Research and analysis

Anti-social behaviour: incident journey, from reporting to resolution

Published 27 March 2023

Applies to England and Wales

Executive summary

Background and context

The Home Office commissioned Ipsos UK to conduct a research study to develop an understanding of the incident journey for anti-social behaviour (ASB) which includes stages from reporting to resolution. The research aimed to review the extent to which local responses to ASB, as set out in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (the 2014 Act), are seen in local practices. The legislation establishes a duty on organisations – namely police, local authorities, housing associations and other local agencies – to work collectively in responding to local ASB concerns. The 2014 Act devolves (the transfer of decision-making from central to local level) responsibility to these agencies to develop effective responses in dealing with ASB issues locally. With local areas responsible for developing localised approaches to ASB, it is unclear to what extent this has resulted in a disparate system. This research has sought to explore further local responses to ASB, identifying similarities and differences that exist locally.

National statutory guidance sets out the legislative definition of ASB and the tools and powers ^{[footnote 1]} (see Annex B) that can be used in response to this behaviour. The focus of both is ensuring that victims are ‘at the heart of the response to anti-social behaviour’. The research sought to further understand local practices among agencies and organisations in their response to ASB and the experiences of victims and witnesses of ASB. A mixed-methods approach was taken across 5 case study areas, where interviews were conducted with a range of local organisations and agencies which are involved in tackling ASB. These were informed by a review of national and local guidance. Focus groups, interviews and a survey with individuals who had experienced or witnessed ASB were also conducted.

Key findings

Implementation of statutory guidance

National guidance and operational practice show that the ASB incident journey is broken down into 4 stages. These are:

• reporting
• investigation
• resolution
• appeals

Across all stages of the incident journey, agencies and organisations are required to provide support to victims and witnesses who reported the incident. As stipulated in national guidance, a range of local agencies and organisations are responsible for responding to ASB. This includes the statutory sector, such as the police, local authorities and housing associations, as well as charitable organisations.

While the definition of ASB given by agencies/organisations and victims/witnesses of ASB were similar and in line with the definition set out in the 2014 Act, many also referenced the subjective nature of the definition. This included the lack of clarity of what defines behaviours as anti-social or criminal, and how this influences the response to ASB.

It was apparent from interviews with agencies and organisations that they had applied the national guidance to developing local responses to ASB; however, this was not formalised through the development of local guidance. As a result, there was varying application and interpretation of the national guidance in developing local responses to ASB. The research found that the working practices of each often varied at a local level, from the initial response to ASB reports to all stages of the incident journey. Despite these differences, all areas supported the adoption of a multi-agency approach to tackling ASB.

As a result, the incident journey experienced by victims and witnesses of ASB varied both by location and by agency or organisation reported to.

Reporting

Awareness of how to report ASB, and to whom, varied among victims who had witnessed or experienced ASB. Among those who had reported ASB, the police, local authorities and housing associations were cited as the main channels. However, victims also expressed some confusion over which agencies and organisations were responsible for responding to different types of ASB; this was due to several agencies and organisations being responsible locally for responding to ASB. The subjective nature of these incidents also led to uncertainty around when to report, with victims and witnesses sometimes unclear whether the incident was ASB or a crime and whether it was serious enough to report. As a result, the most common reason given for not reporting an ASB incident was feeling like the incident was too trivial/not worth reporting and not thinking that the report would be taken seriously.

The most common types of ASB reported were:

• sexual ASB (reported by 69% of respondents)
• problems with out-of-control dogs (59%)
• nuisance neighbours (56%)

The police and local authority were the agencies most often reported to, although this varied by type of ASB.

The research found that the reporting process varied not only across areas but between agencies and organisations. A more consistent, standardised approach to reporting was evident among police forces because it followed the same process as crime incidents reported to the police. In contrast, local authorities and housing associations operated differently, with each developing individual reporting processes. The development of these individual approaches was seen by agencies and organisations as sometimes impacting the effectiveness of the multi-agency approach adopted at later stages of the incident journey.

Victims and witnesses’ satisfaction with how reports of ASB were handled by the main reporting agencies and organisations was polarised. In the main, those who had reported ASB to a housing association reported being more satisfied with how it was handled than those who reported to the police or local authority. While there were some examples of victims being very satisfied with how their report was handled, most referred to negative experiences of reporting. Common experiences across all reporting channels included:

• long waiting times on the phone
• a lack of any updates following their reporting
• a lack of action by authorities

These experiences led to the perception among victims and witnesses that agencies and organisations are not taking their ASB issues seriously.

Investigation

National guidance on the investigation stage is limited and highlights only a few parts that agencies and organisations should incorporate. These include that an investigation should:

• gather information and evidence from victims
• witnesses and perpetrators
• conduct risk and vulnerability assessments
• consider whether a multi-agency response is required

The actual approach taken in the investigation stage appeared to be relatively consistent across agencies and organisations, and between different areas and generally in line with what is recommended by national guidance. However, there were some inconsistencies in how each of these activities were undertaken, such as how evidence was gathered and the completion of risk assessments.

The immediate first step of the investigation stage is to process the report and determine what actions should be taken. There was considerable variation in how reports were processed between agencies and organisations and by location. For example, some police forces had developed investigation assessment processes such as the threat, harm, risk, investigate opportunities, vulnerability and engagement (THRIVE) model, whereas another force used a process called ‘get out’.

Another important step in the investigation stage highlighted by all agencies and organisations was gathering evidence and seeking a full account of what happened beyond the initial information given through reporting. While the purpose of this step was consistent across agencies and organisations, there was some variation in the processes adopted to gathering evidence.

The national guidance states that it is good practice for agencies and organisations to assess the risk of harm to the victim. However, the research found there was variability among agencies and organisations as to how and when these risk assessments were conducted. Where completed, information gathered included the type of ASB experienced, the mental and physical health of the victim and whether the victim has any dependants. This information was seen to help determine the response, the role of agencies and organisations in the response and what support is offered to the victim. However, the research findings provided limited detail on the application and completion of these assessments in practice.

Agencies, organisations and those who had experienced or witnessed ASB gave examples of good practice to ensure an effective investigation process was undertaken. This included the use of of a multi-agency response and having agreed joint ways of working. The importance of maintaining consistent and direct contact with victims was also raised.

Resolution

The 2014 legislation implemented a range of tools and powers that can be used in responding to ASB reports. These range from community and out-of-court resolutions to legal enforcement. Agencies and organisations indicated that the first pursued and preferred line of resolution often tended to be community resolutions, in line with principles recommended in the national guidance, with legal action seen as a final option.

Community resolutions were seen as the preferred option for several reasons. They allowed action to be taken sooner, they could better support community cohesion and they were often perceived by agencies and organisations as the most effective way to resolve ASB incidents. Despite being seen as a final option, agencies and organisations across all case study areas highlighted examples in which legal action had to be taken. Such action was related to persistent cases of ASB and situations that were deemed to be high risk by the relevant organisation or agency responding to the incident. It was not clear from the research what process was used to make these decisions, nor was it clear the extent to which there were inconsistencies across agencies and organisations.

An important element of the resolution stage identified by agencies and organisations was the importance of adopting a holistic approach (a well-rounded and all-inclusive approach to tackle all angles of a problem) in responding to ASB. This is based on the acknowledgement that ASB is often a result of wider issues faced by the perpetrator. Substance abuse, rough sleeping and mental health issues were most frequently referenced. However, there was widespread dissatisfaction that the tools and powers available to respond to ASB did not seek to address the underlying causes, thereby limiting the potential effectiveness of these resolutions and resulting in persistent incidents of ASB. This was seen to result from the tools and powers, such as dispersal or closure orders, displacing rather than resolving the issues causing the behaviour. Further insights into the use of these tools and powers were not covered as part of this research, though further research on it would be beneficial.

Satisfaction levels at the resolution stage were mixed among victims. While there were some examples of positive experiences and resolutions achieved, most victims highlighted having negative experiences. For example, although agencies and organisations discussed the importance of keeping victims engaged in the process, a lack of communication and not being kept informed of developments in the case were consistently highlighted by victims. Victims also spoke of cases frequently being dropped, long response times, complicated and time-consuming processes, and resolutions not also addressing issues in the long term. It was not apparent from the research the extent to which these experiences varied by type of ASB or to whom the report was made.

Appeals process

The final stage of the incident journey is the appeals process. There are 2 main appeals processes that can be used by victims. Firstly, individual agencies and organisations tended to have their own complaints procedures. Secondly, the 2014 Act implemented the Community Trigger process. The Community Trigger process allows victims of persistent ASB who do not consider their ASB concerns to have been resolved to ask for a case review with the aim of trying to prevent future ASB incidents. Statutory guidance states that local agencies and organisations are responsible for communicating with local communities that the Community Trigger exists and what the process involves. While most agencies and organisations considered that this was done, with information provided on their websites, none of the victims interviewed had experienced the Community Trigger process and had little or no awareness that the process exists.

As none of the victims of ASB spoken with were either aware of or had experienced the Community Trigger process, the research provides limited insight on the application of the process. However, agencies and organisations reported the process as complicated, and demanding of time and resources. The multi-agency approach meant there were several competing priorities and operational challenges across the different agencies involved, which hindered the process.

Implications for policy

The perspectives of the agencies and organisations responsible for responding to ASB and those of victims and witnesses provide useful insights on local responses to ASB reports and the extent to which these contrast with the intended ways of working set out in the national guidance. The research has highlighted both commonalities and differences in how the legislation and supporting national statutory guidance are implemented.

Across the stages of the incident journey, the research has highlighted several policy and frontline practice implications.

Reporting stage

Improving the reporting process for all types of ASB by adapting reporting requirements and routes to reflect the varying nature of ASB (for example, providing out-of-hours numbers for incidents that may happen at night); improving efficiency and accessibility of the reporting process through setting up a dedicated and centralised reporting system; improving public trust in authorities through local campaigns to increase awareness and increase communication with local communities on the outcomes of reporting; providing people with the option to report ASB anonymously; and increasing public engagement with local community groups and networks.

Investigation stage

Improving contact with the victim throughout the investigation period by providing a main point of contact to support with navigating the incident journey; facilitating better multi-agency responses by providing clearer guidance to agencies and organisations on how to investigate a report and how to communicate individual processes; clarifying and communicating thresholds and requirements for evidence; and facilitating improved consistency in the application of risk and vulnerability assessments by providing clearer guidance and requirements.

Resolution stage

Providing more resources to ensure that victims feel supported in addressing the impact of ASB experienced, with suggestions including a centralised platform to enable victims to see updates on their cases; providing more long-term and holistic resolution options which seek to address the causes of ASB, for example, providing intervention support to perpetrators aimed at addressing issues causing ASB; and improving resourcing to ensure dedicated capacity to address ASB.

Appeals process

Facilitating greater awareness among victims and local communities that the Community Trigger process exists, as well as greater information sharing of requests and their outcomes; enabling the process to be activated sooner, with suggestions including lowering the threshold and ensuring that it is not used only when situations reach crisis point, and facilitating greater multi-agency working through forums at a local level.

More broadly, there was a clear consensus that further resources and interventions are required to prevent ASB. Agencies and organisations saw that the development of preventative approaches should be based on a greater understanding of the causes of ASB. Examples of preventative measures perceived as being effective in preventing ASB included educational programmes for young people and increased police or security presence locally.

1. Introduction

1.1 Background

The Home Office commissioned Ipsos UK to conduct research to explore the ASB incident journey from the point at which an incident is reported through to resolution. There was a lack of knowledge of local responses to ASB and the experiences of victims and witnesses who reported (as well as reasons for not reporting). To address these gaps in knowledge, the research was commissioned to hear from agencies and organisations responsible for responding to ASB and from individuals who have experienced or witnessed ASB across 5 case study areas. To inform these qualitative interviews, a high-level review of national and local operational guidance was also conducted. It was also supported by a quantitative survey with victims and witnesses of ASB from England and Wales. Findings from this research provide further understanding of the ASB incident journey, highlighting similarities and differences in local practice as well as providing examples of good practice. Such insights contribute to the ongoing development of an effective response to ASB.

The 2014 Act defines ASB as any of the following:

• conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person
• conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises
• conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person

The 2014 Act also establishes a range of tools and powers, such as civil injunctions and dispersal powers, that can be used by local agencies and organisations when responding to ASB. It also introduced the Community Trigger, an appeals process for persistent victims of ASB who are not satisfied that an ASB has been resolved. The legislation devolves responsibility to specific local agencies and organisations to decide how these powers are used in responding to ASB. These include the police, local authorities, housing providers, clinical commissioning groups and third-party organisations. Existing evidence suggests that reports are typically made to local authorities, the police and housing associations.^{[footnote 2]}

It is unclear to what extent the localised approach has resulted in a disparate system, with victims’ experiences varying according to the areas in which they live. This research has sought to examine this, identifying commonalities and differences in responses to ASB. Through gathering these insights, the aim was to create an ‘ASB reporting to resolution model’ that outlines the stages of the incident journey and highlights best practice examples. The development of an ASB reporting to resolution model or ASB incident journey will help to ensure consistent, effective, victim-centred approaches to addressing ASB are delivered.

1.2 Research objectives

The Home Office commissioned Ipsos UK to explore local practices in responding to ASB and determining the incident journey from the point of reporting through to resolution. More specifically, this research sought to:

• explore how ASB incidents are handled by agencies and organisations once they are reported
• understand local responses to ASB incidents and how they differ, including how they are identified, processed and recorded by different agencies and organisations
• understand how, if at all, local areas respond to ASB incidents, what the thresholds for action are and what determines the course of action
• understand the possible resolutions to ASB incidents and the outcomes that result from these
• contribute towards the development of best practice or guidance at a national level, for local agencies to follow

1.3 Methodology

1.3.1 Summary of the fieldwork design

To achieve these research aims and objectives, a mixed methods approach was conducted. A review of local and national guidance on responding to ASB was undertaken. In addition, qualitative interviews were conducted across 5 case study areas with victims and witnesses of ASB as well as with agencies and organisations who respond to ASB. A quantitative survey of members of the public who had experienced ASB was also undertaken. This report includes findings from across the methodologies.

1.3.2 Qualitative approach

Qualitative research was conducted between March and April 2022 and focused on 5 areas of interest, identified through analysis of police recorded incident data: Liverpool, Leicester, Newcastle upon Tyne, Cardiff and Westminster^{[footnote 3]}.

The qualitative research was made up of 3 methods, including:

• focus groups with victims and witnesses
• victim and witness interviews
• agency and organisation interviews

In each area, interviews were conducted with victims who had experienced or witnessed ASB, and local agencies and organisations responsible for responding to ASB.

Ten focus groups across the 5 case study locations were conducted with victims and witnesses of ASB. Each group lasted 2 hours and was made up of 6 ASB victims or witnesses (60 in total). The focus groups provided active discussion between ASB victims or witnesses to understand where experiences of ASB were similar or varied. To enable victims or witnesses to discuss their experiences in this forum without high levels of distress, those that said they were impacted by ASB ‘a great deal’^{[footnote 4]} when screened ahead of participating were offered an individual in-depth interview instead.

In-depth interviews with victims and witnesses who had been impacted ‘a great deal’ were conducted to gain a deeper understanding of their ASB journey. One-hour interviews were conducted with victims from each of the 5 case study areas (50 in total) exploring their experiences of reporting, including any barriers (something preventing somebody from doing a behaviour or action, or making it more difficult to do), the investigation stage, resolutions, appeals and level of satisfaction with the outcome and support accessed.

In-depth interviews with individuals from national and local agencies/organisations were conducted to better understand current guidelines on responding to ASB, local thresholds to addressing ASB, and resolutions. This included representatives from local police forces, local authorities and housing associations. There were 35 hour-long interviews conducted with local agencies and organisations, and 5 hour-long interviews conducted with national agencies and organisations.

Sample tables and discussion guides for each of the above approaches can be found in Annex C and Data Collection Materials (Section 1).

Qualitative approaches are used to explore the distinctions and diversity of views, and the factors which shape or underlie them. By its nature, qualitative research is not designed to be statistically representative. As such, the findings generated by the qualitative elements of the research are not statistically representative of the experiences and views of all agencies/organisations and victims/witnesses of ASB. Instead, this research is intended to provide insight into local responses to ASB across 5 case study areas and the experiences of victims and witnesses within these areas. The recruitment approach is provided in Annex C.

As highlighted above, qualitative research was conducted in three main forms. While recruitment for interviews with people who have experienced or witnessed ASB and recruitment for focus groups met the sample quotas, there were challenges with recruitment of agencies and organisations in some of the case study areas. Annex C highlights the gaps in perspective of certain stakeholders in the case study areas. In particular, gaps existed with: housing stakeholders in Cardiff, Leicester and London; police in Leicester and the local authority in Cardiff.

This has resulted in the research being unable to hear from a complete range of stakeholders in each of the case study areas. However, collectively the views and experiences from the range of stakeholders responsible for dealing with ASB have been gathered from across the case study areas.

