly safe) -(%) Overall Male Most Deprived 3rd Most Deprived Least Deprived White Asian Other South North See Appendix A for Base Size Significant differences by gender, age, IMD & ethnicity 56% 54% 68% 71% 67% 72% 71% 72% 61% 67% 68% 69% 76% 54% 68% 66% 78% 84% 67% 68% 71% 81% 0% 40% 60% 80% 100% 33 P a g e

35 Drivers of feelings of safety 2.41 By examining respondents perceptions of safety with the issues they see as problems in their local neighbourhood we are able to determine what appears to be driving perceptions of community safety 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 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. 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. Intimidation by groups and gangs moves from 13th place for those who feel safe, to 3rd place for those who feel unsafe. People using or dealing drugs, motorbikes/ motorised scooters/ mini motos/ quad bikes and vandalism/criminal damage are also ranked higher for residents who feel unsafe than for residents who feel safe. Drivers of Perceptions of Safety Question 6: ASB issues Very/ Fairly safe Very/ Fairly safe - Rank Feelings of Safety Neither Very/ safe Fairly nor Unsafe unsafe Dog Fouling Rubbish and litter lying around Very/ Fairly Unsafe Rank Intimidation as a result of groups/ (Higher) gangs of young people hanging around on the street Parents not taking responsibility for (Lower) the behaviour of their children People using or dealing drugs (Higher) People being drunk or rowdy in (Lower) public spaces Motorbikes/ motorised scooters/ (Higher) mini motos/ quad bikes Street Drinking/ Drinking alcohol in (Lower) the streets Vandalism/ Criminal damage (Higher) Noisy neighbours or loud parties (Lower) Fly Posting (Lower) Fly Tipping (Lower) Unkempt gardens (Lower) Begging (Higher) Graffiti (Lower) Abandoned or burnt out cars P a g e

36 Feelings of Safety - Nottingham City Centre 2.44 Respondents were also asked about their perceptions of safety in Nottingham City Centre when it is dark. The results suggest that residents have more concerns about safety in Nottingham City Centre after dark than in their local neighbourhood with less than a half (48%) feeling fairly or very safe (compared to 68% who feel safe in their local neighbourhood). 17% said they feel fairly or very unsafe, and nearly a quarter (24%) reported that they don t go out alone (at night). Feelings of safety in Nottingham City Centre when it is dark (%) 24% 15% Very safe Fairly safe Neither safe nor unsafe 7% 10% 33% Fairly unsafe Very unsafe Don't go out alone Base Size = 2, There are some changes in the results to this question between this year and 2011 and The proportion of residents who feel fairly or very safe increased to 48% from 46% in 2012 and 45% in The difference between 2013 and 2011 is statistically significant. The proportion of residents who feel fairly or very unsafe also decreased slightly from 21% in 2011 and 19% in 2012 to 18% in The proportion of residents who don t go out in the city centre alone when it is dark has remained similar. Feelings of safety in Nottingham City Centre when it's dark by Year (%) % 7% 23% % 31% 12% 7% 24% % 33% 10% 10% 7% 24% 0% 40% 60% 80% 100% Very safe Fairly safe Neither safe nor unsafe Fairly unsafe Very unsafe Don't go out alone Base Size: 2013 = 2,738, 2012 = 1993, 2011 = significantly different P a g e

37 Feelings of Safety by Age, Gender, Ethnicity, IMD and Area 2.46 There are significant differences in perceptions of safety in Nottingham City Centre when it is dark by gender, age, ethnicity and area. Women are again less likely to feel fairly or very safe than men. Perceptions of safety in the city centre after dark are also lower amongst older residents, those from the white, mixed and Asian ethnic groups and residents living in the North area. Feelings of safety in Nottingham City Centre after dark (very or fairly safe) -(%) Overall Male Female 37% 48% 59% Most Deprived 2nd Most Deprived 3rd Most Deprived 4th Most Deprived Least Deprived White Mixed Asian Black Other South Central North See Appendix A for Base Size Significant differences by gender, age, ethnicity & area 48% 41% 36% 40% 48% 50% 46% 48% 50% 48% 48% 45% 51% 54% 57% 59% 61% 67% 0% 10% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 36 P a g e

38 Feelings of Safety by Ward Local Area and City Centre 2.47 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 it is dark, with only 55% of residents in Aspley ward feeling safe compared to over fourfifths (81%) of residents in Dunkirk and Lenton. There are some wards which are significantly different to the City overall (*). Proportion who feel fairly/very safe walking alone in their local area at night by ward (%) Dunkirk and Lenton * Bridge * Wollaton West * Bestwood Sherwood Bulwell Forest Berridge Bilborough Wollaton East and Lenton Abbey Mapperley Leen Valley Basford Radford and Park Bulwell Dales Clifton South Clifton North St Ann's Arboretum * Aspley * 81% 78% 77% 74% 73% 73% 71% 71% 71% 70% 68% 66% 66% 66% 65% 63% 63% 62% 58% 55% 0% 40% 60% 80% 100% Base size: Arboretum = 476, Aspley = 92, Basford = 101, Berridge = 107, Bestwood = 108, Bilborough = 94, Bridge = 92, Bulwell = 95, Bulwell Forest = 97, Clifton North = 96, Clifton South = 96, Dales = 96, Dunkirk and Lenton = 483, Leen Valley = 98, Mapperley = 89, Radford and Park = 96, Sherwood = 106, St Ann s = 107, Wollaton East and Lenton Abbey = 129, Wollaton West = 108 Caution: Small sample sizes *Significant difference to City overall 37 P a g e

39 2.48 Looking at perceptions of safety in the City Centre, residents from Dunkirk and Lenton, Arboretum and Bridge where more likely to feel fairly or very safe in the City Centre when it is dark. 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. The differences in perceptions of safety in the city centre may also be being driven by age of residents some wards have a younger age profile than others. There are some wards where there are significant differences to the City overall (*). Proportion who feel fairly/very safe walking alone in Nottingham City Centre at night by ward (%) Dunkirk and Lenton * Arboretum * Bridge * Radford and Park * St Ann's * Mapperley * Berridge Sherwood Bestwood Wollaton East and Lenton Abbey Dales Basford Wollaton West Bulwell Clifton North Aspley * Bulwell Forest * Bilborough * Leen Valley * Clifton South * 49% 48% 47% 46% 43% 43% 42% 40% 39% 39% 35% 35% 35% 35% 67% 65% 63% 62% 61% 58% 0% 10% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Base size: Arboretum = 466, Aspley = 89, Basford = 100, Berridge = 105, Bestwood = 107, Bilborough = 91, Bridge = 92, Bulwell = 94, Bulwell Forest = 95, Clifton North = 94, Clifton South = 94, Dales = 96, Dunkirk and Lenton = 475, Leen Valley = 98, Mapperley = 89, Radford and Park = 93, Sherwood = 105, St Ann s = 107, Wollaton East and Lenton Abbey = 129, Wollaton West = 107 Caution: Small sample sizes *Significant difference to City overall 38 P a g e

40 Sense of Community 2.49 Over half (53%) of respondents said they tend to agree or strongly agree that there is a sense of community where they live. This is a slight increase from 2012 when 51% respondents agreed or strongly agreed, but a decrease from 2011, when six out of 10 (59%) respondents agreed or strongly agreed. Agreement with the statement: "There is a strong sense of community where I live" (%) 18% 17% 34% Strongly Agree Tend to Agree Neither Tend to Disagree Strongly Disagree Base size: 2, Whilst the sample sizes by ward are small, there are some differences in the sense of community ranging from 70% of respondents in Wollaton West who agree or strongly agree with this statement compared to just 37% of respondents in Dunkirk and Lenton. This reflects the overall position, with a lower proportion agreeing (strongly or tend to agree) in all wards. There are some differences by ward, with 8 wards having significant differences to the City overall. As shown in the second chart below (overleaf), there is no strong correlation between IMD and sense of community at ward level. Wollaton West * Bestwood * Clifton South * Sherwood Wollaton East and Lenton Abbey Clifton North Dales Leen Valley Bilborough Basford Berridge Bulwell Forest St Ann's Mapperley Bulwell Bridge * Radford and Park * Arboretum * Aspley * Dunkirk and Lenton * Sense of Community by Ward (strongly agree / tend to agree with statement) -(%) 70% 64% 63% 61% 58% 58% 58% 58% 56% 54% 54% 53% 52% 52% 51% 45% 44% 42% 41% 37% 0% 40% 60% 80% Base size: Arboretum = 479, Aspley = 92, Basford = 99, Berridge = 107, Bestwood = 106, Bilborough = 94, Bridge = 91, Bulwell = 94, Bulwell Forest = 97, Clifton North = 95, Clifton South = 97, Dales = 96, Dunkirk and Lenton = 483, Leen Valley = 97, Mapperley = 88, Radford and Park = 96, Sherwood = 106, St Ann s = 107, Wollaton East and Lenton Abbey = 127, Wollaton West = 108 Caution: Small sample sizes *Significant differences to City overall 39 P a g e

41 Sense of Community by Ward (Ranked by IMD Score) % 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 10% 0% IMD Score Strong sense of community Base size: Arboretum = 479, Aspley = 92, Basford = 99, Berridge = 107, Bestwood = 106, Bilborough = 94, Bridge = 91, Bulwell = 94, Bulwell Forest = 97, Clifton North = 95, Clifton South = 97, Dales = 96, Dunkirk and Lenton = 483, Leen Valley = 97, Mapperley = 88, Radford and Park = 96, Sherwood = 106, St Ann s = 107, Wollaton East and Lenton Abbey = 127, Wollaton West = 108 Caution: Small sample sizes Sense of Community by Age, Gender, Ethnicity and IMD 2.51 There are significant differences by age, deprivation and ethnic group in agreement that there is a sense of community. Respondents from the 65+ age group were more likely to agree that there was a strong sense of community. Respondents from White, Mixed and Asian backgrounds were more likely to agree that there was a strong sense of community than those from Black or Other ethnic groups. Those in the more deprived areas generally have lower level of agreement that there was a strong sense of community, however as shown in the chart above there is no strong correlation between IMD and sense of community at ward level Sense of Community (tend to agree or strongly agree) -(%) Overall Male Female % 53% 52% 55% 48% 53% 51% 59% 64% Most Deprived 2nd Most Deprived 3rd Most Deprived 4th Most Deprived Least Deprived 48% 52% 53% 55% 59% White Mixed Asian Black Other 35% 46% 54% 56% 59% South Central North See Appendix A for Base Size Significant differences by age, IMD and ethnicity 54% 52% 54% 0% 10% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 40 P a g e

