2 Minimising anti-social behaviour
in the community
7. The Home Office had more recently begun to address
the issue of providing support to those involved in Anti-Social
Behaviour as part of a twin-track approach of providing enforcement
and support. It had previously concentrated on putting in place
the powers to tackle anti-social behaviour, but was now formally
addressing the support needs of those involved in anti-social
behaviour through the Respect Action Plan published in January
2006. Examples of supportive interventions included attendance
at drug rehabilitation schemes, parenting classes or youth schemes.
These could be used for individuals either at risk of becoming
engaged in or already engaged in anti-social behaviour.[14]
8. Early intervention to address the risk of young
people falling into anti-social behaviour is likely to be the
most effective approach. For example, fully evaluated evidence
from the Syracuse Study[15]
of 108 deprived families in the United States, who received home
visits and day care from the third trimester of pregnancy until
age five, had shown that ten years after the intervention ended,
6% of the target group had been referred to probation in comparison
with 22% of a control group.[16]
In England, programmes such as Sure Start aimed to give every
child the best start in life by bringing together at an early
stage education, health, childcare and family support.
9. Sure Start and other early years intervention
programmes are, however, most likely to be attended by children
with compliant parents or carers, as take up is not mandatory.
Older children at risk of engaging in anti-social behaviour were
often from family units already known to the police, social workers
and educational welfare officers because of their chaotic lifestyles.
Support services had tended to tackle individual members of the
family, for example the police in respect of a father with a criminal
background, social workers for a mother with depression and educational
welfare officers with a child playing truant. Under the Respect
Action Plan published in 2006, 50 family intervention projects
were being set up across the country to look at the whole family,
taking account of all issues affecting the family such as drug
taking, mental health and the relationship between the parent(s)
and children, as well as seeking to prevent anti-social behaviour.[17]
10. Getting different services, such as mental health
teams and social service departments, to address the needs of
those involved in anti-social behaviour was a major challenge
because of the multi-faceted response required. Being able to
mobilise support services such as social services and mental health
teams was critical for many anti-social behaviour co-ordinators.
The Social Exclusion Action Plan, to be published in summer 2007,
was expected to address gaps in services and improve responsiveness.
Perpetrators could also refuse support and could not be compelled
to take up support even if it was necessary to address factors
underlying their anti-social behaviour. The Respect Task Force
was encouraging the use of Individual Support Orders and Parenting
Orders which require people to take up support but the number
of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders being issued with Individual Support
Orders attached was still very low.[18]
11. The Respect Task Force was promoting a theme
of encouraging and rewarding perpetrators' adherence to the terms
of interventions whilst enforcing breaches rigorously. Diversionary
activities, such as youth clubs, community action groups, sporting
activities and vocational activities also had an important place
alongside interventions to help channel people away from anti-social
activities. Lack of community facilities could not, however, be
an excuse for anti-social behaviour. Other local initiatives included
schemes which promoted community service and neighbourhood pride,
alongside less formal interventions, such as parenting classes.
The Task Force could share examples of good practice. Hackney,
for example, had given certificates to young people on completion
of Acceptable Behaviour Contracts showing that praise could be
effective in rewarding those who completed their interventions
without further incidents.[19]
12. Victims and witnesses of anti-social behaviour
may have a greater fear of intimidation and reprisal, as they
often know the perpetrators and may see them daily. Special measures
introduced in court had helped witnesses retain greater anonymity,
but there was no national network of community advice or support
services for victims or witnesses of anti-social behaviour, and
local support and advice was patchy. There was a need to develop
local community support networks, and the Respect Task Force had
encouraged 'Taking a Stand' award winners to share their experiences.
In Plymouth, for example, two award winners from Petals provided
a telephone advice line.[20]
In 2002, when our predecessors took evidence on the provision
of support to victims and witnesses of crime, they recommended
that the Home Office should review arrangements for providing
local and specialist support to vulnerable groups and for referral
between services.[21]
13. A relatively small core of people repeatedly
engage in anti-social behaviour, causing misery and distress to
local communities. Many such individuals already have criminal
convictions and an Anti-Social Behaviour Order and some would
be part of prolific and priority offender programmes. Powers existed
to evict problem individuals or families if they were council
or social housing tenants, but this had the effect of moving the
problem on, rather than dealing with it. Encouraging people to
accept co-ordinated support was often successful. Where people
had received Anti-Social Behaviour Orders and breached these repeatedly,
however, a pragmatic approach had to be taken which included returning
people to court promptly and consideration of the use of custodial
sentences.[22]
14. Communities were frustrated and concerned by
the lack of rapid action by the courts to obtain and act on breaches
of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders. The Home Office was unable to
provide specific information on the time taken to bring cases
relating to Anti-Social Behaviour Orders to court. However, in
an effort to improve the responsiveness of the courts to breaches
of such Orders the Home Office had introduced 157 Anti-Social
Behaviour Response Courts situated within 31 Criminal Justice
Areas, together with a network of 14 specialist anti-social behaviour
prosecutors. They were also disseminating best practice on the
use of legal powers through Respect Action Day.[23]
HM Courts Service has also recently published a good practice
guide to help the courts deal with Anti-Social Behaviour Orders
which includes consideration of methods for speeding up hearings
on breaches of these Orders.[24]
14 Qq 57, 97, 98 Back
15
Greenwood, p., Model, K., Rydell, P.C., and Chiesa, J. (1998)
Diverting Children from a Life of Crime: Measuring Costs and
Benefits, Rand Monograph Report, MR-699-UCB/RC/IF, Santa Monica,
USA Back
16
Qq 35, 37, 38 Back
17
Qq 96, 156 Back
18
Q 81; Ev 27; C&AG's Report, paras 3.6, 3.7 Back
19
Qq 95, 103 Back
20
Q 104 Back
21
Qq 82, 83; Committee of Public Accounts, Seventeenth Report of
Session 2001-02, Helping Victims and Witnesses: The Work of
Victim Support, HC 635 Back
22
C&AG's Report, Appendix 3; Qq 81, 116, 127, 146 Back
23
C&AG's Report, para 2.20; Ev 24-25 Back
24
HM Courts Service, Anti-Social Behaviour Orders Good Practice
Guide, April 2007 Back
|