1.3.3 Quantitative approach

A quantitative survey was conducted to explore the impacts of ASB on those who experienced or witnessed it. The survey was conducted via Ipsos’ online panel, iSay. The survey collected responses from 2,500 ASB victims or witnesses living in England and Wales who had either personally experienced or witnessed ASB in the previous 12 months. Participants were asked about their overall experiences of ASB in their local area, and whether the incident was reported, and support was accessed. To ensure national representativeness, overall survey data^{[footnote 5]} was weighted to nationally representative proportions based on age, gender, region and Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) score.^{[footnote 6]}

The full survey questionnaire can be found in Data Collection Materials (Section 2). Reference to findings from this survey are made throughout this report when deemed relevant.

Statistical analysis was conducted to understand whether any single demographic factor was driving differences in perceptions and experiences. No single demographic factor was found to do this; instead, multiple factors played a role.

Unless otherwise specified, throughout this report, all statistical relationships discussed are significant at the 95% confidence level. Where sample sizes are below n=50, these will be highlighted and should be interpreted with caution.

1.3.4 Document review

A review of statutory national guidance was conducted to map the ‘ideal incident journey’. In addition, a review of non-statutory national and local guidance identified through the agency and organisation interviews was undertaken to identify points of similarity and difference to the national guidance and between areas. The full list of sources reviewed can be found in Annex D.

1.4 Report structure

This report is structured as follows:

Section 2, The context of ASB: provides an overview of existing national and local guidance and the strategic approach adopted across the case study areas to address ASB.

Section 3, Stages of the incident journey: provides an overview of each of the four stages of the incident journey from reporting and investigation through to resolution and appeals. Each stage considers the approach stipulated in national guidance and how this compares with local practice and experiences of victims and witnesses of ASB.

Section 4, The role of support: looks at support available and accessed in addressing the impacts of ASB. It includes types of support offered, barriers and enablers of support as well as areas for improvement.

Section 5, Conclusions: explores the insights that can be drawn from the research to inform policy and intervention implications.

Both qualitative and quantitative findings have been used throughout the report and are identified where used. Quotes from stakeholders from national and local agencies/organisations and victims or witnesses have been used to illustrate findings throughout the report. Quotes are attributed based on how victims or witnesses defined themselves and their experiences^{[footnote 7]}.

2. The ASB context

The aim of this Section is to provide a descriptive overview of the national guidance that currently exists to inform local responses to ASB. Alongside this, consideration is also given to strategic approaches developed locally in addressing local ASB issues.

Key findings:

1. National statutory guidance sets out the legislative definition of ASB and the tools and powers that can be used by local agencies and organisations in response to ASB. A central aim of the guidance is ensuring that victims are ‘at the heart of the response to anti-social behaviour’.
2. The legislation establishes the duty on organisations – namely the police, local authorities, housing associations and other local agencies and organisations – to work collectively in responding to local ASB concerns.
3. To support responses to reports of ASB, the guidance recommends the completion of a vulnerability assessment. This helps inform understanding of the causes of ASB and the impact on those who have experienced or witnessed an incident.
4. Across the case study areas included in the research, there was limited evidence of local guidance being developed. Instead, agencies and organisations referenced local processes being developed which, while not formalised in local guidance documents, reflected the definition and range of tools and powers set out in the legislation.
5. The development of a strategic approach to dealing with ASB was evident across all the case study areas. Agencies and organisations had developed processes for preventing and responding to ASB, with evidence that these had evolved over time in response to changing ASB issues.

2.1 Overview of guidance for responding to ASB

2.1.1 Legislation and statutory guidance

The definition of ASB set out in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 was further developed in the 2014 Act. The 2014 Act also implemented a range of tools and powers that can be used in response to ASB^{[footnote 8]}. The legislation transfers responsibility to local agencies and organisations for the use of these tools and powers in developing a localised response to ASB. National statutory guidance^{[footnote 9]} was drawn up in 2014 to support the implementation of the legislation, providing further detail to inform the use of tools and powers in addressing ASB.^{[footnote 10]} The 2014 national guidance has been updated a number of times, including in response to the implementation of the Sentencing Act 2020. These revisions sought to ensure that responses to ASB include the voices of victims and communities, and acknowledge the impact ASB has on victims. The guidance provides details of enforcement and support approaches that can be given according to the range of behaviours defined as ASB. It also outlines the response process, both in relation to out-of-court disposals^{[footnote 11]} and also the legal process, if cases progress to that stage. Details on the appeal process, known as the Community Trigger, are also provided.

To inform the actions taken in response to ASB, the 2014 Act highlights the importance of assessing vulnerability. The statutory guidance encourages agencies and organisations to undertake a risk assessment when the complaint is received, that considers the ‘needs and circumstances of the most vulnerable’. This helps inform agencies’ and organisations’ understanding of the causes of ASB and the impact this behaviour has had on those who have experienced or witnessed the incident.

Since this research was conducted, new anti-social behaviour principles have been developed^{[footnote 12]}. The principles were developed by the Anti-social Behaviour Strategic Board, which brings together a range of partners and representatives responsible for addressing ASB. The guidance sets out 5 principles that describe a consistent approach to understanding and addressing ASB in local communities. The aim is to provide local areas with a range of principles that should be considered when working towards the best possible outcome to ASB. It is recognised that not all principles will be applicable to all partners. The principles seek to ensure local processes aid reporting, with victims receiving a response which demonstrates that their report is being taken seriously. In addition to this, the principles advocate the importance of agencies and organisations having clear processes to tackle ASB, that ASB concerns should be considered nationally and locally as part of the community agenda, and that both adults and children who exhibit ASB should have the opportunity to take responsibility and address the factors causing this behaviour.

2.1.2 Key organisations and agencies involved

The powers set out in the 2014 Act were designed to allow for flexibility in their application by local agencies and organisations in responding to local ASB issues.

The 2014 Act sets out a duty for some agencies and organisations to work together – these include the police, local authorities, housing associations and other local bodies. The statutory guidance is aimed at supporting the working practices of these local agencies and organisations, and community-level responses, in effectively tackling ASB. The guidance provides some specificity about agencies’ and organisations’ roles and responsibilities when explaining processes such as the Community Trigger, where it states the police, local authorities, housing authorities and clinical commissioning groups^{[footnote 13]} in England and local health boards in Wales should be involved. These roles and responsibilities were also understood by agencies and organisations interviewed as part of the research.

The guidance highlights the importance of partnership working and how, when carried out effectively, it is the best way to support the victim. An essential element is information sharing, with the guidance highlighting the importance of information sharing protocols being developed between different agencies and organisations. As will be discussed further later in this sub-section, the importance of adopting a multi-agency approach to addressing ASB was also highlighted by agencies and organisations interviewed across the case study areas.

2.1.3 Organisational ASB guidance at a national level

In addition to the statutory guidance, some organisations and agencies, such as ASB Help and Resolve, have developed their own guidance documents aimed at providing information and support to agencies to aid the delivery of effective responses to ASB. While supporting the statutory guidance, these further outline best practice approaches of statutory and third-party organisations in responding to ASB to help shape local responses. Table 2.1 provides a breakdown of these guidance documents.

Table 2.1: Agency and organisation led national guidance

Agency or organisation that produced the guidance	Topic/overview	Breakdown of guidance
College of Policing – the professional body in charge of police training and development.[footnote 14]	Police training for frontline personnel on how to handle ASB.	Promotes the role of community engagement in providing a visible presence that helps tackle ASB as it can provide immediate mediation, public reassurance and reduce offending.
		Police-led problem solving is recommended in responding to ASB as it can provide an immediate resolution. Uses the SARA model (an acronym for Scanning [looking across information sources to identify and prioritise problems], Analysis [understanding the nature, extent, and cause of the problem], Response [tailored and targeted action against the causes], and Assessment [checking if the problem has been solved]).
		Targeting the activity of police is recommended. This involves allocating resources in areas and with communities deemed most at risk. This includes police forces targeting city centres and other industrial/commercial areas. At a community level, targeted activity can often support the small number of repeat victims.
Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) (formerly Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG)) – the UK government department for communities and local government in England.[footnote 15]	ASB guidance for social housing tenants.	The guidance defines what is and what is not ASB from a housing perspective.
		Sets out how to report ASB with a focus on landlords and what they can do to help. This includes: non-legal solutions; advising perpetrators on their behaviour; issuing direct warnings; acceptable behaviour agreements; using legal remedies; civil injunctions; possession proceedings; further action that can be taken with partner agencies; criminal behaviour orders, community protection notices, dispersal powers, public space protection orders and closure orders.
		What an ASB case review (Community Trigger) is and how to request one.
RESOLVE – a charity organisation recognised as a ‘centre of excellence’ which focuses on community safety and ASB.[footnote 16]	Case study examples of how ASB is resolved with a multi-agency response.	A ‘tools and powers’ document which compiles 17 case studies demonstrating the relationship between lead agencies and other agencies involved in ASB. These case studies cover a range of ASB types and outcomes, aimed at providing good practice examples for responding to ASB.
ASB Help – a charity that provides advice and support to victims of ASB.[footnote 17]	Chair’s pack for Community Trigger best practice	Sets out the best practice for agencies and organisations to follow in a Community Trigger scenario. There are 7 questions that are said to be important to ask the agencies and organisations involved in the case: has the type of ASB been identified?; have all those involved been identified?; have risk and vulnerability assessments been completed?; is there an identifiable lead agency?; is a proportionate response identifiable?; should a criminal investigation take precedence over civil proceedings?; where ASB is secondary to another issue, is the ASB still being managed?

2.1.4 Strategic context of local responses to ASB

Local agencies and organisations across the 5 case study areas referenced adhering to and following the definition in the 2014 Act and statutory guidance. Interviews with these agencies and organisations highlighted that local processes and approaches to responding to ASB were well established, evolving over time in response to changing ASB issues. These were not seen in the development of formal local guidance documents; however, several agencies and organisations had developed flow charts setting out their reporting process and local ways of working. For the police, guidance on the immediate response to ASB sits both within wider national frameworks, such as the Neighbourhood Policing Guidelines: Supporting materials for frontline officers, staff and volunteers^{[footnote 14]}, and local procedures. In contrast, the immediate response from local authorities and housing associations is driven by more informal ways of working. Overall, agencies and organisations indicated that the national guidance provided sufficient detail from which local practices could be developed and that it was seen in the approaches they were taking to respond to ASB.

‘They will have their local policies – each police force, each local authority will have their response policy or strategy… They will all look slightly different. They’re not nationally mandated in terms of what they should look like.’ National agency.

There was only one evident example provided of locally developed guidance across the case study areas. Below is an overview of the local guidance^{[footnote 18]} that is used in one area.

Local guidance case study: Leicester

In Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland (LLR), local agencies follow the incremental approach (a gradual, step-by-step approach) guidance. This is a protocol that was drawn up in 2017 to make sure the response to ASB was consistent in the LLR area. Its stages of response to a perpetrator are; verbal warning, written warning, mediation, acceptable behaviour contract, legal interventions and finally eviction. The guidance includes tailored responses and actions based on risk assessments and the vulnerability of the victim. This is done through their ASB risk matrix which is completed every time an ASB complaint is made. It ranks each case on the potential of threat/harm and the likelihood of this taking place.

The other aim of the incremental approach is to ensure joined-up working across agencies. Joint action groups are multi-agency, intelligence-led meetings that foster communication from all agencies, including those beyond the police, local authority and housing associations. An important part of joined-up agency working is information sharing. This is done through Sentinel, a web-based case management system that all agencies have access to and allows cases to be monitored throughout their course.

Within the case study areas, some agencies and organisations had dedicated ASB teams. There were examples of this across all agency and organisation types, from ASB teams in local authorities to dedicated ASB officers in housing associations. However, this was not the case for all areas and could vary within case study areas, with the perception that budget cuts had resulted in dedicated teams being replaced by teams that covered wider issues beyond ASB, for example, community safety and public protection teams. While this change in responsibility for responding to ASB was not viewed entirely as undesirable, agencies and organisations did view this change as limiting the focus that can be given to ASB. Where previously ASB teams were set up to purely focus on addressing local ASB issues, these concerns now were part of a broader agenda of teams such as community safety partnerships^{[footnote 19]}.

There was consistent reference to multi-agency working groups operating locally. This was seen by agencies and organisations to correspond to the common agreement that the complexity of ASB required a multi-agency response. Each area spoke of different multi-agency forums that had been established to strategically consider local ASB issues and discuss effective and efficient ways of addressing this behaviour. Working groups were set up in some areas to both review case study area data and the causes of ASB in developing preventative responses as well as to inform the action taken in dealing with ASB incidents. Representation on these groups tended to reflect the main agencies and organisations referenced in the statutory guidance; however, examples were also given of ‘problem-solving’ groups being established with local businesses. Most agencies and organisations said that these forums would meet on a regular basis, though this could vary from fortnightly to quarterly meetings.

‘I think other councils, kind of, all of their community safety type work is in one place. Ours is spread over different divisions, which in some ways can be challenging, but it really has meant that we work closely together. We also extend that out to our wider partnerships outside as well, so working really closely with the police. We meet with police at every level, so senior level with the leader of the council and the senior leadership team of our local policing team, on a monthly basis. My teams meet at different levels on a weekly basis. So, there’s that real, kind of, understanding and information-sharing around being able to resolve problems.’ Local authority, London.

Each of the case study areas had developed responses to ASB depending on whether the incident was committed by a young person or an adult. The response to youth ASB tended to be ‘incremental’. Examples given showed that agencies’ and organisations’ first response would be a letter to parents or carers. If further incidents were committed, the lead agency or organisation would visit the young person and their family, and if the behaviour persisted, a multi-agency approach would be taken to establish reasons for the behaviour and identify possible interventions to address these. With a young person offending, preventative and community resolutions are often looked to first and may not be as immediate. Where the perpetrator was an adult, the response and resolution stages tended to be more immediate, but consideration was still given to the causes of the ASB. Further detail on these processes is provided in Section 3.

3. Stages of the incident journey

Across the case study areas, agencies and organisations discussed local responses to ASB, referencing examples of good practice as well as challenges faced. This Section explores the similarities and differences in responses to ASB across the different stages of the incident journey and between areas.

Both the review of national guidance and qualitative interviews with those from agencies and organisations across the 5 case study areas have shown that the incident journey for ASB follows 4 stages, all of which are explored further below. These are:

1. Reporting
2. Investigation
3. Resolution
4. Appeals

Figure 3.1: Overview of the incident journey from reporting to resolution

In discussing the approach taken locally to address ASB, agencies/organisations and those who had experienced or witnessed ASB referenced the lack of clarity on what defines ASB and the distinction with criminal offences. The unclear distinction between ASB and criminal behaviour has been documented in previous research^{[footnote 20]} and acknowledged as part of developing national statutory guidance; “There is a general acceptance that some low-level crimes can also be classed as anti-social behaviour but a clear explanation of when a behaviour is criminal and when anti-social has not been provided.”^{[footnote 21]} Agencies and organisations highlighted that the lack of clarity on what defines ASB and criminal behaviour can affect the reporting and resolution process. Agencies and organisations, as well as victims and witnesses, indicated that this lack of clarity can lead to cases being passed back and forth between agencies and organisations. This is explored further in the reporting and resolution stages in this Section.

‘The only thing I would say, in my view, is and why would they, your average member of the public isn’t clear when we say ASB, what the technical definition is and you get things like, the drug dealing around the street corners is anti-social, yes, it is but actually police call it a crime because it’s drug dealing. The criminal damage in the park where the kids keep burning the swings, that’s anti-social, yes it is, but police call it a crime, not ASB.’ National agency.

3.1 Stage 1: Reporting ASB

As highlighted in Figure 3.1, the first stage of the incident journey is when those who have witnessed or experienced ASB report an incident to an agency or organisation. The agencies and organisations people most commonly report ASB to are the police, local authorities and housing associations, although a few victims or witnesses mentioned reporting to third-party organisations such as charities. This sub-section of the report explores this stage of the incident journey by looking at the reporting mechanisms available, information on ASB reports recorded, awareness levels of reporting, expectation of reporting and level of satisfaction with reporting.

National guidance: Reporting

The national guidance does not provide reference to the reporting mechanisms or the reporting processes that should be in place for victims and witnesses. Likewise, there is no nationally agreed information that agencies and organisations are required to record when ASB reports are made. However, the guidance does stipulate ‘putting victims at the heart of the response to anti-social behaviour’, thereby requiring agencies and organisations to develop processes that support victims in reporting ASB incidents.

Key findings:

1. There are several ways in which individuals can report incidents of ASB. These range from online reporting to directly contacting specific people within ASB agencies and organisations. All agencies and organisations across the case study areas highlighted having a centralised reporting mechanism in the form of a helpline; however, there was variation in the range of reporting routes available.
2. Victims indicated low levels of awareness of reporting mechanisms and confusion on how and who to report incidents to, often indicating that they did not report incidents as a result. Despite this confusion, the general perception was that the police and local authorities were predominantly responsible for dealing with ASB. Victims also indicated finding it difficult to determine when an incident was serious enough to report.
3. Likelihood of reporting varied by the type of ASB. Sexual ASB, problems with out-of-control dogs and nuisance neighbours were highlighted as the types of ASB that survey respondents were most likely to have reported. Finally, across all types of ASB, the incident being too trivial/not worth reporting was the most common reason why ASB was not reported, especially for loud music, youths/teenagers/groups hanging around and inconsiderate behaviour.
4. Challenges faced during reporting have resulted in victims citing low levels of satisfaction with the reporting process.

