Select Committee on Home Affairs Fifth Report

3 The response to youth nuisance

Youth nuisance in the context of the youth justice system

79. Any discussion of the appropriate response to ASB perpetrated by young people must be mindful of the wider context of youth offending. This is for two main reasons. First, there is a clear overlap in terms of the relevant behaviour and its causes (even discounting ASB which is also defined as criminal), with a likely progression from ASB to more serious offending if the initial behaviour is not challenged. Second, the response to youth ASB is inherently tied up with the youth justice system. Both these points will be developed in the course of this section of our report.

80. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998, in addition to legislating against ASB, also overhauled the youth justice system. For the first time, that system was given an explicit overarching aim: "to prevent offending by children and young persons".[95] A new national agency—the Youth Justice Board—was established in order to help fulfil this aim at national level. Youth Offending Teams (YOTs)—multi-agency partnerships tasked with co-ordinating youth justice services within particular areas—were set up at local level.

81. In place of the previous arrangement of cautioning for first (and, in practice, often repeat) offences, there is now a structured system of reprimand followed by a Final Warning (unless the offence is serious) before prosecution for a third offence.[96] A Final Warning is likely to trigger intervention by the local YOT: there is currently a target for this to happen in 80% of cases, with an earlier target of 70% already met successfully.[97]

82. In addition, a number of new sentencing options have been introduced. A young person who is prosecuted in the courts for the first time and pleads guilty is likely to receive a Referral Order: this leads to a contract designed to make the young person agree to make reparation to the victim or wider community and discourage him or her from further offending. A young persistent offender who merits a higher sentence can now be placed on an Intensive Supervision and Surveillance Programme (ISSP): this intensive intervention is intended to improve community-based alternatives to custody and to keep persistent young offenders in their homes, in school, in training or in a job. Between the first quarter of 2001 and the third quarter of 2003, the number of young people sentenced to custody fell by 17%.

83. Behind these changes lay a fundamental shift of philosophy in dealing with youth offending that stemmed from the perceived failure of previous interventions. This shift is summarised in a recent academic account as follows:

Two main consequences followed [from a perceived 'crisis' in governmental responses to offending by children and young people]. The first was a theoretical, ideological and legal swing away from 'welfare' understandings of crime and how to respond to it, centred around psychological and sociological explanations of why crime happened, assessment of the needs of the individual offender and the potential for 'treatment'; towards a 'justice' discourse that emphasised the personal responsibility of the offender, the irrelevance of theories about what caused crime and the need for consistent and fair punishment regardless of individual circumstances. (Unsurprisingly, the contrast between the 'welfare' and the 'justice' schools of thought was especially sharply drawn in relation to children and young people, where welfare considerations had traditionally been even more paramount than with adult offenders.)

The second consequence was the development of more rigorous research into the effectiveness of different interventions…. The slogan is now 'what works'.[98]

84. The Youth Justice Board drew our attention to commissioned research, which concluded that "a considerable body of research has been identified demonstrating clearly that a firmly evidence-based approach to prevention of youth crime is both a realistic proposition and a strategy that can be confidently expected to be successful".[99] It argued that the messages from the research are "clear" and can be shown in the following points:

• It is never too early too intervene;
• Pathways to delinquency start early;
• Early intervention is cost effective;
• Greater contact with risk factors leads to an increased probability of becoming involved in offending;
• Persistent offenders can be identified early—discrete characteristics;
• Offending risk characteristics overlap with other problems—substance misuse, teenage pregnancy and school failure
• Parenting capacity is both a key risk and a protective factor in preventing offending and anti-social behaviour.

The Board stated that the development of Youth Inclusion and Support Panels as well as Youth Inclusion Programmes—both considered later in this section of our report—was a direct response to these lessons.[100]

85. Leading children's charities and other bodies highlighted a number of issues to us specifically in relation to young people.[101] In particular, they emphasised their concerns that:

• young people have been unjustly "targeted" by ASB measures, with punitive measures used in response to trivial behaviour or inter-generational conflicts of interest;[102]
• the response to youth ASB has been expensive and ineffective, largely because it has concentrated on enforcement to the detriment of prevention;[103] and that
• the use of ASBOs has led to an unjustified increase in the number of young people in custody.[104]

In addition, much concern was expressed about the use of enforcement by publicity, or "naming and shaming", in relation to young people subject to an ASBO.

86. We discuss all these concerns later in this section of our report. We begin though with those young people who behave anti-socially: their likely backgrounds and support needs and their view of their own behaviour.

Characterising the perpetrators

87. Whilst there have been differences amongst organisations in terms of where to put the emphasis, the clear themes to have emerged from our inquiry are that that young perpetrators of ASB often:

• suffer from serious disadvantages and social exclusion, and
• have significant support needs, but
• frequently also have a disregard for the effects of their actions, and
• are likely to progress to more serious criminal activity in the absence of appropriate intervention.

The differences in emphasis have tended to reflect whether the organisation concerned is primarily 'welfare' or 'justice' oriented. As we shall demonstrate, it is likely that these differences colour the belief as to what is most appropriate by way of response to ASB, and indeed, has impacted upon that response on the ground.

88. Several organisations focused on the support needs of many young perpetrators of ASB. Centrepoint made the point succinctly:

People who commit anti-social behaviour are often among the most vulnerable in society and can have complex mental health needs or drug and alcohol addiction. Young people who behave in an anti-social way are often making the difficult transition into independent adulthood, in many cases from a background including care, homelessness or time in a young offender's institution and just like older perpetrators of anti-social behaviour they need support to address and manage their behaviour.[105]

89. Nacro agreed, pointing out the congruency between risk factors relevant to anti-social / offending behaviour and those relevant to the safeguarding and promoting of the welfare of children, and arguing that there "appears to be an element of chance for a child who experiences a cluster of risk factors in whether they come to the attention of the child welfare or criminal justice agencies".[106] This view was supported by Sergeant Dunn, who told us of the children with whom he had worked:

I have done 400 acceptable behaviour contracts. Not one of those young people were actually doing anti-social behaviour because they wanted to do it. A lot of them did not know it was anti-social behaviour; we had to re-educate them. In the lives of those 400 people, 10% were known to the youth justice system and were going through the courts and getting the support that they would be offered, but 69% were known to child protection due to drugs, drink, mental health issues, tenancy issues, domestic issues in the family, lack of parental guidance or peer group pressure. All these issues were underlying the consequences of the bad behaviour.[107]

90. The Local Government Association pointed to research done by the Social Exclusion Unit, which categorised the risk factors that may influence the likelihood of an individual or group becoming involved in ASB. This is summarised in the following table:[108]

Family	Individual/peer	School	Community	Early adulthood
Parental criminality Poor parental supervision / discipline Low family income / social isolation Family conflict	Alienation / lack of social commitment Early involvement in problem behaviour Peer involvement in problem behaviour High proportion of unsupervised time spent with peers Alcohol / drug misuse	Lack of commitment to school (truancy and exclusions) Disruptive behaviour (including bullying) Low achievement School disorganisation	Community disorganisation Availability of drugs Opportunity for crime / ASB High percentage of children in the community Poor leisure facilities Area abandonment Media hyped profiling of ASB Generational intolerance	Lack of skills or qualification Unemployment or low income Homelessness / poor quality housing

91. Other witnesses—whilst recognising that young perpetrators of ASB can have support needs—have painted them in a less charitable light. For instance, Salford City Council argued:

There is considerable evidence that the most persistent perpetrators of anti-social behaviour, regardless of age, are unrepentant and unaffected by threats or promises. Many of the people on whom ASBOs have been sought are violent, unpleasant and remorseless in the misery they inflict on their community.[109]

92. Moreover, several organisations have drawn our attention to the link between ASB and crime. Birmingham Youth Offending Service stated that "it is apparent within our work that there is a clear overlap between crime and anti-social behaviour". The Association of Chief Police Officers argued that "for those young people who are at risk of offending, ASB is an integral link of a chain of progressive criminality that has to be broken if it is not to lead on to prolific and serial offending in the future".[110]

93. In the 2003 Green Paper, Every Child Matters, a model of offending is cited that illustrates the nature of the likely progression from ASB to more serious criminal offending:[111]

94. Some organisations cautioned that—in light of the wide variety of behaviours included within the definition of ASB—it is important not to group all youth perpetrators together: children who annoy residents by playing football in the street do not necessarily have the same characteristics as those who "terrorise" their local neighbourhoods. Ms Rhodes, from the Family Welfare Association, told us that many young people are simply looking for things to do and that there is a problem of inter-generational understanding.[112] This latter argument was echoed by JUSTICE, which was concerned that "an overly sensitive person may object to children playing, as children do, in the common area of an estate, or on a street".[113] Mr Denley told us similarly that many children are unlikely to be any worse than similar children a generation ago: what has changed is the communities in which they live:

The pressures of living in those communities now are far more, we keep coming back to playing football in the street, there are less opportunities, there are more "No ball game" signs, you are more likely to be moved on. People phone up and say "There are five youngsters at the end of my street," "What are they doing?" "Laughing!" "Well we will come out and arrest them for being in possession of a sense of humour!" All those things have come up over the years but it is easier now to try and label a problem than look at a solution I feel and I do not feel, having worked for 25 years in a youth service, any of the young people I am working with now are any different from the scallywags we dealt with 25 years ago.[114]

95. The fact that, as many witnesses pointed out to us, those most likely to be victims of ASB are themselves young people also undermines the argument that bad behaviour by young people is largely rooted in inter-generation misunderstanding.[115] Ms Dawn Roberts, from Birmingham Youth Offending Service, drew our attention to research indicating that young people wanted similar things to adults: "they wanted to feel safe, they did not like certain behaviours in the community, they wanted clean streets and they wanted somewhere to go".[116]

96. We have heard evidence that young people acting anti-socially should not all be grouped together: there is a difference between a young person annoying residents by playing football and someone who is terrorising a local neighbourhood through a series of criminal and sub-criminal activities. We accept this: however, we emphasise that this does not mean that less serious ASB should be ignored. Activities such as playing football in the street are not necessarily harmless: persistent use of a garden gate, house wall or car or other inappropriate locations as goalposts—perhaps accompanied by abuse or threats when challenged—can amount to intolerable behaviour which should not be dismissed by the authorities.

Prevention and enforcement: a false dichotomy

The argument

97. We were struck by the number of organisations that made the following two-stage argument:

a)  the current response to ASB is skewed heavily towards punishment and enforcement measures, at the expense of preventative measures;

b)  this should be reversed as prevention is far more effective at tackling ASB than enforcement—especially in relation to children.

98. There was unanimous agreement amongst witnesses—whether housing bodies, children's charities, law reform organisations, local authorities or Government Ministers—as to the importance of preventative measures in tackling ASB. Rethinking Crime and Punishment—an organisation which aims to raise the level of debate about the best way to deal with offenders—provided a good overview:

The key finding from Rethinking Crime and Punishment projects is that much more should be done to prevent children and young people from becoming involved in anti-social behaviour or crime. Work undertaken for RCP by York University has confirmed that early intervention can be cost-effective and RCP's analysis of public attitudes has shown that most people think better parenting is key to reducing crime. …

There is broad professional agreement that more constructive early intervention in the lives of young people most at risk could produce enormous dividends.[117]

99. Some organisations went further than this, arguing that there needs to be a stronger emphasis given to preventative measures with less attention given to enforcement. For instance, the Crime and Society Foundation argued that "the current anti-social behaviour strategy, which places so much of an emphasis on the imposition of the ASBO, should be rethought".[118] The Howard League for Penal Reform argued that "the current approach is punitive and is likely to exacerbate social exclusion".[119] JUSTICE questioned "whether the correct emphasis is being applied", arguing that "the causes of anti-social behaviour are being neglected".[120] Liberty condemned the "indiscriminate and excessive use of ASBOs", arguing that this was undermining any benefit they might bring.[121] NCH stated its concern that "government policy in this area has been dominated by enforcement measures with little attention on prevention".[122]

100. Moreover, several organisations argued that enforcement powers should be used only as a last resort. For instance, Barnado's argued that "models based on engagement and interaction between children and other community members, retaining enforcement as an absolute last resort are likely to prove more effective in reducing that anti-social behaviour which is committed by children".[123] The Association of Directors of Social Services argued that "existing measures ranging from ASBOs to Dispersal Orders are essentially reactive and that tackling the route causes of all forms of anti-social behaviour depends upon a proactive, integrated range of measures ranging through education, support to parents, and provision of effective facilities through to reactive and punitive measures.[124] NCH agreed, concluding that "ASBOs should be the last resort, not the first form of intervention".[125]

101. The evidence we received from a number of organisations—in particular, some children's charities and civil liberties organisations, as well as the Association of Directors of Social Services—suggests that they assume there is a sharp distinction to be made between prevention and enforcement. We believe that this is ultimately self-defeating: instead, it seems to us that enforcement has a crucial preventative role in itself that needs to be recognised and which needs to be seen as the responsibility of everyone. We agree with those who stress the importance of all ways of dealing with ASB. We are deeply concerned about the potential effect on local ASB strategies if the enforcement element is resisted by agencies dealing with ASB at the front line.

