12. Memorandum submitted by the Crime
and Society Foundation
INTRODUCTION
1. This memorandum argues that:
(a) The current definition of anti-social
behaviour does not provide a sound basis for effective policy.
(b) The Government's anti-social behaviour
strategy has in practice drawn many vulnerable people into the
criminal justice system. In other words it has widened the net.
(c) The current anti-social behaviour strategy,
which places so much of an emphasis on the imposition of the ASBO,
should be rethought.
2. The Crime and Society Foundation agrees
that there are behaviours that are of real concern to people in
their localities. These behaviours, which can be unpleasant and
threatening, need to be tackled and prevented. It is not evident
to the Foundation that many of these behaviours are new, or that
new laws are required to deal with them.
PROBLEMS OF
DEFINITION
3. The common definition of anti-social
behaviour (ASB) is contained in the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act.
This defined ASB as "[a]cting in a manner that caused or
was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to one or more
persons not of the same household as [the defendant]." In
its 2003 White Paper, Respect and Responsibility, the government
argued that ASB can mean "different things to different people".
4. In practice, therefore, the definition
of ASB is based on a subjective judgement about impact rather
than an objective definition of any particular acts. The Foundation
believes that this subjectivity of definition is a key weakness
of current policy. This view is reinforced by a recent Home Office
Report, Defining and measuring anti-social behaviour, which
observes that "by describing the consequences of behaviour
rather than defining the behaviour itself, the definition lacks
specificity and measurability".
5. An attempt to address this lack of specificity
and measurability was made by the Anti-Social Behaviour Unit as
part of its one day count of reported anti-social behaviour in
September 2003. For this exercise a typology was developed, covering
a range of behaviours, from potentially serious offences such
as opening a crack house to the frankly trivial: letting down
car tyres or dropping litter. The count measured 66,107 reports
of anti-social behaviour in that one day, amounting to an estimated
16.5 million reports per year.
6. In the Foundation's view this attempt
to specify and measure anti-social behaviour identifies another
weakness in current anti-social behaviour definition: the attempt
to hold under one encompassing concept a wide range of different
behaviours. As Louise Casey, the director of the Anti-Social Behaviour
Unit put it in a recent interview with the ePolitix website, "[a]nti-social
behaviour spans a vast list. . . It is a very big range of problems".
7. If the objective is to impact on activities
legitimately concerning the public, it is important to be able
to disaggregate different types of behaviours and to specify and
measure what is of concern in order to design and evaluate effective
policy responses. It is the Foundation's contention that current
anti-social behaviour legislation and policy makes difficult such
an approach.
8. Problems of definition lead to problems
of solution. In the view of the Foundation the combination of
a definition based on subjective criteria and an attempt to encompass
a wide range of behaviours under one term leads to inappropriate,
expensive and sometimes draconian policy responses.
NET WIDENING
9. Whilst many people may feel they have
a common sense notion of what ASB is, at the level of front line
practical social policy implementation such vagueness and subjectivity
should be a cause for concern. This is particularly the case with
Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs). While ASBOs are sometimes
issued to prevent people from doing things which are genuinely
disturbing or distressing for others, they are also being used
in absurd situations and are impacting upon people whose behaviours
are a result of vulnerability rather than criminality.
10. The Foundation's main concern is about
the emerging evidence-base regarding the impact of ASBOs on the
vulnerable.
11. Recent research by the consortium Emerging
Role of Sheltered Housing (EROSH) points to an increase in the
use of ASBOs to evict pensioners from sheltered housing. According
to Meic Phillips, the chair of EROSH's good practice group, the
behaviours giving rise to these evictions are the result of diminishing
health, such as the onset of dementia or other mental health problems
associated with the aging process. This can then be exacerbated
by communication breakdowns between agencies at the time the placement
is made, leading to information about previously known behavioural
problems not being passed on (personal communication 03.09.2004).
What in the past would have been managed as health-care problems
are in some cases now being redefined as problems of anti-social
behaviour. The Foundation supports Meic Phillip's call for research
on the impact of ASBOs on the elderly in sheltered accommodation
and would suggest that this be led by the Department of Health.
12. It is not only the elderly who are liable
to being considered anti-social rather than needy. Research by
Caroline Hunter and Judy Nixon into ASB and social housing indicates
that two thirds of those described as being involved in ASB have
some form of vulnerability. These include those who are victims
of sexual and physical abuse (18%), those with mental disability
(18%), those with drug and alcohol addictions (23%), those with
a physical disability (9%) and households with children who were
out of control (15%) and combinations thereof (2001a).
