Consultation outcome

Community safety partnerships review and antisocial behaviour powers: government response

Updated 14 November 2023

Introduction and background

This is the government response to the Community Safety Partnerships Review and Anti-Social Behaviour Powers consultation which ran from 27 March to 22 May 2023. Three hundred and sixty eight responses were received. The government is grateful to all of those who took the time to respond.

Community Safety Partnerships (CSPs) were introduced by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. CSPs bring together local partners to formulate and deliver strategies to tackle crime and anti-social behaviour (ASB) in their communities. The responsible authorities who make up a CSP are the Police, Fire and Rescue Authority, local authorities, health partners and probation services.

In July 2021, the government published the findings from Part 2 of its review of Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs). The Review found that, while the importance of local partnerships such as CSPs was widely acknowledged, they were not being used as effectively as they could be. The PCC Review recommended that the Home Office conduct a full review of CSPs across England and Wales. This consultation formed Part 1 of the CSP review. The PCC Review additionally advised that the Home Office should consider introducing a new duty for CSPs to report on local ASB strategy and delivery to PCCs, and set out more clearly PCCs’ role in the ASB Case Review process. ^{[footnote 1]}

As part of the ASB Action Plan ^{[footnote 2]} published on 27 March 2023, the government set out a new framework for central government, police forces, PCCs, local authorities and other partners, such as housing associations and youth offending teams, to work together to prevent and tackle ASB. As part of the plan, the Home Office committed to consult on strengthening some of the powers in the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (the ‘2014 Act’) to achieve greater and more consistent use. Home Office researchers conducted interviews with police ASB leads and practitioners which fed into the development of the consultation and developed the evidence base for police use and perceptions of ASB powers ^{[footnote 3]}.  

Under the ASB Action Plan, the Home Office also committed to consult on the expansion of the 2014 Act powers to Community Safety Accreditation Scheme (CSAS) Officers and on potential new drug testing powers outside of custody suites.

This document provides an overview of the responses received by the Community Safety Partnerships Review and Anti-Social Behaviour Powers Consultation, summarising key themes across the question sets, and how the responses will inform recommendations for future activity and legislation. This response does not attempt to capture every point made by respondents, nor does it cover comments on aspects of policy that fall outside the scope of the consultation.

Overview of responses and methodology

The consultation was open to all, with questions geared mainly towards respondents with experience of working in or with CSPs, and work in the remit of ASB powers.

To ensure responses relating to CSPs and ASB were not conflated, respondents were asked at the start which elements of the survey were relevant to them (CSPs, ASB powers, or both).

The consultation included closed and open questions. Thematic analysis was employed for free text boxes, and coding additionally captured whether a response was supportive of a proposal or not. The coding was updated throughout analysis to ensure that all themes were captured.

The consultation received 368 responses. There was a relative spread of respondent locations across England and Wales (see Table 1: Breakdown of CSP & ASB Respondent Geographic Location).

Table 1: Breakdown of CSP & ASB Respondent Geographic Location

Geographic area in which respondents’ work is located	Response Percent	Response Total
England and Wales	9%	33
England only	86%	318
Wales only	5%	17

Respondents were invited to answer thirty-six questions across four thematic sections:

• Part 1: Information sharing between CSPs and PCCs
• Part 2: Accountability of CSPs
• Part 3: CSP and PCC relationship in tackling anti-social behaviour
• Part 4: Anti-social behaviour powers

Community safety partnerships

The CSP sections of the consultation received 336 formal responses from a variety of organisations and individuals (see Table 2: Breakdown of CSP Respondent Professional Background). The majority of responses (57%) were from individuals who work in CSPs, and individuals responding on behalf of CSPs. Not all respondents answered every question. All responses have been analysed and given full consideration.

Table 2: Breakdown of CSP Respondent Professional Background

Type of consultation respondent	Response Percent	Response Total
CSP member (either an individual member or responding on behalf of CSP)	57%	193
Local authority member	16%	53
PCC or Office of the PCC	10%	33
Housing	4%	14
Police or law enforcement representative	4%	12
Member of the public	3%	11
Representative of national organisation	2%	8
Fire and rescue services	2%	6
Consultant	1%	3
Academic researcher	1%	2
Other	-	1

Antisocial behaviour

The ASB sections of the consultation received 300 formal responses from a variety of organisations and individuals. Not all respondents answered every question. The majority of responses (54%) were from individuals who work in CSPs, and individuals responding on behalf of CSPs. All responses have been analysed and given full consideration.

Table 3: Breakdown of ASB Powers Respondent Professional Background.

Type of consultation respondent	Response Percent [footnote 4]	Response Total
CSP member (either an individual member or responding on behalf of CSP)	54%	161
Local authority member	19%	56
PCC or Office of the PCC	9%	26
Housing	6%	19
Police or law enforcement representative	3%	9
Member of the public	4%	12
Representative of national organisation	3%	9
Fire and rescue services	1%	2
Consultant	1%	2
Academic researcher	1%	2
Other	1%	2

Part 1 – Information sharing between CSPs and PCCs

Part 1 of the consultation sought opinions on potential changes regarding CSPs’ Strategic Assessments and Partnership Plans. These changes were proposed with the aim of better aligning the work of CSPs and PCCs.