What actually happens in practice

102. Whilst it was a common view amongst witnesses that there is a current emphasis being placed on enforcement measures, our inquiry uncovered substantial evidence that this simply is not the case in practice.

103. At the most basic level, statistics indicate that enforcement action is comparatively rare. According to Home Office data, a total of 4,266 ASBOs were taken out from their introduction in April 1999 to September 2004, with 2,633 of these issued in the past year.[126] This compares to over 5,000 acceptable behaviour contracts being agreed in the last year,[127] to a caseload (i.e. ASB actually brought to the attention of local authorities) of 66,447,[128] and to the Government's estimate of 13.5 million incidents of ASB per year.[129] In practice, the vast majority of young offenders do not have any contact with criminal justice agencies:[130] the assumption must be therefore that this is even more true of the larger category of anti-social young people.

104. Mr Richard Garside, Director of the Crime and Society Foundation, acknowledged that the figures imply that the vast majority of instances of anti-social behaviour are not dealt with through ASBOs, before commenting:

It clearly is the case that at one level they are a relatively small picture; but at another level they play very important rhetorical role. There are a lot of the messages from the Home Office. A couple of Octobers ago, in a speech to police, housing officers and local authorities, the Prime Minister said, "We have listened. We have given you the powers. It's time to use them". The Anti-social Behaviour Unit often talks about a "campaign" and how they are campaigning for people, amongst other things, to implement ASBOs. So there is a bit of tension there. ASBOs are, if you like, at the hard end of quite a wide wedge. At the other end you have some quite tough-talking rhetoric from politicians, which is not necessarily replicated on the ground.[131]

105. Some witnesses described the way in which ASBOs tend to be used as measures of last resort. Mr Denley described a four-stage process before an ASBO is issued in the Bridgend area:

We have got a four stage ASBO process which consists of a letter pointing out the behaviour first, of which I believe over 3,000 have gone out. The second part is a visit plus a letter from either the police officer or the new ASBO support worker on the YOT team, of which I believe there are 400 so far. The ABC contracts I think are around 30 and we may have two ASBOs in the Bridgend area at the moment […]. I think the whole thing which comes out from the partnerships that I have been on is that although ASBOs are welcomed as a tool, they are an admission of failure in the fact that everything else has failed to address those things.[132]

106. Mr Pilkington agreed, telling us that his view "from talking to most people around the country from CDRPs is that most agencies and most people will look at something before ASBO and therefore to go for an ASBO is a failure". He then described the approach of Salford City Council:

You do get to the stage where regardless of what you have tried, regardless of all the resources that YOT have put in—the youth services, youth work, the voluntary agencies have put in—the behaviour does not change and therefore something has to be done and that is when the ASBO happens. Our threshold test is: is there anti-social behaviour, is it continuing, what have we done, is there anything else we can do? If the answer is yes to the first two, everything in the third and nothing in the fourth, then we go for an ASBO. It is at that stage where you say we have tried everything, we now have to protect the community.[133]

Mr Pilkington further told us that "Salford has something of a reputation for enforcement, although it is not necessarily a reputation that is founded on the facts", noting that the Council had only obtained three ASBOs on application that year. Overall, it had identified 600 young people who were responsible for ASB through multi-agency working on a neighbourhood basis—yet ASBOs had only been used for 8% of these.[134]

107. Professor Morgan, Chair of the Youth Justice Board, agreed that the notion that there is an emphasis in practice on punitive measures is something of a caricature:

If you look at the imposition of ASBOs in most parts of the country, ASBOs have been resorted to relatively sparingly. Most local authorities would adopt a tiered approach whereby one investigates precisely what is happening, one moves from a home visit to a warning letter to an ABC or whatever, and only if these interventions fail should one reach for an ASBO. Most local authorities clearly take that stance.[135]

108. As Professor Morgan noted, there are sharp variations throughout England and Wales. Whilst Manchester City Council has secured some 4,500 successful legal actions to combat ASB, including 422 ASBOs, other councils have resorted to legal measures far less frequently. The following table highlights the variations in relation specifically to ASBOs:[136]

Local authority area	ASBOs issued		ASBOs refused
	Number	Per 100,000 population (aged 10+)
Avon and Somerset	85	6.5	0
Bedfordshire	26	5.3	0
Cambridgeshire	36	5.8	0
Cheshire	65	7.5	0
Cleveland	34	7.2	2
Cumbria	41	9.5	1
Derbyshire	36	4.3	0
Devon & Cornwall	43	3.1	0
Dorset	16	2.6	0
Durham	49	9.4	0
Essex	33	2.3	0
Gloucestershire	17	3.4	0
GLMCA / Metropolitan Police	268	4.3	9
Greater Manchester	509	23.5	5
Hampshire	72	4.6	4
Hertfordshire	50	5.5	0
Humberside	37	4.8	0
Kent	68	4.9	4
Lancashire	114	9.2	2
Leicestershire	17	2.1	0
Lincolnshire	11	1.9	0
Merseyside	109	9.1	5
Norfolk	44	6.2	1
Northamptonshire	22	3.3	0
Northumbria	66	12.0	0
North Yorkshire	28	2.3	0
Nottinghamshire	58	6.5	0
South Yorkshire	80	7.2	0
Local authority area	ASBOs issued		ASBOs refused
	Number	Per 100,000 population (aged 10+)
Staffordshire	66	7.1	0
Suffolk	58	9.8	1
Surrey	25	2.7	0
Sussex	84	6.3	1
Thames Valley	50	2.7	1
Warwickshire	41	9.2	0
West Mercia	123	12.0	0
West Midlands	216	9.8	1
West Yorkshire	247	13.6	1
Wiltshire	11	2.1	4
Dyfed-Powys	16	3.7	0
Gwent	18	3.7	0
North Wales	28	4.8	0
South Wales	52	4.9	0
England and Wales	3069	6.7	42

109. Furthermore, although several organisations pointed out the risk of ASBOs being used to criminalise and even incarcerate children in response to trivial activities such as playing football in the street, we saw compelling evidence that this has not happened in practice. We consider this evidence later in this section at paragraph 196ff.

110. Finally, the argument that the Government's youth ASB strategy is weighted heavily towards enforcement is undermined by a consideration of the relevant expenditure on different areas of its strategy. In 2004-05, the Government has a planned expenditure of £9.4 million for CDRPs, £1.1 million for ASB Prosecutors and £0.8 million for the Together campaign—all measures primarily aimed at enforcement.[137] Yet these figures are dwarfed by the planned expenditure for services, substantial parts of which will be used for ASB preventative measures. For instance, in 2004-05, the Children's Fund will be £195 million, there will be £533 million spent on Connexions, £363 million on Youth Services and £890 million on SureStart. Even some of the specific grants for particular preventative programmes compare well to the money spent on enforcement: in 2003-04, £85.1 million was spent on the Behaviour Improvement Programme; whilst in 2004-05, there will be £7 million targeted for the Youth Inclusion Programme, £2.25 million for intensive family-based interventions, and approximately £10 million allocated for parenting classes.[138] It must also be relevant that in 2004-05, there will be a targeted grant of £67 million to the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service and a total of £3.737 billion allocated to Children's Social Services. As the Law Society has observed, "the Government's emphasis has not been entirely punitive" (although it did have "serious concerns" about some of the measures).[139]

111. We found most convincing those arguments which stressed the importance of all aspects of dealing with ASB. For instance, Crime Concern argued that "well resourced and targeted preventative action, especially early interventions, coupled with appropriate enforcement measures, are key to the success of ASB strategies".[140] The Local Government Association argued in favour of a "three-pronged approach—that is prevention, enforcement and rehabilitation".[141] The Association of Chief Police Officers also stressed the need for both coercive and supportive measures:

Sustainable solutions also need to look at changing the attitudes and assumptions of those engaged in anti-social behaviour. The motivation for this change may be driven by the threat or exercise of sanctions or by supportive and diversionary interventions. The most effective model is likely to be a combination.[142]

112. This was echoed by the Housing Corporation. Whilst it supported "the principle that prevention of ASB is better than cure", it also noted that "for some children, no amount of diversionary activity will change their behaviour. When all other support mechanisms have failed, the youth justice system must deal with such cases in a clear and structured fashion. When ASBOs have been breached on a repeated basis, sanctions must be used".[143] Several other organisations backed this statement, including the National Housing Federation, Salford City Council and the Social Landlords Crime and Nuisance Group.[144]

113. The Government has also stated its commitment to this approach. As the Home Office put it, "the work is not either/or—prevention and enforcement are two sides of the same coin".[145]

114. In the end, we do not consider that it is necessarily helpful or accurate to apply the labels of 'prevention' or 'enforcement' to the various measures which are available to deal with anti-social behaviour. ASBOs, for example, as an injunctive remedy, are not punitive in nature but designed and intended to prevent the repetition of anti-social behaviour. In that sense, they are properly to be seen as part of the range of preventative tools even though characterised by some organisations as part of the machinery of enforcement.[146]

115. In addition, the criticisms made by some organisations based on the percentage of ASBOs which have been made against young people, indicating that in some way young people are being singled out for enforcement, do not seem to us to be well founded. First, we have already commented on the preventative nature of the ASBO. Second, these criticisms overlook the essential point that no other remedy (aside from criminal proceedings, or the eviction of the whole family) is generally available against people under the age of 18 who behave anti-socially. Seen in this context, the high percentage of ASBOs made against young people does not indicate that authorities are targeting young people rather than adults, but merely that adults are dealt with using a much wider variety of remedies, of which the ASBO is merely one. Third, it is unsurprising, in this context, that authorities have found the ASBO to be a particularly useful tool in dealing with young people, especially given that best practice is now generally considered to require the tackling of the behaviour in question rather than the eviction of the perpetrator—which may penalise an entire family and which will be likely simply to move the problem elsewhere, probably involving the occupation of private sector accommodation in which fewer controls are available.

116. Overall, the clear message of the evidence is that there is more to do in terms of all means of tackling ASB—whether through diversion, support or sanction. It is not the case that the Government's ASB policies are overwhelmingly punitive towards children; nor is it true that its strategy is skewed towards enforcement. On the contrary, there is compelling evidence that in many parts of the country, legal powers are used only relatively rarely. We would emphasise therefore the need not to be led astray by rhetoric but to focus on what is actually happening on the ground.

Co-ordination and joint working at local level

117. ASB is a problem that is felt on a local level and which falls to be dealt with by local people and organisations. In relation to ASB perpetrated by young people, the need for a large number of local bodies to get involved in the response is all the greater. These bodies include:

• Local authorities: not only housing departments which normally take the lead when it comes to ASB, but also social services departments, local education authorities and environmental services departments.
• Police, including community support officers
• Fire authorities
• Primary care trusts (in England or health authorities in Wales), including Mental Health Trusts
• Probation officers
• Neighbourhood Wardens: this is the generic name for all Wardens. They provide a uniformed presence in residential areas with the aim of enhancing quality of life issues. Street wardens tend to concentrate on the physical appearance of an area and tackling environmental problems such as litter, graffiti and dog fouling.
• Housing Action Trusts, Registered Social Landlords and other housing associations, Arms Length Management Organisations, Tenant Management Organisations
• Private landlords: as several organisations have stressed to us, ASB is by no means confined to social housing estates.[147]
• Youth Offending Teams
• Drug Action Teams or Drug and Alcohol Action Teams
• Schools and educational welfare officers
• Youth Services
• Pupil Referral Units
• Voluntary organisations such as welfare organisations and children's charities
• Local businesses.