42 Sense of Community and Anti-Social Behaviour 2.52 There appears to be some 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. Although the pattern is not clear, there are significant differences by ward, suggesting that those with a stronger sense of community have lower perceptions of ASB. This is most evident when grouping wards into quartiles (see second chart below) based on their sense of community, which demonstrates that respondents in the 5 wards with the highest sense of community (the highest quartile) have the lowest perception of anti-social behaviour. Strong sense of community (agree / strongly agree -%) and High perception of ASB (>32 in composite score -%) Wollaton West Bestwood Clifton South Sherwood Wollaton East and Clifton North Dales Leen Valley Bilborough Basford Berridge Bulwell Forest St Ann's Mapperley Bulwell Bridge Radford and Park Arboretum Aspley Dunkirk and Lenton Strong sense of community High perception of ASB Linear (High perception of ASB) 0% 40% 60% 80% Sense of community Base size: Arboretum = 479, Aspley = 92, Basford = 99, Berridge = 107, Bestwood = 106, Bilborough = 94, Bridge = 91, Bulwell = 94, Bulwell Forest = 97, Clifton North = 95, Clifton South = 97, Dales = 96, Dunkirk and Lenton = 483, Leen Valley = 97, Mapperley = 88, Radford and Park = 96, Sherwood = 106, St Ann s = 107, Wollaton East and Lenton Abbey = 127, Wollaton West = 108 High perception of ASB Base size: Arboretum = 377, Aspley = 65, Basford = 87, Berridge = 86, Bestwood = 96, Bilborough = 72, Bridge = 69, Bulwell = 81, Bulwell Forest = 81, Clifton North = 79, Clifton South = 71, Dales = 63, Dunkirk and Lenton = 375, Leen Valley = 78, Mapperley = 65, Radford and Park = 81, Sherwood = 83, St Ann s = 88, Wollaton East and Lenton Abbey = 91, Wollaton West = 93 Caution: Small sample sizes Significant differences by ward High Perception of ASB (>32 in composite score) by strong sense of community quartile High Perception of ASB 25% 15% 10% 5% 0% 18% 18% Lowest Quartile 2nd Quartile 3rd Quartile Highest Quartile Sense of Community Base size: Lowest Quartile = 573, 2nd Quartile = 616, 3rd Quartile = 502, Highest Quartile = 519 Significant differences by quartile 41 P a g e

43 Associations between Safety, Community and ASB 2.53 There is an association between feelings of safety, sense of community and perceptions of anti-social behaviour: although of course safety may be a driver of other perceptions, or other perceptions may be a driver on 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 2012 and 2011, where there was a gap of 29% and 18% respectively. They are also less likely to agree that there is a strong sense of community, with a gap in agreement that there is a sense of community between those who feel very/fairly safe and those who feel very/fairly unsafe. 100% NI 17 High/Low Perception of Anti-Social Behaviour by Feeling of Safety in Local Area High Perception of ASB 80% 60% 40% 0% 96% 88% 83% 4% 12% 17% Very + fairly safe Neither Very + fairly unsafe Feeling of Safety See Appendix A for Base Size Significant differences by feeling of safety Agreement that there is a stong sense of community by Feeling of Safety in Local Area Sense of Community 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 10% 0% 56% 42% 42% Very + fairly safe Neither Very + fairly unsafe Feeling of Safety 60% Don't go out alone See Appendix A for Base Size Significant differences by feeling of safety 42 P a g e

44 Priorities for Crime and Anti-Social Behaviour Identified Issues 2.54 Respondents were asked to identify up to five things they were most concerned about in terms of crime and community safety. The chart below shows the issues which were ranked first from the five choices respondents were given. Burglary, Alcohol related violence and disorder and drug use and dealing were ranked most highly as issues that residents were most concerned about. Base Size: 2, The chart below shows the extent to which respondents are concerned about each of the issues, taking into account all of the issues they selected. Respondents were given five choices and were asked to rank the ones they were most concerned about from the list of issues given. Rank number one was assigned a score of 5; rank two was given a score of 4, and so on. From this, a mean score for each of the issues can be calculated - although the top ranked is still burglary, the ranking changes to highlight a concern about robbery. Base Size: 2,548 Crime and Community Safety Issues - Ranked 1st (%) Burglary Alcohol related violence and disorder Drug use and dealing Weapon/gang related violence Sexual violence Nuisance and Anti-social Behaviour Robbery Youth Crime Car crime Domestic Violence Hate crime Business crime 8% 8% 7% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 36% 0% 5% 10% 15% 25% 30% 35% 40% Crime and Community Safety Issues - Mean Scores Burglary Robbery Drug use and dealing Alcohol related violence and disorder Weapon/gang related violence Nuisance and Anti-social Behaviour Car crime Youth Crime Sexual violence Domestic Violence Hate crime Business crime P a g e

45 2.56 There are some differences in the mean scores between this year and 2012 and In all three years.burglary is the top concern but other issues have moved rankings. Robbery has moved up the rank order from 2011, with alcohol related violence and disorder moving down the rank order of concerns. There are also some significant differences in the mean scores between 2013 and 2012 and Robbery and sexual violence has increased as a concern in 2013, whilst concerns about alcohol related violence and disorder, nuisance and anti-social behaviour, car crime, youth crime, and business crime have decreased. Crime and Community Safety Issues By Year -Mean Scores Burglary Robbery # Drug use and dealing Alcohol related violence and disorder # Weapon/gang related violence Nuisance and Anti-social Behaviour */# Car crime # Youth Crime */# Sexual violence */# Domestic Violence Hate crime Business crime # Base Size: 2013 = 2548, 2012 = 1,861, 2011 = 1,814 * = 2013 significantly different to 2012, #=2013 significantly different to P a g e

46 Combating Crime and Anti-Social Behaviour 2.57 Respondents were asked to identify up to three ways that they felt crime and antisocial behaviour could be reduced. Better parenting/encouraging discipline was ranked first, with almost a quarter (23%) of respondents ranking this aspect first. More CCTV was ranked as the second most effective measure (21%), and more activities for young people third ranked (15%). There are some differences between these first rankings this year and those reported in Most notably, more visible policing has dropped down the ranking to 4 th place in 2013 from 1 st place in 2012 as a means of reducing crime and ASB. Better parenting has moved from 2 nd place in 2012 to 1 st place this year. The first rankings in 2013 are similar to those in 2011 with the same top 9 categories. Ways to Reduce Crime and Anti-Social Behaviour - Ranked 1st (%) Better Parenting/encourage discipline More CCTV 21% 23% More activities for young people More visible policing 15% Tougher enforcementsentencing 8% More community pay back schemes More help for drug alcohol users Improved Neighbourhood Watch Schemes/ Neighbourhood Alert More evictions of perpetrators Other More forensics in first 24 hours Photo/posters displayed locally of offenders Tighter management of offenders by probation 5% 4% 3% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 0% 5% 10% 15% 25% Base Size: 2, Mean scores were again calculated for each of the aspects that respondents felt could potentially reduce crime and ASB (by allocating a score of 3 to the top rank, 2 to the second and 3 to the third, and taking the average). The chart below shows the mean scores a higher mean score indicating that the aspect was placed higher in terms of its perceived impact in reducing crime and ASB. A change in order is seen between the mean scores and the proportion ranked first, with more CCTV seen as the most effective way to reduce crime and ASB, followed more visible policing. Better parenting was ranked third. The chart (overleaf) shows that there are four aspects stand out as having higher mean scores - these have scores of 0.85 and higher. 45 P a g e

47 Ways to Reduce Crime and Anti-Social Behaviour - Mean Score More CCTV More visible policing Better Parenting/encourage discipline More activities for young people Tougher enforcement/sentencing More help for drug/ alcohol users More community pay back schemes More evictions of perpetrators Tighter management of offenders by probation Photo/posters displayed locally of offenders More forensics in first 24 hours Other Base Size: 2, There are some differences in the mean scores between this year and 2012 and In 2013, more CCTV was ranked most highly as a means to reduce crime and ASB, this being ranked 3 rd in both 2011 and In contrast, more visible policing was ranked 1 st in 2012, and is now ranked 2 nd, and better parenting was ranked 1 st in 2011 and is now ranked 3 rd. There are also some significant differences in the mean scores between the three years. More CCTV has a higher mean score than in 2012 and In 2013 more visible policing has a higher mean score than 2011, and a lower score than in Ways to Reduce Crime and Anti-Social Behaviour -Mean Score More CCTV */# More visible policing */# Better Parenting/encourage More activities for young people * Tougher enforcement/sentencing More help for drug/ alcohol users More community pay back schemes * More evictions of perpetrators * Photo/posters displayed locally of More forensics in first 24 hours Other # Base Size: 2013 = 2,682, 2012 = 1,960, 2011 = 1,887 * = 2013 significantly different to 2012, #=2013 significantly different to P a g e

