28. Memorandum submitted by Nacro
Nacro is the leading crime reduction charity
in England and Wales. The organisation's prime purpose is to make
society safer through the development of effective approaches
to crime prevention and through the promotion and delivery of
constructive interventions, with offenders, which emphasise social
inclusion and community involvement.
Nacro employs more than 1,400 staff employed
in a broad range of settings. These include housing, employment
and training, restorative justice, prison based and community
based projects, and interventions with young people in trouble
or at risk of offending. Nacro's Youth Crime and Mental Health
Sections provide specialist services in their own fields that
operate within the overall philosophy of the organisation.
INTRODUCTION
There can be little doubt over the priority
accorded to measures to combat Anti-social Behaviour. The White
Paper on anti-social behaviour, [91]the
rapid production and progress through Parliament of the Anti-social
Behaviour Act 2003, the launch of the Government Anti-social Behaviour
Action Plan[92]
and the Prime Minister's involvement in the promotion of its activities
are all testament to this. This is all the more remarkable given
that 15 years ago the expression was scarcely in use, and the
concept of anti-social behaviour, as a predisposing factor to
offending, although anecdotally and experientially recognised
by practitioners, was not part of a clearly articulated and evidenced
model.
Before addressing the specific issues set out
by the Home Affairs Committee, there are three general issues
Nacro would raise.
GENERAL ISSUES
Anti-social behaviour—a "youth"
issue?
Although generally anti-social behaviour measures
are applicable to all age groups, there is an underlying impression,
promoted by the media and in particular certain parts of the popular
press that anti-social behaviour is essentially a "youth"
issue, dealing with the activities of "teenage yobs"
and "young louts". This is reinforced by the readiness
with which local press resorts to extensive coverage of ASBOs
on teenagers and the fact although it was nearly 18 months before
the first ASBO was made on a youth, nearly 65% of ASBOs[93]
have been on those under 18.
The use of language
The terminology often used by practitioners
involved in anti-social behaviour work is that of the criminal
justice system. Thus those who carry out anti-social acts are
"offenders", they do not behave anti-socially but "offend".
Often this is a "carry over" from these practitioners
previous backgrounds and the use of such terms is an easy way
to refer to "perpetrators" engaging in "anti-social
acts". Also most anti-social behaviour constitutes an offence,
it is just they are not being investigated through the criminal
route. Nacro feels it is particularly important to maintain the
distance between those in the criminal justice system and those
who are not. Those subject to anti-social behaviour measures have
not been convicted of an offence, not even those subject to an
ASBO.
The use of ASBOs for those experiencing mental
health problems
There are a small number of people who experience
severe mental health problems and exhibit anti-social behaviour
and who might not always be responsible eg someone who is psychotic.
Many local authorities use ASB measures to respond to people with
mental health problems rather than comply with their duties to
provide support. Nacro believes this could lead to a person with
mental health needs facing eviction from their home when there
should be adequate support and supervision in place for them.
ASBOs could be given to people with personality disorder—rather
than seeking out treatment for them—or people not taking
their medication or drinking.
SPECIFIC ISSUES
The causes of anti-social behaviour
Attention was drawn in the early 1990s to communities
which appeared to be "disintegrating" in the face of
crime, drug use and dealing, and lack of investment in their fabric
by the popularising of the term "sink estates". Often
this occurred in "inner city" communities experiencing
extreme poverty and economic hardship. Concern was focussed on
the degree, seeming intractability and generational nature of
"social exclusion", as the shutting down of economic
and social opportunities became known.
Increasingly research pointed to the association
of anti-social behaviour with offending, and the "fear of
crime"[94]
with persistent petty offences. [95]This
often involved groups or neighbours and was seen as a major concern
to the wider public. [96]Research
also highlighted that the worst effects of victimisation, often
with children as the victims, were often felt in poorer communities,
with lack of legal assistance for victims who were the subject
of actual or feared intimidation and reprisals. A model of what
was termed the "Anti-social Behaviour cycle" was developed
in by the Audit Commission in "Mis-spent Youth" (Audit
Commission London 1996) and "Mis-spent Youth '98" (Audit
Commission London 1998) which clearly identified:
— Aggressive, hyperactive behaviour;
— Truancy and exlcusions;
— Unstable living conditions;
— Lack of training and employment;
and
as particular, self reinforcing characteristics of
communities in which anti-social behaviour is a feature and which
may provide a clear route for young people into offending. [97]This
model coupled with has been termed the "Crime Careers"
model of generational anti-social behaviour and offending[98]
has received wide acceptance in explaining the perpetuation of
social exclusion and the apparent intractable nature of what are
essentially social welfare problems in these communities. [99]
Since then much work has been undertaken on
what are now termed "risk factors". Possibly the most
comprehensive is "YJB Research Note No 5; Risk and protective
factors associated with youth crime and effective interventions
to prevent it" (2001; Youth Justice Board; London). What
is particularly striking from the work on "risk factors"
is the congruency between those relevant to anti-social/offending
behaviour, and those relevant to the safeguarding and promoting
of welfare of children. It simply is not the case that a particular
set of risk factors surrounds those involved in anti-social/offending
behaviour and a separate, distinct set surrounds those who need
safeguarding and having their welfare promoted. There does appear
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.