Improving and sharing strategic assessments

The first set of questions explored appetite for a requirement for CSPs to demonstrate how they are supporting the delivery of their PCC’s Police and Crime Plan, views on the type of information CSPs should share with their PCC, and whether any of this information should be published.

Q1. Do you think that the strategic assessment should include detail of how the CSP has delivered its PCC’s Police and Crime Plan?

Total respondents: 336

Yes	No	Don’t Know
65%	28%	7%

Almost two thirds of respondents agreed that the CSP’s strategic assessment should include detail of how the CSP has contributed to its PCC’s Police and Crime Plan. This was consistent across England and Wales. Of the CSP members who responded, 55% agreed with the proposal, compared to 88% of PCC representatives. ^{[footnote 5]}

Q2. Do you think that the CSP strategy group should send a copy of its strategic assessment to its PCC?

Total respondents: 336

Yes	No	Don’t Know
93%	4%	3%

Respondents overwhelmingly agreed that CSPs should share their strategic assessment with their PCC. Some responses noted concerns in relation to data sharing and sensitive information. Risks of this nature could be mitigated through robust agreed due process in the sharing of the assessments.

Q3. Do you think that CSPs should publish their strategic assessment and/or an executive summary of their strategic assessment?

Total respondents: 336

Yes (full strategic assessment)	Yes (full strategic assessment and an executive summary)	Yes (executive summary of the strategic assessment)	No	Don’t Know
21%	23%	49%	4%	4%

Responses overwhelmingly supported the proposal that CSPs should publish their strategic assessment. However, there were varied responses regarding the extent of the detail that should be shared. Around half of respondents felt that CSPs should publish only the executive summary of their strategic assessment; around one in five supported publishing both the full strategic assessment and executive summary, and around one in five thought the full strategic assessment only should be shared.

Q4. Do you think that CSP strategy groups in Wales should send a copy of their partnership plan to their PCC? If you do not operate in a Welsh context, please select ‘Not applicable’

Total respondents: 25

Yes	No	Don’t Know
84%	8%	8%

While a smaller sample responded to this question, the proposal that CSPs in Wales should send a copy of their partnership plan to their PCCs was strongly supported (84%). This is already a requirement for CSPs in England, which is why the question was tailored to the Welsh context.

PCC recognition of CSP activity

This section explored whether PCCs should recognise CSPs’ priorities , and how the working relationship between PCCs and CSPs can be improved.

Q5. Do you think that PCCs should demonstrate how they have had regard to the priorities of the responsible authorities making up the CSPs in the police force area?

Total respondents: 336

Yes	No	Don’t Know
93%	3%	4%

The vast majority (93%) of respondents agreed that PCCs should demonstrate how they have had regard to the priorities of the CSP(s) in their police force area. This was consistent across England and Wales. 73% of PCCs that responded were supportive of the proposal.

Questions six and seven invited free text responses. Question six asked respondents what steps could be taken to improve the way PCCs and CSPs work together. Many responses emphasised the need for better mutual understanding of priorities and more strategic alignment for both CSPs and PCCs. However, views on how this should be achieved differed. Some responses proposed that the PCC should set priorities, while others suggested PCCs should be led by CSP priorities. Several responses flagged the complexity and inconsistency of the geographical split of CSPs as a factor to consider. Many also noted that PCC priorities are not the same as those at the hyper-local level of CSPs. Some PCC respondents expressed a wish for PCCs to have the power to determine structural arrangements of CSPs.

Many respondents requested a clear definition of the relationship, responsibility, and accountability structures between CSPs and PCCs, for example through updated guidance or legislation. Many responses underlined that PCCs should communicate more clearly with CSPs about funding and strategy, and ensure they understand issues CSPs are facing in their local area. Some respondents from CSPs flagged that they did not feel they had the resources to tackle the most significant risks affecting their locality.

Responses to question seven, which invited respondents to provide any further points to support their responses to questions one to six, echoed the responses to question six, with respondents additionally noting that partnership and governance arrangements at local authority level are complex and varied, with local authorities requiring more guidance regarding who should attend the CSP. Responses to question seven also emphasised a lack of consistency across CSPs’ Strategic Assessments. Many noted that the relationship between PCCs and CSPs should be collaborative, with some responses providing evidence of strong existing relationships.

Part 2 – Accountability of CSPs

Part 2 of the consultation focussed on the role of PCCs in CSP activity. It sought views on whether strengthening the accountability of CSPs to PCCs would improve the delivery of effective outcomes for the public.

CSPs’ role in delivering PCC priorities

This set of questions considered whether CSPs could better aid and support the delivery of PCC’s Police and Crime Plans, and whether PCCs should have the ability to review whether a CSP’s activity has contributed to the delivery of their Police and Crime Plan.