3.1.1 Methods of reporting ASB

There are several ways in which individuals who have witnessed or experienced ASB can report the incidents. Interviews with victims, agencies and organisations found that reporting routes available ranged from using helplines to reporting online or using existing contacts within agencies and organisations with whom victims had previous contact. The ‘Overview of the types of ASB reported per agency or organisation’ below summarises the different existing reporting routes, by agency and organisation, across all 5 case study areas. It also highlights the types of ASB incident reports that these agencies and organisations are more likely to receive.

Overview of the types of ASB reported per agency or organisation and the reporting routes available

Victims and witnesses can report to 4 main agencies and organisations:

Police

Individuals can report by:

• calling 999 or the 101 helpline
• reporting online
• speaking directly to police officers or through community meetings

Types of ASB individuals can report:

• youths/teenagers/groups hanging around
• vandalism
• vehicle-related ASB
• drunken behaviour
• loud music/noise
• people using/evidence of drugs
• people being intimidated/harassed
• problems with out-of-control dogs
• sexual ASB

Local authorities

Individuals can report by:

• calling helplines
• reporting online
• attending community meetings
• speaking to their local councillors

Types of ASB individuals can report:

• nuisance neighbours
• loud music/noise
• youths/teenagers/groups hanging around
• vandalism
• environmental ASB
• inconsiderate behaviour
• vehicle-related ASB

Housing associations

Individuals can report by:

• calling helplines
• reporting online
• using housing association apps
• contacting their housing officer
• attending tenancy meetings

Types of ASB individuals can report:

• nuisance neighbours
• loud music/noise
• youths/teenagers/groups hanging around
• vandalism
• inconsiderate behaviour
• environmental ASB
• problems with out-of-control dogs

Other organisations

Individuals can report by:

• using other services
• speaking to support officers
• calling support lines

Types of ASB individuals can report:

• inconsiderate behaviour
• people being intimidated/harassed
• sexual ASB
• problems with out-of-control dogs

There are similarities and differences in the reporting routes that agencies offer. All agencies and organisations highlighted having centralised reporting mechanisms, designed to ensure consistency in data capture and action taken. The initial contact point was usually a telephone helpline or online mailbox. For example, individuals can call 999 or 101 to report to the police. Similarly, local authorities and housing associations have helpline numbers for the relevant teams, such as noise teams or community safety teams.

Another common centralised reporting mechanism, mentioned by the police, housing associations and local authorities was the availability of online reporting tools through their websites. In addition, housing associations generally offered their tenants the ability to report an incident through the housing association app (if they had one) or directly to their housing officer. Methods of reporting ASB were described by agencies and organisations as being commonly known and advertised through websites and in police stations and local authority offices. Awareness of these reporting mechanisms is explored further in sub-section 3.1.3, as well as whether the reporting process is consistent in practice.

In addition to these centralised reporting mechanisms, victims and witnesses also spoke about reporting ASB to other organisations, individuals and social media forums. Examples included reporting ASB to:

• police community support officers or safer neighbourhood teams
• local authorities through community meetings or via local councillors
• case workers when accessing social services or support from charities^{[footnote 22]}

Some agencies and organisations also highlighted sharing reports of ASB between themselves and with other services, for example, to adult or children social services, to determine referral to the appropriate agency.

Victims and witnesses also referenced reporting incidents to MPs, neighbourhood watch, schools and environmental organisations (such as Urban Green and Canal & River Trust). Victims and witnesses also discussed sharing concerns and experiences on social media, such as on neighbourhood Facebook groups and community WhatsApp groups. However, agencies and organisations raised concerns about the public using social media to report ASB-related issues. The view was that a report through social media would be less likely to be picked up and acted on by relevant agencies and organisations. As such, some agencies and organisations highlighted that they were trying to discourage people from making reports on social media.

‘Facebook, I think, is the main one. They’ll get it in but I think a lot of our forces try and discourage making official reports on there because of it not being monitored continuously in some areas. They definitely try and send everyone to the police website.’ Police, Liverpool.

Across the case study areas, it was evident that the police adopted a more consistent approach to reporting compared to other agencies and organisations. This is because the reporting mechanism for an ASB incident is the same as for crime incidents and is made through police call centres.

Conversely, there were larger variations between local authorities and housing associations in the 5 case study areas. For example, one housing association based in Liverpool indicated that due to having sites across their county, their tenants can report incidents using their national helpline, by visiting the local offices in person or getting in touch directly with their housing officer, whom they would most likely have a relationship with already. In contrast, another housing association in Newcastle upon Tyne indicated that due to decreases in their funding, tenants can only report incidents through their online reporting mechanism or an automated telephone helpline. The implications of these varying reporting processes are highlighted below.

3.1.2 Information on ASB reports recorded by organisations and agencies

The type of information gathered at the point of reporting was broadly consistent across local authorities, the police and housing associations in the case study areas. This included personal details of the person making the report – such as name, date of birth, address, ethnicity, age and gender – as well as the descriptions and locations of the ASB incidents reported. However, interviews with agencies and organisations also found operational differences.

These differences included the systems used to record information, and how information was then processed. For example, agencies and organisations in the different case study areas highlighted using a range of IT systems. Some agencies and organisations (such as the police and local authorities) referenced using case management software, while others (such as housing associations) referred to using emails and shared servers to manage information. Only police forces cited some consistency with how information recorded was processed, with incident data they recorded ultimately being added to police-recorded incident statistics. This is explored further in sub-section 3.2.

The case studies below illustrate how certain areas across the country record information and how they use this information in their work.

Case study: Leicestershire

Local authorities and the police in Leicestershire use a shared information recording system called Sentinel. The Sentinel reporting form comprises 2 pages: the first page being general information about the ASB incidents and the second a detailed information sheet containing further details on the ASB case reported as well as updates on any work carried out to resolve the case. The form collates personal information of the person reporting ASB, such as name, date of birth, address, ethnicity, age and gender. The form also records information on locations and contributing factors, and categorises the type of ASB so that organisations can analyse and report the various ASB types affecting their area if they need to.

The form is risk-focused: it uses a ‘5-by-5’ risk matrix which looks at impact versus probability to assess risk for the victim and location-based risk. A risk assessment is also conducted for the perpetrator to determine any motivating factors causing the ASB that should be considered in any action taken. The system is managed jointly by the police and local authorities, and has a feature which can geographically map the ASB incidents in Leicestershire. Police agencies described the system as:

‘… really comprehensive in making sure that everything you need to know to be able to assess a case is in that form.’ Police, Leicester.

How the police and local authorities use the information recorded on ASB reports

The Sentinel system has a reporting function, which can be used by 9 partners: the police, the local authority and 7 districts and boroughs. In addition to the shared information, all partners have access to their own reports. The Sentinel system can be used to pull reports on high-risk cases across Leicestershire, as well as information such as types of ASB and any notable increases in cases for particular ASB types. The reports can also be used by analysts within the police and local authorities to feed any relevant information, trends or statistics into meetings discussing community safety-based issues. Reports are created by the local authority every month as standard, as well as on-demand if required. The police also use information recorded for their own meetings:

‘Once a quarter, we get the police force ASB stats that are presented to each of the CSP [Community Safety Partnership] locations, because they come under the same crime stats as everything, so we get a report once every quarter and it tells you what the quarter’s ASB stats are and what the types of ASB are within that, so those reports go out quite far and wide.’ Local authority, Leicester.

Case study: Cardiff

Cardiff police call-handlers record all information the person reporting ASB provides about the incidents on an incident form. The call-handlers then carry out an assessment of risk, threat and harm that could be posed by the ASB incidents and grade the call as ‘emergency’, ‘priority’, ‘non-emergency’ or ‘slow time’, which they also record on the form. Slow time can be a 24-hour response whereby either police officers speak to the person reporting ASB on the phone to guide them to the right organisation or provide advice, or a neighbourhood policing team will go out the next day and follow it up.

The police raised the point that reliance on call-handlers to record information could pose a potential risk, for example, call-takers may not be able to identify if it is a repeat caller making the report, or they may not record all information properly. However, they highlighted that such risks are reduced as ASB police officers view the forms when reviewing the case and amend/add information if needed. This is because ASB police officers have more time to access history recorded against an individual and have a better awareness of hotspot areas and repeat perpetrators.

Case study: Liverpool

Liverpool police usually receive ASB reports by either telephone or online submission. Each report is graded depending on the severity – that is, the risk of harm. They use a form, known as an ‘ASB1’, on their system to record all information about an ASB case. The form can also be used by officers attending an incident, not just when receiving an ASB report from an individual.

The questions in the form include standard demographic questions as well as more specific questions on the incident, such as:

• ‘How did it make you feel?’
• ‘Do you feel it’s increasing in severity?’
• ‘Do you feel like there’s any reason you’re being targeted?’

The aim of these questions is to grade the reports based on the impact of the ASB incidents on the person experiencing it and to assess whether people feel the ASB they experienced is motivated based on their protected characteristics (for example, race, sexuality, gender identity) to inform the grading of the report.

Depending on the grading a report receives, it will be forwarded to the appropriate policing team with suggested actions and follow-ups on how to deal with the case. This could include, for instance, higher police visibility in the area. The team who receives the report will also do a follow-up with the initial caller after an agreed amount of time. The same questions are asked again, and an assessment is made of whether the police action has had a positive effect. The report will continually get reassessed until the team deem the actions taken have stopped the ASB incidents and the case is resolved, in which case the form will be closed.

Case study: London

A stakeholder from a local authority said they ask for ‘as much information as possible’ when a person makes a formal ASB report to them. The main questions they ask include:

‘What is happening? Where is this happening? When is this happening? How often? Who’s involved? Do you have any descriptions? Kind of, the who, what, where, when, why?’ Local authority, London.

Police in London use a system called ‘Air Space’ to record incidents of ASB. Call-handlers record information when an ASB report is made. The call-handlers then inform the person making the report of the next steps or actions the police are going to take:

‘Somebody will just tell what we will or won’t do about it, whether we will be able to send somebody or whether we won’t be sending anybody, but someone will be in touch.’ Local authority, London.

After they receive the information from the person reporting, a vulnerability assessment is carried out to determine the urgency required to respond to the report. If the vulnerability report is classed as ‘high’, a member of the police will be dispatched to speak to either the victim or the perpetrator (if known) or both. Information on whether a person is a repeat caller and/or victim is also recorded on their systems (clarifying that repeat callers are not necessarily always repeat victims).

Case study: Newcastle upon Tyne

Newcastle’s police agencies described distinguishing reports into 2 types of ASB – ‘general’ ASB and ASB where the victim perceives that they are targeted because of their protected characteristics – to inform their risk assessment and harm reduction plan accordingly. The police make the harm reduction plan based on the ‘6 WHs’, which are:

• who
• what
• where
• why
• when
• how

Based on the risk assessment the police carry out, the reports are graded as low, medium or high risk. High is a threat to life, medium would have a considerable impact on the victim, and low would have minimal impact on the victim (for example, they are irritated by the noise of an exhaust in the street). Police agencies noted that threats to life are not very frequent or common. Based on this risk assessment, the relevant team within the police will be encouraged to take the relevant actions and to speak with relevant agencies and organisations required to progress the case.

Newcastle City Council described having 2 separate ASB teams with distinct focuses. One ASB team specialises in geographical-based ASB and operates across the whole of the local authority area. Their primary focus is parks and neighbourhood-based ASB (rather than a one-on-one neighbour nuisance). This ASB team still deal with individual perpetrators but usually when they are part of a bigger group causing nuisance in the area. The other ASB team within Newcastle City Council focuses on personal and home-based ASB, such as noise or neighbour nuisance. This team uses a case management system for ASB reports:

‘There are individual cases of anti-social behaviour [that sit] within the other team – the housing [focused ASB] team. They have a case tracking system where everything gets logged.’ Local authority, Newcastle upon Tyne.

The geographical-based ASB team uses a database in which they log all information that is formally reported. This database is not a case management system:

‘It’s more of a hotspot database, so we can see the trends, we can see what’s happening in any area across the city in relation to all anti-social behaviour or we can break it down into specific crimes and specific anti-social behaviours. So, we can see if there are pockets that we need to be looking at, and pockets that we need to be tackling.’ Local authority, Newcastle upon Tyne.

3.1.3 Awareness of reporting

There was low awareness of reporting mechanisms available, with victims describing being ‘confused’ about whom to report ASB to. This confusion often stemmed from a lack of awareness of which agencies and organisations are responsible for dealing with different types of ASB incidents. As discussed in sub-section 3.1.1, agencies and organisations can all respond to different types of ASB. For example, complaints about nuisance neighbours or loud music/noise can be reported to housing associations, local authorities and the police.

Despite this confusion, there was a general perception that both the police and local authorities are responsible for dealing with ASB. This often meant that victims or witnesses tended to report to the police or local authorities even when it was not the most effective route to report an incident.

‘So you tend to find that a lot of people don’t know to report incidents to the local authority, or in the past that’s what I’ve found, they didn’t realise that they could report incidents to their landlord, for us to deal with it, and a lot of people were reporting incidents to the police.’ Housing association, Newcastle upon Tyne.

‘I think ASB genuinely is one of the only areas, really, where the onus is on you to know where to report to. And if you get it wrong, the onus is still on you to find the right person to report to. And I’ve seen that first-hand.’ Police, Newcastle upon Tyne.

Victims who had not reported the ASB incidents found that determining when an incident was ‘serious’ enough to be reported was difficult. As a result, some stated that they sought advice online, from friends or neighbours, or from the Citizens Advice Bureau about if and when to report it, how to report it and to whom.

‘Sometimes you don’t know, is it serious enough to report it. It could be serious in your head, but is it serious enough for [the police] to deal with? If I’ve seen, say, kids doing drugs, or someone doing drugs, I wouldn’t go and report them. It’s like, I’ll just say “Oh, my God” and that’s it. I don’t think I would go and report them to the police. Unless they give abuse for no reason and it went a bit verbal. But if they were actually just doing drugs and I seen them doing it, I don’t think I’d be going to the police, no.’ Experienced ASB, focus group, Cardiff.

The likelihood of reporting varied by type of ASB. As seen in Figure 3.2, survey victims or witnesses who were most likely to report ASB via any reporting route were those who witnessed or experienced sexual ASB (with 69% reporting), problems with out-of-control dogs (59%) and nuisance neighbours (56%). Despite being the most common types of ASB witnessed or experienced among survey victims or witnesses, victims or witnesses were less likely to report incidents involving youths/teenagers/groups hanging around (with 31% reporting), drunken behaviour (37%) and inconsiderate behaviour (38%).

Figure 3.2: Percentage of survey victims or witnesses who said they reported the ASB they witnessed/experienced, by type of ASB

Notes:

1. Q11. Have you reported the anti-social behaviour that you experienced/witnessed to any of the following organisations?
2. Base: Those who had witnessed/experienced each type of ASB and answered the survey question.
3. Bases: sexual ASB (116), problems with out-of-control dogs (195), nuisance neighbours (477), environmental ASB (432), people being intimidated/harassed (464), vandalism (516), people using drugs/evidence of drugs (523), loud music/noise (534), aggressive begging (321), vehicle-related ASB (585), inconsiderate behaviour (673), drunken behaviour (505) and youths/teenagers/groups hanging around (712).

Victims or witnesses also mentioned reporting issues such as nuisance neighbours, loud music/noise, environmental ASB and vandalism to local authorities, but these were less commonly experienced. Housing associations were referenced as an agency to report ASB relating to housing and neighbour issues to.

‘Obviously going to your landlord or, you know, I would say whoever you’re renting the house off of, if it [the ASB experienced] was property-wise. Because obviously if you’re renting out, you know, off a property company then you would need to go to them, wouldn’t you?’ Witnessed ASB, female, 57, Newcastle upon Tyne.

A higher proportion of survey victims or witnesses reported incidents of people being intimidated/harassed and evidence of drugs to the police than to other agencies. This contrasts with incidents of environmental ASB which were most commonly reported to the local authority, as shown in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1: Percentage of survey victims or witnesses who reported ASB witnessed or experienced to different agencies and organisations, by type of ASB^{[footnote 23]}

ASB type	Police	Local authority	Housing association	Overall incidents reported
Sexual ASB	37%	40%	34%	69%
Problems with out-of-control dogs	28%	34%	21%	59%
Nuisance neighbours	28%	29%	26%	56%
Environmental ASB	21%	34%	17%	53%
People being intimidated/harassed	36%	19%	17%	51%
Vandalism	30%	23%	12%	50%
People using/evidence of drugs	34%	19%	15%	47%
Loud music/noise	21%	26%	18%	45%
Aggressive begging	22%	22%	23%	44%
Vehicle-related ASB	25%	19%	11%	40%
Inconsiderate behaviour	19%	21%	13%	38%
Drunken behaviour	23%	18%	13%	37%
Youths/teenagers/groups hanging around	16%	16%	11%	31%

Notes:

1. Q11. Have you reported the anti-social behaviour that you experienced/witnessed to any of the following organisations? Select all.
2. Base: Those who had witnessed/experienced each type of ASB and answered the survey questions.
3. Bases: sexual ASB (116), problems with out-of-control dogs (195), nuisance neighbours (477), environmental ASB (432), people being intimidated/harassed (464), vandalism (516), people using drugs/evidence of drugs (523), loud music (534), aggressive begging (321), vehicle-related ASB (585), inconsiderate behaviour (673), drunken behaviour (505) and youths/teenagers/groups hanging around (712).