Effectiveness and proportionality of current powers
Clearly it is not possible to comment on certain
of the powers introduced by the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003
as they have either been in force for a limited period of time
or await implementation.
Nacro would urge the Committee to seek assurances
that before Penalty Notices for Disorderly Behaviour (PNDs) are
rolled out nationally to 10-15 year olds the measure is thoroughly
piloted and fully evaluated. There are particular issues relating
to the appropriateness of using this measure for this age group
and the absence of involvement of any adult in the process of
notice issue. In the light of comments made by the Prime Minister[100]
there may be pressure not to do this.
GROUP DISPERSAL
POWERS
As well as the time the powers have been available,
the widely varying ways different Police Forces have applied these
powers (ranging from immediate use to use only as a last resort
after all other diversionary avenues have been explored) means
it is difficult to comment on effectiveness.
As to whether the measures are proportionate
Nacro argues:
(a) without an ability to vary the hours
during which dispersal powers are available to be exercised;
(b) without clear guidelines and models to
ensure inclusiveness of all in the consultation process with the
local community; and
(c) with widely varying thresholds for the
use of these powers.
it is difficult to see how instances where their
use is disproportionate can be avoided. It must also be remembered
use of these powers has not yet been tested in the higher domestic
and European courts.
ACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOUR
CONTRACTS
It is accepted that there is value in a process
which makes people aware of the impact of their behaviour on others.
However, nationally it is difficult to assess effectiveness of
these as there appears to be no central collation of numbers made
and outcomes. The proportionality of the restrictions is in some
doubt, as the ability to negotiate these is not assured.
ANTI-SOCIAL
BEHAVIOUR ORDERS
It is clear that simple numbers are inadequate
to judge whether ASBOs are effective or not. "Status"
issues ie whether a measure of last resort or not obviously have
relevance. A locality with numerous ASBOs could be seen as "failing",
if they are making full use of all the other measures. Where children
are involved the length of the order could be significant in proportionality—a
five year order for a 10 year old is 50% of their life; for a
40 year old 12.5%. Nacro would argue order length for children
should take account of maturational processes. Nacro counsels
caution in determining the nature of prohibitions for example
those relating to clothing and/or are nationwide. Breach of ASBOs
is viewed by the court as a serious matter, with an entry level
of custody. Nacro argues this is disproportionate for children,
young people and vulnerable adults in particular. Nacro welcomes
recent suggestions[101]
that this outcome should be one of last resort.
Enforcement and co-ordination
Nacro is opposed to a blanket policy of "enforcement
by publicity". This further promotes the exclusion of those
who are often already amongst the most vulnerable groups.
Co-ordination between agencies involved in anti-social
behaviour measures is variable, with authorities nearly adjacent
within a particular region displaying widely ranging levels of
consultation and communication. Where there exists a clearly coordinated
process for planning for applications, much more opportunities
for diversionary efforts exist, and these are often part of the
process. Nacro believes this provides an effective, structured
way to prevent formal proceedings which are kept as a "last
resort", and thus avoid unnecessary use of measures which
are costly to obtain and monitor. Devon and Cornwall Police have
adopted this strategy.
Impact of Government initiatives
Currently we are in the paradoxical situation
of increasing the fear of mis-behaviour during a period of sustained
reduction in offending overall. Nacro believes a balance needs
to be struck which promotes the awareness of anti-social behaviour
measures without increasing fear of crime. [102]
The role of parenting support, youth and community
services and the youth justice system in diverting young people
from ASB
Given the identified risk factors above, it
is clear that parenting support programmes (preferably available
on a voluntary basis), youth and community services all have a
significant part to play in diverting young people from anti-social
behaviour. The results of the Youth Justice Board sponsored preventive
initiatives and the reported reduction in communities of instances
of anti-social behaviour during the periods they are in operation
confirm their value. However work is needed to shift the emphasis
of such work from "risk reduction" to "promotion
of protective factors".