Q8. Do you think that PCCs should have a more active role regarding how they interact with CSPs to drive the delivery of the priorities in their Police and Crime Plans?

Total respondents: 336

Yes	No	Don’t Know
60%	30%	10%

Six in ten respondents agreed that PCCs should have a more active role in CSP activity. Three in ten disagreed, and one in ten were unsure. PCCs and police representatives were around twice as likely to agree with this (88% and 83% respectively) than members of CSPs (49%).

Open-ended responses strongly favoured PCCs having a more active role in the work of CSPs. Noted benefits of this approach included enhanced collaborative working (including among local partners), improved efficiency in allocating shared resources and funding and improved information sharing.

There were however questions raised regarding what a ‘more active’ role looks like in practice, and respondents stated that they would benefit from a stronger definition of a ‘more active’ PCC role and clearer understanding of what the impact of this would be. The Home Office recognises this and will provide more detailed guidance as the CSP review progresses (see Conclusion and Next Steps).

Q9. Do you think that PCCs should have a power to review the CSP’s strategic assessment?

Total respondents: 336

Yes	No	Don’t Know
35%	54%	11%

Just over half of respondents did not think that PCCs should have the power to review CSPs’ strategic assessments. Over one third agreed that they should have this power, and around one in ten did not know.

PCCs were more likely than CSPs to agree they should have this power, with 73% of PCC respondents agreeing. Only 28% of CSP members agreed with the proposal, with the majority (64%) disagreeing. The Home Office will take these responses into account to ensure an approach that balances the interests of CSPs and PCCs (see Conclusion and Next Steps).

PCC ability to drive CSP activity

This set of questions explored views on whether increasing PCC’s powers to make CSPs more accountable to them would result in improved outcomes for the public.

Q10. Do you think that PCCs should have a power to make recommendations on the activity of CSPs to support the delivery of the objectives set out in the Police and Crime Plan and guide the activity of CSPs to ensure delivery of better outcomes for local communities?

Total respondents: 336

Yes	No	Don’t Know
46%	46%	8%

Responses to this question were divided. 46% agreed that PCCs should have a new power enabling them to make recommendations on the activity of CSPs, and 46% disagreed with the proposal. 

CSP members were less likely to agree with this proposal (37% agreeing versus 57% disagreeing) compared to PCCs (85% agreeing versus 9% disagreeing).

Q11. If you responded ‘Yes’ to Question 10, do you think that CSPs should be required to take those recommendations into account? If you responded ‘No’ or ‘Don’t know’ to Question 10 please select ‘Not applicable’

Total responses: 156

Yes	No	Don’t Know
76%	20%	4%

Of those who responded ‘yes’ to PCCs having the power to make recommendations on the activity of CSPs, three quarters agreed that CSPs should be required to take these recommendations into account. One in five disagreed and 4% didn’t know.

Question twelve invited participants to provide any further information in support of their answers regarding strengthening the accountability of CSPs to PCCs. In these responses, the importance of collaboration in partnership working came through as a core theme, with many responses suggesting that no one party should hold greater power.

Qualitative respondents were generally in favour of the PCC being able to make recommendations to the CSP but noted that the CSP should not be mandated to accept these recommendations, and that recommendations should be accompanied by clear rationales.

Based on these responses, the Home Office intends to proceed with the proposal that PCCs have a power to make recommendations on the activity of CSPs, with the caveat that CSPs would not be mandated to accept PCCs recommendations (see Conclusion and Next Steps). 

Responses flagged concerns about the conflicting priorities of the PCC’s more regional and politicised focus, and the CSP’s more localised focus, and the potential risk of CSPs being mandated to accept proposals that were not relevant to their local areas. To mitigate this, the Home Office will provide guidance regarding how PCCs should make recommendations and what they should be based on, how CSPs should respond to recommendations, and mechanisms for resolution in the event of disagreement.

Supplementary comments

The final question in part 2 invited respondents to give any additional information they wished to be considered as part of their response.

Again, collaborative working was highlighted as the key point for consideration regarding the working relationship between PCCs and CSPs. Many responses highlighted that the geographical split of CSPs was important to consider, for example, where multiple CSPs fall under the remit of one PCC, and localities in which CSPs are merged.

The Home Office will take the varied needs of CSPs into account when developing its next steps. Responses also flagged variations across CSPs in terms of access to funding, with several responses voicing concern about the distribution of funds not being ‘streamlined’. This area will additionally be explored under Phase Two of the CSP Review.

Part 3 – CSP and PCC relationship in tackling anti-social behaviour

Part 3 of the consultation sought views on how CSPs and PCCs can work together better to tackle ASB. The potential changes were designed to encourage a joined-up approach which would put PCCs in a stronger position to challenge local agencies, align local ASB strategies to their Police and Crime Plan and hold the CSP to account for delivering the best outcomes for ASB victims. It sought responses to determine the PCC role in the ASB Case Review, with the aim of strengthening its use and providing a consistent service to victims no matter where they live in England and Wales. It also sought responses as to what data and strategy can be shared between both bodies, with the intention of a more collaborative approach to tackling local ASB issues.