13. Hunter and Nixon also indicate that
the holistic approach advocated by the Social Exclusion Unit Policy
Action Team on anti-social behaviour was not found to be operational
in the social housing sector. As a result tenants evicted from
social housing often end up in local private sector housing with
behavioural problems displaced rather than resolved. Social landlords
reported to Hunter and Nixon that they were issuing eviction proceedings
due to ASB as a way of forcing the co-operation of social service
departments in relation to vulnerable residents.
14. Research by Mark Foord, Frances Young
and Annie Huntington, reviewing how housing responses to ASB impacted
on social work practice, also points to an absence of joint working
between housing providers and social services. According to their
research housing agencies are more readily resorting to eviction,
boosting the numbers of families in temporary accommodation.
15. In the research cited above there are
very few examples of the balanced holistic approach advocated
by the Social Exclusion Unit and many examples of housing organisations
simply by-passing even the fast-track multi-agency process suggested
by Siobhan Campbell's review of anti-social behaviour orders for
the Home Office. Instead they move swiftly to warning, order and
eviction in quick succession. Pressure on resources, pressure
from those impacted on by the alleged behaviour and the complexity
of creating multi-agency processes lead resource-stretched organisations
to implement the most direct measure with little consultation.
16. There are also indications that lone
mothers are not being treated fairly under ASB legislation. Analysis
by Judy Nixon and Caroline Hunter shows that in 66% of cases of
evictions of women as tenants the cases focused on the behaviour
of a violent or disruptive partner or a teenage child (usually
male) and that these women were three times more likely to have
been subject to sexual or physical abuse. In 66% of cases with
women as tenants there had been no visit made before legal action
was taken. It is very likely that women who are the victims of
domestic violence will be evicted as a result of the behaviour
of the abuser (2001b).
17. The Foundation is concerned that the
use of anti-social behaviour legislation with regard to the vulnerable
represents an extension of the criminal justice state into policy
areas that have until recently been conceived of as matters for
the Department of Health and local social services departments.
OTHER ISSUES
18. The above point is related to a further
general concern that the ASB policy development process has had
the effect of encouraging the view that there are criminal justice
solutions to a wide range of social problems. The creation of
24,000 Community Support Officers whose remit will be to tackle
anti-social behaviour as currently defined is one example of this.
19. Siobhan Campbell's research for the
Home Office also points out that 36% of ASBOs are breached in
the first nine months and over 50% of breaches end in a custodial
sentence. Given the costs to those drawn in, the costs to their
families, the cost to the Treasury, and the poor record of the
criminal justice system both in relation to young people and also
in preventing re-offending, is such an extension of the criminal
justice activity justified?
20. Finally, whilst it is not a core focus
of our representation to this Inquiry, the Foundation would support
calls for the reversal of policy on naming and shaming young people
subject to ASBOs. In our view it is right that the Home Secretary
opposes the naming of paedophiles and we agree with the recent
court judgement questioning the desirability of the naming and
shaming of a burglar through a local poster campaign (Ellis v
the Chief Constable of Essex Police, 2003). The Foundation hopes
that there would be agreement that protection should be offered
to teenagers who may well have not even committed a criminal offence.
RECOMMENDATIONS
21. The Crime and Society Foundation recommends
the following:
(a) that the concept of anti-social behaviour
is getting in the way of serious and sensible policy-making in
this area and should be dispensed with;
(b) that ASB strategies intended to deal
with what can be nuisance or disruptive behaviour are too often
targeting vulnerable people in need and should therefore be rethought.
15 September 2004
REFERENCES: Campbell,
S (2002), A review of anti-social behaviour orders. Home
Office Research Study 236.
Casey, L (2004), Interview with Epolitix website.
http://www.epolitix.com/EN/ForumInterviews/200408/b91b343f-7095-4312-985a-2c938f665744.htm
"Ellis v the Chief Constable of Essex
Police" (2003). CO/530/2003.
Foord, M, Young, F and Huntington, A (2004), "No
room for nuisance." Community Care April 22.
Hunter C and Nixon J (2001a), "Social Landlords
Responses to Neighbour Nuisance and Anti-Social Behaviour"
Local Government Studies Vol 27 No 4.
(2001b), "Women and anti-social behaviour."
Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law Vol 23 No 4.
Home Office (2003a), Respect and Responsibility—Taking
a Stand Against Anti-Social Behaviour. CM 5778.
Home Office (2003b), Together: The one day count
of anti-social behaviour.
Home Office (2004), Defining and measuring anti-social
behaviour. Home Office Development and Practice Report 26.
Social Exclusion Unit (2000), Report of Policy
Action Team 8: Anti-social behaviour.
| 
