Summary of Overall Findings *

Introduction *

Direct Experience *

What enables people to act as a witness? *

What hinders people from acting as witness? *

The Extent of Support for a Witness Support Scheme *

Alternatives to the Development of a Witness Support Scheme *

Context *

Prospects for a Community Witness Support Scheme *

Options for the delivery of Witness Support in Heartlands *

Recommendation to the Crime and Community Safety Task Group *

Decision of the Crime and Community Safety Task Group *

Conclusion *

1. The overall brief for the feasibility study was to:

examine if need for a community witness support scheme exists in Greenwood, Copvale and Harley, districts of Heartlands. The study was to examine how a project could go beyond existing victim support services by encouraging people to come forward and supporting witnesses at the very earliest stage of witnessing acts of crime, nuisance and disorder, as well as providing a support service for witnesses called to attend magistrates’ courts.

1. Evidence from local people supports a proposal to develop a witness support scheme. A variety of people were consulted, including those who have acted as witnesses to incidents prior reporting, after reporting and after going to Court, as well as from active community representatives, local non-active residents, and people working within agencies in the area.
1. A number of barriers to acting as a witness were identified, including personal fears of retribution; actual threats and intimidation; being known locally; being isolated; not knowing about legal procedures; not seeing the point of reporting; and lack of confidence in police attitudes and practices.
1. Supports included personal qualities, good local networks and reliable community representatives; understanding the seriousness of an incident; the work of the Neighbourhood Nuisance Team and the Court based witness support scheme.
1. Currently, barriers outweigh supports.
1. The context is one of a large amount of regeneration activity; general perceived lack of confidence in the police; some strong community organisations, but also some insularity and isolation; strong perceptions of ‘outsiders’; and a relative lack of involvement of young people in finding solutions for the area.
1. A locally sensitive witness support scheme might contribute to breaking the cycle of negativity wherein lack of confidence and trust, combined with the limited impact of community structures in supporting witnesses, leads to low levels of witness activity. To do so, it would have to incorporate a number of features, including:

• working in close liaison and partnership with residents and other projects;
• involving local people and basing a scheme on their issues;
• being able to influence policy and practice;
• being independent from but linked to the police; being able to build bridges between local people and the police;
• being able to influence police policy and practice; giving information and being able to challenge custom and practice in the legal processes;
• building on local strengths and neighbourhood characteristics; being inclusive; working in participation with local people to build and strengthen local networks;
• incorporating young people;
• being able to influence inter-generational understanding.

1. It is recommended that a witness support project is established with two key tasks at the outset: Individual Support and Organisational Development.
2. The recommendations were not accepted at this point in time

There are a number of factors which influence the confidence with which people will report incidents of crime, nuisance and disorder they have witnessed, and further, whether or not they will proceed through the Courts as a witness. These are linked to two crucial aspects of their lives. Firstly, their past experiences, (including the things that would enable them to report and those that hinder their involvement), affect their feelings of confidence and trust in the system. Secondly, the context in which they live provides opportunities for the development of enabling professional and community organisations, within which they can feel supported and safe. Figure 1 illustrates the connections between current experience, social context and witness behaviour in general.

Figure 2 shows how negative experiences, leads to strong barriers and weak support, and thereby lack of confidence and trust. Features of the context lead to opportunities not being taken to develop enabling community structures. These two things combined result in low feelings of community safety and low levels of witness behaviour. A cycle of reluctance to come forward and proceed as a witness is established.

This report will outline issues arising from both current experiences and social context, and will outline the level of local support for a Witness Support Scheme. It will be argued that the need for, and support for a Witness Support Scheme exists. The potential effect of a Witness Support Scheme in breaking the cycle of negativity will be outlined, and some of the features which will have to be included in any such scheme will be presented.

Over the past year there were approximately twelve thousand reported crimes in the Regeneration area. One thousand of these ended in a successful prosecution, with witnesses being prepared to give their testimony and contribute to all stages of the proceedings. Thus, residents in Heartlands have not only witnessed high levels of crime, anti-social behaviour and general nuisance, some have experience of reporting incidents to the police and some have been to Court. Residents have reported intimidation at all stages: at the witness stage, the reporting and the Court stages.

People that work in the area have witnessed a range of different things from criminal activity, through to vandalism and graffiti. One resident-worker, whose work takes him around the area told us of the range of things he has seen:

Someone who works within a building that is open to the public has seen considerable levels of anti-social behaviour.

A shop worker, who is also a resident has viewed from his shop window robbery, fights, drug dealing and property damage.

A similar catalogue of activities has been seen by someone else who lives in the area.

The very act of witnessing violent crime can have long-term effects, as a resident has found. The events she saw have been followed by high levels of intimidation, and the family is seriously thinking of moving from the area.

It is one thing to have witnessed crime, disorder or nuisance behaviour, but not everyone goes on to report what they have seen to the authorities. In one part of Heartlands, the co-ordinator of a Homewatch Scheme thought people were willing and supported in reporting what they had witnessed. People understood why they should report to the police, in order to get action taken (and not just for insurance purposes).

Nevertheless, even with supports after reporting, the actual or anticipated personal costs for individual residents can be high.

Witnesses report having been intimidated at every stage. One resident told us of her friend who is being harassed by private landlords who she thinks want to get her to leave the street.

Before witnesses have a chance to report anything, intimidation can start. One person who had directly witnessed a serious incident summarised the fears:

Although residents are sometimes willing to confront the perpetrators of anti-social behaviour directly, there is a danger of further intimidation, leading to even victimisation.

This type of experience leads to a reluctance to appear in Court, even if independent evidence against the perpetrators is obtained.

The general culture of intimidation, sometimes between ‘rough elements’ has made people feel insecure and reluctant to report what they see.

Intimidation does not stop at threats, and a witness may be turned into a victim.

Even if people go as far as appearing in Court, they do not feel safe and supported. The very experience of being in court made this resident feel like a victim.

Whilst there is pressure on residents not only to report incidents, but also to follow this through with the willingness to appear in Court, there is a view that the consequences of doing this are sometimes too great. The consequences for local people who had successfully participated in the granting of an anit-social behaviour order (ASBO) was perceived by a resident onlooker to have been great.

Some of the Court procedures, themselves make it particularly difficult for witnesses.

Knowledge of the real, lived experiences of local people, as well as locally repeated stories, which may or may not have become distorted in the telling, have contributed to a general feeling of lack of safety. Someone who lives outside the area, but works in Heartlands, highlights the consequences of constant, mostly low level crime.

Worse than that, direct experience of intimidation as a witness can lead to a deterioration in living conditions for particular people.

Some people have virtually become prisoners in their own homes due to fear of going out, reflecting the general decline in safety of the area.

People do not, themselves have had to have had direct experience to be afraid to go out.

Some activities in the area have been organised in part around people’s feelings of lack of safety.

Young people are widely considered to be the major cause of problems in the area, although this is not universal.

Some residents report that whilst people used to take responsibility for reporting what went on, this has declined recently, mainly as a result of the attitude of the police.

In the street interviews, 66 % of people reported that children being out of parental control was something they disliked about the area. This was endorsed by other residents who feared for some children’s safety. Children outwith parental control was an indicator of lack of community safety.

Housing policies were sometimes linked to anti-social behaviour, and people’s fears are not always assuaged by convictions, or in the case of anti-social behaviour, evictions.

The general lack of perceived safety, and real as well as perceived fear of intimidation and retribution leads to unreported crime, as well as well as to restrictions on people’s lives.

The general state of decline was reflected an a story a resident told us of an elderly man unwilling to ask children to stop playing football against his wall.

Long-standing residents compared the past with the present, with sadness, and concern, particularly for children growing up in the area.

As a consequence of the general decline in the area, people were reluctant to come forward as witnesses. A general state of despair, and lack of hope was reported.