118. For the local response to be effective, it is clear that many or all of these organisations need to come together in partnership.[148] There are a number of statutory forums which provide a potential basis for effective joint working. The most important of these are Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships (CDRPs), also known as Community Safety Partnerships and described in paragraph 73 above. However, there are several other forums also relevant to tackling ASB at local level. Local criminal justice boards—non-statutory bodies set up in each of the 42 criminal justice areas in England and Wales and consisting of chief officers of police, Crown Prosecution Service, Magistrates' and Crown Courts, Youth Offending Teams, Probation and Prison Service—are responsible and accountable for local delivery of CJS objectives, improvements in the delivery of justice, the service provided to victims and witnesses and securing public confidence. Children's Strategic Partnerships—set up under section 10 of the Children's Act 2004—are located within local authorities and must co-ordinate various services relating to the well-being of local children. Several bodies must be included in these partnerships, including the local police authority, Chief Constable, probation board, youth offending team, Strategic Health Authority, Primary Care Trust, provider of services to encourage or assist effective participation by young people in education or training, and the Learning and Skills Council for England.[149] In addition, it should not be forgotten that Youth Offending Teams are in themselves important in facilitating joined-up working. The Birmingham Youth Offending Service which provided evidence for this inquiry, includes seconded professionals from Social Services, Probation, Police, Education, Health, Connexions and the Young Person's Drug Service. It told us of its work co-ordinating Youth Inclusion and Support Panels, which provide a further forum for statutory and voluntary agencies to work together in relation to 8-13 year olds most at risk of ASB and crime.[150]

119. In addition, as we noted in paragraph 37 above, it has become common for local authorities to set up specialist ASB teams, often including a specific position of anti-social behaviour co-ordinator. This is something that the ASB Unit in the Home Office has very much encouraged.[151] Sergeant Dunn told us how this role has emerged:

The evolving role of the anti-social co-ordinator is identifying a multi-agency problem-solving group: who should be on it, how are we going to take this forward, how are we going to educate the courts into the new legislation and make sure we can iron out some of the issues? How can we get some of the agencies who are less supportive of multi-agency working and do not see it maybe from the point of view of other people? How can we build those relationships and get that trust?[152]

120. Several organisations have argued that there has been some improvement in partnership working since 1998. The Northern Housing Consortium has argued that "since the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 all agencies tackling ASB have been working more effectively together".[153] The Housing Corporation argued that "CDRPs generally seem to be working well", adding that "many CDRPs have set up effective data sharing protocols, which have improved partnership working by associations and the police".[154]

121. However, other organisations have told us that—despite the opportunities that are available for joint working—this is not always being done well across the country. Several organisations have argued that the impact of CDRPs has been mixed. The Social Landlords Crime and Nuisance Group argued that, despite some success, problems remain:

There is no doubt that the introduction of [CDRPs has] helped co-ordinate and focus activity at the local level. The inclusion of Registered Social Landlords on CDRPs has done much to ensure that Crime and Disorder strategies have the ownership that is required by all social landlords for maximum effectiveness. However, there are still inconsistencies of representation on CDRPs and key players within local authorities are often absent from the table. This is a criticism that members of the Group often level at Social Services and Education Departments, in particular. There is a need for all real and potential partners of the CDRPs to recognise their responsibility.[155]

All these points were echoed by the Chartered Institute of Housing and by the Housing Corporation.[156] ACPO added that "some agencies find it difficult to engage effectively as conflicting strategies and performance regimes draws them away".[157]

122. Ms Hitchen, representing the Association of Directors of Social Services, admitted that the involvement of social services varies across the country:

Possibly the involvement of the welfare agencies, social services in particular, will vary across the country. Given that the majority of these young people are young people in difficulty, many of whom will be known to education, social services or the youth offending team, probably in some places action could be taken to make that work better and to integrate the children's agenda with the crime reduction agenda. I think that is one of the gaps. The two are not properly integrated at the moment.[158]

Ms Hibbert, from Barnado's, agreed, urging that there ought to be "a much better, more robust requirement for a link between crime reduction partnerships and children's strategic partnerships in local authorities".[159]

123. The Government is currently reviewing the effectiveness of CDRPs as part of a wider review of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. This includes a specific review of the effectiveness of the duty contained in section 17 of the Act and the consequences of non-compliance with this duty.[160] In advance of that review, Ms Hazel Blears MP told us that the effectiveness of CDRPs varies from area to area: "some places have got really good CDRPs with proper targets, performance management and education very involved with social services on the preventative side; other areas, if I am frank about it, are not anything like as good", adding that "it is patchy across the country.[161]

124. Several organisations told us that issues surrounding the exchange of information are hampering joint working. There is some guidance, now almost seven years old, produced by the Home Office for CDRPs, as well as a "step by step" guide published as part of the Together campaign.[162] In addition, section 115 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 grants to anyone a power to share information with an authority sitting on a CDRP for the purposes of reducing crime and disorder.[163] However, it is not clear that these powers have always had the desired effect. The Social Landlords Crime and Nuisance Group expressed its concern that not all CDRPs have implemented information sharing protocols, telling us that in some cases there are even "inconsistencies of approach between Divisions within the same Police force".[164] The National Housing Federation told us similarly that its members had voiced concerns around "the lack of more coherent information sharing protocols": in some cases, members who operate across several local boroughs have had to deal with different protocols for each.[165] The Local Government Association drew our attention to barriers surrounding the sharing of local knowledge and intelligence, especially between local authority ASB teams and the police, adding that "it is also important that local authorities have access to court information when dealing with specific cases".[166]

125. The Chartered Institute of Housing pointed to the limitations of section 115 of the 1998 Act:

Exchange of information continues to be a problem in some areas when not all parties are willing to co-operate to the extent necessary for maximum effectiveness. Myths and misconceptions about the data protection legislation can be used as an excuse for inaction, but more often it is merely a play safe response to a lack of knowledge about the rules. The Information Commissioner has produced guidance on this issue but this is not widely known. The Bichard Inquiry makes it clear that better guidance is needed on information sharing generally. Further, the power to exchange information exists under the Crime and Disorder Act but a power to do something does not necessarily equate to a commitment to use it productively.[167]

ACPO agreed that "previous attempts such as section 115 of the Crime and Disorder Act have not produced the fundamental shifts in attitudes needed", and recommended the issuing of clear guidance on sharing data for all agencies.[168] Mr Pilkington—from Salford City Council—supported this, telling us that it is "hard enough for lawyers to deal with in some respects and is a complete nightmare for a non-lawyer to pick through the rules and regulations".[169] He added that "problems have arisen amongst those agencies—social services and health agencies—where issues about confidentiality and the sharing of information have led them to feel they cannot contribute to the debate", arguing that this has led to a "black hole as to whether there are mental health problems within the family or health problems for a particular individual".[170]

126. We heard mixed views as to the effectiveness of local authority ASB co-ordinators. Sergeant Dunn argued that this depends critically on the individuals involved, telling us that "if you get the right person in who is passionate about it, you will move mountains with these individuals; [however,] if you don't, it can be extremely damaging".[171] Mr Lee, from Manchester City Council, added that he was in favour of co-ordinators, "as long as they co-ordinate action, not meetings".[172]

127. On the other hand, Ms Hazel Blears, MP, argued:

The whole thrust of funding an anti­social behaviour co­ordinator for the CDRP is designed to […] draw in all the resources of that community, whether it is police, housing, local authorities, local businesses (which have got a real role to play in tackling some of this as well in the private sector) and the voluntary sector. That is why we funded specifically a co­ordinator because one of the problems in this area in the past is that people got passed from pillar to post. It was never anybody's responsibility. That was so frustrating for local people ­ that is the housing department's job, that is the police's job, that is the council's job - so funding a co­ordinator was really important to our strategy.[173]

128. We received some evidence that YOTs have not always been consulted before ASBOs were taken out against young perpetrators, despite existing guidance to this effect.[174] The importance of YOT involvement was stressed to us by the Youth Justice Board: it noted the composition of YOTs from a wide range of services and argued that this enables them to respond to the needs of young offenders in a comprehensive way in order to prevent further offending.[175]

129. We heard differing explanations as to why YOTs are apparently not being consulted. The Housing Corporation accepted that housing associations were not always sufficiently engaged with the multi-agency approach to tackling ASB; however, it argued that there were often mitigating circumstances such as the small size of an association or the small number of stock owned within a particular borough by a larger association.[176] On the other hand, Mr Winter—from the Social Landlords Crime and Nuisance Group—denied forcefully that social landlords were responsible and placed the blame at the feet of social services departments:

In preparation for coming here I asked some members for their views and anything I should express, and one view expressed quite commonly was the difficulty in making that contact and keeping in contact with YOTs and social services, and the fact that they may be invited to meetings and not show. That was very frustrating. I have to ask, I think, whether or not the duty under section 16 and 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act is being complied with.[177]

130. This leads on to the final barrier in the way of more effective joint working. We have received substantial evidence that the effectiveness of the local response is being undermined by the unwillingness of some groups to commit to tackling ASB, especially where it is perpetrated by young people. We have already noted evidence relating to the unwillingness of some social services and health agencies to share information (see paragraph 125 above) and the reluctance of some social services and education departments to participate fully in CDRPs (see paragraphs 121-122 above).

131. ACPO argued that:

Disagreements over methods and tactics to be used can be a major stumbling block to joint activity. There are some professionals, for instance, who believe that early interventions with young people in difficult family circumstances "label" people and that because of this stigma they later become, in effect, a "self fulfilling prophecy". We, however, think that where proven measures are sensitively applied in response to identified need, they give us our best chance of diverting vulnerable young people from later crime.[178]

It recommended that fully integrated local strategies should be "supported by a range of enabling mechanisms such as joint training of workers, better consultation mechanisms, a performance regime that rewards integrated working across agencies and a set of defined common minimum standards of working".[179]

132. Earlier in this section, we noted that organisations have tended to have differences in emphasis in terms of characterising the perpetrators of ASB, and argued that it is likely that these differences not only colour the belief as to what is most appropriate by way of response to ASB, but in addition, have impacted upon that response on the ground. Ms Rhodes from the Family Welfare Association acknowledged to us that this has been a problem:

I think that we, in the voluntary sector, who are not youth justice orientated have got to do a huge piece of work in catching up. Suddenly there is a whole new lexicon that has been acquired by our colleagues and we are not up to speed with it, so we have to think about that.[180]

133. Mr Pilkington expressed the challenge succinctly:

Is a mental health social worker going to be happy talking to a police sergeant when one is looking at treatment and health issues and the other is talking about possible enforcement proceedings?[181]

134. It is clear that different philosophies, methods and tactics are having a deleterious effect on the response to ASB at a local level. Too often, in our view, the focus appears to be on the needs of those who commit ASB rather than on the victims of their behaviour. The irony is that this very focus is also failing the perpetrators. Later in this section, we adduce substantial evidence showing that not only has this focus hampered efforts to tackle ASB effectively, but it has actually also led to perverse outcomes, with support needs of perpetrators sometimes going unaddressed.

135. We were disappointed to hear that social services departments and other key players such as local education authorities, the Children and Adolescent Mental Health Service, Youth Services and some children's NGOs are often not fully committed to local ASB strategies. The failure to attend meetings of Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships is just one symptom of this. All these organisations are, or should be, working with many of the same young people: as the Association of Directors of Social Services has pointed out, anti-social young people frequently also have support needs. Whether these organisations are unable or reluctant to engage, it cannot be in the best interests of the young people they serve. We discuss at paragraphs 171-72 and 370-71 how some of the problems faced by social services could be overcome. But to the extent that non-participation reflects a rejection of the current ASB strategy as too punitive, social services and others are foregoing the chance actually to influence the way in which it is carried out at local level.

136. It is clear that there are a number of misconceptions about the scope of data protection legislation. There is a need for some simple user-friendly guidance in this area, and we recommend that the Government should do more to publicise what it has already produced, disseminating its step-by-step guide to all agencies which have a responsibility for tackling ASB. We conclude also that section 115 of the Crime and Disorder Act is not having the desired effect. We recommend that the Government considers, as part of its review of that legislation, changing the power to share information into a duty in specified circumstances.

137. There is a clear need for youth offending teams to be involved in the response to young people who behave anti-socially—especially when formal measures are used. We were concerned to learn that Youth Offending Teams are not always consulted by those taking out an ASBO. We believe that they should be consulted as a matter of course before an application for an ASBO is made: not as a veto, but to ensure that sufficient thought has been given to support needs and to ensure that other measures are also taken if appropriate.