48 2.60 To summarise, the table below shows the ranking of mean scores for perceived crime and community safety issues alongside the ranking of measures which residents think are for best for addressing crime and ASB issues. As reported earlier, the top 3 issues from the 2013 survey are burglary, robbery, and drug use and dealing. The top three things that residents think should be done to reduce crime and ASB are more CCTV, more visible policing and better parenting. Ranking of crime and community safety issues and measures to address ASB and crime Rank Crime and community safety issues most concerned about Mean Score Ways to Reduce crime and ASB Mean Score 1 Burglary 2.88 More CCTV Robbery 1.42 More visible policing Drug use and dealing 1.37 Better Parenting/encourage discipline Alcohol related violence and disorder 1.35 More activities for young people Weapon/gang related violence 1.17 Tougher enforcement/sentencing Nuisance and Anti-social Behaviour 1.14 More help for drug/ alcohol users Car crime 1.08 More community pay back schemes Youth Crime 1.02 Improved Neighbourhood Watch Schemes/ Neighbourhood Alert Sexual violence 1.02 More evictions of perpetrators Domestic Violence 0.66 Tighter management of offenders by probation Hate crime 0.63 Photo/posters displayed locally of offenders Business crime 0.16 More forensics in first 24 hours Other 0.07 Concerns of Year Olds 2.61 As shown in the table below, the top 2 ASB issues are the same for respondents in the age group as for those who are in the older age groups. Respondents aged ranked alcohol related violence and disorder, weapon/gang related violence, sexual violence and hate crime higher and drug use and dealing, nuisance and anti-social behaviour, car crime and domestic violence lower than the general population. Again, the most popular measures to reduce crime and anti-social behaviour amongst this age group are the same as in the general population of residents in the city. Ranking of crime and community safety issues and measures to address ASB and crime year olds Rank Crime and community safety issues most concerned about Mean Score Ways to Reduce crime and ASB Mean Score 1 Burglary 2.66 More CCTV Robbery 1.63 More visible policing Alcohol related violence and disorder 1.56 More activities for young people Weapon/gang related violence 1.41 Tougher enforcement/sentencing Sexual violence 1.31 Better Parenting/encourage discipline Drug use and dealing 1.15 More help for drug/ alcohol users Nuisance and Anti-social Behaviour 1.05 Improved Neighbourhood Watch Schemes/ 0.36 Neighbourhood Alert 8 Youth Crime 1.02 More community pay back schemes Hate crime 0.80 Tighter management of offenders by probation Car crime 0.79 More forensics in first 24 hours Domestic Violence 0.73 More evictions of perpetrators Business crime 0.13 Photo/posters displayed locally of offenders Other P a g e

49 Dealing with Anti-Social Behaviour and Crime 2.62 Overall, 63% 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. 15% tend to agree or strongly disagree. The 2013 results show an increase in the proportion of residents who agree with the statement in 2013, 63% agreed compared to 58% in The difference between the two years is statistically significant. A similar proportion, 63%, agreed in % 40% Level of agreement with the statement: "The Police and Local Council are dealing with the antisocial behaviour and crime issues that matter in this area" (%) 42% 30% 10% 21% 22% 9% 6% 0% Base Size = 2,744 Strongly Agree Tend to Agree Neither Tend to Disagree Strongly Disagree Level of agreement with the statement: "The Police and Local Council are dealing with the antisocial behaviour and crime issues that matter in this area" By Year (%) % 46% 19% 13% 5% % 40% 25% 7% % 42% 22% 9% 6% 0% 40% 60% 80% 100% Base Size = 2013, 2, = 1,996, 2011 = 1, significantly difference to 2012 and 2011 Strongly Agree Tend to Agree Neither Tend to Disagree Strongly Disagree 48 P a g e

50 2.63 There are significant differences by IMD in the proportion of respondents who agree or strongly agree with the statement the Police and Local Council are dealing with the anti-social behaviour and crime issues that matter in this area. Respondents from the least deprived quintiles are more likely to agree with this statement. Level of agreement with the statement: "The Police and Local Council are dealing with the antisocial behaviour and crime issues that matter in this area" (tend to agree or strongly agree) -(%) Overall Male Female Most Deprived 2nd Most Deprived 3rd Most Deprived 4th Most Deprived Least Deprived 63% 64% 62% 64% 59% 61% 62% 64% 69% 58% 63% 62% 67% 65% White Mixed Asian Black Other 63% 62% 61% 66% 73% South Central North See Appendix A for Base Size Significant differences by IMD 62% 64% 62% 0% 10% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 49 P a g e

51 Drivers of Agreement that Police and Local Council are dealing with the anti-social behaviour and crime issues 2.64 By examining respondents levels of agreement 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 in this respect 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 dog fouling of 1.96 (out of 4 7 ) compared to a mean score of 2.44 for those tend to disagree or strongly disagree. 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 is different from those who do. For those who do not feel that the Police and Council are dealing with ASB issues locally, intimidation as a result of groups/gangs of young people hanging around on the street is ranked 5 th most important, compared to a rank of 10 th amongst resident who do agree that the Police and Council are dealing with ASB and crime issues in the local area. 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/ Tend to Agree Strongly/ Tend to Agree - Rank Neither Strongly/ Tend to Disagree Strongly/ Tend to Disagree Rank Rubbish and litter lying around (Higher) Dog Fouling (Lower) Parents not taking responsibility for the behaviour of their children People using or dealing drugs (Higher) Intimidation as a result of groups/ gangs of young (Higher) people hanging around on the street People being drunk or rowdy in public spaces (Higher) Motorbikes/ motorised scooters/ mini motos/ quad (Lower) bikes Street Drinking/ Drinking alcohol in the streets (Lower) Vandalism/ Criminal damage (Lower) Noisy neighbours or loud parties (Lower) Unkempt gardens (Higher) Fly Tipping (Higher) Fly Posting (Lower) Graffiti Begging Abandoned or burnt out cars 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. 50 P a g e

52 Seeking People s Views on What Matters 2.66 Almost a half (48%) 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 in their local area. Just over a quarter (28%) disagreed with this statement. The proportion who agreed with the statement in 2013 is very similar to that found in 2012 and 2011, however in 2011 a smaller proportion strongly disagreed with the statement and this resulted in the 2013 and 2011 results being significantly different. 40% 35% 30% 25% 15% 10% 5% 0% Base Size = 2,739 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" (%) 34% 25% 16% Strongly Agree Tend to Agree Neither Tend to Disagree 12% Strongly Disagree 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" By Year (%) % 26% 19% 7% % 25% 13% % 25% 16% 12% 0% 40% 60% 80% 100% Strongly Agree Tend to Agree Neither Tend to Disagree Strongly Disagree Base Size: 2013 = 2,739, 2012 = 1,995, 2011 = 1, significantly different to P a g e

53 2.67 There are significant differences by gender and age in terms of agreement with this statement. Men and older age groups are more likely to agree that the Police and Local Council seek people s views about anti-social behaviour and crime issues in their local area. Level of agreement with the statement: "The Police and Local Council seek people's views about the anti-social behaviour and crime issues that matter in this area" (tend to agree or strongly agree) -(%) Overall 48% Male Female 45% 50% Most Deprived 2nd Most Deprived 3rd Most Deprived 4th Most Deprived Least Deprived White Mixed Asian Black Other 44% 46% 50% 47% 50% 53% 45% 47% 50% 49% 47% 48% 48% 43% 46% 43% South Central North See Appendix A for Base Size Significant differences by gender & age 49% 47% 46% 0% 10% 30% 40% 50% 60% 52 P a g e

54 Satisfaction with Cleanliness Local Neighbourhood 2.68 Overall, just over a quarter of respondents (28%) were very satisfied with Nottingham City Council s efforts to keep their local neighbourhood clean and tidy. This is very similar to the result for 2012 when 27% were very satisfied and slightly higher than 2011 when 26% were very satisfied. Overall, there are no significant differences between the levels who were very satisfied between the three years. However, there is a difference in the proportion of respondents who neither satisfied nor dissatisfied in % of residents were neither satisfied nor dissatisfied compared to in 2012 and 7% in The chart below also shows the trend between 2006 and 2013 showing a reversal in the decline in satisfaction seen between 2010 and 2012, with 2013 being significantly different to Satisfaction with the Councils efforts to keep your local neighbourhood clean and tidy -By Year (%) % 54% 9% 7% 4% % 50% 7% 5% % 52% 7% 9% 4% 0% 40% 60% 80% 100% Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither satisfied or dissatisfied Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Base Size: 2013 = 2,767, 2012 = 2,007, 2011 = 1, significantly difference to 2012 and % 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 10% 0% Satisfaction with NCC efforts to keep local neighbourhood clean and tidy (very and fairly satisfied) -(%) 75% 77% 79% 80% 83% 82% 84% 84% Sep-2006 (Baseline) 80% 77% 80% Mar-07 Sep-07 Mar-08 Sep-08 Mar-09 Sep-09 Oct-10 Dec-11 Dec-12 Dec-13 Base Size = 2, significantly difference to P a g e

55 Satisfaction Levels by Age, Gender, Ethnicity and IMD 2.69 There is a significant difference in levels of satisfaction by age, IMD and area. Respondents in the age group, from the most deprived quintile, and from the central area of the city were less likely to be satisfied with the Council s efforts to keep their local neighbourhood clean and tidy. Satisfaction with NCC efforts to keep local neighbourhood clean and tidy (fairly or very satisfied) -(%) Overall Male Female Most Deprived 2nd Most Deprived 3rd Most Deprived 4th Most Deprived Least Deprived 80% 80% 79% 83% 77% 75% 81% 80% 82% 73% 83% 79% 81% 82% White Mixed Asian Black Other South Central North 80% 76% 77% 76% 82% 77% 80% 90% 0% 40% 60% 80% 100% See Appendix A for Base Size Significant differences by age, IMD & area 54 P a g e

56 Satisfaction with Nottingham City Centre 2.70 In terms of satisfaction with the Council s efforts to keep Nottingham City Centre clean and tidy, a quarter are very satisfied similar to 2012 and Combining very and fairly satisfied categories shows an increase in the proportion of residents who are satisfied with the Council s efforts to keep Nottingham City Centre clean and tidy from 78% in 2011 and 74% in 2012 to 79% in The increase from 2012 to 2013 is a significant difference. Trend data from earlier surveys points to a possible fall in levels of satisfaction here. Satisfaction with the Councils efforts to keep Nottingham City Centre clean and tidy -By Year (%) % 56% 6% 2% % 50% 18% 5% 2% % 53% 15% 5% 2% 0% 40% 60% 80% 100% Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither satisfied or dissatisfied Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Base Size: 2013 = 2,648, 2012 = 1,962, 2011 = 1, significantly difference to % 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 10% 0% Satisfaction with NCC efforts to keep Nottingham City Centre clean and tidy (very and fairly satisfied) -(%) 82% 83% 81% 81% 83% 84% 85% 86% Sep-2006 (Baseline) 78% 74% 79% Mar-07 Sep-07 Mar-08 Sep-08 Mar-09 Sep-09 Oct-10 Dec-11 Dec-12 Dec-13 Base Size (Dec 13) = 2, significantly difference to P a g e

