House of Commons - Home Affairs

Select Committee on Home Affairs Fifth Report

6 Building a successful anti-social behaviour strategy

Overview of the Government's strategy

359. We have described in paragraphs 22-25 above the Government's responses to ASB and the work of its recently established Anti-Social Behaviour Unit. We asked practitioners whether they had found the Unit responsive or effective. Their response was extremely positive. Mr Lee, from Manchester City Council, said that "they have been fantastic, seriously".[451] Sergeant Dunn told us that he agreed with that, arguing that "the reason why … they have been fantastic is that they have listened to practitioners". He added:

They have set up the Manchester helpline, which has a fantastic reputation of giving good quality information back, or having a network of individuals within the country who have answers. I feel it is like we are on a train and I think we are really going at 150 miles an hour at the moment. I think this is a priority to everybody.[452]

Ms Rhodes, from the Family Welfare Association, described the Unit as "very helpful".[453] Mr Denley, Director of the Youth Works scheme in Bridgend, complimented its co-ordination efforts.[454]

360. We commend the Home Office Anti-social Behaviour Unit on its work. Its image amongst practitioners is particularly impressive. We recognise its achievement in raising the awareness of ASB and in improving the response of local actors. The achievement is all the more notable given the relatively small budget from which the Unit has worked.

361. We believe that much of the work of the Anti-social Behaviour Unit: the engagement of local partnerships, the close contacts with local authorities and other key local actors, the close monitoring of the use of enforcement powers with work to identify and tackle barriers to their effectiveness on the ground, and the use of seminars and other training events to drive awareness would make a difference in helping to reduce alcohol-related disorder. We note that in the Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy, it was intended that the ASB Unit should take on the enforcement role in relation to alcohol disorder, and recommend that it be given significant responsibilities in this area.

362. In addition, we recommend that the ASB Unit should take over some of the responsibility for promoting and monitoring the housing-based injunctive powers. Whilst we accept that re-organisation should not be done for its own sake, we believe that it would be particularly valuable to extend the "Together" approach here given the similarity of these powers to ASBOs and our earlier observations about the current level of knowledge in this area.

363. The Minister of State for Crime Reduction, Policing, Community Safety and Counter-terrorism, Ms Hazel Blears MP told us that in order to tackle ASB effectively, it was necessary to have a "twin-track approach" with tough enforcement combined with support and early intervention for young people. She then outlined what an effective ASB strategy from Government should look like:

First of all, identify the issues that people are concerned about locally; secondly get the partnership together and get the principles right on which you are operating, so you do not get confusion; thirdly, have a communications plan to tell the public what it is you are doing, in very simple, straightforward language, and, fourthly, have an action plan. […] and, finally, we evaluate what we have done, learn from the success and spread the good practice and learn the lessons.[455]

364. In the course of this report, we have commented and made recommendations in relation to several of these steps. We have suggested ways to improve how local people are consulted about ASB concerns. We have highlighted things that are getting in the way of better partnership working and made recommendations. We have looked at what works and considered in detail several of the existing diversionary and support measures.

365. In relation to some of these diversionary and support measures—in particular, the Youth Inclusion Programme and Youth Inclusion and Support Panels, parenting classes, individual support orders and intensive family-based interventions—we noted that concerns have been raised about levels of funding, recorded the levels of funding currently being provided and assessed what would be needed for expansion of these schemes. We also considered carefully the point made by Ms Hazel Blears MP that funding should come primarily from the budgets of local authorities and agencies and that the Government was pushing for a redirection of some of their resources.[456]

366. We received substantial evidence relating to how different powers should inter-relate in responding to ASB. Crime Concern argued that there is no blueprint for a successful response—this has to be locally tailored:

The multiplicity and interconnectivity of the causes and behaviours discussed above, with a number of contributory factors working concurrently, mean perpetrators of ASB are unlikely to fall into neat categories. Accordingly, no one approach or "solution" will be effective in tackling all behaviour.[457]

The Chartered Institute of Housing agreed that "a mechanistic approach is unlikely to prove effective".[458]

367. Whilst this must be true, we also heard a surprising degree of consensus that a tiered approach works best in terms of application of enforcement powers, with ASBOs and housing powers used if other measures have failed.[459] The one exception was Manchester City Council, which argued that injunctions and ASBOs should be used extensively in order to protect communities. Mr Rouse, Chief Executive of the Housing Corporation, told us that whilst he preferred a tiered approach, "there will be occasions, and Manchester is absolutely right, when actually the key is to protect the community, and urgent and immediate action is required, and going straight to an ASBO is a legitimate approach".[460] Mr Winter, national organiser of the Social Landlords Crime and Nuisance Group, went further, arguing that the approach of Manchester City Council was having a "substantial impact" and was operating as an effective preventative measure.[461]

368. The Home Office has published guidance on the proper relationship between ASBOs and acceptable behaviour contracts.[462] However, there is little guidance on the housing-based powers and on which should be used when. The need for a strong understanding of how these powers work and inter-relate was clear when we explored with witnesses the proper response to particular types of case.[463] Yet it was equally clear to us that not everybody had the necessary level of understanding.