Nacro would counsel caution over involvement
of the youth justice system in this activity. Engagement with
criminal justice agencies for those not involved in offending
behaviour, or even below the age of criminal responsibility, raises
issues of stigmatisation resulting in possible promotion of social
exclusion. A possible solution would be the involvement of the
voluntary sector in direct provision, albeit under the aegis of
a YOT, which might put a degree of "distance" between
criminal justice agencies those not in the system.
Disparities in levels of ASB and in the use of
powers to combat it across the country
The latest figures indicate widely varying rates
of use of ASBOs and there are reportedly widely varying uses of
such as group dispersal powers. It is difficult to believe that
Manchester is more than twice as "anti-social" as the
whole of the Metropolitan Police area. Indeed the results of the
one day anti-social behaviour audit would not support this. Variation
in the extent to which diversionary strategies are employed and
whether formal powers are used as a "last resort" measure
confound the use of formal powers as a comparator for the extent
of anti-social behaviour in different localities.
Responsibilities of the private sector for tackling
anti-social behaviour
Nacro sees only a limited role for the private
sector in such as evidence gathering eg by private security in
"private" public space (shopping malls), it sees no
role in terms of the exercise of powers.
In line with comments made above Nacro sees
an extensive role for voluntary organisations in the provision
of preventive services which would separate non-criminal service
provision from criminal justice system agencies and prevent stigmatisation.
CONCLUSION
In Nacro's view while enforcement measures have
a part to play in tackling anti-social behaviour, the greater
emphasis should be placed on prevention and rehabilitation. This
is particularly important in view of the evidence that:
— Providing effective support to families
under stress significantly reduces the likelihood that children
will become delinquent or engage in anti-social behaviour.
— Effective pre-school education programmes
increase the likelihood of educational achievement at school,
and reduces the likelihood of offending and anti-social behaviour
in later life.
— Tackling issues of truancy and school
inclusion can reduce offending and anti-social behaviour by young
people who are not benefiting from the school system.
— Reducing youth unemployment can substantially
reduce youth offending and anti-social behaviour.
— Providing accommodation and support
for homeless young people and adults significantly reduces the
likelihood of their committing offences and engaging in anti-social
behaviour.
— Well structured, youth activity programmes
in high crime, disadvantaged areas can significantly reduce local
rates of youth offending and anti-social behaviour.
13 September 2004
91 Respect and Responsibility-Taking a stand against
Anti-social Behaviour (Cm 5778) Home Office 2003. Back
92
Together-tackling anti-social behaviour Home Office (2003). Back
93
Available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/kenyon_ _confronts/3230997.stm Back
94
Some examples of work focusing on these are Broken Windows Wilson,
J Q, and Kelling G, in Atlantic Monthly (1982) February
pp 46-53; Disorder and Decline-Crime and the spiral of decay in
American neighbourhoodss Skogan, W, (1990)University of California
Press; Safety in numbers Audit Commission (1999); DETR Analysis
of English Housing 1997-98 (1999). Back
95
Such as littering, graffiti, abuse, obstruction, and criminal
damage. Back
96
Some doubt has recently been cast on the degree and extent of
the fear crime see "The Frequency of the "Fear of Crime"
Farrell and Dodd to be published British Journal of Criminology
vol 44 no 1. Back
97
A Review of Prevention and Intervention Strategies for the Task
Force on Youth Justice Rutter, M, GIller, H and Hagell, A Home
Office (1997) unpublished-quoted at p49 Mis-spent Youth '98 Audit
Commission (1998) London. Back
98
Human development and criminal careers Farrington, D quoted in
The Oxford Handbook of Criminology Macguire, M, Morgan, R, and
Reiner, R (eds) (1994). Back
99
For a consideration of anti-social behaviour and children see
"Anti-social Behaviour by young people" Rutter M, Giller
H & Hagell A (1998) Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Back
100
Official Report, Commons, 21 January 2004; col 1319. Back
101
See YJB/ASBU Guidance to Youth Offending Team role in
Anti-social Behaviour (March 2004). Back
102
Some doubt has recently been cast on the degree and extent of
the fear crime see "The Frequency of the Fear of Crime"
Farrell & Dodd; British Journal of Criminology vol
44 no 1. Back
| 