Despite the perceived and real lack of safety, as we have seen, people do come forward as witnesses, and sometimes proceed with a case through the courts. Their experiences highlight the existing supports and barriers to acting as a witness.

The decision to report incidents witnessed, or to go ahead with proceedings after reporting, is based on a complex cost-benefit analysis, which is different for different people. So, for instance, the costs of proceeding if a family member is being (or fears being) threatened may be too great for some but not for others; the costs of proceeding if a person’s house is damaged (or they fear it may be) may be too great for some and not for others; the benefits of proceeding if someone has been (or fears they may be) hurt may outweigh personal costs for some but not for others.

Nevertheless, some general features of the supports that enable people to proceed, having witnessed an incident , as well as the barriers that prevent them, can be identified from the stories local people tell. The extent to which they are based on ‘fact’ is irrelevant - it is the impact they have on a particular person that is important.

Some people’s feelings of outrage at law breaking, or notions that they ‘have nothing to lose’ leads them to be prepared to proceed as a witness. Some (but not all) people we interviewed in the street said they would be prepared to go to court.

Perhaps without being put to the test, it is easy to be courageous.

Most people were not so sure about their willingness to come forward. They may only have been prepared to come forward in relation to some crimes. The more serious the crime, the more likely they said they would be to report and proceed.

The perception of a crime against the person, rather than towards property would determine the extent to which some people would report.

The seriousness of the crime is linked to the anticipated response from the police. Some people would not report an incident they thought would receive no response. As one resident witness put it:

In the street interviews, we found that middle aged and elderly people generally know a lot of people, whereas younger people tended to know relatively few. Not surprisingly, this was often linked to the time they had lived in the area. General levels of community safety were higher for those we stopped in the street, and did not seem linked to the number of people known. Nearly everybody had somebody they would turn to in a crisis, with family members and neighbours being the people most readily turned to. Only 6 people said they had no-one to turn to, and of these, two people were wanting to leave the area. Active and inactive residents talked of the support they got from family members, for example:

In addition to these informal networks, other residents described more formal support arrangements, such as telephone ‘trees’, although confidence can be undermined by careless police response.

The development of more organised Residents’ Associations and Homewatch Schemes, has also contributed to feelings of greater confidence.

These groups also offer direct emotional and practical support to people, as illustrated by what a resident witness told us.

It is not only emotional support that is provided by residents’ associations. They are also able to help with the reporting of incidents and the procurement of resources.

One Homewatch Scheme works in close conjunction with the Neighbourhood Nuisance Team.

Advanced knowledge of prospective neighbours who might be moving in to the area was thought to be helpful, but the need to ensure that newcomers were made to feel welcome was also recognised.

Those people who were members of residents; associations or Homewatch schemes, sometimes used committee members as channels through which to report.

This readiness to tell a local representative was in part because they were well known and inspired confidence, but also seemed in part as a means of avoiding responsibility themselves, to the frustration of local committee members.

Community representatives of this sort were, then, seen as important supports for vulnerable people, including those who were frightened. Some had also been in a position to build up strong relationships with the police, as illustrated by this community representative.

The anonymity of being unknown to perpetrators gave some people the confidence to report incidents, especially serious ones.

Similarly, anonymity at the reporting stage was seen as helpful, even for someone who was a community representative.

The difficulty that this anonymous reporting creates for the police was recognised, and Crimestoppers, a national crime reporting telephone line, was seen by community representatives as a useful, anonymous reporting channel. (None of the people we stopped in the street had ever reported anything to Crimestoppers. This may highlight a difference between active and inactive residents in terms of levels of knowledge and understanding).

A strong police presence fed in to overall feelings of safety. Some residents have noticed an increase in policing recently, as reflected in a comment during a street interview.

In addition to police presence, physical aids such as alarms were thought to give people support, even though they were not always easy to get, as this public service worker reports.

Emotional support at the time of reporting an incident, helps people through this stage, especially where there is intimidation. Even so, the support is not always sufficient to enable people to go to the next stage, of giving evidence, as this resident shows.

The work of members of the Neighbourhood Nuisance Team receives widespread acclamation. Its presence and the work it has undertaken has boosted the confidence of some local people.

Not everyone, however, knows about the team and what it can do. The majority of people we interviewed in the street did not know about the team, and not everyone involved in associations used the team directly, as a community representative told us.

Even in the context of a growing cynicism about resident participation in the regeneration work more generally, the Neighbourhood Nuisance Team was valued.

Although new, the Neighbourhood Nuisance Team is thought to be useful in preventing the escalation of problems.

A cautionary note was raised by a community representative, about the danger that people would be moved on and out by the Neighbourhood Nuisance Team and then reappear in some other part of the area.

The existence of the Witness Support Scheme in the Magistrates’ Court, run by Victim Support, was known to some, and was reported to be useful. Not everybody, though, liked the idea of it for themselves.

Whilst some of the people we spoke to knew a lot about resources and projects available locally, there were many who had little idea of what was available locally. Some had taken part in information gathering more widely.

Those residents who sat on regeneration committees had gained information about other types of projects. Some had been to visit other schemes. One group had visited a street warden project in Amsterdam.

Visiting other projects helped residents see that things could be done differently, including the methods of policing. One community representative described the experience:

A group of local people had recently visited the local police control station. Whilst this was intended to help residents understand the police procedures, it had the unintended consequence, certainly in one instance, of raising and dashing expectations.

Supports for acting as a witness were linked to the person themselves (courage, and being unknown); social support (good local networks and the work of community representatives); their understanding of the ‘system’ (their perception of seriousness of incidents and education and information); and action (positive police response, the work of the neighbourhood nuisance team and the courts based witness support service).

Fear of retribution, and actual threats were important barriers to reporting incidents. In addition, experiences of poor responses and attitudes on behalf of the police made it less likely that people would report in the future. Lack of knowledge about, and experience of actual court procedures, too, made it difficult for witnesses to give evidence.

Whilst there did not seem to be a ‘no grassing culture’ in general, there appeared to be one for young, streetwise men, and possibly for others. A man in his early 20’s, interviewed in the street summed it up.

For most people, the fear of retribution of some kind, particularly family members put people off from being a witness, even if they had been one in the past, as this witness told us.

The seriousness of the incident again, affected people’s willingness to act as witness, if a family member might get hurt.

It is not only the evidence stage that would be avoided by feared retribution to a family member, but also the reporting in the first instance.

In the context of physical damage already being done, the reputation of large families who might have enacted a vendetta against family members (rather than an actual threat) was enough to discourage this resident-witness from appearing in Court (although in the event it was not requested).

The reputation of large extended families, some reputed to be of Irish descent, leads to fear, as reported by this community representative. This reputation appears to have taken on something of an ‘urban myth’ status, as most people we talked to in the street did not mention it, but active residents and agency workers did.

Fear of retribution, whilst widespread, was not universal. One resident thought such acts were constrained only to certain families, and that ordinary residents had little to fear.

Fear of what might happen, linked to reputations and stories that abound is one thing. Quite another is the fear that comes from actual experiences of verbal and physical threats and attacks.

Verbal threats range from threats to a person or people, to property or animals. Despite police claims that there is little evidence that threats are carried out, residents report that they are. One resident told us:

Equally physical threats, often against property, have been carried out.

It is reputed not to be such a problem when there is only an individual perpetrator, but more so with gangs, groups, and extended families. It is the latter that local people say leads to the threats being carried out.

Sometimes being a community representative, such as co-ordinator of a Homewatch scheme, is sufficient in itself to be seen as a target for intimidation, as this community representative told us.

The distinction between being a witness and being a victim is not always an easy one to maintain, especially regarding the carrying out of threats. A resident-witness described how ‘witness’ became ‘victim’.