138. Overall, we conclude that more could be done to aid a joined-up response to ASB at local level. We recommend that the Government looks closely at ways in which performance regimes can be amended to reward partnership working. We welcome the Government's provision of funding for ASB co-ordinators—the introduction of these has often made a significant difference at local level—and recommend that it works to improve their performance through targeted national seminars and best practice guidance. We further recommend that the Government hosts a conference specifically for the voluntary sector to improve its response to ASB at local level.

Measures available to combat anti-social behaviour by young people

139. As we have made clear, we do not believe that it is useful to divide the response to ASB into separate categories of "prevention" and "enforcement". Instead, there is a menu of options that can be used in order to combat unacceptable behaviour by young people, and the best local authorities are likely to use most or all of these in combination.[182] The options for anti-social young people include diversionary schemes, family-based interventions and parenting orders, individual support orders, acceptable behaviour contracts, anti-social behaviour orders and dispersal powers. In this section, we consider each of these in turn.

Diversionary schemes

140. Diversionary schemes fall into three main groups. First, there are a number of Government initiatives that are specifically focused on children most at risk of offending or ASB. Second, there are wider Government initiatives, directed towards all children, that may also have the effect of helping to reduce ASB. Third, there are a number of schemes run by the voluntary sector that are aimed at reducing ASB and helping children in need. In this section, we focus on the first category—Government initiatives that are aimed specifically at reducing ASB. In doing so, however, we are keen to dispel any impression that other diversionary schemes do not play a valuable role. On the contrary, we heard compelling evidence as to the positive impact of voluntary schemes such as the Youth Works scheme in Bridgend—which achieved a 56% reduction in youth nuisance within two years—and of necessary Government measures such as increasing sport in schools and improving lighting in parks.[183]

141. Some of the main Government initiatives to reduce ASB through diversion and support are summarised in the following table:

Behaviour Improvement Programmes: support for children most at risk of exclusion, truancy, criminality and anti-social behaviour examples, with the particular aim of improving poor behaviour and attendance.

Positive Futures: multi-agency projects that offer opportunities in areas such as sport, education or training and employment to young people living in deprived areas.

Positive Activities for Young People: diversionary and developmental activities for young people during school holidays and after school.

Sure Start: childcare and parent support specifically for 0-4 year olds and their families in areas of high deprivation.

Youth Inclusion Programmes: detached youth work and support for 13-16 year olds most at risk of offending in 70 of the most deprived/high crime estates in England and Wales. The Home Office recently announced that these would be extended to a further 30 areas.

Youth Inclusion and Support Panels: targeted support for 8-13 year olds at risk of offending or committing anti-social behaviour.

142. We received compelling evidence that Youth Inclusion Programmes (YIPs) and Youth Inclusion and Support Panels (YISPs), in particular, can have a very large impact on reducing ASB. Mr Howard—Chief Executive of Crime Concern, which has been directly involved with operating diversionary schemes on the ground—pointed to the success of both YIPs and YISPs nationally, with a 40-60% reduction in arrests. He also told us that the Government is not providing enough by way of funding:

These are incredibly effective early intervention measures. The problem is that, in the last spending review, I do not think that it is a State secret that the Youth Justice Board argued for at least 200 of these programmes to be put in place around the country. There are currently around 70. To a great fanfare, an announcement was made that there was a 50% increase; but a 50% increase of 70 is 30—and there are 100.[184]

143. This was echoed by Professor Morgan, Chair of the Youth Justice Board, who also provided us with a precise indication of what is needed:

We have pioneered the development of a number of early prevention schemes which seek by one means or another to identify children who the key services perceive to be at risk of persistent crime or becoming criminal. That will include, incidentally, quite a lot of what will pass for anti-social behaviour. There is no clear-cut boundary between those two. There have been cost benefit evaluations of that and all the evidence shows that they are highly effective in reducing offending, reducing the seriousness of offending and the frequency of offending and the likelihood that children subject to those targeted interventions will subsequently be arrested. […] There are relatively few of these projects. We are talking about 200/250 in the country. The Home Secretary has announced that there is going to be increased funding for those projects. We think there are possibly 1,300 difficult neighbourhoods / estates that could benefit from such schemes and at the moment we have a couple of hundred, so we could do with a lot of that.[185]

144. We asked the Minister of State for Crime Reduction, Policing, Community Safety and Counter-Terrorism, Ms Hazel Blears MP, why more funding has not been made available for these programmes. She replied that "resources, inevitably, are limited; we do not have a bottomless pit and we have to decide where to target our resources where they can be most effective".[186] She added that it was "relatively early days to be saying that this is the best and, almost, the only way of dealing with these issues; there is a whole range of diversionary activities that young people are involved in".[187]

145. However, these particular programmes differ from other diversionary activities because they are targeted at those young people most at risk and likely to act anti-socially or offend. Moreover, the success of the Youth Inclusion Programme in particular has been confirmed by an independent evaluation of its first three years.[188] This found that arrest rates for the 50 young people considered most at risk of crime in each programme had been reduced by 65%; that of those who had offended before joining the programme, 73% were arrested for fewer offences after engaging in a YIP; and that of those who had not been arrested previously but who were at risk, 74% did not go on to be arrested after engaging with a YIP. It also found that the seriousness of subsequent offences decreased.

146. We welcome the introduction of targeted diversionary and support schemes such as Youth Inclusion Programmes and Youth Inclusion and Support Panels. All the indications are that these schemes are extremely successful and cost-effective in terms of their impact upon ASB. In Section 6, we consider whether there might be scope for additional funding in relation to these.

Family-based interventions

147. To deal with failures of parenting, which often occur in cases of ASB by young people, parenting contracts and parenting orders are available. Parenting contracts are voluntary written agreements with the aim of preventing the child or young person from engaging or persisting in ASB or criminal conduct.[189] According to Home Office figures, 659 parenting contracts were agreed between April and December 2004, and there were also a further 4,551 voluntary parenting interventions.[190] Parenting orders, on the other hand, are coercive in nature (breach is a criminal offence, subject to a fine up to level 3), and can be imposed by a criminal court, family court or magistrate's court where:

• a child safety order has been made (i.e. for children under the age of 10);
• an ASBO or sex offender order has been made in respect of a child or young person;
• a parent has been convicted of failing to ensure their child attends school;
• a child or young person has been convicted of an offence; or where
• a referral order is made and a Youth Offender Panel refers a parent back to court for failing to attend panel meetings.

148. In addition, parenting orders are available on application to the adult magistrates' court by:

• a Youth Offending Team, where a child or young person has engaged in criminal conduct or anti-social behaviour and has been referred to the YOT;
• a local education authority, where a child has been excluded (permanently or for two fixed periods) from school on disciplinary grounds, or has truanted.

149. The core element of a parenting order tends to be a requirement of attendance at a parenting programme designed to help parents address their child's or children's misbehaviour.[191] In addition, specific requirements can be imposed according to individual circumstances in order to help prevent reoffending: for instance, parents might be required to escort their child or children to and from school every day to ensure attendance, or to ensure that a child is at home during certain hours.

150. Since 27 February 2004 the courts have been able also to require a parent or parents to attend a residential parenting course, provided that it is likely to be more effective than a non-residential course and that any interference with family life is proportionate.[192]

151. C'mon Everybody—an organisation that delivers parenting programmes—described its work in piloting parenting orders:

Most of the parents were referred for 10 weeks. In the end, many stayed for much longer. For probably the first time many of these parents were having their own needs addressed. We got a strong sense that we were having a positive input on their lives. Obviously, if they breached the order, there was the chance of further punitive measures. I believe that this was a very powerful aid in getting the parents to attend in the first place. However, […] they must have gained some value by attending otherwise I am sure they would have packed up at the earliest opportunity.[193]

152. Barnado's added that parents attending their programmes were "predominately mothers, a significant minority experienced numerous difficulties including debt, ill health, housing problems and domestic violence; a high percentage had been seeking help with their children's behaviour for some time, but almost none had been provided with assistance".[194] It argued that work with parents was an important preventative measure, and was particularly effective when used in relation to children at risk of anti-social or offending behaviour rather than post-conviction.[195]

153. Other witnesses backed the effectiveness of parenting orders. Ms Rhodes, from the Family Welfare Organisation, told us that there were two main categories of family with which she worked: there were "the ones who are prepared to change, adapt and grow and use the regulatory mechanisms and the ones who are beyond it, who need to understand the consequences".[196] ACPO argued that "evidence suggests that ASBOs are most effective when combined with Parenting Orders".[197]

154. On the other hand, Ms Hitchen, from the Association of Directors of Social Services, questioned whether a coercive order was normally necessary, telling us that "offering parents parenting help is a positive thing and a lot of parents would welcome that but I do not think you necessarily need an order to do that".[198]

155. In addition, we heard from several witnesses that funding for parenting orders is inadequate. For instance, the Magistrates Association argued that:

When making an ASBO in respect of young people under-16, [magistrates] are required to make a parenting order if satisfied that this would help prevent repetition of the behaviour. Information is sought from the YOTs when considering this, and YOTs are very reluctant to recommend Parenting Orders. Again, resources are part of the problem.[199]

This matched the observations of Ms Roberts from Birmingham Youth Offending Service, who told us of the variety of funding streams—including using some core funding from the Youth Justice Board, Social Services and education—and the insufficient and short-term nature of some of this funding, adding that "it is not something I know is always there, you are always having to think 'Have I got money for this and where can I get some more if I lose it?'".[200] The Local Government Association also argued that funding is "inadequate".[201]

156. These arguments appear to be reflected in the relevant figures. Between April and December 2004, a total of 1162 parenting orders were made. But only 41 parenting orders were applied for by YOTs and only 13 by Local Education Authorities. Ms Hazel Blears MP told us that the Parenting Orders that are attached to ASBOs have been funded and classes are in place, yet between May and December 2004, only 20 Parenting Orders were made in conjunction with ASBOs. The vast majority of parenting orders were made following criminal convictions.[202]

157. In some cases, it is not just the child who is engaging in ASB, but his or her entire family. In these cases, a parenting order or contract may be less appropriate than a range of informal techniques.[203] One such technique is family group conferencing. These are now offered to families in a wide range of circumstances by a number of different organisations, including local authorities, youth justice agencies and welfare organisations. Guidance material, published by a group of welfare organisations, describes the main features of family group conferences:

Family group conferences are a way of giving families the chance to get together to try and make the best plan possible for children.

The decision makers at a family group conference are the family members, and not the professionals. It is here that the mother or father or aunt or grandfather get together with the child or young person and the rest of the family to talk, make plans and decide how to resolve the situation.[204]

158. Ms Rhodes, from the Family Welfare Association told us that family group conferencing can be "remarkably effective", although much depends on the family:

You say to a family "Let us get you all into one room so that everybody can bring to bear their ideas about the problem" and it is the professionals who are sitting outside waiting anxiously to hear what they will be summoned in to offer. Suddenly they will say "We want to see the social worker" and the social worker will come into the room and the family will say "What we want is respite care, one day a month, could you organise that? We have got a package we think will work if this child can have respite care say over a weekend or if we could all have a holiday together". It is a negotiated contract process. It can be very effective for a group of families who are able to negotiate. It is not particularly useful for families who thrive on conflict, high expressed emotion, and where it is hard to regulate behaviour.[205]

The Association of Directors of Social Services backed interventions such as family group conferencing, arguing that these were preferable to imposing a parenting order.[206]

159. Poor parenting is often an important factor in ASB by young people. We note the observation by Barnado's that in many cases parents have been seeking help with their children's behaviour for some time, but assistance is rarely given. Whilst funding has been made available for all parenting classes attached to ASBOs, there is more limited provision for parenting classes as an earlier preventative tool.

160. We welcome the introduction of parenting orders: it is apparent that a coercive approach is sometimes necessary and can ultimately be of great benefit to the parents concerned. However, they are underused. We conclude that, although some concern has been raised about levels of funding, the main reason for this is that not everyone is committed to the notion that a coercive approach is sometimes necessary in order to help people to help themselves. Whilst family group conferences and other informal techniques can be successful, we believe that there must be a place also for a coercive order.