The reasons given for not reporting varied by ASB type. Participants commonly did not report because they ‘did not think it would be taken seriously’, which was especially high for those who experienced sexual ASB. Perceiving ASB as ‘too trivial/not worth reporting’ was also a common reason found among those who experienced or witnessed loud music, youths/teenagers/groups hanging around and inconsiderate behaviour. ‘Did not feel organisation would be able to act’ was regularly raised as well and was significantly higher for problems with out-of-control dogs, environmental ASB and vehicle-related ASB. ‘It is something that happens as part of my job’, ‘dislike or fear organisations’ and ‘dealt with it myself’ were rarely given as reasons for not reporting across most types of ASB. However, 11% of those who experienced nuisance neighbours did not report ASB because they dealt with it themselves.

Table 3.2: Percentage of survey victims or witnesses that did not report by type of ASB

Reasons for not reporting	Youths/teenagers/groups hanging around	Inconsiderate behaviour	Vehicle-related ASB	Drunken behaviour	Vandalism	Loud music/noise	People using/evidence of drugs	Nuisance neighbours	Environmental ASB	People being intimidated/harassed	Aggressive begging	Problems with out-of-control dogs	Sexual ASB
Too trivial/not worth reporting	33%	33%	24%	28%	24%	33%	24%	29%	27%	24%	26%	17%	24%
Did not think it would be taken seriously	32%	31%	27%	33%	28%	32%	34%	26%	41%	31%	33%	40%	48%
Did not feel organisation would be able to act	27%	29%	36%	24%	30%	29%	30%	27%	38%	29%	25%	42%	26%
It did not harm me	25%	25%	20%	28%	18%	14%	20%	15%	13%	17%	26%	18%	11%
Was not sure it was a crime	19%	16%	12%	17%	9%	21%	7%	13%	14%	16%	20%	18%	31%
Thought organisations would be too busy to help	18%	13%	21%	18%	18%	18%	22%	11%	20%	18%	18%	21%	15%
Too much trouble	14%	14%	13%	10%	16%	10%	14%	8%	15%	13%	17%	19%	29%
Fear of reprisal	13%	12%	8%	7%	8%	18%	21%	25%	11%	15%	10%	19%	10%
Did not know I could report it	8%	11%	10%	7%	10%	7%	4%	11%	14%	11%	11%	15%	16%
Thought someone else had already/would report it	6%	4%	10%	7%	13%	5%	7%	7%	11%	8%	6%	10%	8%
Previous bad experience of organisations	4%	5%	6%	3%	3%	3%	5%	3%	1%	5%	6%	9%	9%
Dealt with it myself	2%	4%	2%	1%	3%	3%	0%	11%	5%	4%	2%	6%	0%
Dislike or fear of organisations	2%	2%	3%	2%	1%	2%	4%	2%	1%	5%	4%	6%	6%
It is something that happens as part of my job	0%	1%	1%	1%	0%	0%	1%	1%	2%	3%	2%	0%	0%

Notes:

1. Q12. Why didn’t you report the incident? Select all.
2. Base: All who did not report the ASB they witnessed/experienced in last 12 months and answered the question.
3. Bases: Sexual ASB (31), problems with out-of-control dogs (78), nuisance neighbours (202), environmental ASB (189), people being intimidated/harassed (205), vandalism (237), people using/evidence of drugs (257), loud music/noise (281), aggressive begging (172), vehicle-related ASB (323), inconsiderate behaviour (407), drunken behaviour (308) and youths/teenagers/groups hanging around (468).

3.1.4 Expectations after reporting

Victims or witnesses thought that if an agency or organisation received enough complaints and reports they would be more likely to investigate the issue and try to resolve it. They also expected agencies or organisations to respond within 24 hours of reporting for cases of ASB they perceived as serious. Both these perceptions somewhat contrasted with operational practices. All agencies and organisations indicated that responses were determined by the impact the incident had on the individuals and community rather than the number of reports received. Similarly, they all highlighted having tiered systems based on risk assessments to determine the time frame for a response. This made the 24-hour response expectation frequently unrealistic for reports as what victims or witnesses deemed as serious incidents might not be assessed as high priority by agencies and organisations.

Victims or witnesses who had not reported an incident assumed that the reporting process would be lengthy, difficult and have no results. This was particularly in reference to ASB perceived as less severe, in cases when people did not know the identity of the perpetrator or it was thought it would be difficult for the perpetrator to be identified (for example, incidents involving aggressive begging, vandalism or vehicle-related ASB). Victims or witnesses speculated that they would be asked a lot of questions and there would be a lot of paperwork. The perception that the reporting process was difficult and lengthy and time consuming was ultimately found to be a significant barrier to people reporting.

‘I don’t know, they’d probably come out and ask me questions, and just, what I want is, yes, they’d probably do a whole load of paperwork and stuff. Instead of doing all that, I just want somebody to go around and just tell those homeless to go to a place where there’s homes for them to stay in, and stuff.’ Experienced ASB, female, 50, Leicester.

3.1.5 Levels of satisfaction with the reporting process

The survey found that victims or witnesses who reported ASB tended to have mixed experiences, regardless of the agency or organisation people reported to. The percentage of survey victims or witnesses who were either ‘very’ or ‘fairly’ satisfied with how their report was handled ranged from 40% to 94% depending on the type of ASB and the agency or organisation reported to. A higher proportion of victims or witnesses reported being satisfied with how the report was handled by housing associations than other agencies and organisations reported to. The exact reasons for this are difficult to determine; however, qualitative findings suggest that this could be related to the nature and severity of specific incidents being reported to housing associations. For example, housing associations indicated having existing relationships with their customers that expanded beyond the challenges of experiencing ASB and trying to find a resolution. As a result, their communication was easier, already established and relational. Additionally, housing associations indicated a broader range of channels for reporting which included helplines, mobile phone apps, direct reporting to housing officers and tenancy meetings. Finally, housing associations highlighted reports made to them often tended to be less severe ASB incidents such as nuisance neighbours or loud music/noise, and that cases of higher severity tended to be reported directly to the police or escalated by them to the police.

Table 3.3: Percentage of survey victims or witnesses who were ‘very’ or ‘fairly’ satisfied with how their report of ASB was handled by each agency, by type of ASB

ASB type	Police	Local authority	Housing association
Sexual ASB	83%	78%	94%
Problems with out-of-control dogs	67%	68%	89%
Nuisance neighbours	44%	40%	41%
Environmental ASB	69%	48%	63%
People being intimidated/harassed	56%	54%	75%
Vandalism	57%	54%	67%
People using/evidence of drugs	47%	47%	60%
Loud music/noise	57%	41%	60%
Aggressive begging	67%	62%	80%
Vehicle-related ASB	49%	51%	73%
Inconsiderate behaviour	48%	40%	58%
Youths/teenagers/groups hanging around	42%	51%	74%
Drunken behaviour	60%	58%	76%

Notes:

1. Q14. Overall, were you satisfied or dissatisfied with the way the matter was dealt with?
2. Base: Those who had reported ASB witnessed/experienced to each organisation.
3. Bases: sexual ASB (116), problems with out-of-control dogs (195), nuisance neighbours (477), environmental ASB (432), people being intimidated/harassed (464), vandalism (516), people using/evidence of drugs (523), loud music/noise (534), aggressive begging (321), vehicle-related ASB (585), inconsiderate behaviour (673), drunken behaviour (505) and youths/teenagers/groups hanging around (712).

3.1.6 Common reasons for a negative experience

In contrast to the survey results, victims and witnesses interviewed tended to be more negative about their experiences of reporting.

Reporting routes being inaccessible and difficult

Some reported routes as being inaccessible and difficult. For example, individuals who reported ASB mentioned experiencing long waiting times on the phone or not being able to report incidents as they happen because call lines are only open during working hours. Agencies and organisations also identified challenges with their reporting mechanisms for victims, such as the fact that all reporting processes are only in English and can often involve the use of technology such as mobile phones or websites. There was also a view that local businesses would be extremely unlikely to report ASB due a to lack of time to report, the process being too difficult and lengthy for them and a lack of confidence in the system.

‘Businesses don’t report stuff. Unless it’s incredibly serious and it’s an ongoing threat, typically they don’t report issues for a number of reasons and I can understand why they don’t… I think they’ve lost confidence that actually anything will happen because of their reporting it. You know, there is often, in their view, a lack of police response. Nothing gets done, and if you’re going to spend your time reporting something and nothing gets done at the back end of it, people then think, “Well, what’s the point? Why do I bother. I might as well not bother next time.”’ Third sector organisation, Newcastle upon Tyne.

Slow and bureaucratic reporting process

Victims or witnesses referenced additional processes as part of the reporting process – for example, police checking CCTV or victims providing a statement or photos/videos as evidence.

Slow response times

Victims or witnesses who had reported ASB highlighted how long the process for reporting an incident can be and how difficult it can be to find the time to do so. This was acknowledged by agencies and organisations too. For example, the police also acknowledged that the 101 number may not be the best system to report ASB as people were often put on hold for a long time which could result in frustration and people giving up trying to report the ASB. Individuals in full-time employment also referenced having to find time to report through routes that are sometimes tied to the same business hours during which they work.

Receiving a vague or no response

Individuals who reported ASB incidents expressed frustration with the responses they received. These included: not receiving confirmation of their report; not clearly being told what the next steps would be; or receiving automated responses that provided no further information.

Interacting with several different agencies and organisations

Individuals who reported ASB often reported not receiving any updates on the outcomes or resolutions following their reporting. This made them feel like they were not being listened to or taken seriously. Cases where victims or witnesses were signposted to multiple agencies or organisations to report ASB or where there was disagreement on who was responsible for responding were perceived as agencies and organisations avoiding responsibility and accountability.

‘And when you get anti-social behaviour, you tend to think, “Right, I’m going to report it to the police”, you ring the police, the police then tell you, “It’s not our problem, you’ve got to contact the council.” You ring the council and they turn round and say, “Well it’s a police matter, nothing to do with us.” So we’re left in between, thinking, “Where do we turn to?”… it does leave us with a feeling of being dumped to one side.’ Experienced ASB, Leicester, focus group.

The negative experiences of reporting ASB often resulted in individuals losing confidence in agencies’ and organisations’ ability or willingness to effectively respond to ASB. Victims or witnesses spoke of there being no point in reporting ASB in future, particularly when the identity of the perpetrator was not known, as authorities would not be able or willing to catch the perpetrator.

In contrast, positive experiences were attributed to a simple reporting process, a quick and professional response, a positive outcome (that is, progression from reporting to investigation) and follow-up communication providing them with updates. Victims with positive experiences of reporting described feeling listened to and taken seriously, which encouraged them to report ASB again in the future. Victims or witnesses also referred to more positive outcomes when they had escalated ASB-related issues to local MPs and where victims had taken collective action (for example, through petitions) to report an issue.

‘Yes, I am [satisfied]. I’ve got to be fair, they understood where I was coming from. I think they listened to all the evidence that I sent. I had to fill out the diaries, I had to fill in a diary thing in every day. You know, how loud the music was, just do I think it was a respectable tone, how long did the music go on for, you know. They were good. The 2 policemen and [name] from the housing association, they were marvellous.’ Witnessed ASB, female, 49, Cardiff.

3.1.7 Enablers and improvements for reporting ASB

Agencies, organisations and victims identified how the barriers could be addressed to encourage people to report ASB incidents and increase satisfaction levels when they do. The main themes are highlighted below.

Improving motivation to report all types of ASB

Agencies, organisations and victims highlighted the differences in willingness to report ASB based on the severity, frequency and impact of an incident. As highlighted above, there was a perception among individuals who had not reported ASB that the process is difficult and lengthy, particularly for incidents where they felt a positive outcome was unlikely. For example, victims who experienced noise-related ASB pointed out that telephone lines to report noise did not operate outside working hours which is when they suggested that most noise-related ASB occurred.

‘I wouldn’t necessarily report things that cause nuisance… I found it annoying, then that’s a nuisance to me, it’s not necessarily an offence, but if I saw somebody committing an offence, then I’d probably tend to report that because that is something that they [the police] can do.’ Experienced ASB, male, 70, Leicester.

Providing people with the option to report ASB anonymously

Victims said anonymity would be an enabler to reporting ASB. The inability to report ASB anonymously was seen to contribute to people’s fears of repercussions from perpetrators or other neighbours, which was raised as a major barrier to reporting.

‘I think fear of retribution is definitely something as well. So, I know that that’s something that I was personally concerned about when I reported the domestic disturbance for my next-door neighbour, because it was going to be very, very obvious that the person who reported it had come from our home, because we’re the only people who shared a wall with them because it was semi-detached.’ Witnessed ASB, female, 31, Newcastle upon Tyne.

Improving efficiency of the reporting process

Victims who had experienced the ASB reporting process felt that a quicker and more efficient reporting process would enable more people to report incidents of ASB. Some referenced being less likely to report a future incident because of the lengthy process they had experienced in reporting previously. There was also reference made to people in full-time employment finding it difficult to find the time to report ASB. Some agencies and organisations also referenced this as an area for change, with those working closely with local businesses describing businesses being extremely unlikely to report ASB due to lack of time to report, the process being too difficult and lengthy for them and a lack of confidence in the system.

‘The time it takes. The speed of reporting… a quick system might help people. Also, anonymity. I think they’re probably the 2 biggest [things to improve].’ Witnessed ASB, male, 29, London.

Improving accessibility of the reporting process

Making the reporting process easier and more accessible was seen by victims as increasing the likelihood that incidents of ASB would be reported. For example, agencies and organisations highlighted that all reporting information and processes are in English or require individuals to use websites to access information and submit ASB reports online. The need to develop a centralised reporting system and triage reports so that the process is more accessible and easier to navigate was raised. This could involve having a single phone number and email address for people to report ASB, which would route reports to different agencies or organisations depending on the type of ASB.

‘I’ve, on a number of occasions, raised that there should be a simplified reporting mechanism for anti-social behaviour. There should be one phone number or one email address that they report to regardless of what the issue is and that would then be spread out to whoever needs to lead on that problem.’ Local authority, Newcastle upon Tyne.

Similarly, victims also suggested setting up a dedicated emergency phone number for ASB, and an app or online portal where victims can be kept up to date on how their report is being dealt with. However, agencies, organisations and victims also considered that telephone lines may not be the most efficient system to report ASB. Victims who experienced noise-related ASB pointed out that telephone lines to report noise did not operate outside working hours which is when victims or witnesses suggested that most noise-related ASB occurred. Police stakeholders also acknowledged that the 101 number may not be the best system to report ASB as people were often put on hold for a long time which could result in frustration and people giving up trying to report the ASB.

Improving visibility and response of authorities

Victims thought that if the police or neighbourhood police officers increased their presence in the local area, people would be more likely to report ASB as it would make it easier for them to approach an officer directly to report an issue. Some recommended agencies and organisations be more proactive and visible ‘on the ground’, and those from agencies and organisations also suggested increasing police resources, including neighbourhood policing, to improve the way authorities respond to ASB.

Improving public trust in authorities

Public trust in agencies and organisations was low, particularly towards the police, which undermined the likelihood to report ASB. Victims or witnesses also felt that people would be more willing to report incidents if they felt confident that their concerns would be addressed. Local campaigns which highlight how ASB issues are being tackled will improve confidence among local communities that ASB concerns are being taken seriously.

Increasing public engagement with local community groups and networks

Agencies and organisations considered victims are more motivated to report ASB when they are active parts of local networks (for example being part of a Safer Neighbourhood Board) or are part of a community group.^{[footnote 24]} This was based on the view that such forums provide a space for residents to raise concerns and share feedback relating to their experiences in the local area. Therefore, agencies and organisations, as well as some members of the public, suggested that more needs to be done to increase public engagement and community-based routes of reporting ASB. This could include local networks and community groups communicating locally to highlight they exist and ways for local communities to become part of these forums.

‘In all the neighbourhoods that I’ve lived in, I don’t think that there’s enough of a community effort… I get it, on one hand, that there is a lack of trust in institutions, but institutions effectively is only made up of the people that drive that institution if the people don’t do what they need to do for the institution to mould itself in that fashion, then it’s [difficult].’ Witnessed ASB, female, 32, London.

3.2 Stage 2: Investigation

This sub-section of the report explores the investigation stage of the incident journey following a report being made, and steps taken by agencies and organisations in determining action taken.