This resident was grateful that the police woman had not given her a false idea of what might happen if she pressed charges. However, other residents voiced concern about what they considered to be negative police attitudes, discouraging them from reporting incidents.

The attitude that there is nothing that can be done, and that residents should just move out of the area, infuriated residents. For example, one told of one such dismissive attitude she had experienced.

Another resident reflected a similar concern.

The local police sometimes have to counteract what other officers say about the area.

It is not only the attitude of the police that discourages reporting, but sometimes their response when a report is made.

Residents find it particularly irksome that the police response is, what seems to them, slow, even when the incident is close to the police station.

We heard several stories about the police showing a reluctance to follow up an incident, but urging the resident to report any future trouble. As one community representative told us:

Furthermore there is a perception that some crimes, such as drug crimes, are ignored by the police as being brought upon by the people themselves.

Clearly such a response takes little account of the quality of life for those living nearby . Telephone reporting mechanisms were not always helpful. Furthermore, not everyone has access to full use of a telephone.

A community representative told us that when people did call in to the police station, they were disappointed at the way in which log numbers were issued, preventing the police to get an accurate indication of incident ‘hot spots’ affecting residents.

These accounts touch the tip of the iceberg of negative community feeling, expressed by active residents, about the police and policing. Non-active residents who were contacted through the street interviews did not express the same strength of feeling. The majority did not mention policing at all, and they did not know about some of the policing initiatives (such as Operation Zenith). Four people thought there were more police around recently, eight thought the police had responded appropriately to incidents reported by others. Twelve people interviewed in the streets had some idea that the police response to incidents had been poor, but were unable to be specific. To the young men we interviewed, police were irrelevant to the handling of incidents, as they would be dealt with them by themselves or their friends.

Family members put pressure on some residents. One woman suggested it was easy for her husband, who was away from home and had not been threatened, to discourage her from seeking support.

Although she had reported and given a statement, after thinking it through she was unable to go through with Court proceedings.

A local resident who had witnessed crime described how when a number of people had witnessed the same incident, sometimes there was a tendency to assume others will report it.

At other times, though, residents said they did not know where and to whom to report incidents.

A housewife interviewed in the street, although she knew a lot of people, said she did not know where to report any concerns. She therefore tends not to bother.

Community representatives, too, thought some of their members would not know how to report an incident. There was a general lack of awareness and understanding of Crimestoppers.

Living or working locally, and possibly knowing the perpetrators of incidents, and the perpetrators knowing the (potential) witnesses, was a large barrier to some people. One resident who lived in one part of the area and worked in another, said he would be comfortable reporting at work but not at home, partly because there would more likely be other witnesses available..

Another resident thought having to live in the area in which she had witnessed incidents would prevent her reporting.

The pressure not to report local people is even stronger for young people, partly through the ‘no grassing’ culture, but partly because of living in the area.

If weighing up the potential risks of being known as a witness deters some people, weighing the likelihood of a positive outcome also acts as a deterrent to reporting.

The judgement that there is often little point in reporting, is partly linked to the actual or anticipated experience of police response.

A low paid worker, does not consider the hassle he would be likely to get if he did report an incident he witnessed, worth the pay he got for the job.

Reluctantly a resident told us she no longer reports less serious incidents, as they are low down on the police’s priorities, even though they cause residents major concerns. It is not worth her time and effort.

Low priority, anti-social behaviour raises dilemmas about to whom and how it should be reported, even for an active resident who understands the system.

Even with more serious crimes, a resident who also works in the area told us he no longer reports what he has witnessed, as he no longer sees the point when nothing has been done in the past.

Most local people w spoke to have not been to Court to act as a witness. However, as we have seen above, attending Court is not always easy. Other related procedures, too, if residents do not fully expect them, can lead to them feeling vulnerable and angry, as illustrated by this active resident.

Rumours about the court procedures, combined with the actual knowledge of the minority of people, lead residents to be cynical.

Sentencing outcomes, too, do not always encourage people, and they weigh up the costs of reporting with the likely outcome.

The barriers that prevent or make it difficult for people to act as a witness include personal things (fear of retribution; threats and intimidation; victimisation and being local); social support (family pressure and isolation); understanding the ‘system’ (lack of knowledge; lack of purpose) and action (negative police attitudes, lack of police response and court procedures). The barriers are, currently stronger than the supports, contrinuting to the cylcel of reluctance, identified in Figure 2.

Figure 3 summarises these factors and illustrates that a witness support scheme would have to strengthen and increase supports whilst at the same time weakening and decreasing barriers.

Whilst the evidence for the need for a Witness Support Scheme is there, no scheme could work without local support.

Most people interviewed in the street did not know what might help people report anti-social behaviour or crime, or what might support them once they had reported it (90%). When asked directly, (76%) thought some kind of volunteer support scheme might be useful, as long as the volunteers were local. Younger people did not think such a scheme would work for them although they could see that elderly people may benefit from a support service. Nobody said categorically they would use such a scheme if the circumstances arose, and no-one said they would be willing to act as a volunteer.

ð with witness support scheme, supports strengthened and barriers reduced: greater likelihood of acting as a witness

Those who have acted as witnesses, are well placed to say what would have made it easier for them to report, or to proceed through the Courts. Residents and people working

in the area, who had themselves witnessed serious crime were supportive of a Witness Support Scheme. Most thought it would be extremely useful: women were certain it would, although men were more cautious.One advantage of such a scheme, identified by someone who had acted as a witness, would be that it might bypass the police to a certain extent.

A resident who had appeared in Court and given evidence, was in no doubt of the value of a scheme in supporting witnesses throughout, but only if it was presented to people in an appropriate way. Such a scheme should be separate from, but linked to the Police.

Equally, a resident who had reported serious and traumatic crime and intimidation, but was personally unable, in the end, to go to Court, thought a scheme would help people like her. Again, a scheme that was separate from the police would be beneficial.

Both these witnesses saw information-giving as well as support, as key to a Witness Support Scheme. This combination of education and counselling is what appealed to one of the male witnesses, although the another was more sceptical.

Another male witness was doubtful about the value of such a scheme for himself, but recognised the value it might have for others, particularly in liaison between witnesses and the police.

The separation from, but connection with the police (particularly in the promotion of the scheme) was a view supported by the a regeneration worker.

Amongst community representatives, there was a degree of cynicism about whether a Scheme could be made to work.

And:

However, on the whole, active residents, who were often in a position to know about other people’s fears and concerns, thought the prospects of a scheme were good. It would be particularly useful at the earlier stages of having been a witness.

It was recognised that having confidence in any scheme would be crucial.

There was a view that for a scheme to work, it should have a local emphasis, and that an area-wide scheme would not work. Some residents knew of an earlier proposal for Victim Support to provide support for witnesses in the community, and thought this would be a good idea.

The practicalities of setting up such a scheme, at this point in time troubled an active resident, who gave cautious support to the establishment of a Witness Support Scheme.

Furthermore, the extent of participation in a scheme was questioned, particularly if it were to be closely associated with the Police. One community representative thought that some groups of people, particularly those from ethnic minority groups, might not use a Witness Support Scheme.

Not everyone thought the time was right for a scheme to be fully operative, because of all that was currently going on. A community representative suggested that some people might not want others to know they had reported incidents.

Doubts were expressed about whether people would actually use a Witness Support Scheme.

Those professionals already supporting witnesses in the community or in the Courts were in no doubt that support for witnesses was needed. Many victims are also witnesses to their own victimisation, and Victim Support has seen the need for support, and developed ways of supporting them during and after court proceedings, and to a lesser extent prior to court proceedings. In Salford and Bolton, Safer Salford operate a witness support scheme, mainly for witnesses at and after the point of reporting. In Salford and Bolton last year 6192 witnesses were offered support with a 15-20% take-up (2,095 in Salford), clearly indicating a project, once in existence in an urban area, is used. Similarly the Witness Cocoon project in Leicester experienced rapid take-up of the project once it was in operation.