369. We would encourage the Government to continue to produce guidance on the most effective tactics and strategies for tackling ASB. We note the strength of the evidence we have received in favour of a tiered approach to tackling individual problems, but we also stress the overriding importance of seeking to protect local communities and witnesses. We believe that local ASB strategies should not hesitate to move swiftly to introduce preventative measures and sanctions if these can bring quick relief to local people.

370. We welcome the Government's commitment to the prevention of ASB through diversionary and support measures and believe that the balance of its strategy is about right. We conclude that substantial resources are already being made available that could assist in preventative work with young people and dysfunctional families. However, the funding streams are complex and we are not confident that the resources are always being targeted on those most in need of support. Services which are required to play a key role in ASB strategies, like social services and Children and Adolescent Mental Health Service do not always seem to have access to additional funding, whilst other activities funded through DCMS or DfES may not be reaching the right people.

371. We recommend that the Government undertakes a review of these funding mechanisms with a view to allowing more flexible use of these funds at local level. We believe that this move would be in keeping with the general direction of children's policy.

372. Notwithstanding this, we have also identified four specific areas in which we believe that a small amount of additional Government spending will have a disproportionate impact on reducing ASB. First, we urge the Government to listen to the arguments put forward by the Youth Justice Board and recommend that additional funding be provided for a very significant expansion of the Youth Inclusion Programme in particular, with extra funding for Youth Inclusion and Support Panels awaiting the outcome of full evaluation. We believe that this would ultimately be a cost-saving decision. Second, we welcome the introduction by the Government of a Parenting Fund and welcome the provision of £1.5 million during 2003-04 to the Youth Justice Board for additional parenting work associated with ASB. We recommend that this £1.5 million becomes a regular investment in order to allow parenting programmes to be targeted for parents whose children have been identified as being most at risk of future anti-social behaviour. Third, we recommend that £0.5 million be invested (to match the £0.5 million already being provided by the Youth Justice Board) so as to improve the take-up of individual support orders. We believe that additional investment would reduce the breach rate of ASBOs and therefore again be a cost-saving measure. Fourth, we welcome the £2.25 million investment for targeted family interventions: however, we recommend that the Government increases this in order to help ensure that the deepest-rooted ASB problems are not simply recycled from area to area.

373. In the remainder of this final section, we consider two further issues: how far the Government itself is co-ordinated in its approach to ASB and what redress is available to members of the public if authorities are not responding to their concerns.

Co-ordination within Government

374. Several organisations have suggested that the response to ASB at central Government level is incoherent. One of the main concerns is the alleged conflict between the approach of the Department for Education and Skills (as set out in the Green Paper, Every Child Matters) and that of the Home Office. The Association of Directors of Social Services argued:

On the one hand children and young people are perceived as young, potentially vulnerable and in need of protection and investment. On the other they are seen as being out of control, violent and responsible for much crime and anti-social behaviour. We believe that it was a fundamental error for the Government to segregate its policy approach to youth crime from the more ambitious and constructive approach to all other areas of children's services.[464]

This matches our findings in terms of the segregation of children's agencies from criminal justice agencies at local level, discussed at paragraph 122 above. We recall the argument of Ms Hibbert, from Barnado's, 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".[465] In addition, the Law Society pointed to conflicting guidelines from the Home Office and the ODPM on enforcement in respect of anti-social young people.[466]

375. On the other hand, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Schools, Derek Twigg MP, told us that the two Departments "complement each other", and argued:

There are two ways of approaching this: obviously we want to be preventative and stop children getting into trouble and protect them and keep them out of harm and actually committing anti-social behaviour and other issues. At the same time, obviously, there is the justice element which has to come into play here, which, with some young people, unfortunately, is what they will end up in. I think where we are coming from is that of the well-being of the child and how we have early interventions, as I mentioned earlier, in terms of Early Years and Sure Start, the Every Child Matters agenda and getting collaborative teams working together - whether that be youth offending teams, health service, education or schools - to try and help vulnerable families and young people, to prevent them getting into difficulties and trouble in the first place. So I do think that that complements what the Home Office is doing.[467]

376. In addition to the comments about the Government's policies in respect of young people, there have been suggestions as to how funding streams and initiatives might be rationalised more generally. ACPO recommended that ODPM's "Safer and Stronger Communities" Fund needs to be joined up with the Home Office's new Neighbourhood Policing Fund "otherwise a confusing patchwork of funding and schemes such as Neighbourhood Warden, PCSOs and accredited staff emerges which causes wasted co-ordination activity and confusion at the front end where simplicity and focus should be the key". It also recommended a cross-cutting PSA target and rationalisation of Home Office units.[468] Shelter argued that lead responsibility on ASB should pass to ODPM so that it sits alongside the Neighbourhood Renewal Unit, Social Exclusion Unit and Homelessness and Housing Support Directorate.[469]