Working relationship between CSPs and PCCs

The first two questions related to the ASB Case Review, specifically how PCCs currently work with CSPs and how this can go further.

Q14. How (if at all) does your local PCC currently work with your CSP in implementing the ASB Case Review?

Total respondents: 336

Response option	Response Percent
Audits previous case reviews	8%
Promotes awareness of the process	30%
Attends case review meetings as an independent party	8%
Convenes the relevant bodies to undertake the ASB Case Review	6%
Provides a route for victims to query decisions made on the ASB Case Review	24%
Provides guidance for the relevant bodies on the ASB Case Review process	14%
Monitors use of the ASB Case Review to identify learning and best practice	17%
PCC has no involvement with the ASB Case Review process	35%
Don’t know	15%

Supplementary comments

The consultation highlighted that there is currently disparity across areas on the involvement of PCCs within the ASB Case Review process (formerly the Community Trigger). 35% of respondents indicated that their PCC has no involvement with the ASB Case Review process. Of all the potential ways in which a PCC can be involved in the ASB Case Review process, the most common activity is promoting awareness for the process (30%).

Q15. What added value (if any) do you believe your local PCC could bring to the ASB Case Review process?

Total respondents: 336

Response option	Response Percent
Auditing previous case reviews	21%
Promoting awareness of the process	51%
Attending case review meetings as an independent party	21%
Convening the relevant bodies to undertake the Community Trigger	20%
Providing a route for victims to query decisions made on the Community Trigger	32%
Providing guidance for the relevant bodies on the case review process	30%
Monitoring use of the Community Trigger to identify learning and best practice	43%
I don’t think PCCs should be involved in the case review process	16%
PCCs already do enough to support the case review process	7%
Don’t know	7%

Supplementary comments

The majority of respondents strongly favoured strengthening the PCCs’ role in the ASB Case Review process. Only 7% believed that PCCs already do enough to support the review process and 16% didn’t think PCCs should be involved in the process.

The most popular options were: promoting awareness of the process (51%), monitoring use of the ASB Case Review to identify learning and best practice (43%), providing a route for victims to query decisions made on the ASB Case Review (32%), promoting guidance for the relevant bodies on the ASB Case Review process (30%).

Less favoured ways for PCCs to be involved in the review process were auditing previous case reviews (21%), attending case review meetings as an independent body (21%) and convening the relevant bodies to undertake the case review (20%). Based on this feedback, the PCCs’ role would be better placed handling strategic oversight of the process, rather than more time intensive and operational duties.

Strategy and data

The final two questions sought to find out how PCCs and CSPs engage on ASB strategy and data, and what can be shared between both agencies.

Q16. How (if at all) does your CSP currently engage with the PCC on ASB strategy and data?

Total respondents: 336

Response option	Response Percent
Provides data on number of ASB incidents reported	23%
Provides data on type of ASB incidents reported	22%
Provides data on which agency or organisation incidents are reported to	9%
Provides data on the number of times the Community Trigger is requested	21%
Provides data on the outcomes of Community Trigger cases	16%
Engages via consultations to inform ASB strategy	23%
Provides progress updates on strategy implementation	20%
Provides evaluations or results of strategy interventions	15%
Provides data on where ASB incidents occur/hotspots	20%
My CSP doesn’t currently engage with the PCC on ASB strategy and data	18%
Don’t know	21%

Supplementary comments 

The consensus was that there is currently no consistency or standardisation with CSPs engaging PCCs on ASB data and strategy. Examples of these approaches included strategy groups, PCC attendance at CSP meetings, sharing ASB data with PCCs through strategic assessments and partnership plans, and publishing ASB data publicly.

Q17. What ASB data and information on ASB strategy (if any) is available to be shared between CSPs and PCCs?

Total respondents: 336,

Response option	Response Percent
Data on number of ASB incidents reported	56%
Data on the type of ASB incidents reported	53%
Data on where incidents occur/ASB hotspots	52%
Data on which agency or organisation incidents are reported to	29%
Data on the number of times resolutions/powers are used	31%
Data on the number of times the Community Trigger is requested	44%
Data on the outcomes of Community Trigger cases	40%
Progress updates on strategy implementation	33%
Evaluations or results of strategy interventions	24%
Nothing on data or strategy is available to be shared between CSPs and PCCs	5%
Don’t know	18%

Supplementary comments 

The majority of respondents were in agreement that there are various types of ASB data available to be shared between CSPs and PCCs with only 5% disagreeing with this.

Over half of respondents stated that data on numbers, locations and types of incidents reported is available to be shared. Additionally, respondents highlighted the availability of shareable data on ASB case reviews, including data on the number of reviews that had been requested and their outcomes. This supports the proposals around strengthening the role of the PCC in ASB case reviews.