Some other criminal justice agencies, however, were more cautious in their appraisal. There was some suggestion that more community development needed to take place, particularly helping local people to expand their understanding of crime and alternative ways of working with perpetrators at local level, before a witness support scheme would have any impact. There is no reason, however, why a witness support project could not also contribute to community development, but such a project is likely to look rather different from those currently in existence.

People stopped in the street were almost unanimous in their support for a witness support scheme.

Police statistics do not give any insight into the likelihood of whether a witness support scheme is needed or not. Information is collected on reported crime: this is not tracked through to witness statements and legal proceedings. It would be necessary to know the current drop-off from reporting to statements, and from statements to proceeding as a witness, if any statistical basis for the need for witness support as a means of securing an increase in prosecutions were to be demonstrated. People certainly told of a reluctance to report in the first instance.

In summary, the weight of opinion was that a Witness Support Scheme would be useful, especially if it combined education with emotional support, particularly at early stages of being a witness, but also through the Courts. The Witness Support Scheme should be separate from, but linking with the Police, and should reflect a local emphasis rather than being area-wide. Doubts were expressed about whether people would in the event, actually participate in a Witness Support Scheme.

In the street interviews, as well as supporting the development of a Witness Support Scheme, people suggested other things that might make it easier for people to report incidents, and even reduce the number of incidents - particularly of nuisance of anti-social behaviour. These included:

• facilities for young people to use;
• places for young people to meet;
• changes in housing allocation policies so that people with problems (like drug taking and young single mothers, for example) were not housed close to each other;
• more employment in the area;
• a crackdown on criminal activities in pubs;
• environmental improvements (more greenery);
• greater parental control over their children;
• greater involvement of young people in the changes going on;
• and more visible policing.

A number of alternatives to a formal Witness Support Scheme were discussed by active residents. Some of these suggestions could be incorporated into a Witness Support Scheme, rather than be seen as separate from it.

There was a lot of interest in ways in which people might help each other, and ties between people might be strengthened. Not only would confidence be raised in acting as a witness, but people’s isolation would be reduced.

A practical suggestions about how low cost supports might be encouraged was made, drawing on networks based on peoples houses.

An alternative to basing a network on people’s houses would be to link it to the Regeneration activities, thus taking the responsibility off local community representatives. The importance of having local people, with knowledge of local resources to talk to, though, remained..

People from one area, supporting people in another, was also raised as a possibility.

This kind of arrangement, would, however still need some co-ordination. Whilst there would be advantages to local people volunteering informally, the limitations of this were pointed out by a regeneration worker, with the advantages of having at least one paid worker.

She concluded that there would need to be professional peopleinvolved, perhaps teamed with volunteers. The view that people supporting witnesses should be trained, and themselves supported, was widely held by members of professional agencies.

The importance of co-ordination between different projects for increasing the confidence and support to local people was emphasised by an active resident, including the use of professional witnesses when required.

More generally, the co-ordination of witness supports with the development of other community supports was thought to be important.

Two main groups of people were thought to cause the most anxiety amongst local people. These were youth, and large (traveller) families of Irish descent. Focusing on young people in terms of activities was widely thought to be a good idea, and one that had proven benefits, a youth worker pointed out.

Education of young people, too was thought to be important.

The importance of treating young people with respect, and not as problems, was recognised.

Apart from comments from youth workers, there was little mention of young people as witnesses and victims themselves, who may have an interest in increased community safety. On active resident who did discuss this highlighted young people interests in improving their area.

There was less discussion about the families perceived to be problems in the area. One resident did, however, stress the importance of finding out about their concerns, from their perspectives, and of trying to engage them in some of the regeneration activities. A project at a local University is endeavouring to do this.

Neighbourhood Wardens are about to appear in the area, and residents had mixed views about the role they might play in witness support.

Their potential role as professional witnesses was mentioned.

There was a feeling they too, could be turned into victims.

Perhaps later on, when some of the other regeneration activities had begun to take effect, Wardens could be useful as sources of witness support.

Whilst neighbourhood agreements have existed within some housing projects for some time, they are being introduced on a local basis. Some active residents think that any attempt to introduce them would lead to intimidation. Others, however, are more positive, in terms of the contribution they might make to general feelings of well-being. As one community representative said:

The value of a confidential telephone line, to which people could report incidents but not leave their names and addresses was emphasised. This could be an answerphone.

One young man, age 21, interviewed in the street, who was ambivalent about the value of a Witness Support Scheme for young people, did think a telephone line, staffed by a local person would be a good idea.

No one mentioned Crimestoppers except one active resident who had tried to phone the number but had been referred back to a local number she could not access from her telephone.

Throughout discussions with people, the concern for better policing was evident.

A number of alternatives actions to the development of a formal Witness Support Scheme were suggested. These included building on and strengthening existing networks and developing facilities locally. Tying witness support closely into existing projects was suggested. These suggestions were nearly all, in one way or another, liked to the development of trust and the development of the ability of existing organisations (professional and community) to support witnesses.

There are, too, some particular features of the current context in Heartlands which will be important to take account of in the implementation of any Witness Support Scheme.

Heartlands is part of North Town and faces many of the same issues as all large urban areas. However, there are also some specific features of the area which distinguish it from other districts, and that will influence the development of supports for witnesses.

Discussions about the establishment of a Witness Support Scheme are taking place within the context of a complex and large scale regeneration project in Heartlands. There are many projects in their infancy, all of which may influence community safety and reluctance to come forward as a witness. Yet at the time of the feasibility study, there were signs of a lack of social cohesion (which is part of what underpinned the regeneration project in the first instance).

In undertaking street interviews, irrespective of the time of day, time of week or place, we found people reluctant to talk about the area - they were in a hurry, or would rather not have a discussion, even for a few minutes. (This is unusual. Parallel projects with which we are involved elsewhere in North Town and on a run down estate nearby, have not found the same reluctance to stop and talk.) People declined to talk, even before knowing we were interested in crime and community safety, so we do not think it is through fear of intimidation of any sort.

Of those people we did interview, two thirds of whom were not working for one reason or another, 78% said they did not know about the different projects going on locally. Some did, and thought there was more local involvement in the Regeneration projects than ever before, and were pleased that local people were having a voice in the regeneration of the area. Some people were unsure what regeneration was going on, and said they knew nothing of the Regeneration projects. During the course of the project, we received 2 calls from local people who had trouble with neighbours, and they did not know where else to turn.

It was evident from the meetings we attended, that sometimes even people who were involved enough to come to the meetings were not aware of all that was going on.

There seems to be an assumption that information fed into regeneration consultation groups, or steering groups, will cascade through the locality via information networks. Not everyone is, however, a member of an organised group, and even amongst those who are, knowledge is patchy. This is not a criticism of attempts at strategic and neighbourhood levels, to inform people, but more a reminder that it will clearly be difficult to ensure that everyone knows about whatever supports are available for witnesses in the future. It also reveals a large gap in information and education amongst local people.

We spoke to other residents who are actively involved in regeneration projects, mostly co-ordinators of residents’ associations and Homewatch Schemes. There is some indication of fatigue in trying to get people involved, as illustrated by a Homewatch co-ordinator.

Some residents are reluctant to become involved with any of the projects, but still pressurise their representatives. One of the representatives said:

There is a degree of cynicism about the extent to which some of the newly formed residents’ associations have an overall sense of priorities for the area, and are committed in the long term to participation in regeneration.

There is cynicism, too, about the extent to which regeneration projects are truly grounded in residents’ views and priorities.

One person drew a distinction between consultation and involvement.