377. The Safer and Stronger Communities Fund, to which ACPO referred, was established under the Spending Review 2004. It brings together provision from existing programmes—the Liveability Fund, Neighbourhood Wardens, Neighbourhood Management and Single Community Programme from ODPM, and the Building Safer Communities funding stream from the Home Office. According to the Spending Review, it aims "to empower local areas to tackle anti-social behaviour, improve public spaces and reduce crime. It will allow some local services to be provided by the voluntary and community sector where this makes most sense".[470]

378. Ms Hazel Blears, MP, denied that the Government's strategy on ASB is incoherent:

I do not accept that at all. In fact, I think the anti-social behaviour agenda is one of the best examples in government of cross-departmental working. It is very rare that you get five ministers in this way all focused on what can we bring to make a difference, to help communities in this way. We have obviously got structures at national level in that we have got an inter-ministerial working group. Cleaner, Safer, Greener, on which we are all represented and making a difference; we have got officials groups, again, across government, and although the lead is with the Home Office and the Anti-Social Behaviour Unit, housing is a key partner to us, as is the environment, as is sport, as is education. I feel that rather than this being incoherent, this is one of the best examples of that kind of integrated approach, and I wish that we could tackle more things in government in the way that these issues are currently being addressed.[471]

In addition, Yvette Cooper, MP, told us that she was content with the Home Office taking the lead in this area, arguing that the location of it does not matter "as much as the partnership you have in place".[472]

379. We conclude that, in responding to ASB, Government Departments have been working together in a generally coherent manner. However, we have also identified areas in the course of our inquiry in which co-ordination could be improved further. We note also that there are now a number of local partnership arrangements, each being promoted by their respective Departments. These include Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships, local Criminal Justice Boards, Children Strategic Partnerships, Children's Trusts and Local Strategic Partnerships. We recommend that the Government should look closely at the links between these partnerships and ensure that there are no unnecessary overlaps.

Improving the redress for individuals

380. We were keen to establish what individuals could do if they found that their concerns were not being taken seriously at local level. Currently, there are a number of available mechanisms for redress. In relation to local authorities, people can turn to the complaints procedures of local authorities themselves and, if these prove unsatisfactory, the Local Government Ombudsman. Ultimately, of course, as Yvette Cooper MP pointed out, local authorities are also accountable through democratic elections.[473]

381. In relation to other agencies, the Government has recently proposed the creation of a "trigger power". The White Paper on police reform—Building Communities, Beating Crime—sets out why such a power is needed:

The Government does not want to see local communities being left to fend for themselves because they have not been able to get a response from local agencies. Neither do we want the police or local authorities to be left to deal with recurring problems because they cannot get one or more of their partners to take action to resolve them.[474]

The White Paper sets out a number of options. One is to enable local councillors to trigger action on the part of the police and other relevant agencies when presented with acute or persistent problems of crime and ASB to which local communities have been unable to get an effective response. According to the White Paper, "this would not be about individual complaints—nor could it be triggered by individuals—but rather by community groups, after persistent efforts to secure action have come to nothing".[475] A second and more radical option mooted in the White Paper is for powers to trigger an inspection.

382. One issue that came up frequently in our inquiry was what happens if professional judgements differ from community views as to the standard of behaviour that ought to lead to intervention. Yvette Cooper, MP, argued that it was simplistic to assume that there is one single professional view and one single community view and that these are in conflict: it will vary from case to case. She then set out how local communities are able to express their views:

Obviously, there are intermediate ways […] in between local elections for local communities to express their views, whether it be through complaints procedures, as Hazel has said, or through local councillors playing a stronger role as champions. […] Many areas already have local neighbourhood managers who are much more responsive to the local community as well, and it means that people can just go and talk to them and they can go and chase up the agencies that are not taking a problem seriously enough or not moving fast enough. As Hazel said, we are exploring this idea of the trigger mechanisms, where if a particular service falls below a certain standard could that operate as a trigger? This is work in progress. I think the bottom line is there is accountability through local government and through democratic accountability but we think we need to go further at a very local level to give communities a stronger voice.[476]

383. We welcome the actions of the Government in improving the redress of individuals and communities whose concerns around ASB are not being addressed. In particular, we welcome the proposals in the White Paper on police reform for trigger powers to force local agencies to respond to ASB. We recommend that, if these proposals are adopted, the Government ensures that the use of the trigger powers is closely monitored and used to feed into the evidence base about the quality of local responses to ASB.

451 Q 149 Back

452 Ibid. Back

453 Q 45 Back

454 Q 46 Back

455 Q 533 Back

456 Q 545, quoted in paragraphs 168 and 245. Back

457 Ev 33, HC 80-II Back

458 Ev 21, HC 80-II Back

459 See Mr Winter at Q 459 and much other evidence. Back

460 Q 474 Back

461 Ibid. Back

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