57 Satisfaction Levels by Age, Gender and IMD 2.71 There are significant differences by age younger people are more satisfied than older people with the Council s efforts to keep the City Centre clean and tidy. Satisfaction with NCC efforts to keep Nottingham City Centre clean and tidy (fairly or very satisfied) -(%) Overall Male Female Most Deprived 2nd Most Deprived 3rd Most Deprived 4th Most Deprived Least Deprived 79% 78% 79% 84% 83% 78% 78% 69% 71% 76% 79% 78% 80% 79% White Mixed Asian Black Other 78% 76% 79% 80% 89% South Central North See Appendix A for Base Size Significant differences by age 79% 79% 78% 0% 40% 60% 80% 100% 56 P a g e

58 Community Payback 2.72 Overall, 27% of respondents had heard of community payback. This is a drop from 2012, when 29% had heard of community payback, and 2011, when 30% had heard of community payback. In 2013, there were significant differences in awareness of community payback by gender, age, ethnic group and area. Men were more likely to be aware of community payback, as were residents from the middle aged groups. Awareness appeared to be particularly low amongst Asian residents. Respondents from the central area of the city were less likely to be aware of community payback. Awareness of Community Payback (%) Overall 27% Male Female 25% 29% % 25% 29% 31% 36% 36% Most Deprived 2nd Most Deprived 3rd Most Deprived 4th Most Deprived Least Deprived 28% 24% 26% 30% 28% White Mixed Asian Black Other 2% 8% 24% 31% 28% South Central North 25% 28% 30% 0% 5% 10% 15% 25% 30% 35% 40% See Appendix A for Base Size Significant differences by gender, age, ethnicity & area 57 P a g e

59 Volunteering 2.73 Overall, just one-in-ten respondents (10%) said they were currently involved in formal volunteering. This is the same as in 2012 but a reduction from 13% in In 2013, of respondents said they were involved in more informal volunteering such as joining a neighbourhood watch group or helping an elderly neighbour. This is the same as in 2012 but a reduction from 18% in The chart below shows that over a quarter of respondents would consider some kind of volunteering in the next 12 months, either formal or informal. Volunteering Status and Future Intentions (%) Helping out in your community 27% 56% 6% Formal volunteering 10% 25% 58% 7% 0% 10% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Currently involved Would consider in the next 12 months Wouldn't consider in the next 12 months Don't know Base Size: Formal Volunteering = 2,751, Helping out in your community = 2, The chart below shows the changes in levels of formal volunteering between the three years. In 2013 a similar number were involved but a lower proportion of respondents would consider volunteering compared to In 2011, 13% of respondents were currently involved in volunteering, higher than 2013 when 10% of respondents were currently involved in volunteering. The differences between the years are statistically significant. Formal Volunteering Status and Future Intentions (%) % 26% 57% 4% % 29% 60% 1% % 25% 58% 7% 0% 10% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Currently involved Wouldn't consider in the next 12 months Don't know Base Size: 2013 = 2,751, 2012 = 1,994, 2011 = 1, significantly different to 2012 and 2011 Would consider in the next 12 months 58 P a g e

60 2.76 The chart below shows the changes in levels of helping out in the community between the three years. In 2013 a similar number were involved but a lower proportion of respondents would consider helping out compared to In 2011, 18% of respondents were currently involved in helping out, higher than 2013 when of respondents were currently involved. The differences between the years are statistically significant. Helping out in your community Status and Future Intentions (%) % 29% 48% 4% % 56% 1% % 56% 6% 0% 10% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Currently involved Base Size: 2013 = 2,752, 2012 = 1,993, 2011 = 1, significantly different to 2012 and 2011 Willingness to Volunteer Wouldn't consider in the next 12 months Don't know Would consider in the next 12 months 2.77 Overall 27% said they would consider helping out in the community in the next 12 months, and 25% said they would consider more formal volunteering. For both, there are significant differences by age, IMD, ethnic group and area. Younger residents, those from more affluent areas, residents from some BME groups and residents from the central area of the city are more likely to say they would be willing to volunteer in the next year. Would consider volunteering in the next 12 months (%) Overall 25% 27% Male Female 26% 26% 25% 27% Most Deprived 2nd Most Deprived 3rd Most Deprived 4th Most Deprived Least Deprived 8% 8% 27% 30% 27% 31% 21% 22% 19% 21% 21% 25% 26% 24% 26% 27% 28% 29% 32% 38% Helping out in your community Formal volunteering White Mixed Asian Black Other 24% 25% 31% 32% 27% 30% 33% 39% 43% South Central North 22% 23% 23% 24% 31% 33% 0% 10% 30% 40% 50% See Appendix A for Base Size Formal Volunteering: Significant differences by age, IMD, ethnicity & area Helping out in your community: Significant differences by age, IMD, ethnicity & area 59 P a g e

61 Crime in your local area 2.78 When asked how much their quality life is affected by crime on a scale of 0 to 10 where 0 is no effect and 10 is total effect, half (50%) of respondents thought that crime had no effect or very little effect on their quality of life (a score of 0 or 1). 9% of respondents thought that crime had a total effect or an almost total effect on their quality of life (a score of 7 or higher). 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 10% 0% Base size: 2,769 How much is your own quality of life affected by crime? (%) 38% 0 - No effect 12% 15% 9% 6% 8% 4% 3% 3% 1% 2% 2.79 The chart below shows how much respondents thought their own quality of life was affected by crime on a scale of 0 to 10 as a mean score. The higher the mean score the greater the effect of crime on their quality of life. Overall, respondents gave a mean score of Looking at the results by sub-group shows that there are significant differences by gender, age, ethnicity and area. Women, respondents in the age group, respondents from Asian backgrounds and residents of the south and central areas of the city are more likely to think crime affects their quality of life. Most Deprived 2nd Most Deprived 3rd Most Deprived 4th Most Deprived Least Deprived See Appendix A for Base Size Significant differences by gender, age, ethnicity & area Total effect How much is your own quality of life affected by crime? - Mean Score Overall Male Female White Mixed Asian Black Other South Central North P a g e

62 2.80 Respondents were asked how much of a problem crime is in their local area. Nearly three-quarters (73%) of respondent thought that crime was not a problem at all or not much of a problem. 27% thought that crime was a very big or quite a big problem. Base Size: 2, % 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 10% 0% How much of a problem if at all do you think crime is in your local area? (%) 4% A very big problem 24% Quite a big problem 2.81 There are significant differences by age, gender, IMD, ethic group and area in the proportions of respondents who think that crime is a very or quite big problem in their local area. Women, younger age groups, residents from more deprived areas, respondents from mixed, Asian or other minority ethnic backgrounds and residents from the central area of the city were more likely to think that crime is a problem in their local area. 58% Not much of a problem 15% Not a problem at all How much of a problem if at all do you think crime is in your local area? (very & quite big problem) (%) Overall 27% Male Female 25% 30% % 26% 31% 30% 35% Most Deprived 2nd Most Deprived 3rd Most Deprived 4th Most Deprived Least Deprived 27% 30% 31% 29% White Mixed Asian Black Other 26% 26% 32% 36% 37% South Central North See Appendix A for Base Size Significant differences by gender, age, IMD, ethnicity & area 25% 27% 30% 0% 10% 30% 40% 61 P a g e

63 2.82 Whilst the sample sizes by ward are small, there are some differences in the proportion of residents who think that crime is a problem in their local area ranging from 46% of respondents in Radford and Park who think crime in their local area is either a very big or quite big problem compared to just of respondents in Wollaton West. There are some significant differences by ward to the city overall (*). How much of a problem if at all do you think crime is in your local area? (very & quite big problem) (%) Radford and Park * Aspley * Arboretum * Berridge * Clifton South St Ann's Dunkirk and Lenton Clifton North Bulwell Forest Wollaton East and Lenton Abbey Bulwell Basford Mapperley Bridge Bilborough * Dales * Leen Valley Bestwood * Sherwood * Wollaton West * 23% 23% 22% 22% 21% 19% 19% 18% 46% 44% 39% 38% 35% 33% 30% 30% 29% 0% 10% 30% 40% 50% Base size: Arboretum = 478, Aspley = 89, Basford = 99, Berridge = 106, Bestwood = 108, Bilborough = 94, Bridge = 90, Bulwell = 95, Bulwell Forest = 97, Clifton North = 96, Clifton South = 96, Dales = 96, Dunkirk and Lenton = 484, Leen Valley = 97, Mapperley = 87, Radford and Park = 96, Sherwood = 105, St Ann s = 107, Wollaton East and Lenton Abbey = 125, Wollaton West = 107 Caution: Small sample sizes *Significant differences to City overall 62 P a g e

64 2.83 The chart below shows the 12 month reported crime rate per 1,000 for the population for each ward of the city and the proportion of residents who think that crime is a very big or quite a big problem in their area. In general, as the crime rate at ward level declines, the proportion who think that crime is a very big or quite a big problem in their area declines. Noting that the sample sizes from the survey are only approximately 100 at ward level for 18 of the 20 wards, there are some exceptions to this trend. Arboretum has the highest crime rate, but is only ranked 6 rd in thinking that crime is a big problem. Similarly, Radford and Park has the highest proportion of respondents who think that crime is a problem, but is ranked 9th 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) 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 10% 0% 39% Arboretum 23% 21% Bulwell Bridge 30% Dunkirk and Lenton 44% Aspley 33% 38% St Ann's Berridge Sherwood 46% Radford and Park 22% 22% 19% 19% 29% Mapperley Base size: Arboretum = 478, Aspley = 89, Basford = 99, Berridge = 106, Bestwood = 108, Bilborough = 94, Bridge = 90, Bulwell = 95, Bulwell Forest = 97, Clifton North = 96, Clifton South = 96, Dales = 96, Dunkirk and Lenton = 484, Leen Valley = 97, Mapperley = 87, Radford and Park = 96, Sherwood = 105, St Ann s = 107, Wollaton East and Lenton Abbey = 125, Wollaton West = 107 Caution: Small sample sizes Basford Bilborough Leen Valley Dales 12 Month Crime Rate Crime a very big or quite big problem in local area Linear (Crime a very big or quite big problem in local area) Bulwell Forest 18% Bestwood 35% 30% 23% Clifton South Clifton North Wollaton East and Lenton Abbey Wollaton West When asked what they thought had happened to crime in their local area over the past few years, nearly half (51%) of respondents thought that crime had stayed about the same. Nearly a third (32%) of respondents thought that crime had gone down, either a lot or a little. 17% of respondents thought that crime had gone up, either 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% 50% 40% 30% 10% 0% 6% Gone up a lot Gone up a little 51% Stayed about the same 24% Gone down a little 8% Gone down a lot Base Size: 2, P a g e