Whilst some people may be more ready to report incidents to the Neighbourhood Nuisance Team or contact the Regeneration offices, this is not always linked to strengthening of communities.

Despite this, greater confidence was shown in the Regeneration ways of working than those hitherto of elected representatives. One appreciative community resident said:

Whilst we found lack of involvement and knowledge about what was going on, we also found tremendous enthusiasm and commitment to restore the quality of life in Heartlands. This was evident, not only from those active residents who we spoke to in detail, but in those attending meetings connected with the Regeneration and in people working for development projects in the area. Local people we contacted in the street, who had lived in the area for some time said the thing they like best about the area was the people. Those who had recently moved to the area did not have such strong ties to others locally.

Housing issues were one aspect of regeneration which impinged upon issues for witnesses.

It is not within the scope of this study to comment extensively on housing policies. There is an active programme of development and regeneration in relation to housing in the context of the Government’s recent housing White Paper, and local residents are being consulted over these developments.

However, housing matters do affect feelings of safety and issues to do with being a witness. One story related at a meeting on housing concerned an empty property.

Another major source of concern for local people, in terms of intimidation, concerns private landlords. This concern was summarised by the following account:

More generally, the different types of housing in the area, with a mix of types of tenancies, are thought to be linked to anti-social behaviours.

North Town Mediation’s remit in the area has recently been extended: nevertheless, any potential Witness Support Scheme would have to work in close liaison with housing agencies and with private landlords, if it is to contribute to overall feelings of confidence. Furthermore, the bridging role that a Witness Support Scheme might play, not only with the police as mentioned above, but also with different council departments, was stressed. This would enable agencies to learn more fully the consequences of insensitive dealing with residents’ concerns for readiness to act as a witness. Thus a Witness Support Scheme could play an organisational development role.

Whilst there was enthusiasm for the strength of personal networks, and for participation in regeneration, most active residents were less supportive of police attitudes and procedures.

Three people we interviewed in the street thought levels of crime had reduced recently and more police seemed to be in evidence. One of the active residents, also agreed.

A more widespread view was of a police force generally detached from the interests of local people, and detached from detailed knowledge of the area. One residents’ association had a meeting recently about community safety which was well attended, illustrating the interest people have in the matter.

Local community officers were generally thought highly of: it was more general policy and practices that were criticised.

The time taken to respond to calls was criticised, both in interviews and in public meetings.

Whilst this may be a legitimate criticism, it is also likely that little is known about how the police are required to prioritise different claims on their time, pointing the way for further information and education again. No amount of knowledge, though will overcome the fear existing alongside a perceived low police presence.

A recent community policing project, Operation Zenith, has, according to the police been generally well received by the public and by most of the officers involved, offering the opportunity to develop better relationships with local residents. However, according to some residents, it has not lived up to expectations.

Part of the dissatisfaction with the project appears to lie in the gap between what was provided and what residents had said they wanted.

Opinion is divided though. Whilst some small improvement in police-community relations has emerged, the attitudes and approach of Zenith have not been integrated into mainstream policing. We heard a briefing was given to the local station bout ‘spreading the word’ of Zenith, and its merits, highlighting some of the negative perceptions held of police officers in general. However, there appears to have been no monitoring or evaluation of the impact Zenith has had on general policing. From what residents report, both to us in interview and at meetings, it is limited.

Police attitudes are generally thought to be poor, with both residents and police officers reporting stories of residents being told, on reporting an incident, ‘What do you want me to do about it?’; ‘What do you expect if you live round here, why don’t you move out?’. There is a common view that the police view the area as consisting of either criminals or victims of crime, and that it is thus less deserving of the same kind of service as other areas.

Communication channels between Regeneration projects and the police are open, and information is fed through. The more long-term residents’ groups, too, generally let the police know when there are issues of concern. During the course of this study, some residents have met with the Chief Constable and with the deputy Home Secretary to air their concerns. One problem with relatively good communication, is that when relatively little seems to happen, dissatisfactions are increased.

There do seem to have been some attempts to build bridges between the community and the police, and to acknowledge the importance of celebrating positive results that have arisen from information given by local residents, and of helping people understand police and legal procedures. However, there does not seem to have been a strategic approach to public education as there has in other areas, and initiatives seem to be left to Divisional and Sub-divisional levels. Nor does there seem to have been a parallel development of attitude change and education within the police force themselves, and a relatively simple approach to community policing is in evidence. For example, although there are youth development and school liaison officers, there are few initiatives undertaken with and for young people, underpinned by the view: ‘We try not to do what other agencies do: working with young people is the job of the Youth Service’. This is not usually what is meant by inter-disciplinary or partnership approaches.

One particular bone of contention expressed in interviews and at meetings is the apparent double standard being promoted by the police. On the one hand, the police encourage local people to stand together and confront nuisance and anti-social behaviour. On the other hand local people see the police themselves failing to confront the same kinds of nuisance and anti-social behaviour. This has had a damaging effect on confidence in the police.

There appears to be a great deal of work to do to strengthen bridges between the community and the police and to encourage more direct partnership approaches to community policing alongside other agencies. As witness support is also about confidence building in the community and between the community and the police, any prospective Witness Support Scheme might take a proactive role in developing this. There would, of course, have to be a commitment and willingness to change throughout the police service, encouraged from the top.

Some of the residents, as well as members of the police service and workers within the Witness Support service in the Courts, have drawn attention to the legal processes that are in place to protect defendants, and make things more difficult at times for actual and potential witnesses. These include the need for witnesses to make written statements and to appear in court; the requirement (and the practice in civil cases) of advanced disclosures of evidence; the setting, breaking and relinquishing of bail conditions; adjournments and delays in court appearances; changes of plea from not-guilty to guilty at the last moment; court layout (in waiting areas and the court itself); and lack of knowledge about the likelihood of there being other witnesses.

Witnesses do not always know of the possibilities and restrictions of legal processes and of why they are as they are. Some aspects of the processes, and ways in which they can be made to work more effectively for witnesses are highly technical. Nevertheless, there would be a role for someone to work with the police, the courts and local people to agree ways of working that maximise confidence for witnesses.

Victim Support, currently running a Witness Support Scheme in the Magistrates’ Court, would have useful insights into how to support people throughout the court processes. Equally, residents who have been through the process, might also have useful contributions to make.

Just as there is a lack of knowledge at times, and misunderstanding at other times about police and legal procedures, there are varied perceptions of how the different districts in the Heartlands area have fared in regeneration generally and community safety in particular.

Comparisons were readily made between different parts of the area in terms of general problems and facilities.

Mobility between districts has been thought to underpin changing patterns of crime.

Residents perceive inequities in the ways different districts are allocated resources.

The official crime statistics reported by police reveal differences between districts, as illustrated by a community representative.

Official crime statistics especially those based on reported crime are, of course, notoriously tricky to interpret. Perceived differences, too, in general policing have been reported.

The perceived differences between localities are not just between districts, they are also between individual estates.

Different estates were seen to have different problems with different levels of confidence of local people to report incidents.

These differences are of great local importance and there is a feeling that regeneration agencies do not always appreciate this.

Certainly, it would seem that any Witness Support Scheme would have to take account of local differences (real and perceived) in general community safety, as well as in the strength of social networks.

In general we found a culture wherein people were most concerned to identify territorial distinctions, both in terms of problems, but also in terms of their importance for people’s identities. Whilst this may reflect strong social cohesion within districts, it reflects a lack of overall cohesion across Heartlands. These territorial distinctions were linked to more general cultural issues.

Whilst there are advantages of identifying strongly with a particular locality, especially in terms of social cohesion, there may be disadvantages in a tendency to be inward-looking. In the street interviews, more established residents identified people new to the area, or from outside the area, as those most likely to cause problems. As one active resident put it:

Being new to the area might last quite a long time, and the perception of who is an ‘insider’ and who is an ‘outsider influences who is to be trusted with information about incidents witnessed.