National guidance: Investigation

The 2014 Act states that investigating ASB should be victim-led. The lead agency or organisation will contact the victims, the perpetrator (if known) and any witnesses to gather information and evidence. The statutory guidance does not state what information needs to be collected when investigating an incident.

The national guidance does require the agency or organisation leading the investigation to conduct assessments on the vulnerability of, and risk of harm to, the victim, looking at their safety, potential for harm and well-being. This assessment should be regularly revisited throughout the investigation for the safety and well-being of the victim.

The guidance encourages a multi-agency response when determining how to investigate. Where the process is led by one agency, it is up to them to consider which other bodies can assist with the investigation and ensure cases do not go unresolved. The guidance also recommends that victims and witnesses are kept informed throughout the process of investigation.

Key findings:

1. The investigation stage appears consistent across the board and includes processing a report, gathering evidence from parties involved, considering the multi-agency response, and conducting risk and vulnerability assessments.
2. However, despite the overall approach being consistent, there were evident differences in the processes adopted by local agencies and organisations in conducting the investigation. This was seen at an agency and area level. For example, the police in all 5 case study areas had developed different flow charts setting out the approach to investigating a report.
3. There was also variation in the way agencies and organisations conducted investigative activities, how the multi-agency partnership worked, and if and when a risk assessment was conducted.

Across all case study areas, the investigation process is informed by a range of different processes. This includes the completion of case management forms, following operational guidance and local-level threshold assessments at an individual agency and organisation level. Only the police had guidance clearly stipulating what the investigation process should include. While police forces function on the principle of operational independence, forces at a local level have national guidance that informs practice.^{[footnote 25]} In contrast, the approach taken by local authorities and housing associations is influenced by informal ways of working developed through operational experience, which is explored further below.

While national guidance provides minimal stipulation of what the investigation process should look like, the main aim of an investigation and the main components of the process appear to be consistent across areas. In general, agencies and organisations looked to use the investigation stage to:

• process a report
• gather evidence from victims, witnesses and perpetrators, and seek an account of what has happened
• consider if a multi-agency response is required and if so, which other agencies and organisations need to be involved
• conduct a risk and vulnerability assessment

3.2.1 Processing a report

All agencies and organisations across the 5 areas highlighted that the immediate step after a report has been made is to process the report and determine what action should be taken. This includes:

• triaging a report to ensure appropriate agencies and organisations are assigned the case to investigate
• assessing the report against locally defined thresholds
• determining if any immediate action or support is required

There was considerable variation in how reports are processed both between agencies and organisations and across areas. For example, while all police forces interviewed had a structured local system for processing reports, what this looked like in practice varied. One police force highlighted using the THRIVE model to assess a report and determine immediate action.^{[footnote 26]} Another force highlighted the use of an approach called ‘get out’ to determine whether immediate action is required (see description in the quote below) and that all ASB reports are reviewed by ASB specialist police officers. This means that while all the information collected is ultimately similar, the operational flow chart at the force level looks different (see more details in sub-section 3.1.2).

‘The G is for go speak to the victim, E examine the scene and gather evidence, T is take details of victims, witnesses, offenders and suspects. O is offer advice, what to do if it happens again, what we’re going to do regarding responding to it. U is update the occurrence, so update the police occurrence with what we’ve done and T is take immediate action on what [the perpetrator has] done.’ Police, Cardiff.

In contrast, local authorities and housing associations operated differently from the police across the case study areas. Some local authorities reported using a system where reports would come into a central team who would then triage the report in determining the next steps. Housing associations typically captured ASB incidents as relayed at the time of reporting and then carried out a risk assessments for the persons affected by ASB incidents to determine their course of action.

‘We have something called the tiered approach, and it’s the guidance that everybody that manages anti-social behaviour [uses]… it’s an incremental approach, basically, follows through the legislation guidelines in relation to at what stage you would issue certain warning letters, what stage you would consider acceptable behaviour contracts, and then at that point in what process you would look at the different enforcement options…’ Local authority, Leicester.

However, some local authorities did not have set systems for investigating ASB, with one local authority highlighting that no specific, structured ASB guidance exists locally. The ways of working were perceived by the local authority to be more informal and developed through operational experience.

‘There isn’t, like, a process or a procedure as to how we choose what’s what. We just, kind of, know, which is really easy to say, but we do just know, and we do have a team email and the way our team works is, we check in with each other about most reports. So, if there’s a little bit of uncertainty, we always just, kind of, send in what the report is and we’ll all be like, “Okay, yes. I think this and this should happen.”’ Local authority, London.

One common factor across all agencies and organisations was that the type of ASB reported has an impact on the timelines for processing and responding to an incident. Reports for incidents seen to have minimal impact were processed and responded to at a slower rate compared to incidents that had a more immediate and direct impact on individuals. For example, incidents of environmental ASB were more slowly responded to than nuisance neighbours, as this type of ASB was perceived as having more of a direct impact on an individual or community.

‘The way we manage ASB at our local level, we divided it into 2 types: place-based and targeted an individual. So, the place-based stuff, say, kids mucking about at the park causing issues, where there’s no apparent victim… we take a problem-solving approach [looking at it fortnightly]. Personal ASB, that probably will sit on a day-to-day basis more than a fortnightly basis. So, that will be looked at daily and the community inspectors will be responsible for managing that.’ Local authority, Newcastle upon Tyne.

3.2.2 Gathering evidence

Agencies and organisations highlighted that gathering evidence and seeking a full account of what happened beyond initial information given through reporting is an important part of the investigation stage. The information collected during reporting tends to be more comprehensive if a report is made in person or through a helpline as it is guided by an operator asking specific questions. In such cases, the investigation stage tends to involve gathering further evidence such as CCTV footage, asking victims questions to gather a full account of the incident before further action is taken as well as engaging with victims to discuss their desired course of action.

In contrast, there tends to be less initial information gathered through online self-reported routes, or those which are not operator led. In these instances, the investigation stage will likely involve more questions being asked to the victim in order to gather a more complete description of the incident in determining further action taken.

Case study: Investigation of a noisy neighbour incident in Newcastle upon Tyne

A participant who had experienced ASB described the process of reporting and seeking a resolution for incidents relating to noisy neighbours. The apartment next to theirs had neighbours who ‘drank excessively, played loud music, partied and took drugs’. This happened frequently, often late into the night and sometimes would result in dangerous behaviour.

‘The music was horrendous, and the screaming and the shouting. They would come out, they’d be jumping on people’s cars in the street. [They] had a bonfire in the front garden.’ Experienced ASB, female, 57, Newcastle upon Tyne.

The problem felt like it was getting unbearable, so the victim decided to report it to the local authority, where they were referred to the noise reduction department. As part of the investigation stage into the incident, the victim was asked to keep a diary.

‘[You write down] when their music came on, when noise was getting too much, times of day, what days, what dates, how long it would go on for, what it was. Sometimes it would be just the music, others it would be they built a bonfire in the front garden in the front street. It wasn’t always noise, it was a danger, fire hazard. What time is it, 2 o’clock or 3 o’clock in a morning. To get up, get a pen, get a paper and write everything down [can be consuming] but I did it because I was so annoyed about it.’ Experienced ASB, female, 57, Newcastle upon Tyne.

There was some variation in the investigation process at an agency and organisation level. Table 3.4 highlights these differences by providing a comparison of the types of investigation activities carried out by each agency. As shown below, housing associations and local authorities tend to have the same activities for investigating an incident, and only appear to have one main difference from the police. Individuals interviewed only referenced collecting further evidence for future incidents when speaking about housing associations and local authorities. For example, victims provided examples such as being requested to record noise levels using apps, keeping a diary of incidents or trying to capture pictures of incidents.

‘Then my housing [association] gave me a recorder thing, so basically to record her noise… because she’s denying it, so I can have proof of it.’ Experienced ASB, female, 24, Liverpool.

Table 3.4: Different types of investigative activities that take place

Investigative activity	Housing association	Local authority	Police	Other organisations
Interview victims, witnesses and perpetrators	Yes	Yes	Yes	No
Collect evidence of the incident that has occurred	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Request victims to collect further evidence of future incidents	Yes	Yes	No	No
Conduct risk assessments	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes

3.2.3 Conduct a risk and vulnerability assessment

Agencies and organisations across all the case study areas highlighted that the personal circumstances of victims were considered when investigating a case and determining the action taken in response to a report. Therefore, a main part of the investigation stage is to conduct a risk and vulnerability assessment, as is strongly recommended in the national guidance. Although all agencies and organisations conduct risk and vulnerability assessments (as indicated in Table 3.4), the level of detail provided in national guidance on risk and vulnerability assessments is top-level. The guidance only highlights that it is good practice for one to be conducted, that relevant bodies should use their risk assessment procedures and that it may be beneficial for the relevant bodies to adopt a common risk assessment matrix. However, no further information is provided on who should conduct the risk assessment, or any structure, template or process suggested for consistency in approach.

Statutory guidance for frontline professionals highlights that ‘It is good practice for agencies to assess the risk of harm to the victims, and any potential vulnerabilities… The welfare, safety and well-being of victims must be the main consideration at every stage of the process. It is therefore important to identify the effect that the reported anti-social behaviour is having on the victims, particularly if repeated incidents are having a cumulative effect on their mental or physical well-being.’^{[footnote 27]}

All agencies and organisations said that risk and vulnerability assessments in some form are part of their standard operating procedures. This was normally done either at the same time as processing a report and gathering evidence or separately as part of further investigation activities. They often applied their own approaches to risk and vulnerability assessments, using ones they already have in place for other areas. For example, one police force highlighted using the THRIVE approach (mentioned earlier) to conduct a risk assessment. In contrast, a local authority highlighted that the process for them can vary either through a formal assessment conducted by community safety officers or informally.

‘…the community safety officer is the first person who’s informed, because we have 10 community safety officers who cover different areas in the borough, and they have their focus and their cases that they pick up… the community safety officer will have to do a risk assessment based off of the ultimate risk to that individual. A lot of the factors will be based on, if they have children or if they are used to being a substance abuser or have any disabilities that factor into their risk… that does tend to be why things might happen a lot quicker, because it is based off a risk assessment. Most of the time, it’s done by official risk assessment but, a lot of the time, it’s just done by a non-official risk assessment where you can just, kind of, know the risk. You know what the vulnerabilities there are.’ Local authority, London.

While there was variation in approach taken, assessments conducted all looked at the risk of harm or potential harm posed to victims, and the wider community as well as explored the circumstances of perpetrators. This included, but was not limited to, variables such as: the type of ASB experienced; the impact of the incident on the life of the victim; the mental and physical health of the victim; and if the victim has any dependants.

There was limited insight on what informs decision making on when to complete this assessment and how this information is used to inform action taken. However, the research very clearly highlighted the importance of risk assessments as a function to determine the next steps of responding to the incident. It was acknowledged that risk assessments help to develop an understanding of the impact of the ASB incident on all individuals involved and any important factors to consider when considering a response. The outcome of the assessment is also used to determine if thresholds are met for any further action and the response required. For example, the risk and vulnerability assessment can help determine if a nuisance neighbour report can be resolved through mediation or requires the use of an ASB power such as a civil injunction when the victims is assessed to be more at risk or vulnerable.

While these risk and vulnerability variables helped agencies and organisations determine the response, the role of joint working and support needs, there were varying extents to which these variables are considered. For example, local authorities and housing associations cited that if they receive a report from a victim and the investigation stage finds that the perpetrator has had other criminal incident reports against them, they are likely to refer it to the police. Similarly, the police highlighted using a risk assessment process to determine if they need to respond to an incident immediately or if it is an incident that requires a longer-term, multi-agency response.

‘In the risk assessment process, [we tend to look at it as] either environmental, nuisance, or personal. A personal, a targeting, attacking, harassing [incident] will automatically start to mitigate toward that’s a higher risk response. If it’s about environmental stuff, you know, “The lights aren’t on, I don’t feel safe going down the alleyway”, or “It’s dirty, it’s untidy, it’s smelly.” Or if it’s nuisance, “The car’s going past too quick, the kids are making too much noise”, obviously it’s annoying, it’s a nuisance, it needs tackling, it can escalate, but it’s not directly targeting an individual… What we say is the right thing to do, spot the personal risks, spot the vulnerability. That’s where, as a police force, we need to respond and do something now. And the other stuff is work slower time in partnership to try and design out, solve, tidy up or clean and get longer-term solutions in place.’ Police, Newcastle upon Tyne.

In addition to considering the risk and vulnerability of victims, agencies and organisations also conducted a risk assessment for perpetrators. In particular, the age (whether they are a young person or an adult) and the mental health of perpetrators were most frequently referenced as factors which determined if, as well as how, agencies and organisations responded to a report. For example, County Lines drug transportation^{[footnote 28]} was referenced as a situation that agencies and organisations may need to consider.

‘If you take the issue around County Lines, and that’s exploitation of people… [but as ASB it could be] that be young people [are] carrying the drugs down the line to get to a property for them to be sold… there is a recognition that you can be both a perpetrator and a victim at the same time… [in that example, it is] now an issue for children’s services. And that is really, really difficult.’ National agency.

The case study below provides an example of how the age of a perpetrator determined the immediate response to a report.

Case study: Investigation of an ASB incident committed by a young person in Liverpool

One police force highlighted that their initial response to ASB differs in situations where the perpetrator is a child or young person. As part of a wider campaign to take a more holistic approach to ASB and in recognition of the fact that youth-related ASB is a significant issue locally, they have started to place more focus on tackling low-level offending. In particular, the force introduced vulnerable children’s meetings to assess whether the incident of ASB meets the threshold for a multi-agency response depending on the type of ASB they committed. These meetings are attended by the police, local authorities and other MASH (multi-agency safeguarding hub) agencies such as children’s support services. Therefore, the investigation stage of the process entails looking more into the personal situation of the perpetrator and what social support provisions can be provided to support them.

‘We started to try and identify offenders now, looking at location-based anti-social behaviour. We would set up vulnerable children’s meetings, now. There’s [also] the MACE process – the Multi-Agency Child Exploitation process – but that was for when they are quite far down the line. Previously we haven’t had anything in place for children that we think are vulnerable and open to criminal exploitation/criminality. So, all the areas have now introduced what we just call a VCM, vulnerable children’s meeting. So, if you don’t score highly enough to go off to the proper multi-agency meetings, you fall into our local policing vulnerable children’s meeting, which is multi-agency.’ Local authority, Liverpool.

However, some agencies and organisations reflected on the inconsistency with which risk assessments are being conducted. This was particularly referenced in regard to the police, where despite it being part of police operating procedures, it was noted they were not always conducted due to the reality of the fast-paced and pressured situations in which they work.

‘I think those risk assessments probably aren’t being completed by frontline officers. I think that’s a real area for us to concentrate on as we go forward, which we are going [to]. I think we have stuff in place… that will capture it as a safety net. Do we capture everything? No, do we resolve everything? Certainly not.’ Police, Liverpool.

3.2.4 Multi-agency response to the investigation process

An important element of the investigation stage is considering and initiating a multi-agency response to ASB. This was identified by national agencies and organisations as good practice, and agencies and organisations across all case study areas said partnership working was a crucial element of the investigation process.

‘Partnerships, that’s where ASB sits. Not health and wellbeing board, it’s not specialist children services, it’s community safety partnerships… when it works, it’s because there are passionate people who want to make a difference in those partnerships making it happen.’ National agency.

In practice, the areas all adopted a very similar process to multi-agency working. This often involved an agency or organisation referring a case to one of its partners through either a shared IT system or via email and requesting the case be reviewed at a local-level meeting. At the meeting, the original holder of the case (also known as the lead) presents the case to other local agencies/organisations and a collective discussion is had to agree on ways forward. For example, housing associations in Liverpool referenced attending community safety meetings hosted by the police to discuss incidents reported to them. Variations in how often partnership meetings take place and who leads the meetings were referenced. The impact of this was difficult to determine from the interviews conducted, aside from the fact that it meant the incident journey looks different among agencies or organisations and between areas.

‘We have a thing called a problem-solving group which, every 2 weeks, I think it’s about 20 people come round a table, and we look primarily at location-based ASB, from a multi-agency approach… So, we’ll discuss all those incidents, and we’ll look to solve them. Actions will be given out, we’ll all trundle off, do our actions, and come back. That’s chaired by the police, but it’s a raft of different agencies involved in that.’ Police, Liverpool.

‘We have regular meetings… discuss everyone, say what’s happening, what has been reported, what support they can offer or what we can offer… The same with housing. Sometimes, an ASB officer from Cardiff Council comes to the police station, logs into the police station, we go through it all together… we are definitely improving with the sharing information.’ Police, Cardiff.

3.2.5 Enablers and improvements for investigation

There were several enablers and improvements for the investigation stage highlighted throughout the research.

Contact with the victim

Agencies and organisations highlighted that consistent and direct contact with victims helped create more trusting relationships, reduced chances of attrition and ensured victims were supported. However, the experience of those reporting ASB illustrated this did not always happen in practice. Victims and witnesses highlighted that it would be beneficial if they had a consistent, single point of contact to support them through the process or through information provided via an app or online system.