65 2.85 There are significant differences in the proportion of respondents who thought that crime in their local area had gone up. Women, those aged 35-54, residents from the 3 rd most deprived quintile and respondents from Asian or other minority backgrounds where more likely to think that crime had increased in their local area over the past few years. What do you think has happened to crime in your local area over the past few years? (gone up a lot & a little) (%) Overall 17% Male Female 16% 19% % 17% 16% 22% Most Deprived 2nd Most Deprived 3rd Most Deprived 4th Most Deprived Least Deprived 15% 15% 18% 15% 23% White Mixed Asian Black Other 6% 17% 18% 23% 29% South Central North See Appendix A for Base Size Significant differences by gender, age, IMD & ethnicity 2.86 Whilst the sample sizes by ward are small, there are some differences proportion of residents who think crime has gone up over the past few year ranging from 32% of respondents in Leen Valley who think crime in their local area has gone up either a lot or a little to just 5% of respondents in Bestwood. There are some significant differences by ward to the city overall. Respondents in Leen Valley, Clifton South, Clifton North and Basford are significantly more likely to think crime has gone up, and respondents in Bestwood, Mapperley, St Ann s and Bridge less likely to think crime has gone up than Nottingham overall. 16% 17% 0% 5% 10% 15% 25% 30% 35% 64 P a g e

66 What do you think has happened to crime in your local area over the past few years? (gone up a lot & a little) (%) Leen Valley * Clifton South * Clifton North * Basford * Bulwell Berridge Aspley Bulwell Forest Arboretum Wollaton East and Lenton Abbey Radford and Park Sherwood Bilborough Wollaton West Dales Dunkirk and Lenton Bridge * St Ann's * Mapperley * Bestwood * 27% 24% 22% 21% 19% 19% 17% 16% 16% 13% 10% 8% 7% 5% 31% 30% 32% 0% 5% 10% 15% 25% 30% 35% Base size: Arboretum = 440, Aspley = 89, Basford = 94, Berridge = 101, Bestwood = 105, Bilborough = 93, Bridge = 77, Bulwell = 92, Bulwell Forest = 92, Clifton North = 92, Clifton South = 95, Dales = 96, Dunkirk and Lenton = 465, Leen Valley = 98, Mapperley = 82, Radford and Park = 83, Sherwood = 99, St Ann s = 104, Wollaton East and Lenton Abbey = 107, Wollaton West = 105 Caution: Small sample sizes *Significant differences to City overall 65 P a g e

67 3 ARBORETUM AND DUNKIRK AND LENTON 3.1 Last year s survey highlighted a significantly higher perception of ASB in Arboretum and Dunkirk & Lenton. In 2012 it was found that 38% of respondents in Arboretum and 40% in Dunkirk & Lenton had a high perception of ASB (% of respondents with a >32 composite score) compared to 22% city-wide. Due to the small sample size at ward level, and subsequently large confidence interval (approx -/+10%), it was decided to conduct a booster sample within those wards to allow a greater level of confidence in the results 8. Since these areas includes significant proportion of student households, 42% of respondents in Arboretum and 69% of respondents in Dunkirk and Lenton were in full-time education, this chapter compares the results for students and other residents (non-students) in those wards, with the figures for Nottingham overall. Where appropriate, comparisons are also given for students across the whole of Nottingham. Anti-Social Behaviour Issues Local Neighbourhood 3.2 Non-students in Arboretum were significantly more likely to think that there were specific groups or individuals who cause anti-social behaviour in their area than Nottingham overall. 24% of non-students in Arboretum and 17% of Nottingham overall thought that there were specific groups or individuals who cause anti-social behaviour in their area. Students in Dunkirk and Lenton were significantly less likely to think that there were specific groups or individuals who cause anti-social behaviour in their area than Nottingham overall. 9% of students in Dunkirk and Lenton and 17% of Nottingham overall thought that there were specific groups or individuals who cause anti-social behaviour in their area. 40% Are there any specific groups or individuals who cause Anti Social Behaviour in your area? (%) 30% 10% 24% 21% 23% 21% 9% 12% 17% 0% Arboretum - Non-student * Arboretum - Student Arboretum * Dunkirk and Lenton - Nonstudent Dunkirk and Lenton - Student * Dunkirk and Lenton * Nottingham Base size: Arboretum Non-students =273, Arboretum Student =198, Arboretum = 476, Dunkirk and Lenton Non-Student =147, Dunkirk and Lenton Student =328, Dunkirk and Lenton = 477, Nottingham = 2,756, *Significant difference to City overall 3.3 Although the sample size are small, of the respondents who thought that there were specific groups or individuals who cause anti-social behaviour in their area, both students and other residents in Dunkirk and Lenton, and in Dunkirk and Lenton overall, were significantly more likely to think that students cause anti-social behaviour. 44% of students in Dunkirk and Lenton, 65% of other residents in Dunkirk and Lenton and 55% 8 The confidence interval for Arboretum and Dunkirk & Lenton are +/- 4.4% and +/-4.3% respectively. 66 P a g e

68 of Dunkirk and Lenton overall thought that students caused anti-social behaviour compared to 12% of Nottingham overall. In Arboretum 19% of students, 17% of other residents and 18% of the overall ward thought that students caused anti-social behaviour compared to 12% of Nottingham overall, but this is not a significant difference. The chart below shows the top ten groups or individuals who cause ASB in an area (chart ranked by Nottingham overall). Other groups mentioned included the Homeless, Unemployed, Adults and old age groups, Unspecified groups or gangs, drunks/people leaving pubs, and people in their 20s. Top 10 Groups or individuals who cause ASB in area (%) -ranked by Nottingham overall Teenagers Youths/Youngsters/Young people Specified address/person/family/group Students Children/kids/school children Other Minority ethnic groups (e.g. Romanian, Polish, Asians) Neighbours/local residents Drug users/dealers Young men Nottingham Arboretum 0% 10% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Dunkirk and Lenton Dunkirk and Lenton - Student Dunkirk and Lenton - Non-student Arboretum - Student Arboretum - Non-student Base size: Arboretum Non-students =66, Arboretum Student =42, Arboretum = 109, Dunkirk and Lenton Non-Student =31, Dunkirk and Lenton Student =28, Dunkirk and Lenton = 58, Nottingham = 462 Caution Small sample sizes 3.4 The chart below shows the combined proportion of residents who think that each issue is a very big or a fairly big problem. Residents in Arboretum thought that 14 of the 16 issues were more of a problem than Nottingham overall. The two issues residents of Arboretum thought were less of a problem than Nottingham overall were dog fouling and motor bikes and motorized scooter. The issue the most residents of Arboretum thought was a problem was rubbish and litter lying around, which was second for Nottingham overall after dog fouling. People being drunk and rowdy in public spaces 67 P a g e

69 and street drinking were considered to be the next biggest problems in Arboretum. These issues were considered less of a problem for Nottingham overall, where they were the 12 th and 11 th biggest problems. There were also differences between students and other residents in Arboretum. Rubbish and litter lying around, people being drunk and rowdy in public spaces and street drinking there the top three issues for both groups, but a high proportion of non-students thought they were a very big or a fairly big problem than for the students. Non-students thought that dog fouling and fly tipping were much more of a problem than students, with 32% of none students and 19% of students thinking dog fouling was a problem, and 28% of non-students and 12% of students thinking fly tipping was a problem. Perceptions of Anti-Social Behaviour in Local Neighbourhood (very or fairly big problem) - Arboretum (%) Rubbish and litter lying around 31% 44% 40% People being drunk or rowdy in public spaces Street Drinking /Drinking alcohol in the streets People using or dealing drugs Noisy neighbours or loud parties Dog Fouling Fly Tipping Intimidation as a result of groups/ gangs of young people hanging around on the street Parents not taking responsibility for the behaviour of their children Vandalism/ Criminal damage Fly Posting Begging Unkempt gardens Graffiti Motorbikes/ motorised scooters/ mini motos/ quad bikes Abandoned or burnt out cars 18% 18% 21% 13% 19% 19% 17% 19% 23% 16% 5% 16% 18% 15% 13% 9% 16% 5% 7% 2% 6% 4% 7% 17% 36% 33% 38% 16% 34% 30% 37% 18% 29% 24% 33% 28% 28% 29% 13% 12% 12% 12% 16% 19% 27% 34% 32% 21% 28% 19% Nottingham Arboretum Arboretum 0% 5% - Student 10% 15% Arboretum 25% 30% 35% - Non-student 40% 45% See Appendix C for Base Size 3.5 Residents in Dunkirk and Lenton thought that 11 of the 16 issues were less of a problem than Nottingham overall. The four issues residents of Dunkirk and Lenton thought were more of a problem than Nottingham overall were fly posting, people being drunk or rowdy in public spaces, noisy neighbours or loud parties and Unkempt gardens. The issue the most residents of Dunkirk and Lenton thought was a problem was fly posting, which was 11 th for Nottingham overall. Rubbish, litter lying around, and people being drunk and rowdy in public spaces were considered to be the next biggest problems in Dunkirk and Lenton. These issues were considered less of a problem for Nottingham overall, where they were the 2 nd and 12 th biggest problems. There were also differences between students and other residents in Dunkirk and Lenton. 68 P a g e