Part 4 – Anti-social behaviour powers

Part 4 of the consultation sought responses on how the powers in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (the ‘2014 Act’) could be improved and expanded. The aim is that they are used more consistently, more often and are robust in effectively dealing with ASB. Additionally, part 4 sought responses on expanding drug testing on arrest (DToA) to allow police to test outside of the custody suite. We are already expanding DToA to increase the number of drugs that can be tested for, and broadening the offences that can lead to a test more easily; this consultation was conducted to ensure we are exploring all possible options to give police the powers they need to tackle drug misuse.

Respondents were given the opportunity to comment on all the following questions and the responses are reflected under supplementary comments.

Dispersal powers

Q18. Dispersal Powers are currently only available to police to issue. Should this power be extended to local authorities?

Total respondents: 298

Yes	No	Don’t Know
31%	59%	9%

Supplementary comments 

59% of respondents felt that Dispersal Powers should remain only for police use. 31% felt this power should be extended to local authorities and 9% were unsure. Of the 35 PCCs/OPCCs and police/law enforcement representatives that responded, 12 believed that this power should be extended whilst 18 felt that it should not. The rest were unsure.

Of the 216 responses on behalf of a CSP or from an individual member of a CSP or a local authority, 30% felt that dispersal powers should be extended to local authorities whereas 62% of respondents believed that it should not be extended, with the rest unsure. 

Some respondents flagged resourcing pressures for local authorities as a concern as well as potential concerns around duplication. It was felt that local authorities may not be able to cope with additional powers as they do not have the staff or expertise to effectively implement these.

However, there was support from some respondents for providing local authorities with the power to issue dispersal orders. In contrast to the resourcing issues, other respondents felt that it would free up resource for police to deal with other crime and ASB types whilst also fostering a collaborative relationship between the police and local authorities.

Additionally, if local authorities have the power to disperse, this can reduce burden on police time or use a multi-agency approach. This can be compared to situations where Police Community Support Officers use dispersal powers under s40 of the 2014 Act as they are also unable to arrest.

Q19. Dispersal Powers can currently only be issued for up to 48 hours. Should this power be extended for up to 72 hours?

Total respondents: 298

Yes	No	Don’t Know
76%	13%	11%

Supplementary comments

Overall, the majority of respondents believed that dispersal powers should be extended for up to 72 hours, with just over three-quarters in favour.

Of the 35 PCCs/OPCCs and police/law enforcement representatives who responded, more than two-thirds (25) felt that it should be extended. Only 6 opposed this proposal with the remaining being unsure.

There were 159 responses from a representative on behalf of a CSP or an individual member of a CSP. Respondents from this category were overwhelmingly in favour of extending dispersal powers to 72 hours, with 76% believing this to be a good idea. Only 12% were against this idea with the rest unsure.

Those in support believed that doing so would allow coverage over weekends, bank holidays and school holidays, which is currently not possible. It would also allow the relevant agencies more time to identify and implement a longer-term solution whilst reassuring the local community for a longer period. These views were particularly prevalent amongst police representatives and PCCs/OPCCs.

However, a minority of PCCs/OPCCs and some other respondents were concerned that extending the duration is disproportionate and could impact civil liberties, whilst highlighting that 48 hours is an adequate amount of time for a dispersal order to be in place.

Drug testing powers

Q21. Police currently have the power to require arrested individuals to undergo a drug test when in custody. Do you think these powers should be extended to allow police to test outside of the custody suite, such as in public places?

Total respondents: 298

Yes	No	Don’t Know
44%	36%	21%

Supplementary comments

Responses to this question were mixed. The most popular response (43%) was in support of extending drug testing powers to outside the custody suite.  However, 36% felt that the power to drugs test should not be extended outside of the custody suite and the remaining 20% were unsure.

Given the mixed response to Q21, focus has been placed on the issues raised in response to Q22.

There was some support for use of drug testing outside a custody suite, in terms of promoting use and ensuring individuals could be diverted as appropriate. This included ensuring police had all available powers to divert individuals to treatment where required.

Some responses raised concern regarding police safety and proportionality of use. Further concerns were raised about the level of intrusion into an individual’s private life, as well as the fact that the custody suite provides a safe environment for officers and the individual.

Overall, responses were broadly split, with a sense that any change would need to ensure proportionality and careful consideration given to both the individual and officer safety.

Public Spaces Protection Orders and Community Protection Notices

Q23. Public Spaces Protection Orders can currently only be issued by local authorities. Should this power be extended to police?

Total respondents:  298

Yes	No	Don’t Know
52%	38%	10%

Supplementary comments

Overall, responses were mixed with a slight majority supporting extending Public Spaces Protection Orders (PSPO) powers to police, with local authority members being the most likely to agree with this proposal.

Thirty eight percent of respondents were opposed to making this change. 10% of respondents did not know whether to extend this power. Those who were in favour of extending PSPOs, 57% of those who said ‘yes’ were from Local Authorities, Housing and other CSPs.

The key reasons highlighted by those in favour of extension were the fact that police hold the data and have access to evidence that is required for a PSPO application, and it would reduce the administrative requirement on local authorities. Those in agreement felt that the consultation arrangements should be the same for the police and local authorities.