Individual support orders

161. Individual support orders (ISOs) were created by section 322 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 for 10-17 year olds subject to ASBOs. ISOs are civil orders and became available on 1 May 2004. There is no formal procedure for applying for an ISO: the court can decide to impose one, or else the complainant might request one, in conjunction with an ASBO. The making of an order is mandatory where the court considers that the criteria for doing so are met.[207]

162. ISOs are intended to supplement the prohibitions of ASBOs with targeted positive requirements: for example, the order can require counselling for substance misuse or behavioural problems. Orders may last for up to six months and can require a young person to attend up to two sessions a week. Breach of the order without reasonable excuse is a criminal offence punishable by anything up to a level 3 fine (£1,000), thus mirroring the provisions relating to parenting orders, although the maximum fine is £250 for children under the age of 14 at the time of conviction.[208]

163. Many organisations told us that ISOs were potentially of great benefit. For instance, the Magistrates Association told us that they should be granted as a matter of course by magistrates if satisfied that they would help prevent repetition of the behaviour.[209] The Local Government Association "warmly welcomed" them, arguing that their approach "fits firmly with the LGA vision to reducing anti-social behaviour".[210]

164. Others questioned whether ISOs were sufficient. For instance, County Durham Youth Engagement Service argued that the maximum length of ISOs of six months, with two sessions per week "may be insufficient to provide adequate measures of supervision and support".[211]

165. The Home Office explained why, in its view, it would not be possible significantly to extend the length of ISOs:

The ISO provides a means by which a 10-17 year old with an ASBO receives interventions that address the cause of their anti-social behaviour. An order lasting 6 months was considered reasonable and proportionate with human rights legislation. To compel an individual to receive support on a longer term basis would infringe on their liberty and be considered a penalty rather than a support initiative.[212]

166. The Home Office's argument seems to us less than compelling, given that an ASBO is also defined in legal terms as a preventative, rather than a punitive, measure, that these can limit, for instance, freedom of movement and association, and yet last for a minimum of two years without any apparent incompatibility problems (although we recognise that ASBOs may only contain negative obligations whereas ISOs require positive steps to be taken). More convincing was the Home Office's further argument that "in addition there is an expectation that the underlying causes of the anti-social behaviour—such as drugs, alcohol or anger management problems—should improve significantly over 6 months and therefore remove the requirement to continue receiving the support an ISO offers".[213]

167. The real problem again appears to be one of resources. Ms Roberts, from Birmingham Youth Offending Service, told us that ISOs had not been used in the West Midlands explaining as follows:

In terms of the legislation the responsible agencies are education, youth offending service or social services. As it is we have not set up any resources or any structures for that order. There is not any new funding; initially the Youth Justice Board said there was probably going to be funding. The Home Office Anti-social Behaviour Unit said the Youth Justice Board had the money and then we were told to go to our Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships. I have acquired some funding and with the Home Office money for this pilot, we will be able to offer a very limited service in the future.[214]

Professor Morgan agreed that the number of ISOs has "so far been rather small and there is a funding problem". He told us that "the original understanding about funding here was that the number of ASBOs to which they might be attached was going to be much lower than is now the case".[215] His points appear to be supported by the available figures: between May and September 2004, only 5 ISOs were made.[216]

168. On the other hand, Ms Hazel Blears, MP, told us that each order costs an estimated £1,500 and that the Youth Justice Board had agreed to absorb £500,000 for these orders within its mainstream budgets. She also backed the notion that ISOs should be linked to ASBOs, arguing that this was "a more integrated way of looking at some of these problems".[217] More generally, Ms Blears talked about the need for local authorities and agencies to re-focus their efforts and their expenditure:

We have never pretended that the Home Office money is going to solve the problem of anti-social behaviour because a lot of this is about local authorities and local agencies refocusing their efforts on tackling these problems: […] refocusing their activities and their existing expenditure.[218]

169. We asked Ms Hitchen, from the Association of Directors of Social Services, whether the fact that social services departments had not resourced ISOs (even though their budgets are not ring fenced, and this would be an option for them) was an indication that they are not engaged with dealing with anti-social young people. Ms Hitchen answered:

Many YOTs are part of social services and will be engaged with them but also they have a number of other initiatives to deliver. There is a question both for the YOTs and for the mainstream social services of how you divide up your resources. Social services departments are also working with children and child protection issues and delivering a front line service. They are also in the middle of implementing the Change for Children agenda which is a huge agenda. If you look at children's services funding and the surveys done by the ADSS each year on that funding, you will see how much of that is taken by placements and associated costs of children looked after. There are real difficulties there about delivering what you might call the core functions both of the social services departments and of the YOTs that have already been set, a lot of which have been funded particularly through the Youth Justice Board with discrete streams of money for a particular preventative programme. The ISOs have not. That is the difficulty.[219]

In response to an earlier question, Ms Hitchen also accepted the notion that in the majority of cases where an ASBO is issued to a young person, there will have been little or inconsistent prior involvement by social services.[220]

170. We welcome the introduction of individual support orders (ISOs): these usefully complement the aims of ASBOs in preventing ASB. We note, however, that take-up of these is not matching expectations. We believe that there are two main reasons for this. First, it is becoming accepted that ISOs should be used more widely than was originally anticipated, yet funding has not risen to match this. We consider how Government should respond in Section 6.

171. Second, we have noted at paragraph 135 above our concern about the non-participation of social services and other agencies in ASB strategies. We recognise the strain on the budgets of social services departments and we recognise that they may often, quite legitimately, have other priorities. Nonetheless, the failure to participate is likely to undermine the success of ASB work and lead to young people not getting the assistance they require. We recommend that the Government should review urgently the barriers to participation and identify ways they can be overcome.

172. There is clearly very substantial investment by central government that is, or could be, designed to support young people likely to be involved in ASB, but this is distributed through a multiplicity of channels and departments. Some like Positive Futures, the Behaviour Improvement Programme and Connexions are designed for young people. Other generic funding streams like Neighbourhood Renewal might be expected to contribute to ASB strategies. We have two concerns: first, that there do not appear to be mechanisms in some cases to ensure that the young people who participate in these programmes are those in the greatest need of support; second, that little of this funding seems to be made available through social services even though they carry most criticism for not supporting ASB work. We consider further what the Government should do in relation to funding streams in Section 6.

173. Given the concerns expressed by the ADSS amongst others that the Government's ASB strategy is currently too punitive, we are somewhat disappointed that social services are not making greater efforts to fund support measures such as ISOs and Parenting Orders. We recommend that social services departments reconsider whether, by attaching greater importance to tackling ASB, they could actually achieve more in relation to perpetrators with support needs than they are doing at present.

Acceptable behaviour contracts

174. Acceptable Behaviour Contracts (ABCs) are written voluntary agreements between individuals (usually young people between 10 and 18) and the police or a number of other agencies. They have no statutory basis, but were introduced originally in Islington as a way of ensuring that ASBOs would be imposed only as a last resort. Whilst they have no direct legal effect, a breach may be used as evidence in a subsequent application for an ASBO.

175. Sergeant Dunn, who was instrumental in setting up the scheme in Islington, cited recent figures suggesting that ABCs have become a central part of the response to ASB—especially ASB by young people. In particular, he noted that over four in five CDRPs are using ABCs, with an estimated 5,383 agreed in the last year.[221] He suggested a number of reasons why ABCs have become so widespread, pointing to advantages of the informal approach in educating anti-social young people as to what was meant by ASB and persuading them to take responsibility for their unacceptable behaviour, the promise of a sanction in the event of breach (threatening tenancy rights), and their flexibility allowing partnerships to intervene quickly. In respect of this last point, Sergeant Dunn argued:

Prominent individuals can be signed up within a matter of days rather than the months it takes to apply for orders through the courts. The scheme quickly identified that a pattern of underlying risk factors and social issues were at the root of bad behaviour and the scheme needed other agency involvement to assist in a more holistic problem solving and information sharing approach.[222]

176. The Home Office published a report earlier this year which evaluated the impact of the Islington scheme.[223] This concluded that young people were less likely to come to the attention of the police and housing officers once they had been given a contract, that even those young people who continued with ASB and criminal offending were doing so at a reduced rate when under contract, and that overall 57% of contracts were not breached and 19% breached only once in a six month period. However, police and housing officers could not always be aware if contracts had been breached and there were some concerns that contracts were not enforced. Sergeant Dunn's evaluation of the scheme was even more upbeat: he told us that "as far as serious breaches where we had to take further action, we had almost a 98% success rate with the first 400. Not one of those ABCs resulted in any enforcement action being taken".[224]

177. Several other witnesses told us that ABCs were successful and should be used as part of a tiered approach, leading to ASBOs if breached. Mr Winter, from the Social Landlords Crime and Nuisance Group, told us that they became widely used "simply because they were working, and it was very much the experience that this was the first time that young people were being asked to address their behaviour".[225]

178. In its guidance document, the Home Office sets out the proper relationship between ASBOs and ABCs:

It is important that all concerned should understand that ASBOs and ABCs are in no sense competing for business. Both are potentially extremely powerful tools for dealing with cases of anti-social behaviour, and it will be very much a matter for the individual practitioner to decide which of them it might be appropriate to go for in any particular case. It is particularly important to dispel any impression that anti-social behaviour orders should be regarded as measures of last resort, only to be tried when other interventions such as acceptable behaviour contracts have already failed.

When an ABC is selected as the best option, it is recommended that it should contain a statement that the continuation of unacceptable behaviour may lead to an application for an ASBO. Where a contract is broken, that should be used as evidence in the application for an ASBO. It may also be possible to use the evidence of anti-social behaviour which was originally collected for the ABC in any subsequent ASBO application.[226]  

179. However, Manchester City Council does not use ABCs at all. It explained to us that, in relation to young people, it conducts formal warning interview, confirmed in writing. It argued that "because we have the justified reputation of taking legal action whenever necessary, our warnings our heeded more often than not"—indeed, in two-thirds of cases the warning is sufficient to stop the anti-social behaviour. It further argued:

Our observation of other areas' use of ABCs does not lead us to consider adopting them. These areas do not use Injunctions or ASBOs and the ABC offers nothing to witnesses other than a potential prolongation of their distress.[227]

180. However, pressed further in oral evidence, Mr Lee from the Council told us that his main objection was not to ABCs per se but in relation to the reaction to a breach of an ABC: in short, "so long as there is a consequence", he had no fundamental objection.[228]

181. We welcome the development of acceptable behaviour contract (ABC) schemes, which seem to have the multiple advantages of being cheap, easy to administer and apparently remarkably successful. We are clear though that these need to be used in appropriate cases rather than automatically as a first resort, and agree with the current guidance of the Home Office which is explicit on this point. We believe that the current approach is also correct in not placing ABCs on statutory footing: even those local authorities which do not use ABCs often tend to use warning interviews or similar written agreements. It is right to leave the exact details for individual authorities.

182. Our main concern in relation to ABCs is that there must be consequences for breaches for the sake of the victims of those breaches. We recommend that the Home Office commissions research to establish whether ABCs are being used in place of enforcement action, or whether they are indeed being used as part of a graduated approach to unacceptable behaviour.

ASBOs

183. The power to apply for an anti-social behaviour order, or ASBO, was introduced by section 1 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. The following authorities can apply for an ASBO to be taken out:

• Police
• Local authorities
• Registered Social Landlords (RSLs - through s64 Police Reform Act 2002)
• British Transport Police
• Housing Action Trusts
• County councils

184. In its written memorandum, the Home Office set out the main features of an ASBO:

ASBOs are civil orders, similar to injunctions. They prohibit individuals from specific anti-social actions and are available for any person aged ten or over who has acted in an anti-social manner likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress and who is likely to do so again. Breach of an ASBO is a criminal offence with a penalty of up to five years imprisonment for an adult offender. It is for the court to decide the appropriate penalty for breach of an order.[229]

185. In fact, this description slightly understates the scope of an ASBO. Whilst an ASBO is indeed likely to prohibit specific anti-social actions, it can also prohibit any action judged as necessary to prevent further ASB. It can thus include, for instance, prohibitions against entering particular areas, congregating with particular people, or even wearing particular items of clothing. Examples of actual ASBOs are provided in an appendix to this report.

186. From a legal perspective, this flexibility as to the terms of an ASBO is strikingly similar to the injunctive remedies available in the civil courts, but there is one particular innovation: its combination of elements of civil and criminal procedure. The order itself is a civil order obtained through civil proceedings, with implications especially for rules of evidence, as well as for public funding.[230] However, breach of an ASBO is a criminal offence, punishable by imprisonment for up to five years.