70 Students considered fly posting to be the biggest problem and thought that it was more of a problem than non-students. 37% of students and 15% of non-students thought than fly posting was a problem. A higher proportion of non-students than students thought that noisy neighbours or loud parties were a problem with 23% of non-students and of students thinking that this was either a very big or a fairly big problem. Perceptions of Anti-Social Behaviour in Local Neighbourhood (very or fairly big problem) -Dunkirk & Lenton (%) See Appendix C for Base Size People being drunk or rowdy in public spaces Street Drinking /Drinking alcohol in the streets Intimidation as a result of groups/ gangs of young people Parents not taking responsibility for the behaviour of their Motorbikes/ motorised scooters/ mini motos/ quad bikes Nottingham Rubbish and litter lying around Noisy neighbours or loud parties Unkempt gardens Fly Tipping Vandalism/ Criminal damage People using or dealing drugs Dog Fouling Graffiti Abandoned or burnt out cars Dunkirk and Lenton - Student Fly Posting Begging 17% 30% 37% 15% 31% 29% 28% 30% 17% 23% 25% 19% 17% 23% 16% 13% 13% 12% 10% 16% 13% 9% 15% 13% 10% 9% 13% 18% 10% 8% 9% 8% 10% 34% 8% 6% 13% 18% 6% 5% 8% 5% 4% 3% 7% 16% 4% 3% 6% 2% 3% 4% 1% 5% 3% 3% 2% 0% 5% 10% 15% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% Dunkirk and Lenton Dunkirk and Lenton - Non-student 3.6 The chart below show difference between Arboretum and Dunkirk and Lenton. Nonstudents in Arboretum thought that all of the issues apart from unkempt gardens were more or a problem than non-students in Dunkirk and Lenton. Students in Arboretum thought that all of the issues apart from fly posting and unkempt gardens were more or a problem than students in Dunkirk and Lenton. 69 P a g e

71 Perceptions of Anti-Social Behaviour in Local Neighbourhood (very or fairly big problem) - Arboretum Dunkirk & Lenton (%) Parents not taking responsibility for the behaviour of their children People being drunk or rowdy in public spaces Street Drinking /Drinking alcohol in the streets Motorbikes/ motorised scooters/ mini motos/ quad bikes Intimidation as a result of groups/ gangs of young people hanging around on the street Nottingham See Appendix C for Base Size Dog Fouling Rubbish and litter lying around People using or dealing drugs Fly Posting Noisy neighbours or loud parties Vandalism/ Criminal damage Fly Tipping Unkempt gardens Graffiti Begging Abandoned or burnt out cars 5% 3% 7% 2% 4% 1% 4% 7% 17% 15% 16% 16% 13% 18% 15% 3.7 The table below shows the mean score for ASB issues. All four groups perceived dog fouling as less of a problem than Nottingham overall, with students ranking it much lower than the non-students. Rubbish and litter lying around was ranked as the biggest problem in Arboretum, for both students and over residents, and for nonstudents in Dunkirk and Lenton. Students in Dunkirk and Lenton perceived fly posting as the greatest problem. Parents not taking responsibility for the behaviour of their children was another issue that was perceived as less of a problem in Arboretum and Dunkirk and Lenton than in Nottingham overall. This issue was ranked 8 th by nonstudents in Arboretum, 9 th by students in Arboretum, and 12 th by both students and non-students in Dunkirk and Lenton, compared to 3 rd for Nottingham overall. People being drunk or rowdy in public spaces and street drinking was ranked as bigger problem in all four groups than in Nottingham overall. As well as differences in rank, there were some significant differences in the mean scores. In Arboretum, for nonstudents 12 of the 16 issues and for students 10 of the 16 issues had a significantly 5% 6% 5% 3% 2% 8% 8% 9% 10% 9% 13% 13% 13% 13% 9% 15% 12% 12% 18% 21% 18% 16% 16% 19% 17% 19% 16% 3% 6% 7% 8% 10% 18% 19% 19% 24% 23% 25% 23% 32% 31% 28% 30% 28% 29% 28% 30% 34% 33% 33% 37% 38% 37% 40% 0% 5% 10% 15% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% Dunkirk and Lenton - Student Dunkirk and Lenton - Non-student Arboretum - Student Arboretum - Non-student 70 P a g e

72 higher score than Nottingham overall. In Dunkirk and Lenton, for non-students, eight of the sixteen issues and for students five of the sixteen issues had a significantly lower score than Nottingham overall. ASB Issues Arboretum - Non-student Arboretum - Student Dunkirk and Lenton - Nonstudent Dunkirk and Lenton - Student Nottingham Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank Dog Fouling Rubbish and litter lying around Parents not taking responsibility for the behaviour of their children People using or dealing drugs People being drunk or rowdy in public spaces Motorbikes/ motorised scooters/ mini motos/ quad bikes Street Drinking/ Drinking alcohol in the streets Fly Posting Noisy neighbours or loud parties Intimidation as a result of groups/ gangs of young people hanging around on the street Vandalism/ Criminal damage Fly Tipping Unkempt gardens Graffiti Begging Abandoned or burnt out cars Significantly higher than Nottingham Significantly lower than Nottingham 71 P a g e

73 Anti-Social Behaviour Issues Nottingham City Centre 3.8 People being drunk or rowdy in public spaces was perceived to be a problem but the highest proportion of respondents in both Arboretum and Nottingham overall, with a higher proportion in Arboretum thinking it was a problem than in Nottingham overall. Street drinking was the next biggest problem followed by begging. For Nottingham overall street drinking was 3 rd and begging was 2 nd. There were also difference between students and other residents in Arboretum. Students thought that drinking was more a problem in the city centre than other residents, with a higher proportion thinking that people being drunk or rowdy in public spaces and street drinking were a problem. Perceptions of Anti-Social Behaviour in Nottingham City Centre (very or fairly big problem) - Arboretum (%) People being drunk or rowdy in public spaces 40% 41% 48% 57% Street Drinking / Drinking alcohol in the streets Begging Rubbish and litter lying around People using or dealing drugs Fly Posting Vandalism/ Criminal damage Intimidation as a result of groups/ gangs of young people hanging around on the street Graffiti Dog Fouling 36% 42% 47% 40% 38% 37% 42% 33% 25% 28% 25% 31% 18% 21% 24% 19% 12% 17% 21% 15% 17% 18% 16% 17% 16% 18% 15% 13% 13% 0% 10% 30% 40% 50% 60% Nottingham Arboretum Arboretum - Student Arboretum - Non-student See Appendix C for Base Size 3.9 Residents for Dunkirk and Lenton thought that 8 of the 10 issues were less of a problem in the City Centre than Nottingham overall. People being drunk of rowdy in public spaces and street drinking were the only issues that were perceived to be more of a problem by respondents in Dunkirk and Lenton than Nottingham overall. There were also difference between students and other residents in Dunkirk and Lenton. Again, students thought that drinking was more a problem in the city centre than other residents, with a higher proportion thinking that people being drunk or rowdy in public spaces and street drinking were a problem. Begging was perceived a more of a problem by non-students than students. 72 P a g e

74 Perceptions of Anti-Social Behaviour in Nottingham City Centre (very or fairly big problem) -Dunkirk and Lenton (%) People being drunk or rowdy in public spaces Street Drinking / Drinking alcohol in the streets Begging Rubbish and litter lying around People using or dealing drugs Intimidation as a result of groups/ gangs of young people hanging around on the street Vandalism/ Criminal damage Graffiti Fly Posting Dog Fouling 26% 22% 25% 23% 22% 26% 18% 15% 13% 17% 13% 16% 10% 8% 9% 7% 12% 8% 6% 5% 3% 10% 40% 45% 48% 38% 36% 39% 42% 31% 38% 35% Nottingham See Appendix C for Base Size Dunkirk and Lenton - Student 0% 10% 30% 40% 50% Dunkirk and Lenton Dunkirk and Lenton - Non-student 3.10 The chart below (overleaf) shows that students in both Arboretum and Dunkirk and Lenton thought that drinking was more a problem in the city centre than other residents in the ward and Nottingham overall, with a higher proportion thinking that people being drunk or rowdy in public spaces and street drinking were a problem. 73 P a g e

75 Perceptions of Anti-Social Behaviour in Nottingham City Centre (very or fairly big problem) -Dunkirk and Lenton (%) People being drunk or rowdy in public spaces 40% 38% 41% 48% 57% Begging 22% 38% 35% 42% 33% Street Drinking / Drinking alcohol in the streets 31% 36% 42% 40% 47% Rubbish and litter lying around 25% 22% 26% 25% 31% People using or dealing drugs 18% 15% 13% 19% 24% Intimidation as a result of groups/ gangs of young people hanging around on the street 17% 16% 18% 15% Vandalism/ Criminal damage 10% 18% 16% Fly Posting 6% 12% 15% 21% Graffiti 9% 7% 13% Dog Fouling 3% 10% Nottingham See Appendix C for Base Size 0% 10% 30% 40% 50% 60% Dunkirk and Lenton - Student Dunkirk and Lenton - Non-student Arboretum - Student Arboretum - Non-student 3.11 The table below (overleaf) shows the mean score for ASB issues in Nottingham City Centre. There were fewer differences between Arboretum and Dunkirk and Lenton and Nottingham overall. People being drunk of rowdy in public spaces was perceived as the biggest problem in the city centre by all four groups and Nottingham as a whole. Begging was ranked as less important and street drinking more important in Arboretum, by both students and other residents, and by students in Dunkirk and Lenton. Again, there were some significant differences in the mean scores. The mean score for 6 of the 10 issues was significantly lower to the Nottingham overall score for students in Dunkirk and Lenton. 74 P a g e

76 ASB in Nottingham City Centre Arboretum - Non-student Arboretum - Student Dunkirk and Lenton - Nonstudent Dunkirk and Lenton - Student Nottingham Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank People being drunk or rowdy in public spaces in City Centre Begging in City Centre Street Drinking/ Drinking alcohol in the streets in City Centre Rubbish and litter lying around in City Centre People using or dealing drugs in City Centre Intimidation as a result of groups gangs/ of young people hanging around on the street in City Centre Vandalism/ Criminal damage in City Centre Graffiti in City Centre Fly Posting in City Centre Dog Fouling in City Centre Significantly higher than Nottingham Significantly lower than Nottingham 75 P a g e