In comparison, those who said ‘no’ to extension cited the following reasons; they felt it could put further pressure on police forces to act on local authorities’ behalf and take responsibilities in dealing with ASB. Additionally, they felt it was appropriate for PSPOs to remain in the power of the local authorities because to keep the CSP engaged with each other and promotes partnership working to problem solve. Finally, police have powers already that allow for dispersals, therefore additional powers seem unnecessary.

Of those who provided additional information in support of their answers to questions twenty-three to twenty-six, just over half (52%) were in favour of PSPOs being extended to the police.

Q24. Local authorities can currently issue a Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) after consultation with the police, PCC, the owner or occupier of land in the restricted area and other community representatives they see fit. If PSPOs are extended to the police should the consultation requirements remain the same? If you answered ‘No’ or ‘Don’t know’ to the question above, please select ‘Not applicable’.

Total respondents: 192

Yes	No	Don’t Know
86%	9%	5%

Supplementary comments

Overall, respondents strongly favoured keeping consultation requirements for PSPOs consistent for both local authorities and PCCs. Only 9% disagreed with this and 5% were unsure.

The majority of those who provided a qualitative response felt the consultation requirements should remain the same due to local authorities being able to provide knowledge, which would help with safeguarding. There was strong agreement amongst those that responded to this question that the current consultation requirements ensure that PSPOs are proportionate and effective.

There was limited rationale against consultation requirements remaining the same, but the main reasons were centred around consistency and the fact that training would be required for officers.

Q25. Community Protection Notices can currently be issued to any person aged 16 and over, whereas other powers such as the Civil Injunction and the Criminal Behaviour Order can be used with younger perpetrators. Should the age limit be lowered for Community Protection Notices?

Total respondents: 299

Yes	No	Don’t Know
52%	40%	9%

Q26. If the age limit is lowered for the Community Protection Notice, to what age should it be lowered? If you answered ‘No’ or ‘Don’t know’ to the question above, please select ‘Not applicable’.

Total respondents: 164

10	11	12	13	14	15	Don’t Know
53%	5%	15%	7%	10%	1%	9%

Total respondents: 164

Supplementary comments

Overall, responses to Q25 were divided. More than half of respondents (51%) said that the age limit for Community Protection Notices (CPNs) should be lowered however, 40% disagreed and 9% felt unsure. Of the 51% of people who agreed, 50% were responding either as an individual or on behalf of the whole CSP.

Those who provided qualitative answers agreed that the age limit should be lowered for CPNs, and it should be aligned to the age of criminal responsibility. However, responses highlighted that this would only be appropriate if the correct safeguards were in place to ensure that CPNs were only issued to persons under 18 years of age following appropriate engagement with them and their parents/guardians.

Those who agreed that the age limit for CPNs should be lowered mostly commonly suggested age 10 would be the most appropriate (53%), with respondents citing that the age limit should be in line with the age of criminal responsibility. Of the 53% of respondents, 16% were local authority members who thought age 10 was most appropriate for CPNs.

Some responses highlighted a current disparity due to the fact that CPNs cannot be issued to anyone under 16 but that a lot of ASB perpetrators fall into the under 16 category. Respondents felt lowering the age limit would only be appropriate if the correct safeguards were in place to support anyone under the age of 16 who received a CPN and if alternative intervention methods had failed.

Q27. The upper limit for a Fixed Penalty Notice for breaches of Community Protection Notices and Public Spaces Protection Orders is currently £100. Should the upper limit be increased to £500?

Total respondents: 299

Yes	No	Don’t Know
58%	29%	13%

Supplementary comments

Overall, responses strongly favoured increasing the upper limit of Fixed Penalty Notices (FPN) to £500, with only a quarter (29%) opposing and 13% being unsure. Those in favour felt that increased fines carry more weight and will therefore act as a more significant deterrent and have a greater overall impact on the reduction of ASB. Of those in favour, 54% were responding as an individual member or on behalf of the whole CSP.

Respondents who were against increasing the upper limit felt that issuing larger fines during a cost-of-living crisis would be unsuitable and thus alternative methods should be explored with a fine being the final option. 20% of those who were against increasing the upper limit of FPNs were local authority Members. Respondents also noted that unpaid fines could end up going to court which will be time consuming and increase the burden on resources.

Closure powers

Q29. Closure Orders can currently only be applied for no later than 48 hours after service of a Closure Notice through the courts. Should this timeframe be extended to 72 hours?

Total respondents: 299

Yes	No	Don’t Know
84%	7%	9%

Supplementary comments

More than three quarters of respondents (84%) supported the proposal to extend the timeframe from 48 hours to 72 hours for the application of a Closure Order after service of a Closure Notice through the courts.  7% disagreed and 9% were unsure.

Of the 35 PCCs/OPCCs and police/law enforcement representatives who responded, 31 agreed that the timeframe should be extended.  There were 160 responses from a representative on behalf of a CSP or an individual member of a CSP.  Respondents from this category were overwhelmingly in favour of extending the timeframe to 72 hours, with 87% believing this to be a good idea.  Of the 56 local authorities that responded, 45 agreed with extending the timeframe; similarly, 16 of the 19 housing providers that responded supported the extension. 