Multi-agency response

Agencies and organisations highlighted that a multi-agency response enabled a better understanding of the causes of ASB. It allowed for the broader issues that cross-over or often result in ASB to be more effectively addressed, such as high levels of deprivation or poor access to targeted services, such as drug and alcohol support. Addressing the inconsistencies in the working practices of agencies and organisations was highlighted as an important part of the journey to focus on. This was particularly noted by the police and housing associations who often worked across different local authority areas, each of which had different systems for responding to ASB.

‘What I find personally frustrating is a lack of consistency from local authorities. If you go to one local authority you will find a team of 10 ASB officers. Whereas, in another one, there [is less resource to] deal with it all, and it comes back onto the police.’ Police, Liverpool.

Gathering sufficient evidence

An important enabler to the investigation process highlighted across the research is collecting sufficient evidence. Victims spoke of how important it was for there to be enough evidence for their case to progress to resolution. It was suggested by both agencies and organisations as well as victims and witnesses that more can be done to increase understanding of what evidence is needed to meet the threshold for action.

‘I lived in a block of flats, and we had a problem with noisy neighbours downstairs, and I called the council about it, and to be fair to them, they did come out and they took a decibel reading, and it was ridiculous because it was so loud, and they read it as really loud, and yet it didn’t quite trigger the signal they needed… So, I don’t know how loud they needed it be, but it was certainly late into the morning.’ Experienced ASB, Leicester, focus group.

Clearer guidance and best practice examples for setting thresholds and completion of risk and vulnerability assessments

While all agencies and organisations discussed risk and vulnerability assessments as being an important part of their standard operating procedures, there were inconsistencies on how these were implemented. These included whether an assessment was completed as well as how it was completed. Similarly, inconsistencies in practice were also referenced in relation to different thresholds for further action existing locally. Reference was made to thresholds for action varying often at an agency and organisational level. These inconsistencies were seen to impact on delivering a multi-agency response to ASB. Therefore, a suggested consideration for improvement was to provide stronger guidance on how local agencies and organisations should navigate these operational differences. Agencies and organisations suggested providing a standardised template or best practice guide on risk and vulnerability assessments for ASB reports specifically, as well as greater guidance on how to set and communicate thresholds among agencies and with members of the public.

3.3 Stage 3: Resolution

This sub-section of the report explores the resolution process following an investigation of ASB reports from the experience of agencies, organisations and victims who had reported the ASB incidents. This stage of the incident journey is significantly informed by national guidance.

National guidance: Resolution

The 2014 Act provides a range of tools and powers for tackling ASB. The guidance also clearly outlines a full list of powers and tools available to agencies and organisations that can be used to resolve ASB (these can be found in Annex B). The guidance requires local agencies and organisations to carry out legal tests prior to actioning any ASB powers. Each power has a clear ‘legal test’ for it to pass. For example, for the community resolution approach, there needs to be police evidence, for the perpetrator to have to admit their behaviour and for an officer to think there is sufficient evidence (based on locally set out thresholds) for court proceedings but for them to deem a community resolution as more suitable.

The guidance also requires an action plan to be developed, that either involves a single or multi-agency response to incidents. Finally, guidance for statutory professionals highlights that the resolution stage should be implemented with victim-centred principles and look to community approaches first before considering enforcement routes.

Key findings:

1. There was a common adherence to the guidance set out in the 2014 Act. Agencies and organisations tended to first pursue a community resolution approach before looking to use legal enforcement routes.
2. Agencies and organisations also indicated a preference for holistic approaches that take into consideration the circumstances of victims, witnesses and perpetrators. However, it was seen that existing tools and powers are limited in their ability to facilitate this approach.
3. There was variation in the decision-making processes adopted by agencies and organisations in determining a resolution. For example, some highlighted informal ways of working whereas others had set out tiered approaches.
4. Similarly, there was variation in levels of satisfaction on the resolution process, with agencies and organisations perceiving higher levels of satisfaction compared to victims. Most victims expressed dissatisfaction with the resolution process, both in terms of the process and outcome achieved. There was a common view that there had been a lack of communication and updates on the progress of cases, with limited reference made to successful resolutions.

3.3.1 Resolution of ASB in practice

3.3.1.1 Decision-making processes

While agencies and organisations across the case study areas respond to ASB in line with national guidelines, the decision-making processes varied between them and areas. National guidance states that agencies and organisations should develop an action plan which sets out the resolution and outcome proposed. There was limited reference among agencies and organisations to how they develop these action plans, but all referred to the decision-making process adopted locally in responding to ASB. However, there was an evident variation in these processes across agencies/organisations and local areas. This is to be expected with national guidance encouraging the development of localised responses to ASB. Each agency and organisation had developed an overarching ASB strategy and decision-making processes, which were then implemented in local areas. For example, a local authority in one location mentioned taking a two-tier approach of initially using non-legal steps such as ‘acceptable behaviour contracts’ and then, where needed, enforcement-based steps such as injunctions. Whereas a police force in another location highlighted following a four-stage process. This means that the process to resolution can look very different according to the area in which the victim lives and to which agency the ASB report is made.

‘[There are] stages 1 to 4. So, stage 1 is an initial warning. Stage 2 is a final warning. Stage 3 is what we call an acceptable behaviour contract. So, our ASB coordinator would type out this contract and say what I believe is acceptable behaviour of the way the perpetrator should be living if it was a reasonable society… that’s a voluntary contract. And then the final stage is stage 4, which, again, is broken up into a few parts, it’s called community protection notice. With the community protection notice it’s warning first – breach that, then you could go into community protection notice which can carry a power of arrest… And then, it covers injunctions and court orders as well, stage 4. So, that could be housing, going to a civil court.’ Police, Cardiff.

Agencies and organisations did not discuss in detail the different types of tools and powers used in response to ASB. As a result, the research was not able to explore the varying use of tools and powers and their application to different types of ASB.

3.3.1.2 Prevention and holistic approaches

There was a common adherence among agencies and organisations across all areas to using the tools and powers set out in the 2014 Act. This ranged from out-of-court, community resolutions through to legal enforcement. The lead local agency or organisation is required to ensure specific legal tests and safeguards set out in the 2014 Act are met before ASB powers can be used. Preventative action should be considered to prevent further incidences and tackle the underlying causes of ASB. Agencies and organisations in all case study areas highlighted trying to adopt a holistic approach in acknowledging that ASB is often a result of wider issues faced by the perpetrator. Substance abuse issues, rough sleeping and mental health issues were most frequently referenced as complex needs that needed to be factored in when trying to resolve an incident. In practice, this would result in a joined-up approach being taken among local agencies and organisations to understand the support a perpetrator is already receiving, and additional intervention required. Agencies and organisations across all areas expressed how this plays a central role in resolving incidents. For example, one agency referenced how in situations where the perpetrator is a child or young person, they try to recommend engagement with local youth clubs.

‘A lot of them are to do with potentially getting people more involved with youth clubs or places for them to hang out that’s a safe space for them really, would be a big one.’ Police, Liverpool.

3.3.1.3 Community resolutions

Community resolution approaches include a broad range of out-of-court resolutions such as mediation and restorative justice. These methods can be agreed upon between the responding agency or organisation, victim/witness and the perpetrator through internal and often informal processes. This is supported by the development of a community remedy document – which is a list of actions that could be suitable for a perpetrator to carry out without court proceedings. National guidance states that agencies and organisations pursuing community resolutions must make reasonable efforts to obtain the views of the victim on whether the actions listed in the community remedy document are appropriate. Potential actions listed include mediation, acceptable behaviour agreements, an agreed structure of reparation activities to the community and community safety orders.

All agencies and organisations considered community resolutions as the preferred and first line of resolution. This was because they thought it enabled them to take action sooner, was seen as a better way to support community cohesion and was highlighted often as the most effective way to resolve ASB incidents. For example, some went as far as estimating that over half of the cases reported can be resolved through some form of community resolution.

‘So we use quite a lot of community resolution so if say there is a low level of damage that has been caused by anti-social behaviour to someone’s property, you’d offer them a way of dealing with it without going through criminality. So, it could be suggesting things like, even something simple like a letter of apology or paying for damaged items and stuff like that. That has to be agreed by the victim in the matter.’ Police, Liverpool.

The preference for the community remedy approach was similarly reflected in the experiences of victims interviewed, where few were able to point to experiences of an enforcement route being taken. The reasons given for this preference included action could be taken sooner in out-of-court situations and it enabled something to be done about the incident without having to engage with the legal process.

Most of the cases from housing associations and local authorities were resolved through community resolution and less frequently progressed to legal enforcement action. This was particularly true of one-off ASB incidents, and those that had less of an impact on the victims, witnesses and the wider community. Types of ASB mentioned included nuisance neighbour complaints, inconsiderate behaviour and loud music/noise. One housing association highlighted that using community resolutions to address ASB had resulted in low numbers of eviction notices being given locally, with legal action only pursued in cases where all other options have been exhausted.

‘Eviction notices [are] very, very rare. I’ve only ever seen that once in my three years here. Typically, a lot of it can be, just, dispersing individuals. So, if it’s a group of young people, you might just disperse them and say to them, you know, “The impact that you’re having on your community.”’ Local authority, London.

The difficulties pursuing legal action may also be a factor in the preference of agencies and organisations to take a community resolution approach. These difficulties include the legal thresholds or tests which were perceived to be difficult to meet and could make it difficult to use legal powers. While thresholds for certain parts of the incident journey are to be determined locally and have been difficult to identify, certain legal powers have designated legal tests outlined in the 2014 Act. For example, the 2014 Act allows the police and local authorities closure power – that is, to close premises quickly when it is being used or likely to be used to commit nuisance or disorder. The tests set out in the 2014 Act included use of a 24-hour closure notice where the police or local authority is satisfied that the use of the premises has resulted in or is likely to result in nuisance to members of the public or disorder near those premises.

Despite being seen as a last resort, agencies and organisations across all case study areas were able to highlight examples in which legal action had to be taken. This was particularly when the behaviour had occurred over a long period of time and the situation was deemed to be high risk.

‘We’ve pretty much covered all court applications where needed, so we’ve done quite a few injunctions, but very often we use them for our much higher-risk or long-term, that drip, drip effect of anti-social behaviour that never goes away. We’ve done a lot of closure orders, and they’ve been found to be really, really beneficial where almost the issue needs removing very quickly and then the package of support can be put in to deal with the ongoing issues at the property.’ Local authority, Leicester.

However, even when legal powers are utilised, agencies and organisations highlighted challenges with delays in the court system and the effect this has on resolving ASB cases.

‘September 2020… we had a case just going to court… in January 2022, that case was still in court with no resolution… That then extends everything massively… this case has been in court nearly 18 months now and we’ve still got no resolution and it’s like that didn’t help anybody, that doesn’t help the victim or the perpetrator and it’s just never ending.’ Local authority, Leicester.

3.3.2 Agencies’ and organisations’ perceptions of resolution processes

Perceptions of the tools and powers available to address ASB and how effective they were differed by agency and organisation. For example, in one location, the local authority staff interviewed indicated high levels of satisfaction with pursuing the community resolution route of mediation. They suggested that working with trained mediators worked well and often incidents were resolved by facilitating a discussion between the perpetrator and the victim.

‘It could just be speaking to the alleged perpetrator, saying, “Oh, your neighbour’s saying your music was a bit loud.” or, “You were banging.” and it can be resolved just from simple words of advice like that, or mediation, where we get an officer who’s trained in mediation, ask both parties to an agreed place… and just have a discussion. So, the mediation works. It worked a lot when I was on the neighbourhood team.’ Local authority, Cardiff.

In contrast, the police from other locations highlighted dissatisfaction with using mediation. From their experience, mediation has not always worked because the nature of cases they see tended to be complicated and often victims required action more immediately.

‘We have done mediation, we’ve got trained mediators that will mediate between people and sometimes that’s the way it resolves. To be honest, mediation rarely works but we try, and we go that way. A lot of the time it’s just trying to talk through things with people and try to do it without taking action if we can but we won’t hesitate to take it if we’ve got the evidence.’ Police, Leicester.

Agencies and organisations also highlighted widespread areas of dissatisfaction with the powers available to them. Firstly, they expressed concerns that the tools and powers available to respond to ASB did not seek to address the causes of ASB which therefore limited the potential effectiveness of these resolutions. Both police and local authorities highlighted wider issues, such as drug use and drug dealing, are difficult to resolve. This was seen to result from the tools and powers such as dispersal or closure orders set out in legislation displacing rather than resolving the issues causing the behaviour. For example, one local authority representative described how addressing drug-use-related ASB in one location can mean it gets moved to a different area in the locality.

‘I would say majority of issues are resolved but there is a recurring theme with things popping back up again. So, you might resolve an issue and then there’ll be a new issue over there and then, as you’re resolving that issue over there, it’s popping back up over here. So, a lot of that can be displacement. So, you might focus on an area that’s riddled with drugs and things like that in one area and you might be able to disperse that behaviour and clear that for the community. Those individuals might only just move over.’ Local authority, London.

Agencies and organisations also expressed dissatisfaction with resolutions when responding to types of ASB that are continuous, place-based or carried out by groups (such as cuckooing) ^{[footnote 29]}. This is because in such cases, victims are often hard to identify, the cause is difficult to address and the resolution is difficult to implement. Police and local authorities particularly highlighted this as an area of deep frustration and dissatisfaction.

‘We tend to find a lot of our ASB issues [such as cuckooing], they’ll be concentrated in a little area for a short while and then when it gets flooded with police, it doesn’t necessarily end the anti-social behaviour… Because obviously, we have a large issue in terms of identifying and getting hold of a lot of the people causing anti-social behaviour, for instance if it’s a group of youths. As soon as they see the police arrive, 20 lads or girls depending on who is there, will dart off in different directions. You may not end up getting hold of anyone to be able to identify and try and fix anything.’ Police, Liverpool.

‘[For] the really complex cases… moving one party isn’t what we want to do. Because often we’re moving a problem or moving somebody into a problem.’ Local authority, Leicester.

Agencies and organisations also expressed dissatisfaction with the resources and capacity available to resolve ASB incidents. For example, one housing association previously had a whole team dedicated to responding to ASB. However, with reductions to funding over the years, they could no longer afford dedicated resources for ASB. As a result, housing officers without expertise or training in ASB were now responsible for responding to incidents. Limited resourcing was also recognised as an issue by victims based on their experience of the response received, with slow response times, automated systems and a perceived lack of timely action being associated with limited resources and capacity.

‘The team I now run includes housing officers, who do everything. It’s a generalist team. And we do everything from advertising houses, shortlisting, sign-ups, that whole tenancy journey. We also do all the little add-ons, like safe-guarding, allocation of garages – all of these little things that are attached to a social landlord. And in amongst that as well, we also do anti-social behaviour. So, this organisation’s capacity to address anti-social behaviour is actually restricted. It’s contracted.’ Housing association, Newcastle upon Tyne.

3.3.3 Victim perceptions of resolutions and satisfaction

Overall, agencies and organisations considered that most incidents reported to them were resolved. However, interviews with victims indicated a broader dissatisfaction. When speaking of the police response to ASB, victims stated that the initial interest or response received rarely led to any form of resolution. As such, victims thought their cases were dropped too easily, that they were left on their own to resolve ASB concerns and on some occasions, they felt that the police had no power to resolve the situation.

‘When there’s no resolve, you feel helpless because it’s like, you’ve got no power over this and the people that have got the power over this are not really doing their job, you know?’ Experienced ASB, focus group, London.

‘Very unsatisfied. And you see, you know what with the police, the way I see it from what I’ve seen, what I’ve witnessed, the police haven’t got any power… I honestly don’t know. Because, as well, what are they supposed to do?’ Experienced ASB, male, 45, Leicester.

Victims also expressed their dissatisfaction with the communication they received from agencies and organisations, and how uninvolved they felt throughout the resolution stage. While agencies and organisations highlighted the importance of keeping victims engaged in the process, this differed from the experience of victims, who felt that communication was lacking. Victims indicated that current forms of communication, such as receiving a one-off letter, were not sufficient as they often did not provide enough information to keep them fully informed of developments in their cases. For example, one victim spoke about how they were informed that their report did not meet the threshold for a response without any additional support or communication on other ways to pursue their case.

‘So the report was taken, I think I was told, “We’ll be in touch”, and then a letter arrived around some three weeks later, and said, “Not enough evidence to proceed”, which felt odd because I gave them the name of the person and that person was no doubt known to them already, but there was no follow-up. You just get the feeling that they want to dispose of cases.’ Experienced ASB, male, 55, London.

For a case to be deemed a success, victims wanted the ASB to be stopped, perpetrators to be held accountable, or at least some form of appropriate action to be taken.

‘To feel that they have done something about it, rather than just, kind of, dismissed it or haven’t followed it up. You’d like to know what they’ve actually done about it sometimes.’ Witnessed ASB, male, 37, Cardiff.