The same insider-outsider distinction was made by a community representative in relation to who should be allocated tenancies, where particular ‘outsiders’ are seen as potential trouble makers.

Protests had been made about proposals to house such ‘outsiders’ in a particular district.

The reputation of large families of Irish descent was negative. The first anti-social behaviour orders to be issued in North Town were in relation to children belonging to families of this kind. We heard from active residents, from workers and from people in the street about the fear of intimidation by members of these large extended families. There is also a perception that members from some of these families have contributed to the destabilisation of the area in other ways. For example, an active resident told the story of a protection racket in local pubs.

Another story was of people shoplifting, told by a security guard in a supermarket.

Whilst particular families were seen as being problems, there was also recognition that to date little had been done to involve members of the families in the regeneration activities in the area. This active resident echoed the point made earlier about the extent to which they had not been included n the decisions about local developments.

One of the active residents drew our attention to some of the difficulties the families encounter, and suggested a way forward would be to try to work to resolve some of these difficulties.

The extent to which such ‘outsider’ perceptions are based on fact or reputation is in some ways irrelevant. The perceptions exist and any Witness Support Scheme would need to be able to begin to address them, as well, possibly as encourage different ways in which people new to the area might be welcomed and incorporated more positively.

There were different views about who it was that perpetrated crime, nuisance and disorder, in addition to members of the large ex-travelling extended families, and people new to the area.

Some people we interviewed in the street thought problems were caused by isolated individuals, often late at night after drinking.

Further:

A community representative, thought that, in contrast, it was the idea (if not the reality) of gangs that contributed most to fear.

In some areas, the constant levels of nuisance and anti-social behaviour, has led to people not even noticing it happening any more, influencing their readiness to report incidents – even active residents:

High levels of incidents may be one of the things that has contributed to the judgements people make about what activities should be reported. Distinctions are made about the gravity of different kinds of crimes. A local witness told us:

Sometimes these judgements are overlain with judgements about who can and cannot afford (either personally or financially) to carry the consequences of crime.

Clearly these kinds of judgements will influence what it is that people will report to the authorities, and what they will not. Whilst it did not appear from what the majority of people were saying to us that it was so, one active resident considered that the local culture was one of lawlessness.

Throughout the study residents (active or not), workers and the police all agreed that any such drift to lawlessness had to stop. A Witness Support Scheme would be able to contribute to such a change in values, but only if it were able to work with all parties in ways that strengthened the common bond of living in Heartlands, and decreased (as one worker put it) signs of xenophobia.

An inclusive approach to increasing people’s confidence in acting as a witness, would also include young people.

People in the street interviews were virtually unanimous in saying that provisions for young people should be improved if overall satisfaction with living in the area were to improve. One of the middle aged women we talked to believed strongly there is nothing for young people to do, except go to pubs - mostly for socialising, but then they get drunk and after that trouble starts. There are no sports facilities. She said

A National Sports Centre is on the doorstep, but this was thought by an active resident to be inaccessible for local people.

During the summer, an extensive programme of activities was available. These were mostly based in existing community buildings, which may have meant that some young people may have been reluctant to attend. Certainly they did not seem accessible to all, as an active resident suggested.

Younger people interviewed did not think young people had any influence over what happens locally. Certainly, in most of our discussions with people, young people were often identified as a large part of the ‘problem’, but rarely seen, except by youth workers, as essential parts of any solution.

One active resident, however, reflected on how regeneration resources had not been directed at young people, and acknowledged that they, too were victims of the local crime, nuisance and anti-social behaviour.

Whilst the lack of facilities for young people were identified, the lack of facilities more generally was considered by a community representative to be an important part of the context of living in Heartlands.

There was wide agreement that many of the problems of nuisance and anti-social behaviour would be reduced with more facilities and more for young people to do.

Further information is needed on young people as witnesses and the supports they might need, especially as those young adults we spoke to in the street, did not think young people (certainly young men) would use a support service. Close liaison with youth projects and with young people themselves would be an essential part of a Witness Support Scheme. There is scope for an approach which not only contributed to education and emotional support for young people, but also contributed to the development of intergenerational understanding. A Witness Support Scheme would be ideally placed to include, not separate young people from the change process.

These different aspects of the context present both threats and opportunities for a prospective Witness Support Scheme, as summarised in Table 1.

Aspects of the context, including the amount of regeneration work (local participation and housing); lack of confidence (in police and legal procedures); and local identities (linked to locality; perceptions of outsiders, perceived seriousness of crime, nuisance and disorder and youth) will all limit the effectiveness of an individual support scheme for actual and potential witnesses. Any witness support scheme will have to work to strengthen the context as well as to support individuals.

These different features of the context have implications for how a Witness Support Scheme might operate, as shown in Table 2.

As we can see, there was general support for a Witness Support Scheme. Widespread support was given by people stopped in the street, some community representatives and members of most professional agencies consulted. Some community representatives and a minority of professionals expressed reservations. The context is one of change, patchy social cohesion and insular identities. Taken together, the picture is one, at this early stage, of a number of potential advantages and disadvantages which can be identified, each with implications for the development of a Community Witness Support Scheme, as seen in Table 3.

If these potential problems could be overcome, a locally sensitive Witness Support Scheme, with an emphasis on education, personal support, as well as with the development of local community and professional organisations, building bridges between different parts of the community could be established. It might then be possible to turn the Cycle of Reluctance and negativity into a Cycle of Determination, - one that positively connected feeling of confidence and trust with strong, supportive community and professional organisations, as illustrated in Figure 4.

During the course of the feasibility study, a number of options for the delivery of a Witness Support Scheme presented themselves, each with advantages and disadvantages.

The options for development of a Community Witness Support Scheme vary from low cost use of existing community networks, to medium cost co-ordination of a support scheme attached to existing community networks, to higher cost provision of a dedicated witness support project. Such a project may be free standing (as in, for example the model developed in Salford and Bolton, delivered by Safer Salford, or the Witness Cocoon Project in Leicester), or built onto an existing project (as for example in the provision of Witness Support in the Magistrates’ Courts by Victim Support), or built onto existing professional practices.

We have argued in the report that any scheme should strengthen individual confidence and trust and at the same time build enabling structures of support in professional and community organisations. Each option can, therefore, be appraised in terms of how it will strengthen confidence and trust and weaken barriers to confidence and trust. Unless support structures are strengthened at the same time, a project focusing on individual support alone, is likely to have a limited impact on both community safety and willingness to act as a witness.

Existing residents’ associations and Homewatch schemes could be linked so that they provided support for residents, in their own homes, from each others’ schemes. Residents from one locality could be linked to residents from another, and would visit when the need arose.

Advantages: raise the profile and importance of residents’ associations; would be local; supporters could be anonymous locally; may increase local ownership and responsibility; may strengthen people’s ties if there is wide participation.

Disadvantages: relies on goodwill (difficult in unsociable hours); may be harrowing; increases the burden on local people, and probably disproportionately on community representatives; uniformity not possible; inconsistent level of activity in groups at the moment; would be low profile and difficult for people to know about; co-ordination role still required; availability would be linked to willingness to participate.

Local community organisations would develop local community resource centres (for example in a community house) which could include a witness support service providing both encouragement to report incidents and support for individual witnesses. Local police officers could regularly attend the centre to pick up information.

Advantages: local; good interagency links; high visibility and local ownership and knowledge; may strengthen and broaden local ties between people; links with other agencies and their resources in the centre; may hook in more people; anonymity preserved as the centre could be multi-function.

Disadvantages: centre itself could be targeted; burden remains with local people; anonymity may be compromised; relies on goodwill; need for co-ordination and support for local people involved; unlikely to be 24 hour availability.