77 Overall Perception of Anti-Social Behaviour Composite Scores 3.12 Using the indicator as described in section 2.22 there were significant differences in high perception of ASB using the composite score. In Arboretum non-students, students and the ward overall had a significantly higher perception of ASB than Nottingham overall in Arboretum 32% of non-students, 25% of students and 29% of Arboretum overall had a high perception of ASB compared to 17% of Nottingham overall. In Dunkirk and Lenton of students and of the ward overall had a high perception of ASB, significantly lower that Nottingham overall. The difference between non-students in Dunkirk and Lenton and Nottingham was not a significant difference. High perception of ASB (>32 in composite score) (%) 35% 30% 25% 32% 25% 29% 17% 15% 10% 12% 5% 0% Arboretum - Non-student * Arboretum - Student * Arboretum * Dunkirk and Lenton - Nonstudent Dunkirk and Lenton - Student * Dunkirk and Lenton * Nottingham Base size: Arboretum Non-students =219, Arboretum Student =154, Arboretum = 376, Dunkirk and Lenton Non-Student =125, Dunkirk and Lenton Student =274, Dunkirk and Lenton = 373, Nottingham = 2,211, *Significant difference to City overall 3.13 There were also significant differences using the mean composite score for perceptions of ASB. Again both students and other residents in Arboretum and Arboretum overall had a significantly higher mean score than Nottingham overall. Both students and other residents in Dunkirk and Lenton and Dunkirk and Lenton overall had a lower mean score than Nottingham overall, but this was only a significant difference for non-students and Dunkirk and Lenton overall Arboretum - Arboretum - Non-student Student * * Perceptions of ASB -Composite Score Arboretum * Dunkirk and Lenton - Non-student * Dunkirk and Lenton - Student Dunkirk and Lenton * Nottingham Base size: Arboretum Non-students =219, Arboretum Student =154, Arboretum = 376, Dunkirk and Lenton Non-Student =125, Dunkirk and Lenton Student =274, Dunkirk and Lenton = 373, Nottingham = 2,211, *Significant difference to City overall 76 P a g e

78 Experiencing and Reporting Anti-Social Behaviour 3.14 Students in Dunkirk and Lenton and Dunkirk and Lenton overall were significantly less likely to have been personally targeted by ASB in the last six months 5% of students in Dunkirk and Lenton and 6% of Dunkirk and Lenton were targeted by ASB compared to 9% of Nottingham overall. For all of Nottingham there was no difference between students and non-students in the proportion targeted by ASB. Non-students in Dunkirk and Lenton and students in Arboretum were also less likely to have been targeted by ASB, and non-students in Arboretum and Arboretum overall were more likely to have been targeted by ASB. 30% Personally targeted by ASB in the last 6 months (%) 10% 12% 7% 10% 8% 5% 6% 9% 0% Base size: Arboretum Non-students = 272, Arboretum Student = 200, Arboretum = 478, Dunkirk and Lenton Non-Student = 149, Dunkirk and Lenton Student = 325, Dunkirk and Lenton = 477, Nottingham = 2,761 *Significant difference to City overall 3.15 Whilst the sample sizes are very small, there were differences in reporting ASB. Students who had been targeted by ASB in both Arboretum and Dunkirk and Lenton were significantly less likely to have reported it. Fourteen percent () of students in Arboretum and 37% of students in Dunkirk and Lenton reported ASB compared to 65% for Nottingham overall. For all of Nottingham students were significantly less likely to report ASB than non-students. Arboretum ward was also significantly less likely to have reports ASB than Nottingham overall. 100% Arboretum - Non-student Arboretum - Student Arboretum - Student Dunkirk and Lenton - Nonstudent Reported ASB (%) Dunkirk and Lenton - Student * Dunkirk and Lenton * Nottingham 80% 60% 62% 49% 67% 52% 65% 40% 37% 0% Arboretum - Arboretum - Arboretum * Dunkirk and Non-student Student * Lenton - Non-student Dunkirk and Lenton - Student * Dunkirk and Lenton Nottingham Base size: Arboretum Non-students = 33, Arboretum Student = 14, Arboretum = 49, Dunkirk and Lenton Non-Student = 12, Dunkirk and Lenton Student = 15, Dunkirk and Lenton = 29, Nottingham = 258 *Significant difference to City overall 77 P a g e

79 Feelings of Safety Local Neighbourhood (after dark) 3.16 Compared to the whole of Nottingham, residents of Arboretum, both students and other residents and the ward overall, were significantly less likely to feel safe in their local neighbourhood after dark. 58% of non-students, 57% of students and 58% of the overall ward in Arboretum felt very or fairly safe after dark, compared to 68% for Nottingham overall. In Dunkirk and Lenton both students and other residents and the ward overall were significantly more likely to feel safe in their local neighbourhood after dark. 82% of non-students, 80% of students and 81% of the overall ward in Dunkirk and Lenton felt very or fairly safe after dark, compared to 68% for Nottingham overall. There was little difference in feelings of safety between students and other residents in the two wards, even though the percentage of students with a high perception of ASB was lower and fewer students had personally been targeted by ASB. 100% 80% 60% 40% 0% Feelings of safety in the neighbourhood after dark (very or fairly safe) -(%) 58% 57% 58% Arboretum - Arboretum - Non-student Student * * Arboretum * Dunkirk and Lenton - Non-student * 82% 80% 81% Dunkirk and Lenton - Student * Dunkirk and Lenton * Base size: Arboretum Non-students = 273, Arboretum Student = 198, Arboretum = 477, Dunkirk and Lenton Non-Student = 150, Dunkirk and Lenton Student = 331, Dunkirk and Lenton = 483, Nottingham = 2,771 *Significant difference to City overall 68% Nottingham Feelings of Safety - Nottingham City Centre 3.17 Residents in Arboretum and Dunkirk and Lenton, both students and non-students, were significantly more likely to feel safe in Nottingham City Centre after dark than Nottingham as a whole. Unlike their local neighbourhood, in both wards a higher proportion of students felt very or fairly safe than non-students. In Arboretum, 56% of non-students, 77% of students and 65% of the ward overall felt very or fairly safe, and in Dunkirk and Lenton 61% of non-students, 70% of students and 67% of the ward overall felt very or fairly safe, compared to 48% for Nottingham overall. For all of Nottingham students were significantly more likely to feel safe in the city centre after dark than non-students. 78 P a g e

80 100% Feelings of safety in Nottingham City Centre after dark (very or fairly safe) -(%) 80% 60% 56% 77% 65% 61% 70% 67% 48% 40% 0% Arboretum - Non-student * Arboretum - Arboretum * Dunkirk and Student * Lenton - Non-student * Dunkirk and Dunkirk and Lenton - Lenton * Student * Nottingham Base size: Arboretum Non-students = 266, Arboretum Student = 197, Arboretum = 467, Dunkirk and Lenton Non-Student = 143, Dunkirk and Lenton Student = 331, Dunkirk and Lenton = 476, Nottingham = 2,738 *Significant difference to City overall Community Payback 3.18 Residents in Arboretum and Dunkirk and Lenton, both students and non-students, were significantly less likely to have heard of Community Payback than Nottingham as a whole. Seventeen percent (17%) of non-students in Arboretum, 15% of students in Arboretum, 16% of Arboretum overall, 19% of non-students in Dunkirk and Lenton, 13% of students in Dunkirk and Lenton and 15% of Dunkirk and Lenton overall had heard of Community Payback compared to 27% of Nottingham overall. Students in the two wards were less likely to have heard of Community Payback than other residents. For all of Nottingham students were significantly less likely to have heard of community payback than non-students. 60% Heard of Community Payback -(%) 40% 27% 17% 15% 16% 19% 13% 15% 0% - Arboretum - Arboretum - Non-student Student * * Arboretum * Dunkirk and Lenton - Non-student * Dunkirk and Lenton - Student * Dunkirk and Lenton * Nottingham Base size: Arboretum Non-students = 267, Arboretum Student = 198, Arboretum = 471, Dunkirk and Lenton Non-Student = 149, Dunkirk and Lenton Student = 328, Dunkirk and Lenton = 479, Nottingham = 2,744 *Significant difference to City overall 79 P a g e

81 Priorities for Crime and Anti-Social Behaviour 3.19 The table below shows the mean score for each of the crime and community safety issues, taking into account the order in which they were selected. Burglary is the top issued that respondents were concerned about in Arboretum, Dunkirk and Lenton and Nottingham. Robbery was the issue that residents of Nottingham second most concerned about, but this is ranked lower in Arboretum, by both students and other residents, and for non-students in Dunkirk and Lenton. Drug dealing and use was ranked third for Nottingham overall, but 7 th for both students and non-students in Dunkirk and Lenton. Alcohol related violence and disorder was ranked 4 th by Nottingham overall but ranked higher in Arboretum, by both students and other residents, and by non-students in Dunkirk and Lenton. Sexual violence was more of a concern in Arboretum than Dunkirk and Lenton than in Nottingham overall, particular in Dunkirk and Lenton where it was ranked 3 rd by both student and non-students. Crime and Community Safety Issues By Year - Mean Scores Arboretum - Non-student Arboretum - Student Dunkirk and Lenton - Nonstudent Dunkirk and Lenton - Student Nottingham Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank Burglary Robbery Drug use and dealing Alcohol related violence and disorder Weapon/gang related violence Nuisance and Anti-social Behaviour Car crime Youth Crime Sexual violence Domestic Violence Hate crime Business crime Significantly higher than Nottingham Significantly lower than Nottingham 80 P a g e