‘Make sure that whatever fine or whatever comes to them, they should pay for it. They should do some volunteering work or something like that, if they can’t pay the money. They can just go and clean the school, hospital, road… so that they know if they make any problem, then they have to pay for it.’ Experienced ASB, Newcastle upon Tyne, focus group.

Despite the challenges, some victims did express satisfaction with the outcome of their case. Victims or witnesses spoke of successful outcomes from legal action, such as police dispersing a group of people behaving anti-socially and examples such as housing associations ending the tenancy of nuisance neighbours. An example of a successful resolution is provided in the case study below.

Case study: A successful resolution to ASB in Newcastle upon Tyne

One example of a successful outcome of reporting and resolution was provided by a female, aged 31 and based in Newcastle upon Tyne. She, as well as her local community, experienced persistent ASB in the form of youths/teenagers/groups hanging around, drunken behaviour, loud music and inconsiderate behaviour.

‘Directly opposite the entrance to the cul-de-sac is a big, kind of foyer, atrium or entranceway [to the community centre and library] that’s covered but open. It’s a perfect place [to] be less visible from the street if for example, the police were to go past… It’s also directly opposite an off-licence that sells alcohol or used to sell alcohol to under-18s. So, every single evening, there would be a group of between 10 and 20, 13 to 16-year-olds in that space, playing loud music on their phones, drinking, shouting, yelling, running around, playing games with each other and running into the streets. That was consistent and happened every weekday, and some weekends as well.’ Experienced ASB, female, 31, Newcastle upon Tyne.

She and her ‘close-knit’ community decided to take action against the off-licence as they felt that it was the cause of the ASB that was taking place. They did so by making a formal report and complaint to the local authority about the off-licence and resulting ASB.

‘We were approached by one of our neighbours to say that they were putting in a formal complaint to the council about the off-licence that they knew was selling alcohol to under-18s, and would we be willing to sign and go in and do all the stuff as well? So, we did, and that process takes a while. The process has been ongoing for about a year, and then eventually their licence was revoked. They then went through and reapplied for the licence. There was a hearing, and we went in and we contested it and [said] why we were appealing them getting their licence back. That was upheld, they weren’t able to get their alcohol licence back anymore.’ Experienced ASB, female, 31, Newcastle upon Tyne.

While the process itself felt challenging, ultimately, she felt positive about the outcome of the report because the ASB was resolved.

‘The bureaucracy is always challenging. There’s always a lot of hoops to jump through – you’ve got to fill out paperwork, and then you’ve got to go online and fill out a different form, and then you get an email saying that you’ve got to come to this thing that’s in the middle of the day and you’ve got a job. It was quite a long, slow process as well. So, quite frustrating… but I actually found [the process] really positive. Because anyone who’d put in the original complaint was automatically notified by [the local authority] when the off-licence applied for a licence again, which was good. We could have not been informed, and we wouldn’t have known, and we would have had to start the process again. So, it was nice that they sent us a letter to give us a chance to appeal that. It made a huge difference… to our immediate community, it made a massive difference.’ Experienced ASB, female, 31, Newcastle upon Tyne.

3.3.4 Enablers and improvements for resolution

The research found several enablers to ensure the resolution stage was effective as well as areas of improvement.

Victims feeling supported

Victims who felt supported through the process expressed a more positive experience of the resolution process. Agencies and organisations considered that cases were easier to progress when a resolution was victim-led as victims were more satisfied when they felt supported and involved in the process. Victims agreed, saying it made them feel heard and more confident in the process when they felt involved. Suggested improvements included greater communication with and involvement of victims in the resolution process, a centralised platform to enable victims to see updates of their case and greater victim support in navigating steps taken to achieve resolution.

‘I want somebody to come and look and just help me. Solve the issue, solve the matter… And someone just to say, “We’re here for you, if you want help, we’re here for you, we’ll help you.”’ Experienced ASB, female, 50, Leicester.

Multi-agency working

As with other stages of the incident journey, agencies and organisations highlighted that multi-agency working is a central enabler to finding the best outcome for victims as well as perpetrators. Suggested improvements included strong guidance to ensure consistency in ways of working (such as more consistent thresholds for action and flow charts of resolutions pursue), greater communication between partners, and greater opportunities to share learning and increase understanding.

More long-term, holistic resolutions

Victims or witnesses thought responses to ASB such as loud music/noise, vandalism, vehicle-related ASB and youths/teenagers/groups hanging around, need to be adapted to effectively stop the behaviour. Improvements suggested included better access to services which would address the causes of ASB. Victims and agencies/organisations highlighted investing more into services such as alcohol and substance abuse support, youth services and mental health services for addressing causes of ASB.

‘The police would say they would come out, but I would say probably seven out of ten times they didn’t. I mean, they’ve got more serious things to police really but as soon as the police, when they did come out and they would show up, they would break it up and it would cease for maybe a couple of hours. They would think, “Oh well the police aren’t here now, we’ll just start up again.”’ Experienced ASB, female, 57, Newcastle upon Tyne.

Better resources and capacity

Police, local authorities and housing associations all highlighted an increase in resources and capacity as an important area for improvement. They suggested improving access to funding and ensuring that agencies have resources dedicated to addressing ASB would significantly improve how reports are resolved and the ability of practitioners to approach ASB in a holistic manner. For example, one local authority highlighted how having specifically trained mediators enabled them to resolve more ASB incidents using a community resolution approach. Another example was provided by a housing association who was able to assess in one case that the perpetrator was behaving anti-socially only when they were under the influence of alcohol and the association had the resources to support access to a substance misuse service.

Timely access to enforcement-based resolutions

As highlighted above, the 2014 Act provides relevant actors with powers to respond to ASB, including injunctions and evictions which require going through the justice system. Agencies and organisations across all areas highlighted that they often face significant delays in the court system, which means that response times are prolonged. Improvements suggested by agencies and organisations included enabling quicker routes to enforcement-based resolutions, for legal powers and tools to be better suited to the different types of ASB incidents that can occur, and greater investment in improving systems, such as the judicial system, to make the process quicker and more efficient. Agencies and organisations suggested that this would enable more timely responses, resolving incidences before reaching crisis point.

3.4 Stage 4: Appeals processes

This sub-section explores the appeals process available for victims who have experienced or witnessed ASB and are unsatisfied with the response received.

National guidance: Appeals process

The statutory duty for appeal, implemented by the 2014 Act, is known as the ASB case review or Community Trigger. This is available to victims of persistent ASB who are dissatisfied with the response to reporting their experience of ASB.

National guidance enables each local area to set a threshold which must be met for the Community Trigger to be used, and highlights that it must include; the frequency of complaints, effectiveness of the response, and potential harm to victims making the complaint. The 2014 Act suggests this threshold should be no more than 3 complaints within a 6-month period; however, this can be adapted at a local level to be lower.

Key findings:

1. The Community Trigger appeals process, as detailed in national guidance, was considered by agencies and organisations to play an important role in effectively responding to ASB. In addition to national statutory guidance, the research also identified guidance, developed by ASB Help, for local agencies about the Community Trigger process. However, none of the agencies and organisations spoken with referenced this document.
2. None of the victims interviewed had used the Community Trigger and there was also low awareness that the process existed. This was even though most agencies and organisations considered that the process was clearly publicised to local communities and victims of ASB.
3. Agencies and organisations highlighted several challenges with the application of the process, including it being demanding of time and resources, and the operational challenges of working collectively with multiple agencies and organisations.

The final stage in the incident journey is the appeals process. As highlighted above, the statutory duty for appeal is known as ASB case review or Community Trigger. Where the threshold is met, a case review is conducted and the relevant bodies are tasked with providing a resolution-focused response to the ASB and associated causes. If the threshold is not met, then the guidance stipulates that the case should still be reviewed to determine whether further action is needed. As one agency expressed:

‘… actually, tell us about what your concerns are and we’ll see if we can deal with them anyway.’ Local authority, London.

In addition to this statutory appeals process, victims can also raise concerns about the action taken to address their ASB report through individual agency and organisation complaints procedures. These processes were referenced by most agencies and organisations across all areas.

‘We advertise our Community Triggers online, and that’s the same across the whole of the county, and the Community Trigger process is quite clear… We’ve obviously got our complaints procedures, our stage one, stage two, and then obviously to the ombudsman… It’s all detailed on our website, so we’re quite transparent if somebody’s unhappy with the process that’s being followed.’ – Local authority, Leicester.

3.4.1 Experiences of the Community Trigger

Insights on the Community Trigger process only include the discussions with agencies and organisations, due to none of the victims of ASB spoken with for the research using this process or being aware that it was available.

3.4.1.1 Awareness and understanding of the Community Trigger process

Where victims are dissatisfied with the outcome of the ASB report, they can request a Community Trigger or go through a local agency or organisation complaints process. The Community Trigger provides a centralised, multi-agency appeals process and aims to determine whether any further action can be taken. When a Community Trigger is requested, all the relevant agencies and organisations must review the case to ensure that the threshold has been met for the process to proceed.

‘Everyone’s got the right to complain. So, if they’re not happy they simply have to contact the police, either in writing or calling the control room and make a complaint to say they’re not happy. And every complaint gets looked into. So, yes, the complaints procedure is there for a reason. The local authority tends to come to us when there’s a Community Trigger. We have a meeting to discuss it and put things in place. So, yes, a similar sort of thing but a Community Trigger’s led by the local authority.’ Police, Cardiff.

Local agencies and organisations are required, as stated in national guidance, to publicise the Community Trigger process on their websites and ensure victims and communities are aware that this procedure exists. Additionally, agencies and organisations have a duty to publish data covering the number of applications for a Community Trigger received, the number of times the threshold was not met, the number of reviews carried out and the number of times recommendations were made. The consistency with which this is done across agencies and organisations was difficult to determine, with only a few practitioners referencing this in interviews.

There was a mixed view among agencies and organisations interviewed on how clearly the Community Trigger process was advertised locally. For some, details on the process were provided on their websites, with the view that the procedure was well known among local communities. There was reference in one area to the support service ‘Victim First’ signposting victims to the procedure. Similarly, they also thought that victims and communities are aware of individual agency and organisation complaint procedures because agencies would signpost victims to this process.

‘Community Trigger, that’s something we promote if someone’s not happy, you know, they can contact us to go through our complaints procedure. If they’re still not happy with that, we always say, “You know, you can initiate a Community Trigger if you’re really not happy”, and the case will be assessed and things but I think there’s only been one or two since it came, that’s a power that we can use.’ Housing association, Liverpool.

In instances where the Community Trigger process was advertised, agencies and organisations felt that their active promotion of the Community Trigger was perceived to be evident in the number of case review requests made.

‘The difference between us and other London boroughs is we actively promote the Community Trigger. Other London boroughs keep it hidden on a webpage somewhere, and don’t like to, because they know how much work is involved in, you know, making it that accessible.’ Local authority, London.

However, some agencies and organisations did not think the process is advertised as much as it should be. This was often seen to result from a concern about the amount of work it would create. Similarly, there was an apparent lack of awareness of the Community Trigger process among victims who had experienced or witnessed ASB.

‘We don’t get many Community Triggers, but it’s there. We don’t actually advertise it, and this is something we were discussing this morning about making sure that that’s advertised better, and as I’m sure you can imagine, the fear is that that’s going to create an influx. To some cases, actually it’s a huge amount of work, it can take a considerable amount of officer time to do those.’ Local authority, Leicester.

‘So we haven‘t got there but we say the Community Trigger is a vital right of the victim to say, “I do not feel you’ve got this right as a collection of agencies.” Three or more times in six months the victim has a statutory right to go to the agency, local authority, police and say, “I want my case review please because I haven’t been helped.” So pushing that, that is a right and is national best practice and must be, in my view, advertised on police websites, local authority websites, housing authority websites, so it’s easier to find, not hidden on the 27 pages in.’ National stakeholder.

Agencies and organisations did highlight that even when victims were aware of the procedure there was still a lack of clarity on the threshold, with reference made to requests being made that often do not meet the threshold. This was often seen to relate to lack of understanding by victims on what the threshold is, relating to the broader point of ensuring improved awareness of the process.

‘We have had quite a few previously that didn’t meet the Trigger and what we found was a lot of the people raising then had quite severe mental health issues and didn’t quite understand what the Community Trigger was. So, then we’re trying to help them to understand what it was and the correct process to go through.’ Local authority, Leicester.

3.4.1.2 Application of the Community Trigger process

Interviews with agencies and organisations provided limited detail on the application of the Community Trigger process, with minimal reference made to the number of case review requests received locally. However, one case study area was able to reference the number of case review requests. This was based on local monitoring data showing that 55% of Community Triggers resulted from victims’ contact with the police, namely the negative experiences at the time of reporting to call handlers.^{[footnote 30]}

‘I think that’s what the Trigger shows is that they try and report quite a few times to the police and 55% of all our Triggers at the moment are results from contact with the police.’ Local authority, Liverpool.

While most areas did not reference the number of case reviews requested, agencies and organisations considered that the limited use of the Community Trigger process could be a result of victim’s reluctance to request a Community Trigger process as a result of negative experiences of their response to reporting. Concerns stated by agencies and organisations were that the process can be demanding of time and resources. Some thought that this affected the number of cases which progressed through the Community Trigger process in a timely manner.

‘They are significant pieces of work for us to do… we pretty much, I would say, at least once a month we get a request, sometimes two. We’ve had two in this month which have both met the criteria. So, it should be 39 days [response time]. Once you get the request in, you’ve got one day to respond to the requester, then you’ve got 10 working days to get the information in. So, 39 working days, then you’ve got 28 working days to get the report together and send it over to the requester. However, in some circumstances, that’s taking significantly longer.’ Local authority, Leicester.

Agencies also highlighted that due to the process involving multiple agencies, it can be difficult to convene case review meetings because of competing priorities and operational challenges.

‘Getting information from them is a nightmare, I know other areas, police manage it, which brings consistency in approach, which is lacking in there, but I’m not sure whether you get our chief officers to take on the Community Trigger because it’s potentially a lot of work.’ Local authority, Leicester.

To reduce these difficulties, the guidance states that agencies should consider how case reviews can be incorporated into existing multi-agency meetings, such as Community Safety Partnership meetings. In practice, the research found that the process is normally led by different local agencies, often either by the police or local authorities across the case study areas. In these instances where the process was led by one main agency, their own operational practices, including the use of case management processes, were often used. This also included the approach the agency takes to risk assessment which informs whether the case is deemed to meet thresholds, informed by the national guidance, and a decision to conduct a case review meeting. While the case review meeting will require a multi-agency approach to be taken, the process tends to be led by one agency who leads the joined-up approach to responding to Community Trigger requests.

As referenced in Table 2.1, ASB Help have also developed guidance on the Community Trigger process which included 7 questions agencies and organisations should consider when using the process. None of the interviews specifically referenced this guidance, which highlights the need for such resources to be shared and communicated more regularly so that agencies and organisations in local areas are aware of guidelines.

3.4.1.3 Satisfaction with the Community Trigger process

Interviews with agencies and organisations highlighted the importance of the Community Trigger process in the incident journey, with many pointing to examples where the process has proven to be very useful.

‘[Victims] can raise a Community Trigger and then we just deem whether it meets that Community Trigger [threshold] or not and then it goes through the whole process and have the case reviewed. Which is actually really useful, for me as well you don’t necessarily get to see the ins and outs of all the case because it’s happening daily… they are useful.’ Local authority, Leicester.

While there was a consistent view among agencies of the important role the Community Trigger process plays in giving a voice to victims, some questioned the extent to which it results in a positive outcome. Instead of resulting in a resolution, the view among some agencies and organisations was that it is more offering a chance for victims to be heard. As already highlighted, it is not possible to include the experiences and satisfaction of victims of the Community Trigger process due to none of those interviewed having accessed the process.

3.4.2 Enablers and improvements to Community Trigger

Agencies and organisations had several suggestions for improving the Community Trigger process.

Greater awareness among victims and local communities of the Community Trigger process, including the threshold that is required for case reviews to take place

While most agencies and organisations thought they advertised the process on their websites, awareness can be improved through better signposting, as well as ensuring that information is shared with local communities (for example, through community hubs). This could include sharing information at the point of reporting as part of clarifying the ASB incident journey to victims. One local authority said that they sought to ensure their councillors are aware of the process, so that they can trigger it on behalf of the people they represent. Other suggested improvements include greater communication with the public of the process, ensuring that victims are included in meetings to ensure they fully understand how the process works or publicising the outcome of cases to demonstrate more widely the function of the Community Trigger.

Activating a Community Trigger sooner

Agencies and organisations spoke of the Community Trigger process only being actioned when situations have reached crisis point, despite the threshold being either 3 incidents or lower. Consideration should be given to the extent to which the threshold should be reviewed as a result of this and adapted to allow the process to be used earlier in the incident journey. Further consideration should also be given on how the trigger process is communicated both to members of the public and agencies/organisations responding to ASB.

‘I think actually if we dealt with Community Triggers earlier and maybe pushed people towards them sooner, they wouldn’t be such a big job when we do get them… if we signposted a lot earlier and asked those people to come forward if they were unhappy earlier, then we’d have less work to do.’ Local authority, Leicester.