Street wardens are being introduced throughout the area, and they will get to know local people. They may also witness events and be on hand to offer individual support.

Advantages: able to maintain personal distance from events; paid; out and about and able to gather information; may be able to act as professional witnesses; known by local people

Disadvantages: may be outsiders; may be seen as an arm of the police; could be targeted; would do little to strengthen local ties between people; lack of 24 hour availability; street wardens are very new.

Neighbourhood nuisance team would extend aspects of witness support in their work. More use of mediation and reparation practices may be possible.

Advantages: emphasis on different localities; good reputation and trust; paid; good interagency links; working links with the police; get to know of incidents where there is a reluctance to report; could act as professional witnesses

Disadvantages: saturation - would need more resources; potential conflict of interest; may do little to strengthen ties between people

Methods of working would evolve so that the police worked more in participation with local youth workers, NNT and residents’ associations to support people who had witnessed events and to publicise the consequences of any reports that were made to them. Mediation and reparation practices could be developed.

Advantages: trust in local police officers could be extended; would strengthen collaborative working and pooling of resources; may increase confidence in policing; may help develop inter-generational understanding

Disadvantages: police attitudes and lack of trust in police may be difficult to overcome; would need extensive interagency training; may not reach everyone in need; local networks may be unaffected; little slack in the system at the moment

Building on the structures and practices of Victim Support in both the community and the courts to support witnesses who may not be direct victims. It would be advantageous to have resources directed at the different localities

Advantages: local project already exists and local volunteers involved; knowledge of the police and court systems; experience in supporting volunteers; experience of supporting people who are fearful; good interagency links; experience of challenging different parts of the criminal justice system; infrastructure in place;

Disadvantages: Not known and trusted by everyone; perceived to be too close to the police; people may come to think of themselves as victims; may not include many young people.

Safer Salford operate a Witness Support service in Salford and Bolton. They support people from the point of reporting, to after any court appearance. Most referrals come via the police

Advantages: infrastructure there; experience of supporting witnesses practically and emotionally; individual confidence and trust in proceeding as witness likely; volunteer supporters would be local; good links with the police and courts; experience of challenging different parts of the criminal justice system; experience of tailoring schemes to local needs; experience of strategic policy development around the needs of witnesses.

Disadvantages: distrust at what may be perceived to be the import of a scheme from elsewhere; uniform approach; few local links at the start; difficulty accessing people prior to reporting; likely to have little impact on strengthening local ties.

There are currently several regeneration projects in progress, some including community safety issues, and most of which are relatively new. Furthermore the ‘Operation Zenith’ has yet to be completed. It may be that the projects in place at the moment will have an impact on people’s confidence and trust enabling them to come forward as witnesses, as well as on strengthening support structures locally.

Advantages: no cost; would prevent duplication and fragmentation; may ensure witness issues remain on the full regeneration agenda;

Disadvantages: it will take time for information to be available about the impact of existing projects; aspects of confidence and trust to act as a witness and the strength of local structures to support witnesses may not emerge in evaluations of existing projects; may not reach those not active in their communities; community education in relation to witness procedures may be limited; a failure to respond to local concerns may be perceived.

All the options presented above have emerged from discussion held with local people, professionals and those operating similar projects, as well as from an understanding of what has worked elsewhere. A key to the effectiveness of any project is the extent to which it is accepted locally. Local residents and professionals were invited to discuss the merits of the different options, and identify the way forward to offering support for witnesses. Four meetings were held and the following issues raised in discussion:

• the only people who will be able to turn the community around are the community;
• the Neighbourhood Nuisance Team has had some success in finding ways of getting people to come forward as witnesses;
• the police can only be effective with local people’s support;
• finding ways of getting people to report is a priority (this need not be to the police – anonymous information can be passed on by anyone);
• any project will need top have someone with good links to the community and also to the police;
• there is real interest in trying something new and a recognition that residents’ representatives do not have the capacity to take on a lot more;
• the different options address different parts of a three stage process: reporting incidents – supporting witnesses – support through the Courts;
• in the immediate future it may be most useful to do two things together: (i) increase the capability of agencies and community groups to work with witnesses (in a similar way to work done on racial harassment) – this would focus on strategic policy development; and (ii) provide support for individuals;
• such a project should provide mediation between potential and actual witnesses and the police;
• wheels should not be re-invented – existing witness support and victim support projects have developed mechanisms of supporting people that work well;
• staff on any project must be trained and co-ordinated.

As a result of these discussions, it is considered premature to prioritise (and cost) specific options, and relevant outcome indicators linked to them. Instead, these options should be explored further in course of the development of a witness support project.

A community witness support project is established in Heartlands with two key tasks at the outset: Individual Support and Organisational Development.

To provide information and individual support to people who have witnessed crime or anti-social behaviour in whatever course of action they decide.

This would usefully include:

• Skilled practical and emotional support to people who have witnessed crime, and anti-social behaviour;
• Mediation between police and other helping agencies as appropriate;
• Preparation of information and advice sheets;
• Community education in the form of talks and training events for local people about crime and safety, police and court procedures, and citizenship and crime.

To increase the capability of existing organisations and community groups to support potential and actual witnesses to crime, and anti-social behaviour.

This would usefully include:

• Strategic policy development and training with formal organisations (police, social services, health services etc.);
• Compilation of information about the range of community groups and individuals who support people who have witnessed crime;
• Identification of the relative merits of different means by which individual supports might be delivered (taking as a starting point the various Options identified above

• Community education in the form of talks and training events for professionals and community representatives about witness’ fears, experiences of police and court procedures, and citizenship and crime.

The recommendation above was discussed at the Crime and Community Safety Task Group (January 2001). A number of points were made in the discussion, most of which had been made during previous stages of the feasibility study.

There are changes being made within Victim Support, who have received national funding to expand their resource base in North Town and surrounding boroughs. It is possible there may be developments in supporting witnesses in the community. It is also possible that the local Victim Support offices may relocate to Greenwood precinct, a more central base for Heartlands.

The need for agencies, including the police service to become more aware of the needs of witnesses remains, and re-training will still be required.

There are different development projects starting in different parts of Heartlands, and it is not known the extent to which they will have an impact on social cohesion and individual confidence and trust in the system. To date, it was suggested that Heartlands is not ready to enable individual witnesses to feel secure in coming forward, and that people are still reluctant to act as witness. This reluctance is understandable insofar as little has changed in reducing (perceived) crime, disorder and anti-social behaviour in some areas.

‘Operation Zenith’ is to be extended to December 2001, and will overlap with the start of the Street Warden provision.

North Town Mediation had been contracted to extend their services.

It was suggested that there had been insufficient improvements in perceived safety to warrant community witness support scheme at this point in time. It was noted that projects elsewhere had found that once the project was in place, people used it.

A further survey, to be undertaken by the police later in the year, may provide useful information as to whether there were improvements in people’s feeling of safety and intolerance of crime, disorder and nuisance in Heartlands or not.

It was pointed out that a community witness support scheme might usefully deal with the pre-reporting phase of witness experience, and should be as concerned with anti-social behaviour as with crime. Furthermore, that different parts of Heartlands may be more or less ‘ready’ for the development of a support scheme.

Nearly all indicators of reported crime in Heartlands have dropped during the last 8 months, compared with figures for the force and for the same period during the previous year. There was no discussion about whether this could be due to fear and reluctance to report, nor as to what the fall off between reporting crime and giving statements might be.

It was noted that some families with young people who experienced intimidation were trying to move out of the area, and that there was real violence perpetrated towards young people.

There was some discussion as to whether building a witness support scheme onto the work of the Neighbourhood Nuisance team, capitalising on the effective work they had already undertaken would be useful (see Option 4 above). This Option would have the advantage of being a local base to which people could drop in for advice and discussion.