Of those who commented on their response, the majority felt this would address operational challenges around weekends and bank holidays and would result in improved submissions to courts thereby reducing the number of adjournments. 

Respondents also felt it would give agencies more time to gather and finalise evidence for court and thereby improve the success rate.  In addition, the extended timeframe would allow the accused to seek legal support and, where appropriate, alternative accommodation. 

Those who disagreed with extending the timeframe felt that the principle behind Closure Orders is that they are a swift remedy and extending it could potentially create a risk to victims.

Q30. Closure Notices and Closure Orders can currently only be applied for by police and local authorities. Should this power be extended to registered housing providers?

Total respondents: 299

Yes	No	Don’t Know
69%	20%	11%

Supplementary comments

Over two thirds of respondents agreed the power to apply for Closure Notices and Closure Orders should be extended to housing providers.  One in five (20%) disagreed and 11% were unsure.

Of the 35 PCCs/OPCCs and police/law enforcement representatives who responded, 23 agreed that it should be extended to housing providers.  There were 159 responses from a representative on behalf of a CSP or an individual member of a CSP. Respondents from this category were in favour of extending the power to housing providers, with 73% supporting this proposal.  Of the 56 local authorities that responded, 41 agreed with extending the power.  Of the 19 housing providers that responded, 13 supported the proposal whilst 6 disagreed.

The main reason cited by those in support of extending the power to housing providers was that it would spread the burden more evenly reducing reliance on PCC and local authority resources. This would increase capacity, reduce delays and result in swifter action. There was also a feeling amongst supporters that the power would make housing providers more accountable and enable them to provide better protection to their tenants. 

Respondents who opposed extending the power to housing providers were primarily concerned about the potential for misuse.  Those who disagreed with the suggestion felt that housing providers could potentially use the power in isolation to evict tenants, particularly those who are vulnerable or with complex needs.  This cohort of respondents strongly supported a requirement for housing providers to continue to work collaboratively with police and local authorities to ensure appropriate oversight that the powers are being used uniformly and proportionately.  Under the statutory guidance, there is already a requirement for consultation with relevant agencies prior to the issuing of a closure order notice.  This is in addition to the legal test having to be met and the fact that it goes through the courts, so safeguards already exist.

Civil Injunctions

Q32. There is currently no power of arrest available, without the use or threat of violence or significant risk of harm, when enforcing a Civil Injunction. Should the power of arrest be extended to all breaches of a Civil Injunction?

Total respondents: 299

Yes	No	Don’t Know
57%	26%	17%

Supplementary comments

Overall, over half of the respondents to this question (57%) felt that the availability of power of arrest should be extended to all breaches of a civil injunction. A quarter of respondents (26%) believed it shouldn’t be extended and 17% were unsure. Of those respondents in favour 54% were responding as an individual or on behalf of the whole CSP.

Those in favour of extending power of arrest cited the effectiveness of the power; respondents said that there is currently little ‘teeth’ to the power and no point in using this power when there is little punishment for breaches. They felt it would also act as a greater deterrent against breaches and would provide swifter, speedier justice for victims.

Those who opposed the extension cited the need for proportionality in relation to the offence and the risk that this could create the false expectation that every breach should result in arrest. Additionally, there was concern from respondents that civil courts may be reluctant to grant injunctions if a power of arrest is made available to every breach, due to the strain this could put on courts later down the line once breaches have occurred.

Community Safety Accreditation Scheme (CSAS)

Q34. The Community Safety Accreditation Scheme allows Chief Constables to accredit employed people in roles that contribute to maintaining and improving community safety with limited but targeted powers. Should this range of powers be extended to include relevant powers in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014?

Total respondents: 299

Yes	No	Don’t Know
52%	26%	22%

Q35. Which tools and powers do you think should be included from the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014?

Total respondents: 300

Dispersal power	PSPO	CPN	Closure power	Civil Injunction	Criminal Behaviour Order	Don’t know	No further tools and powers should be included
39%	40%	44%	33%	29%	29%	19%	27%

Supplementary comments

Overall, just over half of the respondents to Q34 (52%) felt that CSAS should be expanded to include a range of the powers in the 2014 Act. Just over a quarter (26%) believed that it should not be expanded and just under a quarter (22%) were unsure.

Representatives from local authorities, PCCs, police or law enforcement and CSPs (both individual members and on behalf of the whole CSP) provided 250 responses in total to Q34. More than half of these respondents (53%) believed that the range of powers should be extended to CSAS officers whilst 27% believed that the powers in the 2014 Act should not be extended. The rest were unsure.

Respondents had overall mixed views as to whether CSAS officers should have access to the range of tools and powers in the 2014 Act and if so, which ones.

Supporters of extension mentioned that it would strengthen and broaden the range of agencies that can tackle ASB and that it would allow police to free up resources to tackle other ASB issues and crime types.