187. According to Home Office data, a total of 3,826 ASBOs had been made from their introduction in April 1999 to September 2004, with 2,186 of these made in 2003-04.[231] The following table and graph indicates vividly the way in which take-up of ASBOs has increased significantly since the start of 2003, coinciding with the establishment of the Home Office Anti-social Behaviour Unit:[232]

Period	Number of ASBOs taken out
April 1999 -March 2001 (two years)	317
April 2001 -March 2002	321
April 2002 -March 2003	492
April 2003 -March 2004	1,323
April 2004 -September 2004 (six months)	1,813

188. There has been a very large variation in the use of ASBOs across the country. For instance, a person is 12 times more likely to receive an ASBO in Greater Manchester than in Lincolnshire. There is a similar variation in terms of the number of ASBOs made in relation to particular age groups. It is estimated that 56% of ASBOs made in Magistrates Courts between April 1999 and September 2003 related to under 18s: however, the local figures ranged from 33% in Bedfordshire and Derbyshire to 100% in Dorset. [233]

189. In terms of the number of ASBOs breached, the Government has released figures up to December 2003. These indicate that there were just under 800 breaches altogether from June 2000 to December 2003—42% of the ASBOs issued. Of these breaches, 437 resulted in prison sentences. In most cases, however, it was rare for custody to be imposed for the breach alone—93% of custodial sentences imposed for breach of ASBO were also being imposed for other offences.[234]

190. The figures on breach need to be treated with a little caution: inevitably they only relate to those cases in which breach is detected and further enforcement action is taken. Even so, the figure of 42% compares well with other juvenile justice measures. An estimated 50% of Detention and Training Orders are breached.[235] Referral orders are breached in 39% of cases.[236] Intensive Supervision and Surveillance Programmes have a breach rate of 60%.[237]

191. During the course of the inquiry, we heard extensive criticisms of ASBOs, from a number of sources, including children's charities, think-tanks and civil liberties organisations. The following criticisms came up repeatedly:

• ASBOs blur the boundaries between civil and criminal law, with implications both for human rights, and for the possibility of a twin-track approach under which someone can be given an ASBO in response to criminal behaviour that— in a different part of the country—might lead to criminal prosecution;
• The use of ASBOs against young people runs the risk of net-widening: bringing more young people into contact with the criminal justice system, and especially increasing the number of young people in custody;
• ASBOs have been used inappropriately and several have included unrealistic conditions that have invited breach,
• ASBOs are ineffective in reducing ASB, because they are negative and do not address young people's support needs;
• The practice of enforcement by publicity, or 'naming and shaming' is inappropriate and puts child safety at risk.

We deal with each of these concerns in turn, but note here that to some extent the specific points relating to ASBOs tend to reflect more basic perceptions. For some witnesses, an ASBO is seen essentially as a reactive punishment which serves largely to draw young people into the criminal justice system. For others, an ASBO is little different from an injunction which seeks to prevent rather than punish. Mr Winter, from the Social Landlords Crime and Nuisance Group, put this second view well: "they are asking people to amend their behaviour at the first stage—just a requirement to do what most people already do. In that sense they are not onerous".[238]

"Boundaries blurred between civil and criminal law"

192. Although it was commonly argued that ASBOs blur the boundaries between civil and criminal law, we came across a great deal of confusion on this point. Several organisations wrongly thought that the standard of proof for ASBO hearings, because it involved the civil rather than the criminal standard, only required proof to be a bare "balance of probabilities"—i.e. 51%.[239] In fact, following the McCann judgement, the standard of proof has been established as equivalent to the higher criminal law standard—i.e., "beyond reasonable doubt".[240] One organisation argued that it is wrong for a civil procedure to be used for breach proceedings, when the result of this could be incarceration. Again, this is inaccurate: proceedings relating to the breach of an ASBO are entirely criminal.

193. The Law Society recognised both points, but argued nonetheless that the ASBO procedures do raise human rights concerns:

Remedies such as ASBOs involve a hybrid criminal/civil process: the grant of an order is the outcome of a civil trial, but any finding of a breach of the order, being a criminal offence, is the outcome of a criminal trial. Individuals are denied the full rights under Article 6 [the right to a fair legal trial] when an ASBO is being considered by the court on the basis the application proceedings are civil and not criminal. The reasoning is the court is not determining if the defendant is guilty of an offence, and so a conviction; but whether a preventative order is necessary.

However, this approach is increasingly difficult to sustain now that the mere existence of such an order has punitive social and economic consequences for the individual. Such consequences include the denial of access to social housing and employment opportunities as well as a general stigmatisation.[241]

194. We note, however, that the House of Lords has already acknowledged and rejected this point (in the McCann case). Nor does the assertion of denial of article 6 rights, purely on the basis that the procedure is civil, hold water. If the assertion were correct, all county court injunction proceedings would breach article 6—a surprising proposition. In any event, the courts have repeatedly recognised that the victims of ASB also have human rights (principally under article 8) which they are entitled to vindicate. Even if the argument was valid that ASBOs involve a degree of punishment, this is true of all injunctive relief, and the priority must be to provide relief for and to protect the victims of the behaviour.[242] We agree with the comments of Mr Winter, National Organiser of the Social Landlords Crime and Nuisance Group:

On human rights, all the decisions of the courts have been indicative that we have got the balance right and nowhere is specified the fact that there is a community right. Most of the decisions made at court have understood the concept that the right of the individual is there, but that individual has not the right to impose his set of standards on the community at large and the courts have held such to date.[243]

195. The Home Office argued that the prospect of the same behaviour being treated variably through the civil or criminal route was not a matter for concern:

What is important is selecting the intervention that will best deal with the situation, providing an effective and swift remedy with further protection for individuals and the community.[244]

It added that injunctions and restraining orders had been used long before the new interventions were introduced, and that there are other fields in which civil and criminal remedies are employed together—for example, restraining orders or injunctions used in domestic violence cases alongside prosecution.

"Risk of net-widening"

196. Some witnesses expressed concern that ASBOs risk young children needlessly being brought into the criminal justice system. Others went further and argued that ASBOs have led to an increase in the use of custody for young offenders. The Howard League argued that this is counter-productive, likely to reinforce pre-existing tendencies towards criminality.

197. Between April 1999 and March 2004, 1,057 ASBOs were taken out against young people, approximately 45% of the total. Out of 850 ASBOs taken out against young people up to the end of 2003, 341 (40%) were breached. 179 of these (46%) resulted in custody, although only 30 young people were placed in custody solely for the breach of their ASBO—in all the other cases, custody was being imposed also for further offences.[245] More recent, although limited, figures were given to us by the Youth Justice Board: these suggested that custody is becoming more common, with 195 young people entering custody either on remand or as their sentence as a result of an ASBO breach in the 18 week period between 3 May 2004 and 22 August 2004.[246]

198. Mr Neil Pilkington of Salford City Council told us that sometimes custody is a necessary outcome of persistent ASB—even if, on the surface, the relevant breach of the ASBO appears relatively trivial:

I do not see custody as being necessarily the outcome that we are looking for but it is saying, "You have reached the stage of having the ASBO because of serious and persistent conduct over a period of time" and the breach, even minor, now enables the court to put in far more significant resources from the YOT team to try and tackle that behaviour. People have been receiving custodial sentences for crossing the red line on the map and going into another area, and I know that causes concern, but the red line on the map can be outside the corner shop where they wreaked havoc for many years.[247]

199. The Youth Justice Board shared with us the findings of some recent research aimed at trying to get a profile of young people who breach ASBOs. Its most important findings were that:

• 95% of young people entering custody as the result of breaching an ASBO were already known to the Youth Offending Team.
• In the 43 cases where previous offence history was available, the young people had an average of 42 previous offences and, as such, would be considered prolific offenders.
• All the young people in this sample had been subject to various interventions prior to a custodial sentence.
• On average the breach occurred within 6 months of the order being imposed. The majority of breaches involved restrictions with regard to geography and association with others.[248]

200. The Board cautioned against making firm conclusions from this research due to methodological limitations—a more robust follow-up study is due to be published in September 2005. In addition, Professor Morgan told us:

What we can ask from this study, because it was one of my key questions, is has the introduction of ASBOs as far as we can tell drawn into custody a lot of children who, prior to the introduction of ASBOs, would almost certainly not have got there? The best evidence so far is that is not the case. The most that might be the case is that they have been brought into custody rather quicker than would otherwise be the case. That shines through, but we need a much finer picture of how ASBOs are being applied in terms of conditions. We do not even know which specific conditions are being breached all the time here. We only know the broad outlines of that narrow sector of population.[249]

"Used inappropriately"

201. Several organisations argued that ASBOs have sometimes been issued in appropriate cases. For instance, the Howard League for Penal Reform drew our attention to the case of "Daisy", who was 17 years old and "profoundly deaf". She was issued with an ASBO for spitting, and on continuing to do so, was eventually remanded in custody and sentenced to an Intensive Supervision and Surveillance Programme for the breach of the ASBO.[250] The Crime and Society Foundation also drew our attention to cases in which recipients of ASBOs appeared to have mental health problems.[251]

202. In addition, we were provided with examples of ASBOs containing inappropriate conditions. These included:

A young person in Sussex whose ASBO precluded him from entering any motor vehicle. This meant he was unable to accept lifts from YOT staff to Positive Activities schemes. It also meant he could not go into a probation minibus to take him to do his community service.[252]

In one case, a young person's home was in the exclusion zone and he had a bail condition to reside at his home address.[253]

203. Crime Concern argued that effective communication of the content of ASBOs was also important:

Our experience suggests that the rationale for, and consequences of, breaching ASBOs, is often poorly communicated to young people. Moreover, ill-thought orders may result in unnecessary breaches and, therefore, criminalisation, with the implications this has for individual's life chances.[254]

204. We asked Professor Rod Morgan, Chair of the Youth Justice Board, whether it is common, in practice, for ASBOs containing inappropriate conditions to be issued. He replied:

Once again, I cannot answer the question definitively. My suspicion is that it is relatively uncommon. You will have noticed from our supplement that in those entering custody the YOTs report that they were not involved in a third of the cases in the ASBO breach proceedings. They had not been fully consulted. I think that is diminishing.[255]

205. We were told of several reasons for ASBOs being issued with inappropriate conditions. The Youth Justice Board referred to the scarce resources given to YOTs.[256] Professor Morgan added that the failure fully to consult YOTs has also been a factor.[257] Other witnesses blamed the failure of some mental health workers and social workers to engage with tackling ASB, arguing that their advice is critical in many cases and can help to avoid inappropriate conditions being sought.[258] Mr Lewis, from the Crown Prosecution Service, told us that it has taken time for prosecutors to get used to the new orders, but that things are beginning to improve.[259]

206. Several organisations stated that the two-year minimum length of ASBOs was too long—especially in relation to children. The Association of Directors of Social Services noted that Referral Orders—often used for first-time criminal convictions—only last for between three months and one year.[260] Ms Hibbert, representing Barnado's, agreed that two years was too long for a child, but argued that addressing the support needs of children subject to ASBOs is more important:

What we would like to see is some sort of guidance that says there has to be some assessment made of the child's ability to understand what is happening, to understand what the conditions are and to have some support in meeting those conditions, which is probably more important than the length of time. […] If the purpose of an anti-social behaviour order is to stop anti-social behaviour, which we all assume it is, we really need to do everything to try and make sure that happens. It is not going to happen if we just make a long order on a child that bans them from everything and does not give them any support in all the other areas that are going on in their lives.[261]

207. On the other hand, Mr Lewis, representing the Crown Prosecution Service, told us:

On the whole we are only seeking these orders when the community has had a really difficult time and they want to see that there is a substantial order for a decent period of time, so they can have some respite from this. Also, if it is a young person and they do mend their ways then they can apply to vary the order. So we think that two years is about right, particularly so that we can say to the communities, "If we have responded to your problem we have a decent order for a decent length of time".[262]

The Home Office added that "a minimum period of 2 years was made to reflect the need for the orders to bring respite to communities and for behaviour to be changed", arguing also that "ASBOs are designed to protect the community not to punish the perpetrator; referral orders are for punishing and rehabilitating an offender. As such these are not directly comparable".[263]

"Ineffective"

208. Several organisations argued that ASBOs were of little benefit, as they failed to address the support needs of many young people who commit ASB.[264] In support of this argument, some pointed to the breach rate of ASBOs, which—according to the latest figures—stands at 42%.[265] This is up from the previous figure of 36%.[266]

209. Professor Rod Morgan, Chair of the Youth Justice Board, argued that we do not yet have enough information to know the impact of ASBOs on young people and that most comment was based on anecdotal evidence.[267]

210. Other witnesses emphasised the fact that a 35% breach rate implied a 65% success rate.[268] Martin Lee, from Manchester City Council, told us:

I want to say the ASBO is not for the perpetrator. Our ASBOs are 100% successful for the community and the witnesses. They are only 65% effective for the perpetrator, but that is pretty high. I think other interventions […], if they are at that level, we are going on the right road.[269]

Mr Lewis added that the Crown Prosecution Service was targeting people it regarded as high risk, so it was inevitable and unsurprising that a proportion of them would re-offend.[270] Hazel Blears echoed this comment, telling us that "the kind of people that tend to get anti-social behaviour orders are very often known to the criminal justice system", with some of them prolific offenders.[271] We would add that the figures cannot take account of the number of incidents of ASB which the person breaching the order may have committed had the order not been made.