82 Combating Crime and Anti-Social Behaviour 3.20 The table below shows the mean score for ways to Reduce Crime and Anti-Social Behaviour and shows that there are some differences in the ranking between students and other residents. The top ranked in Dunkirk and Lenton, for both students and other residents, is more visible policing, while the top ranked in Arboretum and Nottingham overall is more CCTV. More activities for young people is ranked higher than in Nottingham overall by Arboretum (both by students and non-students) and by non-students in Dunkirk and Lenton. Students in both Arboretum and Dunkirk and Lenton placed improving neighbourhood watch schemes higher than either the nonstudents in the ward and Nottingham overall. The mean score for improving neighbourhood watch schemes was also significantly higher than Nottingham overall for the students in Arboretum and Dunkirk and Lenton. Ways to Reduce Crime and Anti-Social Behaviour - Mean Score Arboretum - Non-student Arboretum - Student Dunkirk and Lenton - Nonstudent Dunkirk and Lenton - Student Nottingham Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank More CCTV More visible policing Better Parenting/encourage discipline More activities for young people Tougher enforcement/sentencing More help for drug/ alcohol users More community pay back schemes Improved Neighbourhood Watch Schemes/ Neighbourhood Alert More evictions of perpetrators Tighter management of offenders by probation Photo/posters displayed locally of offenders More forensics in first 24 hours Other Significantly higher than Nottingham Significantly lower than Nottingham Satisfaction with Cleanliness Local Neighbourhood 3.21 Non-students in Arboretum and Arboretum overall where significantly less likely to be satisfied with the Council s efforts to keep their local neighbourhoods clean and tidy. 69% of non-students in Arboretum and 74% of Arboretum overall were very or fairly satisfied with the Council s efforts compared to 80% of Nottingham overall. Students in Dunkirk and Lenton and Dunkirk and Lenton overall were significantly more likely to be satisfied that Nottingham overall 86% of students in Dunkirk and Lenton and 85% of Dunkirk and Lenton overall were very or fairly satisfied and 80% of Nottingham 81 P a g e

83 overall were very or fairly satisfied. For all of Nottingham students were significantly more likely to be satisfied than non-students. 100% 80% 60% 40% 0% 69% 81% Base size: Arboretum Non-students = 276, Arboretum Student = 199, Arboretum = 480, Dunkirk and Lenton Non-Student = 150, Dunkirk and Lenton Student = 330, Dunkirk and Lenton = 482, Nottingham = 2,767 *Significant difference to City overall Satisfaction with Nottingham City Centre 74% 83% 86% 85% 3.22 Students and the overall ward in both Arboretum and Dunkirk and Lenton were significantly more likely to be satisfied with the Council s efforts to keep Nottingham City Centre clean and tidy. Ninety percent (90%) of students in Arboretum, 86% of Arboretum overall, 88% of students in Dunkirk and Lenton and 86% of Dunkirk and Lenton overall were very or fairly satisfied with the Council efforts compared to 79% of Nottingham overall. In both wards, the proportion who were satisfied was higher for students than other residents. For all of Nottingham, students were significantly more likely to be satisfied than non-students. 100% 80% 60% 40% 0% Satisfaction with the Councils efforts to keep your local neighbourhood clean and tidy (very & fairly satisfied) (%) Arboretum - Arboretum - Arboretum * Dunkirk and Dunkirk and Non-student * Student Lenton - Non-student Lenton - Student * 83% 90% 86% Dunkirk and Lenton * Satisfaction with the Councils efforts to keep Nottingham City Centre clean and tidy (very & fairly satisfied) (%) Base size: Arboretum Non-students = 234, Arboretum Student = 199, Arboretum = 467, Dunkirk and Lenton Non-Student = 142, Dunkirk and Lenton Student = 329, Dunkirk and Lenton = 473, Nottingham = 2,648 *Significant difference to City overall 79% Arboretum - Arboretum - Arboretum * Dunkirk and Non-student Student * Lenton - Non-student 88% 86% Dunkirk and Lenton - Student * Dunkirk and Lenton * 80% Nottingham 79% Nottingham 82 P a g e

84 Dealing with Anti-Social Behaviour and Crime 3.23 Both students and non-students in Dunkirk and Lenton and the ward overall were significantly more likely to be agree that The Police and Local Council are dealing with the anti-social behaviour and crime issues that matter in this area' than Nottingham overall. 72% of students, 75% of non-students and 74% of the overall ward in Dunkirk and Lenton strongly agreed or tended to agree compared to 63% for Nottingham overall. 100% 80% 60% 40% 0% Base size: Arboretum Non-students = 273, Arboretum Student = 196, Arboretum = 474, Dunkirk and Lenton Non-Student = 150, Dunkirk and Lenton Student = 331, Dunkirk and Lenton = 483, Nottingham = 2,744 *Significant difference to City overall Sense of Community 59% 60% 59% 72% 75% 74% 3.24 Students and the overall ward for both Arboretum and Dunkirk and Lenton were significantly less likely to agree that there was a strong sense of community where they live. 30% of students in Arboretum, 42% of Arboretum overall, 31% of students in Dunkirk and Lenton and 37% of Dunkirk and Lenton overall strongly agreed or tended to agree compared to 53% of Nottingham overall. In both wards, there was lower agreement that there is a strong sense of community from students than other residents. For all of Nottingham, students were significantly less likely to agree that there was a strong sense of community where they live than non-students. 100% 80% 'The Police and Local Council are dealing with the antisocial behaviour and crime issues that matter in this area' (strongly & tend to agree) (%) Arboretum - Arboretum - Non-student Student Arboretum Dunkirk and Lenton - Non-student * Dunkirk and Lenton - Student * Dunkirk and Lenton * 'There is a strong sense of community where I live' (strongly & tend to agree) (%) 63% Nottingham 60% 40% 51% 30% 42% 50% 31% 37% 53% 0% Arboretum - Arboretum - Arboretum * Dunkirk and Non-student Student * Lenton - Non-student Dunkirk and Lenton - Student * Dunkirk and Lenton * Nottingham Base size: Arboretum Non-students = 274, Arboretum Student = 200, Arboretum = 479, Dunkirk and Lenton Non-Student = 149, Dunkirk and Lenton Student = 332, Dunkirk and Lenton = 483, Nottingham = 2,761 *Significant difference to City overall 83 P a g e

85 Volunteering 3.25 Students in Dunkirk and Lenton and Dunkirk and Lenton overall were significantly more likely to be involved in formal volunteering than Nottingham overall 19% of students in Dunkirk and Lenton and 17% of Dunkirk and Lenton overall compared to 10% of Nottingham overall were currently involved in volunteering. Students and the overall ward for both Arboretum and Dunkirk and Lenton were significantly more likely to consider formal volunteering in the next 12 months than Nottingham overall. Students were also more likely to consider formal volunteering than other residents in the two wards. Looking at Nottingham as a whole, students were both significantly more likely to be currently involved and to consider formal volunteering than nonstudents. Formal Volunteering Status (%) Nottingham 10% 25% 58% 7% Dunkirk and Lenton * 17% 32% 49% 1% Dunkirk and Lenton - Student * 19% 37% 43% 1% Dunkirk and Lenton - Non-student 12% 22% 63% 3% Arboretum * 8% 34% 54% 4% Arboretum - Student * 9% 45% 43% 3% Arboretum - Non-student 8% 26% 62% 4% 0% 40% 60% 80% 100% Currently involved Would consider in the next 12 months Wouldn't consider in the next 12 months Don't know Base size: Arboretum Non-students = 272, Arboretum Student = 200, Arboretum = 477, Dunkirk and Lenton Non-Student = 148, Dunkirk and Lenton Student = 325, Dunkirk and Lenton = 476, Nottingham = 2,751 *Significant difference to City overall 3.26 Both students and non-students in Dunkirk and Lenton and the overall ward were significantly more likely to be helping out in their community than Nottingham overall, and students in Arboretum were significantly less likely. 18% of non-students in Dunkirk and Lenton, 15% of students in Dunkirk and Lenton, 15% of Dunkirk and Lenton overall and 6% of students in Arboretum were currently involved in helping out in their community compared to of Nottingham overall. Again, students were more likely to consider getting involved than other residents in the two wards. Looking at Nottingham as a whole, students were significantly more likely to consider helping out in their community than non-students. (Chart overleaf) 84 P a g e

86 Helping out in your community Status Nottingham 27% 56% 6% Dunkirk and Lenton * 16% 35% 48% 2% Dunkirk and Lenton - Student * 15% 39% 45% 1% Dunkirk and Lenton - Non-student * 18% 26% 53% 3% Arboretum * 9% 36% 52% 3% Arboretum - Student * 6% 47% 44% 2% Arboretum - Non-student 28% 57% 3% 0% 40% 60% 80% 100% Currently involved Would consider in the next 12 months Wouldn't consider in the next 12 months Don't know Base size: Arboretum Non-students = 272, Arboretum Student = 199, Arboretum = 476, Dunkirk and Lenton Non-Student = 150, Dunkirk and Lenton Student = 319, Dunkirk and Lenton = 470, Nottingham = 2,752 *Significant difference to City overall Crime in your local area 3.27 Residents in Arboretum, both students and non-students and the ward overall, and students in Dunkirk and Lenton were significantly more likely to think that crime in their local area was a big problem. 40% of and non-students in Arboretum, 37% of students in Arboretum, 39% of Arboretum overall and 36% of students in Dunkirk and Lenton thought that crime in their local area was a very big or quite a big problem. Non-students in Dunkirk and Lenton were significantly less likely to think that crime in their local area was a problem, with 19% thinking that crime was a very big or quite a big problem. 60% Crime in local area (very big & quite big problem) (%) 50% 40% 30% 40% 37% 39% 19% 36% 30% 27% 10% 0% Arboretum - Non-student * Arboretum - Student * Arboretum * Dunkirk and Lenton - Nonstudent * Dunkirk and Lenton - Student * Dunkirk and Lenton Nottingham Base size: Arboretum Non-students = 275, Arboretum Student = 198, Arboretum = 478, Dunkirk and Lenton Non-Student = 150, Dunkirk and Lenton Student = 332, Dunkirk and Lenton = 484, Nottingham = 2,754 *Significant difference to City overall 3.28 Students in Arboretum and Dunkirk and Lenton were significantly less likely to think that crime in their local area had gone up in the past few years. 8% of students in Arboretum and of students in Dunkirk and Lenton thought that crime had gone up either a lot or a little compared to 17% for Nottingham overall. Non-students in Arboretum were significantly more likely to think that crime in their local area had gone up, with 26% thinking that crime had gone up either a lot or a little. For all of 85 P a g e