However, there was some concern amongst some respondents that CSAS officers would not have the appropriate training or skill to carry out these additional powers and CSAS officers are not sufficiently resourced to do so. There was also some concern of giving powers that are meant for local authorities and police to others, in particular private security companies who could use these disproportionately. 

Overall responses to Q35 were varied. The powers that received the most support to be added to the CSAS regime were dispersal orders, PSPOs and Community Protection Notices. However, no power received more than 50% support and just over a quarter of respondents (27%) felt that no further tools and powers should be added.

There was a consensus amongst all respondents that not all powers would be appropriate to give to CSAS officers however some could be beneficial.

Conclusion and next steps

Responses to parts one and two of the consultation were broadly supportive of the changes proposed to strengthen the relationship between PCCs and CSPs.

Based on these responses, the Home Office will seek to improve and clarify the ways in which CSPs and PCCs work together by taking forward the following proposals, either through legislation, updated guidance, or best practice documents. The measures aim to enhance strategic alignment between CSPs and PCCs and deliver more effective outcomes for the public in tackling crime and ASB.

1. Create a requirement for the CSP to include in their strategic assessments how it has had due regard to the police and crime objectives set out in the police and crime plan.

2. Create a requirement for the CSP to send a copy of its strategic assessment to the PCC or equivalent.

3. Create a requirement for the CSP to publish the executive summary of their strategic assessment.

4. Clarify how PCCs can best fulfil their duty to have regard to the priorities of the responsible authorities making up the CSPs in the police force area.

5. Create a power for PCCs to make recommendations on the activity of CSPs to support the delivery of the objectives set out in the police and crime plan.

6. Create a duty on CSPs to take those recommendations into account. A CSP will not be mandated to implement the recommendation but should demonstrate consideration.

The Home Office will not be taking forward the following proposals:

1. Create a power which enables PCCs to review their local CSPs’ strategic assessment. This is not being pursued as respondents to the consultation were not in favour of it.

2. Create a requirement for CSP Strategy Groups in Wales to send a copy of the partnership plan (or SIP) to the PCC or equivalent. This is not being pursued as it is already achievable by using an existing regulation making power. Welsh Government have elected not to use this power as Welsh local partnership governance arrangements have existing mechanisms for ensuring Welsh PCCs see Welsh CSPs’ SIPs.

In relation to proposals five and six, the Home Office will provide updated guidance in due course for CSPs and PCCs regarding how PCC recommendations should be made and what they should be based on, how CSPs should respond to recommendations, and mechanisms for resolution in the event of disagreement.

The responses to parts three and four were mostly supportive. Respondents agreed that data should be shared with PCCs and that the PCCs’ role in the ASB Case Review should be set out clearly. Additionally, respondents felt that expanding the powers in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 would ensure they are used more frequently and consistently to tackle ASB. There was also broad support for expanding the Community Safety Accreditation Scheme (CSAS) to allow CSAS officers greater enforcement powers of some of the powers in the 2014 Act.

Based on the responses to parts three and four of the consultation, the Home Office will explore, either through legislation, updated statutory guidance or best practice documents, how to take forward the following proposals, which all received generally favourable feedback from respondents:

1. Create a duty for PCCs to promote awareness of ASB Case Reviews.  

2. Create a duty for PCCs to provide a route for victims to query the outcome made by the relevant agency following the ASB Case Review.

3. Create a duty for relevant bodies to report, at the end of a reporting period, the following to PCCs: 

• the number of complaints about anti-social behaviour made to the relevant bodies in the period
• the types of incident to which those complaints related
• the locations in which those incidents occurred, including whether any parts of the local government area appear to the relevant bodies to have a high prevalence of such incidents
• the number of ASB case reviews carried out by those bodies in the period
• the outcome of those ASB case reviews

4. Extend the power to implement dispersal orders to local authorities.

5. Extend the timeframe for a dispersal order from 48 hours to 72 hours, with a mandatory review at 48 hours.

6. Extend the power to implement a PSPO to the police.

7. Lower the age of a CPN from 16 to 10.

8. Increase the upper limit for a Fixed Penalty Notice for breaches of a PSPO and a CPN from £100 to £500.

9. Extend the timeframe that relevant agencies can apply for a Closure Order from 48 hours after service of a Closure Notice through the courts to 72 hours.

10. Extend the Closure Power to registered housing providers.

11. Extend the power of arrest to all breaches of a Civil Injunction.

12. Extend the powers available under the Community Safety Accreditation Scheme (CSAS) to allow CSAS officers to enforce breaches of Community Protection Notices and PSPOs.

13. Extend Drug Testing on Arrest powers to outside of the custody suite.

Footnotes

1. Formerly called the ‘Community Trigger’. ↩

2. Anti-Social Behaviour Action Plan. ↩

3. Police perception of use and barriers for the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. ↩

4. Percentages do not sum to 100% due to computer rounding. ↩

5. Note that significance testing was not undertaken. ↩