"Naming and shaming"

211. One particular issue bringing together concerns about effectiveness and human rights is the practice of publicising the details of individual ASBOs—sometimes referred to as 'naming and shaming'.[272] Some of our witnesses opposed this practice, arguing that:

• it is inconsistent with the treatment of young people who have been convicted of a criminal offence (where a presumption in favour of reporting restrictions applies)
• it is counter-productive, leading to ASBOs becoming "badges of honour" and exacerbating problems of social exclusion, and
• it poses dangers to children.

212. In respect of the last of these points, the Children's Society asked us—

to consider the very acute children protection concerns that arise from a policy of making publicly available information about children's identity, photographs and address. The policy makes it very easy for paedophiles and others who may want to abuse children to identify and target vulnerable children who may be very susceptible to grooming.[273]

We were told of one case where a violent father who was forbidden to see his child tracked down the address of that child following ASBO publicity.[274]

213. In addition, several organisations questioned the need for 'naming and shaming' in terms of enforcement. For instance, the Howard League argued that "individuals affected by the anti-social behaviour would be aware of what is happening without publicity".[275] Professor Morgan agreed, telling us:

if the argument for having publicity is to empower local communities that they should know that something is being done, frankly, in communities the complainants can be told that something is being done about the instance that they have concerns over. They know in those communities who the kids are that actions need to be taken about. They can be informed without necessarily releasing names and photographs to the press so that it is then extremely difficult to work positively with either those children or their families or carers.[276]

Sergeant Paul Dunn argued that we should try to control better who gets information on ASBOs, suggesting that "it is distasteful for someone in London to read about a 13 year old girl in Leeds who has ASBO".

214. On the other hand, Mr Lee of Manchester City Council told us:

These orders are for the community and for them to police. It is not for the perpetrator. It is a community protection order. I cannot understand Parliament passing a law that said we will give you an order that stops somebody doing something, but we are not going to tell the public what the terms of the order are because they are the people who are supposed to police it.[277]

215. This issue was recently visited by the High Court which ruled in favour of Brent Borough Council in upholding the right of local authorities to publicise ASBOs through leaflets, whilst stating that each case would depend on its own particular facts.[278] The court agreed with the principle that publicity is necessary to help with enforcement of an order: by informing local people of the prohibitions imposed by the order, they would be able to identify and report breaches to the police or other relevant bodies. It was held that an order could be of little use if only a few people knew of its existence.

216. Barnado's and others, such as Professor Morgan, recommended that there should be a presumption against publicising details unless the magistrate or judge specifically adjudicates that it is in the public interest to do so.[279] But it is not clear to us that this would make significant difference in practice if the principle is accepted that publicity is necessary for the enforcement of ASBOs.

217. We asked the Minister of State, Ms Hazel Blears MP, whether the practice of naming and shaming could be justified in light of concerns of child safety. She told us that publicity was crucial for community confidence, and commented that "if there are good reasons for not having publicity then the courts always have the power to impose reporting restrictions".[280] She also confirmed that there was no current research looking at the effects of publicity on those involved.[281]

218. We welcome the introduction by the Government of ASBOs. The ASBO appears to be an effective tool which gives relief to communities and is more honoured in the observance than the breach, although we recognise that they are only just beginning to be used widely. We agree with witnesses who argue that ASBOs are little different from injunctions, which primarily seek to prevent rather than to punish: in essence, they require people to amend their behaviour to an acceptable and normal standard. We conclude that ASBOs are most likely to succeed in changing behaviour when used in conjunction with necessary support measures.

219. We welcome the suggestion from the recent Youth Justice Board research study that the use of ASBOs is not leading to the incarceration of young people who would otherwise have remained outside the criminal justice system. We note, however, that more work is being done in this area and recommend that the Home Office monitors closely the results of the September study. We would regret any evidence that the use of ASBOs has led to significant net-widening.

220. We do not consider that the inappropriate issuing of ASBOs, or the issuing of ASBOs containing inappropriate conditions, is a major problem in practice. We observe also that where the terms of an ASBO prove to be inappropriate, it is relatively straightforward to apply to the court which made the Order for the terms to be varied. There is also a right of appeal to the Crown Court against the terms of an order. Cases in which these options are not being taken highlight the variable quality of legal representation rather than any difficulties with the current provisions for variation and appeal. However, the reliance on anecdotal evidence is damaging, and we recommend that the Home Office commissions wide-ranging research in this area. The research should seek to establish not only the extent of inappropriate ASBOs, but—of critical importance—the reasons for failures of this kind.

221. In general, there is a clear need for all terms of ASBOs to be evidence-based, manifestly justified in terms of the prevention of ASB, and clearly communicated to the young person subject to the ASBO. In our view, the cases brought to our attention of inappropriate conditions highlight—if any further highlighting was needed—the absolute need for all the relevant agencies to be involved in the response to ASB. It seems probable to us that many such problems would not have occurred had co-ordination been adequate.

222. We agree with Barnado's and others that in relation to young perpetrators of ASB, it may be inappropriate to issue ASBOs that last for a minimum of two years. We recommend that, in the case of children under the age of 18, the law is amended so as to give magistrates greater discretion to set the duration of the ASBO.

223. We conclude that 'naming and shaming' is often essential to enforce ASBOs and accept that, with a free press, it is not possible to limit publicity to local communities. However, whilst we accept the presumption of publicity, there are clearly cases where publicity could be harmful to individuals. Issues of child safety should be raised in court where concerns exist and the discretion of magistrates in this matter is an important responsibility that they should exercise carefully.

224. According to latest figures, 42% of ASBOs are breached. We accept the point made by witnesses that this means that 58% are not breached and that relief is being provided to the community in these cases. This breach rate also compares favourably with other non-custodial youth justice interventions. Nonetheless, consideration must be given to ways of reducing the breach rate. We believe that a number of factors may be contributing to it, including the use of inappropriate conditions and the imposition of ASBOs for an inappropriately long time. We conclude that the most important factor is likely to be insufficient support given to perpetrators who may have problems of addiction or of mental health or may be living in chaotic families. This underlines why the measures we outline in relation to support are so important.

Section 30 dispersal powers

225. Under section 30 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, a senior police officer can designate an area in which there is persistent ASB and a problem of groups causing intimidation.[282] This area could be as small as a cash point or shopping arcade where groups often gather, or it could be as wide as a whole local authority area, as long as there is evidence of anti-social behaviour. The local authority must also agree to the designation: usually this decision will be made as part of the strategic work of a Crime and Disorder Partnership. The decision to designate an area must be published in a local newspaper or by notices in the local area,[283] and can last for up to six months.[284] The designated area must be clearly defined, usually by a description of the streets or roads bordering the area.

226. Within designated areas the police and community support officers (CSOs) have the power to:

• disperse groups where the relevant officer has reasonable grounds for believing that their presence or behaviour has resulted, or is likely to result, in a member of the public from being harassed intimidated, alarmed or distressed. Individuals can be directed to leave the locality and may be excluded from the area for up to 24 hours.
• return home young people under 16, who are out on the streets and not under the control of an adult, after 9pm.

A refusal to follow the officer's directions to disperse is a summary offence, with a penalty on conviction of up to a level 4 fine or a possible three months' imprisonment (for adults).[285]

227. The section 30 dispersal powers have been available since 20 January 2004. By the end of September 2004, an estimated 418 dispersal orders had been made.[286]

228. Several organisations have criticised these powers. The Howard League for Penal Reform argued that the powers penalised children for simply using public space, and suggested that many children are there "as no organised or structured activities like youth clubs exist", with others choosing to spend time away from home due to the quality of their housing or domestic situation.[287] Barnado's argued that the use of these measures has varied greatly: in some cases, they are tied to engagement projects; in others, they have simply been imposed on children.[288] Liberty considered the powers to be neither proportionate nor necessary.[289]

229. Other organisations have criticised the principle lying behind the powers, but said that it is too early to assess their real impact.[290] JUSTICE noted that there were already public order offences contained in other legislation, arguing that these should be better enforced in preference to dispersing groups which have not committed an offence. It also argued that there was a wide potential for discrimination, although its Director—Roger Smith—conceded that there was no evidence of this as yet.[291] The Children's Society argued that not only was it too early to assess the impact of the measures on the ground, but that the guidance from Government meant to accompany section 30 had not come out yet. It emphasised the importance of this: there had been Government assurances that the guidance would require police and local authorities to consult with the local community, including children and young people, prior to issuing an authorisation.[292] However, we have been told that the guidance has now been produced (by ACPO) and will be available shortly.[293]

230. We heard little evidence as to whether the section 30 dispersal powers are effective at local level, although they have now been in operation for over a year. We are concerned that this reflects a wider ignorance about the use of these powers, and recommend that the Home Office commissions research to examine issues of effectiveness and proportionality.

---

95   Section 37 Back

96   All the details in this and the next paragraph are taken from the recent report by the Audit Commission: Youth Justice 2004: a review of the reformed youth justice system, 2004. Back

97   In general, young offenders are much more likely to receive an intervention. In 2001, nearly one in four offenders said that nothing happened to them after they were caught by the police; by 2003, it was less than one in ten. Back

98   Prior and Paris, Preventing Children's Involvement in Crime and Anti-social Behaviour: A Literature Review, 2004. Paper produced for the National Evaluation of the Children's Fund through the Institute of Applied Social Studies, University of Birmingham. Back

99   Ev 144, HC 80-II Back

100   Ev 144-5, HC 80-II Back

101   These include the Association of Directors of Social Services, Barnado's, Centrepoint, the Children's Society, the Howard League for Penal Reform, the National Association for Youth Justice and NCH. Back

102   See, for instance, Ev 13, HC 80-II (Barnado's), Ev 18, HC 80-II (Centrepoint) and Ev 24-5, HC 80-II (Children's Society) Back

103   This argument is considered fully at paragraph 97ff. Back

104   Considered at paragraph 196ff. Back

105   Ev 18, HC 80-II Back

106   Ev 86, HC 80-II  Back

107   Q 97 Back

108   Ev 78, HC 80-II Back

109   Ev 128, HC 80-II Back

110   Ev 5, HC 80-II. This was confirmed in Home Office, Young people, crime and anti-social behaviour: findings from the 2003 Crime and Justice Survey, Home Office Findings 245, 2005 Back

111   Department for Education and Skills, Every Child Matters, Cm 5860, 2003 Back

112   Q 15 Back

113   Ev 70, HC 80-II Back

114   Q 13. Barnado's argued similarly: see Ev 13, HC 80-II.  Back

115   See, for instance, Ev 24, HC 80-II (Children's Society), Ev 102, HC 80-II (National Youth Agency), and Ev 105, HC 80-II (NCH).  Back

116   Q 16 Back

117   Ev 124, HC 80-II Back

118   Ev 30, HC 80-II  Back

119   Ev 62, HC 80-II Back

120   Ev 69, HC 80-II Back

121   Ev 76, HC 80-II Back

122   Ev 105, HC 80-II Back

123   Ev 15, HC 80-II Back

124   Ev 11, HC 80-II Back

125   Ev 106, HC 80-II Back

126   i.e. October 2003 to September 2004. See Home Office Press Release 336/2004. Back