Alternatively, the possibility of encouraging people living in communities to look at different ways of doing things (unspecified) was discussed, although it was recognised that a growth in community based facilities would also be needed if this was to happen.

It was agreed to:

1. await the findings of the police survey, in order to throw light on the extent of changes within Heartlands and whether or not the time was now ‘right’ for a community witness support scheme; and
2. explore the possibility of developing closer links between the Neighbourhood Nuisance Team and Victim Support, especially with regard to broadening referral routes for witnesses of crime, disorder and anti-social behaviour.

The consequences of this decision are that in the short term, for individuals:

• there will be no additional skilled practical and emotional support to people who have witnessed crime, and anti-social behaviour in Heartlands, particularly at the pre-reporting stage;
• there will be no specific mediation between police, other helping agencies and witnesses at any stage of their experience, but particularly at pre-reporting and reporting stages;
• it is unlikely that specific information and advice sheets for witnesses will be prepared;
• there will be no additional community education in the form of talks and training events for local people about crime and safety, police and court procedures, and citizenship and crime.

Furthermore, in terms of the development of professional and community organisations with regard to witnesses, in the short term:

• there is unlikely to be any strategic policy development and training with formal organisations (police, social services, health services etc.);
• information about the range of community groups and individuals who support people who have witnessed crime will not be collated;
• there is likely to be little progress made in the Identification of the relative merits of different means by which individual supports might be delivered in the future;

• there will be no additional community education in the form of talks and training events for professionals and community representatives about witness’ fears, experiences of police and court procedures, and citizenship and crime.

North Town ‘s Regeneration for Communities (RC) area is Greenwood and Harley (population 11,231), an area which borders on Copvale and which is within the Heartlands regeneration area. As the delivery plan for the Regeneration for Communities project notes,

Population turnover is high, housing is poor, there are many derelict areas, work is in short supply, school absences are high and facilities in the area are declining. An area analysis, raised significant issues in relation to crime; education; health and well-being; worklessness; physical environment; local services; and community capacity and cohesion. Within the consultation exercise undertaken as part of the Regeneration plan, crime emerged as the most significant concern for residents. These can be summarised as follows:

• 72% of residents rate their area as unsafe and 47% think the area is less safe than it was two years ago;
• The RC area comprises approximately 2.7% of North Town population, but comprises 8% of burglaries from dwellings, 8.7% of criminal damage and 14.6% of arson;
• Fear of crime is higher than crime itself;
• There are high levels of crime that impact on the whole community, such as vandalism, breaking into empty properties, abandoning stolen cars;
• 57% of elderly will not walk in the area after dark and 25% of people feel unsafe at home alone after dark;
• 58% rate the support from the police as fairly or very bad;
• 63% identify lack of police presence as a problem.
• There is a general perception that minor crime is tolerated, leading to a decline in the confidence in enforcement and targeting of the area by criminals living within and outside the area.
• Repeat victimisation is high;
• anti-social and neighbour nuisance are major concerns for many residents;
• 40% have suffered from unreasonable noise in or around their home, and 35% have suffered frequently from abusive language;
• teenagers and young people are felt by 77% to be the main cause of problems;
• racial harassment is not thought to be a problem, although 8% of ethnic minority groups have suffered frequently;

The outcomes planned as a result of the RC, in relation to crime, include the following:

• residents’ confidence in their area will be improved so that the fear of crime becomes the exception not the norm;
• by the end of year 10 there will be a 50% decrease in those classing the area as unsafe and less safe than two years ago;
• a culture of rights balanced by responsibilities will prevail so that criminal and anti-social behaviour is recognised as unacceptable and dealt with as such by residents and agencies;
• by the end of year 10 crime will have been reduced to at or below the City average;
• by the end of year 10 the proportion of those wanting to move out of the area will have been reduced to 20%;
• to reduce those who feel they cannot get involved in their community because they ... find the area unwelcoming or suffer from harassment by 30% by year 3 and 50% by year 10;

A Crime, Community Safety and Anti-Social Behaviour task group is one of six task groups to have been established to oversee developments, and be responsible for delivering the outcomes of the RC. Each group works closely with other strategic developments (such as Health Action Zone, Education Action Zone and so on). The task group includes GM Police, GM Probation Services, and Victim Support. Local residents, voluntary and statutory agencies have been asked to submit initial project ideas for funding within the RC, and which identify sources of matched funding. In addition, the Crime, Community and Anti-Social Behaviour Task Group has been informed by the development and production of the City wide Crime and Disorder Strategy, and a local Crime and Disorder strategy has been developed to mirror the City wide one.

In the short term, plans to increase policing have been outlined. In the longer term, a number of crime prevention strategies have been identified, along with other measures, the approach being to

Amongst the proposals, plans to introduce neighbourhood wardens have been suggested. The RC Delivery Plan notes that:

However, the Delivery Plan goes on to state:

It is unlikely, according to the Delivery Plan, that the proposed projects would be wholly funded by RC.

It is in this context that the Regeneration for Heartlands has asked for a feasibility study that will examine if there is a need for a witness support scheme in Greenwood, Harley (and Copvale), and if so, what form it should take. Part of the feasibility study is research based, with a need to gather more detailed information from stakeholders in the community, and part is to prepare operational costings of proposed new projects, as identified. A proposal for the research element of the study is outlined below.

The overall brief for the feasibility study was to:

1. provide independent information about the perceived need for a community witness support scheme in Greenwood, Harley and Copvale;
2. provide information from the perspectives of different stakeholders in the community about how actual and potential witnesses might best be supported in the future prior to and after reporting crime, nuisance and disorder;
3. to identify relevant options for, outcomes and performance indicators of a potential community witness support scheme

Following the research component, and linked to the findings of the research, two further aims, not strictly research aims, will be addressed:

Specifically, the research would aim to:

1. seek the views of local people about the existing supports and barriers to reporting, and coming forward as witnesses to, crime, nuisance and disorder, and identify options for a community witness support scheme;
1. consult with residents, Police and relevant officers from RC and other voluntary and statutory agencies about the relative advantages of different types of community witness support schemes for Heartlands;
2. identify human resources available, and potential partners for the scheme and their possible contribution to a community witness support scheme;
3. identify ways in which a community witness support scheme might encourage greater participation from residents of Heartlands inthe reporting of incidents of crime, nuisance and disorder;
4. identify possible outcomes, outputs and performance indicators of a community witness support scheme over time and to identify monitoring and evaluation options.

We used a combination of different kinds of interviews and questionnaires. We undertook planned interviews with:

Residents or people who worked in the area who had recently witnessed acts of crime, nuisance and disorder and had proceeded to different stages of the prosecution process (N=8);

Residents who were active in regeneration activities, participating in Regeneration task groups, the Crime and Disorder Task Group, Housing and Neighbourhood Management Task Group and the Local Area Panels (LAPs). These residents nearly all held positions in community organisations, such as Chair of residents’ associations or Homewatch schemes (N=12);

Professionals working in the area or on witness support projects elsewhere (N=14).

The planned interviews with residents all covered the same ground, but different experiences arose for discussion with different participants. See later in the Appendix for interview topics. The interviews with professionals were more open, addressing any relevant aspects of witness behaviour, experience and support needs as well as aspects of the criminal justice system and community development affecting witnesses and offenders.

We also conducted ad hoc street interviews (N=100). These were shorter interviews with people who were stopped in the street at different times during working hours. Equal numbers of participants were gained from Greendale, Higher and Lower Harley and Copvale. Equal numbers of people under 35, 36-45, 46-60, and 60+ participated. All street interviews followed the same sets of questions (see Appendix 3).

Once options had been developed, four discussion groups (including residents, agency workers, police) met to consider the advantages and disadvantages of each option and to identify future strategies.

A final recommendation was put to the Crime and Community Safety Task Group.