127   Ev 155, HC 80-III Back

128   Ev 178, HC 80-III Back

129   Ev 48, HC 80-II. The estimate is based on a one-day count in September 2003. Back

130   See Youth Justice 2004, p8. This states that out of five and a half million 10-17 year olds in England and Wales, around one-quarter admitted to committing a criminal offence of some kind in the last 12 months (according to a MORI youth survey), yet only 268,500 young people were arrested for notifiable offences in 2002-03. Back

131   Q 318 Back

132   Q 75. The notion that ASBOs are considered an "admission of failure" is echoed in the Children's Society evidence at Ev 27. Back

133   Q 76 Back

134   Q 29. See also the submission from County Durham Youth Engagement Service (Ev 29). Back

135   Q 427 Back

136   Sources: HC Deb, 3 June 2003, col 89W and www.crimereduction.gov.uk. See Q 141 for Mr Lee's confirmation that other local authorities do not use housing injunctions as much as Manchester City Council, although he also said that things were "improving". Back

137   Ev 166, HC 80-III Back

138   For the two latter figures, see the Home Office's written memorandum providing details of the Parenting Fund (ASB 85). Other figures are derived from the relevant Departmental Annual Reports and from the Spending Review 2004. Back

139   Ev 73, HC 80-II; see also Ev 33, HC 80-II. Back

140   Ev 32, HC 80-II Back

141   Ev 80, HC 80-II. Later in its submission, it did argue that there is "undue focus on enforcement rather than preventative activity"; however, this was in relation specifically to the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 rather than the Government's overall strategy. Back

142   Ev 7, HC 80-II. See also the comments of Mr Fox at Q 362, stressing the need for tough sanctions to be accompanied by support measures. Back

143   Ev 66, HC 80-II Back

144   Ev 94, 126, 132, HC 80-II Back

145   Ev 170, HC 80-III Back

146   The House of Lords confirmed the preventative nature of ASBOs in R (McCann) v Crown Court at Manchester [2002] UKHL 39; [2003] 1 AC 787, HL. Back

147   See Ev 20, HC 80-II (Chartered Institute of Housing), Ev 98, HC 80-II (National Housing Federation) and the discussion in paragraph 270. Back

148   As the National Housing Federation stated "the effectiveness of … powers is much reduced when the various agencies work in isolation from each other". See Ev 98, HC 80-II. Back

149   Although formally these partnerships were established under the Children's Act 2004, many local authorities had already established such partnerships prior to the Act. Back

150   Ev 121-2, HC 80-III Back

151   Louise Casey, head of the Unit, made this clear to us in her informal presentation. Back

152   Q 143 Back

153   Ev 109, HC 80-II Back

154   Ev 65, HC 80-II Back

155   Ev 133, HC 80-II Back

156   Ev 21, 65, HC 80-II Back

157   Ev 6, HC 80-II; see also Q 147. Back

158   Q 428 Back

159   Ibid. Back

160   Building Communities, Beating Crime, p123-4 Back

161   Q 555 Back

162   Home Office, Guidance on Statutory Crime and Disorder Partnerships, 1999, and Home Office, Step by Step guide on Information Sharing, 2003 Back

163   On 18 January 2005, this section was amended (through the commencement into force of section 219 of the Housing Act 2004) to allow all housing associations to receive information from other bodies to support their applications for ASBOs. Back

164   Ev 133, HC 80-II Back

165   Ev 98, HC 80-II Back

166   Ev 80, HC 80-II Back

167   Ev 22, HC 80-II Back

168   Ev 9, HC 80-II Back

169   Q 46 Back

170   Q 39 Back

171   Q 143 Back

172   Q 146 Back

173   Q 557 Back

174   See Ev 35, HC 80-II (Crime Concern). Barnado's point to the guidance at Ev 14, HC 80-II. Back

175   Ev 144, HC 80-II. County Durham Youth Engagement Service similarly argued that "Youth Offending Teams and their partners are ideally placed to provide this support and it is therefore crucial that they are party to all ABCs [acceptable behaviour contracts] and resourced sufficiently to carry out this work" (Ev 29, HC 80-II). Back

176   Ev 65, HC 80-II Back

177   Q 478 Back

178   Ev 5, HC 80-II. Indeed, we have come across several instances of this "labelling" argument. See e.g. Ev 14, HC 80-II (Barnado's), Ev 88, HC 80-II (Nacro) and Ev 91, HC 80-II (National Association of Youth Justice). On the other hand, Ms Roberts-Birmingham Youth Offending Service-told us that this was one of her initial concerns "but, often, they were already labelled. They are often out of schools". See Q 43. Back

179   Ev 4, HC 80-II Back

180   Q 7 Back

181   Q 39  Back

182   This includes not just legal support measures such as individual support orders being used in conjunction with anti-social behaviour orders, but also the more informal measures being used together. An example pointed out to us is the use of Youth Inclusion Programmes in conjunction with acceptable behaviour contracts. See Q 54. Back

183   See Qq 48-53 and Qq 60-63. See also Ms Hibbert's arguments at Q 438. Back

184   Q 307 Back

185   Q 438 Back

186   Q 535 Back

187   Q 538 Back

188   Morgan Harris Burrows, Evaluation of the Youth Inclusion Programme, 2003, p10 Back

189   They are similar in nature to acceptable behaviour contracts, but with statutory backing (section 25 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003). Back

190   Ev 228, HC 80-III Back

191   For an evaluation of the Youth Justice Board's parenting programme, see Ghate and Ramella, Positive Parenting, 2002. Back

192   section 18 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003. These conditions are designed to ensure that the order is compatible with the requirements of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to respect for private and family life). Back

193   Ev 44, HC 80-II Back

194   Ev 15, HC 80-II Back

195   This was echoed by C'mon Everybody at Ev 44, HC 80-II. Back

196   Q 67 Back

197   Ev 8, HC 80-II Back

198   Q 443 Back

199   Ev 84, HC 80-II Back

200   Q 64 Back

201   Ev 79, HC 80-II Back

202   Q 543 and Ev 228, HC 80-III. The Home Office expects that "numbers will increase as practitioners become more aware of the use of parenting orders linked to ASBOs and more familiar with them". Back

203   The Family Welfare Association described to us its work with a real family and the use of techniques such as the use of videos to highlight parenting issues. Its Home Based Family Support is also commended in Respect and Responsibility, Cm 5778. Back

204   Barnado's, Family Rights Group and NCH, Family Group Conferences: principles and practice guidance, 2002 Back

205   Q 68 Back

206   Ev 11-12, HC 80-II Back

207   The criteria are that an ISO would be desirable in the interests of preventing further ASB, that the defendant is not already subject to an ISO and that arrangements for implementing ISOs are available in that local area. See section 1AA of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (as introduced by section 322 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003). Back

208   In practice, it tends to be parents who are responsible for paying any fines for all children under 16. Back

209   Ev 84, HC 80-II Back

210   Ev 80, HC 80-II Back

211   Ev 29, HC 80-II  Back

212   Ev 171, HC 80-III Back

213   Ibid. Back

214   Q 74 Back

215   Q 446. See also the written submission of the Youth Justice Board at Ev 149, as well as that of County Durham Youth Engagement Service at Ev 29, HC 80-II. Back

216   Ev 229, HC 80-III. The Home Office "expects that numbers will increase, as practitioners become more aware of the existence of ISOs and more familiar with their use". Back

217   Q 540 Back

218   Q 545  Back

219   Q 449 Back

220   Q 435. This was echoed by Professor Morgan at Q 439. Back

221   Ev 155, HC 80-III Back

222   Ibid. Back

223   Bullock and Jones, Acceptable Behaviour Contracts addressing antisocial behaviour in the London Borough of Islington, Home Office Online Report 02/04, 2004  Back

224   Q 165 Back

225   Q 460 Back

226   Home Office, A Guide to Anti-social Behaviour Orders and Acceptable Behaviour Contracts, 2002 Back

227   Ev 184, HC 80-III. Similarly, Mr Pilkington told us that Salford City Council refers to ABCs as "promises, which is the same thing". See Q 71. Back

228   Q 168. Although Mr Lee did contrast ABCs unfavourably with ASBOs, arguing that ASBOs are the only orders that are entirely for the community, and not for the perpetrator. Back

229   Ev 50, HC 80-II Back

230   For instance, hearsay evidence is admissible in civil proceedings but not criminal.  Back

231   i.e. October 2003 to September 2004. See Home Office Press Release 042/2005 (1 March 2005). Back

232   HC Deb, 21 Dec 2004, col 1541W. The table was also provided to us by the Youth Justice Board: see Ev 146, HC 80-II. The increasing take-up also coincided with the coming into force of the amendments to the scheme introduced by the Police Reform Act 2002. Back

233   Source: House of Commons Library  Back

234   Home Office Briefing Note, March 2005 Back

235   Youth Justice Board, Detention and Training, 2002 Back

236   Cap Gemini Ernst & Young, Referral Orders: research into the issues raised by the introduction of referral orders in the Youth Justice System, 2003 Back

237   Youth Justice Board, ISSP: the initial report, 2004  Back

238   Q 459 Back

239   ADSS, Barnado's, the Children's Society, Rethinking Crime and Punishment Back

240   R v Crown Court at Manchester, ex parte McCann 17 October 2002 [2002] UKHL 39 Back

241   Ev 72, HC 80-II Back

242   This was backed by the Home Office at Ev 171, HC 80-III. Back

243   Q 517 Back

244   Ev 168, HC 80-III  Back

245   Home Office Briefing Note, March 2005. Back

246   Ev 147, HC 80-II Back

247   Q 82 Back

248   Ev 217-220, HC 80-III Back

249   Q 450 Back

250   Ev 62, HC 80-II Back

251   Ev 132-3, HC 80-III Back

252   Ev 149, HC 80-II (Youth Justice Board) Back

253   Ev 27, HC 80-II (Children's Society) Back

254   Ev 35, HC 80-II. The Children's Society also highlighted this issue of communication (see Ev 27, HC 80-II). Back

255   Q 451 Back

256   Ev 149, HC 80-II  Back

257   Q 451 Back

258   Q 39 (Mr Pilkington). Q 478 (Mr Winter) Back

259   Q 401 Back

260   Ev 11, HC 80-II Back

261   Q 436 Back

262   Q 402 Back

263   Ev 171, HC 80-III Back

264   Ev 18, 24, 104, HC 80-II (Centrepoint, Children's Society, NCH) Back

265   The figure goes up to the end of December 2003 and was reported in Home Office Press Release 042/2005, 1 March 2005. Back

266   Going up to the end of December 2002. Back

267   Q 433 Back

268   This was the previous figure going up to December 2002. Back

269   Q 178. This sentiment was echoed by Mr Winter, National Organiser of the Social Landlords Crime and Nuisance Group at Q 520. Back

270   Q 400  Back

271   Q 571 Back

272   See, for instance, the submissions of the Howard League for Penal Reform and the Children's Society. Back

273   Ev 27, HC 80-II Back

274   Q 184 (Ms Monaghan) Back

275   Ev 63, HC 80-II Back

276   Q 441 Back

277   Q 183 Back

278   R (on the application of Stanley, Marshall and Kelly) v Metropolitan Police Commissioner and another [2004] EWHC 2229 (Admin) QBD. The judges were Kennedy LJ and Treacy J. Back

279   Ev 15, HC 80-II Back

280   Q 577 Back

281   Q 578 Back

282   These dispersal powers are separate from the power to take out a local child curfew order, which is available on application by a local authority to the Home Secretary, and can force all children under 16 years of age to be in their homes by a certain time in the evening. In practice, local child curfews have been used very rarely. Back

283   Section 31(3) of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 Back

284   section 30(2) of the Act  Back

285   section 32(2) of the Act Back

286   Ev 167, HC 80-III. The figure is according to CDRP estimates. Back

287   Ev 63, HC 80-II. This was echoed by the National Youth Agency at Ev 102, HC 80-II.  Back

288   Ev 14, HC 80-II  Back

289   Ev 75, HC 80-II Back

290   Many witnesses had no direct knowledge of these powers, including the Chair of the Youth Justice Board, Professor Morgan.  Back

291   Ev 25, HC 80-II and Qq 326-334 Back

292   Ev 26, HC 80-II. The requirement to produce guidance comes under section 34 of the Act. Back

293   As advised by a Home Office official. Back

---

Prepared 8 April 2005