Better use of existing multi-agency forums to support the Community Trigger process

Agencies and organisations highlighted several issues to delivering a multi-agency approach for the ASB case review. These included agencies and organisations taking a varying approach to the application of the Community Trigger, differing use of the process alongside internal complaint procedures, and the different operational practices and priorities of agencies and organisations impacting on multi-agency working. Greater clarity and local guidance are needed on how agencies and organisations should work jointly in delivering the Community Trigger process. All areas referred to different multi-agency forums that exist to address local ASB and community safety issues. Consideration should be given to how these existing forums can be used for the case review process.

4. The role of support

National guidance states that victims of ASB should receive appropriate support. This section explores the perspectives and experiences of agencies, organisations and victims of the support available.

National guidance: Support

Powers established by the 2014 Act all include reference to ensuring that victims of ASB receive appropriate support. However, it does not provide any further detail on what support should be provided or by whom.

Key findings:

1. The support offered by agencies and organisations falls into 3 categories: support for the victim to navigate the incident journey, support for the victim to manage the impact of the ASB incident itself, and support for the perpetrator in preventing future ASB.
2. Victims of ASB were, in the main, unaware of the support available and indicated greater access to and use of informal support through family, friends and local community forums. Those who did not access formal support reported feeling like it was not needed or were unsure of the benefits that formal support could provide them. However, there was also recognition that support could be useful and had been accessed by some victims.
3. Victims suggested that counselling and group forums would be beneficial in providing the space for victims to talk either individually or in a group setting about their experiences and the impact felt.
4. Several factors found to be enablers to accessing support include greater awareness and understanding of the support available, and increased resources and capacity of agencies to provide the support that addresses the impacts experienced by victims.

4.1 Support provided

Agencies and organisations highlighted that offering support was a vital part of their response to ASB. Police forces, local authorities and housing associations all highlighted the different forms of support that were offered. These can be grouped into 3 main categories:

• support for the victim to navigate the incident journey
• support for the victim to manage the impact of the ASB incident itself
• support for the perpetrator in behavioural change

Interviews with agencies and organisations also highlighted several challenges in providing support, which are explored further below. It is important to note that very few victims of ASB participating in the research had accessed support. The findings presented in this sub-section are representative of those who had.

4.1.1 Support for the victim to navigate the incident journey

Agencies, organisations and victims indicated that support is provided on navigating the journey. For example, one victim mentioned how their housing association helped them to acquire the equipment needed to gather evidence for their nuisance neighbour report. Other examples included support with navigating legal processes, signposting to other relevant agencies and informing victims of their rights. Interviews with some agencies and organisations highlighted that providing this support can often be challenging when a case required a multi-agency response. This is because different agencies and organisations have different incident journeys.

‘The housing association put me through to a lady, who is from the housing association helpline to deal with abusive neighbours… She was the one, actually, who got me the equipment to use in the house for the noise… she was great. She was asking me, “What do you want to resolve this?”… She came over here, we sat here for several hours, talking and asking me what could she do.’ Experienced ASB, female, 49, Cardiff.

4.1.2 Support for the victim to manage the impact of the ASB incident

Agencies and organisations in all 5 case study areas referred to offering support as a part of their standard response to an ASB report. Forms of support typically offered were in relation to the impact of ASB, such as the impact on emotional and mental health, and the type of ASB experienced. Overall, agencies and organisations indicated that they provided this form of support by either referring victims to statutory services, such as adult social services, or by signposting to support services or other agencies, such as Victim Support, Victim First and community groups. For example, one local authority explained that they have a dedicated support programme, offering a wide range of support routes.

‘We have what’s called STAR, which stands for Supporting Tenants and Residents. They offer a comprehensive package of support to people that are suffering problems with their tenancy… So, if they were a victim, we’d look to refer to Victim First. We’d also maybe look to signpost them towards their GP, or any other services that we felt they needed. Sometimes, especially prevalent in Leicester, is the multicultural situation that we’ve got. We would look to involve local communities, local churches, local community groups that can help and support, if there were language barriers.’ Local authority, Leicester.

Most victims interviewed for the research did not access support, with limited insight given on whether support was offered to them at the time of reporting. Only a few victims mentioned accessing support. This included contact with Victim Support, to whom they had been referred to in response to reporting the incident. One participant spoke of being referred to Mind, the mental health charity, to help support him with the emotional impacts he was experiencing as a result of the ASB.

‘[A charity called Mind] came around and spoke to me. They went through coping mechanisms and how to deal with things in the future if a similar incident happened. They gave me leaflets. They gave me a 24-hour telephone number… It was quite easy. It did take a few weeks for my appointment to come around because the number of people that had been contacting them.’ Experienced ASB, male, 41, Liverpool.

4.1.3 Interventions provided to perpetrators to support behavioural change

Agencies and organisations also referenced support provided to perpetrators. Support provided to perpetrators ranged from referrals to mental health services and alcohol/substance abuse services to rough sleeping services to help address some of the causes of ASB and create behaviour change.

‘It’s not just the victims but perpetrators where we think they may be vulnerable as well. So, there’s quite an extensive range of support that’s available… We understand that clearly, it’s not good enough just to resolve the [immediate] issue. You know, we’re trying to deal with the causes of that issue as well. Particularly in this context, we’re talking about people often with mental health needs, or an unmet support need that may need to be tackled. We can then link into drug and alcohol services, mental health services, and a whole range of others that try and really stop the problem, rather than just moving it away.’ Local authority, London.

4.2 Access to support

Despite the positive views of agencies and organisations on the sufficiency of support available, the research found that victims had relatively low awareness and use of support provided. Quantitative survey results showed that for a majority of ASB types, less than 30% of victims and witnesses accessed support. Table 4.1 shows the percentage of survey victims or witnesses who accessed different types of support, by the type of ASB. Particularly, it shows that those who experienced or witnessed sexual ASB (60%), problems with out-of-control dogs (42%) and aggressive begging (34%) were more likely to access several different kinds of support, including counselling and therapy, helplines and physical health services.

On the other hand, victims and witness of youths/teenagers/groups hanging around (16%), inconsiderate behaviour (16%) and vehicle-related ASB (16%) were the least likely to seek support.

Table 4.1: Percentage of survey victims or witnesses who had accessed different types of support, by type of ASB

Support service	Youths/teenagers/groups hanging around	Inconsiderate behaviour	Vehicle-related ASB	Drunken behaviour	Vandalism	Loud music/noise	People using/evidence of drugs	Nuisance neighbours	Environmental ASB	People being intimidated/harassed	Aggressive begging	Problems with out-of-control dogs	Sexual ASB
Counselling, therapy services or other mental health services	8%	8%	8%	10%	9%	13%	10%	12%	11%	15%	17%	20%	30%
Helplines (such as Samaritans, Victim Support) and support groups	8%	8%	8%	14%	13%	10%	9%	11%	13%	15%	22%	27%	33%
Physical health services (such as emergency services, GP, pharmacy)	7%	7%	8%	13%	10%	11%	11%	13%	14%	13%	17%	23%	35%
NET: Any service accessed	16%	23%	16%	23%	21%	23%	20%	24%	26%	27%	34%	42%	60%

Notes:

1. Q15. Which of the following services, if any have you visited or accessed as a result of the ASB that you experienced or witnessed?
2. Base: All who have witnessed/experienced type of ASB in the last 12 months and answered the question.
3. Bases: youths/teenagers/groups hanging around (712), drunken behaviour (505), vandalism (516), inconsiderate behaviour (673), loud music/noise (534), people using/evidence of drugs (523), people being intimidating/harassed (464), environmental ASB (432), nuisance neighbours (477), vehicle-related ASB (585), aggressive begging (321), sexual ASB (116) and problem with out-of-control dogs (195).

Most victims who said they had not accessed formal support did not feel they needed to, with reference made instead to accessing informal support. This included being supported by friends or family, neighbours and engaging with online community forums (for example, on Facebook groups or the ‘NextDoor’ app) to share information about safety or advocate against ASB. For example, one participant who had difficulties with out-of-control dogs banded together with a group of dog walkers to deal with the issue.

‘I think with the dogs thing it was the other walkers, because they were meeting each other to go for a walk and things like that, including me. I remember a bloke Facebooking me and saying, “I’m walking the dog at”, whatever time it was.’ Witnessed ASB, female, 59, Cardiff.

Some participants who did not access support expressed that they did not feel they needed to. They highlighted that this was because they had witnessed rather than directly experienced the ASB incident. As a result, they felt the incident had not had an emotional or mental health impact on them and therefore did not feel the need to access support. For example, another participant who witnessed an out-of-control dog spoke about how the incident did not necessarily impact their day-to-day routine and therefore they did not feel the need to access support.

‘I mean, obviously, talking about it in depth it sounds like it probably does impact me, but on a daily basis it really doesn’t, so I don’t feel like I need anything or would benefit from any of it.’ Witnessed ASB, female, 27, Leicester.

Others considered that support would not necessarily help them and that instead, they were more concerned that a resolution was achieved rather than support offered. As a result, victims or witnesses wanted to see action taken to either hold perpetrators to account or stop the ASB from reoccurring.

‘I think rather than spending the money on the counselling, the money should be [spent] done on actually trying to stop the problem happening rather than the after-effects. It needs to be proactive rather than reactive.’ Witnessed ASB, female, 47, Newcastle upon Tyne.

4.3 Enablers and suggested improvements to support provided

The research highlighted several factors that enable access to support and suggested areas for improvement.

4.3.1 Awareness and understanding of support

Victims, agencies and organisations highlighted the need for increased awareness and understanding of the support available. Many victims expressed not knowing where to access support, and there also appeared to be an assumption that support might not help or be relevant to them if they did not feel the impact of ASB directly. Linked to this was the view among victims that there needs to be greater understanding about the impacts of ASB on individuals and communities, and that the support available meets the needs. For example, victims highlighted how increased incidents of ASB can have an impact on community cohesion, so support could include aspects of community building. Areas for improvement suggested included awareness raising campaigns to ensure that communities most impacted by ASB know that support can be accessed, while ensuring that those not directly impacted know that support is also available and may be helpful.

‘Well, sometimes, you don’t know where to start with it, really. That’s the thing, that’s the hard thing, isn’t it? You just think, “Oh, God, you know, there’s this problem, that problem, I don’t know where to go with it.”’ Witnessed ASB, female, 62, Cardiff.

4.3.2 Access to support

Victims highlighted examples where they found accessing support challenging and referenced issues such as having to use systems that were not user-friendly, such as online support or call centres. Improvements to support accessibility included providing more in-person support through community centres or groups, forums on existing platforms such as social media, and being able to contact individuals directly as opposed to helplines.

‘I hate it when you, like, get in touch with someone and then they say, “Oh, you’ve phoned the wrong department. You need to phone this one” or “You need to go to here”… It should just be right, if you were going to Citizen’s Advice, then it should be underlined as there you go, that’s it, and you just click on that because some people can’t use computers and find their way around.’ Witnessed ASB, female, 57, Newcastle upon Tyne.

4.3.3 Access to increased resources and capacity

Agencies and organisations highlighted that an important area for improvement was increasing the resources and capacity available to allow for support to be provided to both victims and perpetrators of ASB. Improvements included setting a clearer standard for who provides support and what kind, as well as better access to funding for this support and training to ensure all staff can support those who have experienced or witnessed ASB.

‘I think we do the absolute best with what we’ve got but I think it does come down to resources and time because the resources are thinly stretched. So, really for me it’s all about when looking at anti-social behaviour, you know, really the proactive work is key because you’re better off dealing with something further up the chain than when it comes to a real big problem when it gets to the end of its life cycle.’ Local authority, Newcastle upon Tyne.

5. Conclusions

The current ASB legislation devolves responsibility to local areas to develop effective responses to ASB and sets out the tools and powers they can use. This has resulted in varied approaches to tackling ASB being delivered locally. The views and experiences of national and local agencies/organisations, alongside those who have experienced or witnessed ASB, have highlighted both similarities and differences in how the legislation and supporting national statutory guidance are implemented. These perspectives and direct experiences provide useful insights on local responses to ASB and the extent to which these match ways of working set out in national guidance.

Since the fieldwork for this research has been completed, the ASB Strategic Board has published a set of principles. These principles seek to ensure a consistent approach is taken to understanding and addressing ASB. Many of the principles correspond with the following implications highlighted by this research. This includes reference to ways to: aid reporting; provide clear and transparent processes for victims to raise ASB concerns; and develop effective multi-agency responses to ASB.

The findings from this research have highlighted several policy and front-line practice implications.

5.1 Reporting stage

All agencies and organisations had developed common practices for reporting. This included establishing a range of reporting mechanisms and consistent approaches to gathering information on the incident. However, the research highlighted a lack of awareness among the public of what defines ASB as well as how to report incidents. Victims cited being unclear whether the incident they experienced can be reported as ASB and to whom the report should be made. While local agencies and organisations had developed a range of reporting mechanisms and referred to information of these presented on their websites, the awareness of these sources of information was low among those who had experienced or witnessed ASB. Localised approaches to raising awareness should be considered, ranging from national and local campaigns (particularly in ASB hotspot areas) to information leaflets being provided in local community hubs (that is, libraries, doctor’s surgeries).

Consolidation and centralisation of reporting mechanisms might also be considered to aid reporting. From a victim perspective, suggested improvements included providing specific phone numbers and online platforms where reports could be made. Suggested improvements from agencies and organisations included setting a national standard on triaging ASB reports, enabling easier data sharing at a local and national level, and increasing resources (that is, increased budgets, development of specialised ASB teams and investment in training). In addition to this, victims or witnesses also raised the importance of victims having a single point of contact throughout the incident journey.

5.2 Investigation stage

There was consistency among agencies and organisations in the different parts of the investigation stage. These included conducting a risk and vulnerability assessment, gathering evidence and considering a multi-agency response. Overall, there was agreement that the investigation stage assesses whether the threshold for further action has been met. However, agencies and organisations referred to local areas defining their own local thresholds and differences in the way risk and vulnerability assessments were conducted which impacted whether further action was taken.

Additional challenges identified included maintaining consistent contact with the victim, facilitating multi-agency responses, and collecting sufficient evidence for cases to progress to resolution. Improving communications with victims, greater clarification and communication on thresholds and further guidance on the application of risk and vulnerability assessment should all be considered to improve the victim and witness experience of this stage of the incident journey.

5.3 Resolution stage

Agencies and organisations across all areas referenced multi-agency working and locally developed working practices as being important to informing local responses to ASB, as seen in national guidance. These provide useful insight on potential effective ways of working in response to ASB. Sharing such insights will aid the development of best practice approaches to dealing with ASB. As such, consideration should be given to developing forums, such as newsletters and effective practice guidance notes, that enable local areas to share lessons learnt and effective practice.

5.4 Appeals process

The research highlighted differences in the approach agencies and organisations took to both advertising and delivering the Community Trigger. Some felt they had clearly advertised the process and were receiving Community Trigger requests as a result. In contrast, others felt the process was still very unknown and underused. As before, none of the victims spoken to for the research requested a Community Trigger and many said they had not heard of it, or if they had, were unclear of what the process involved. Further research is needed to understand in more detail how agencies and organisations publicise and use the Community Trigger process, informed by hearing directly from victims who have requested and used it.

Agencies and organisations also highlighted the need for improvements to the Community Trigger process, including more resources being available to support how complex and resource intensive the process can be. Similarly, they also referenced differences in the application of the Community Trigger process, highlighting that a national standard for this process would be beneficial.

5.5 Cross-cutting

A cross-cutting finding of this research was that victim and witness satisfaction across all stages of the incident journey was more likely to be negative than positive with several challenges at each stage highlighted. Several factors that influenced this negative experience included poor communication from agencies, long response times, a lack of information on what to expect and a perceived lack of action towards resolving ASB. The research found that agencies and organisations were aware of this, and suggestions were made as to what more could be done to share examples of best practices in improving the victim and witness experience and levels of satisfaction. Local campaigns could be used to advertise how agencies and organisations are responding to ASB, reporting on action taken and the success of these approaches in preventing ASB.

Across all 4 stages of the incident journey, victims highlighted that there was a need for more detailed and consistent communication from agencies and organisations. Victims expressed feeling that they rarely knew what actions were being taken after they submitted the report unless their input was required as part of the investigation. It was recommended that organisations should offer more open and frequent communication to both individuals and communities impacted by ASB. At a wider community level, this could be through community notice boards or newsletters and at an individual case level, a single point of contact being allocated.

Agencies recommended that more attention be given by the government to reducing the incidence of ASB. Agencies and organisations at both national and local levels perceived ASB as being a growing issue which greatly impacts those who experience or witness it. Therefore, agencies and organisations suggested that government policy should be more focused on approaches to both preventing and responding effectively to ASB.

‘If there was a single outcome that I would like to see is to get across that anti-social behaviour is really serious and [we] have to take it seriously. And I think the trend in the last 10 years, not just here but over across everywhere in the sector, is to treat it like it no longer exists.’ Local authority, London.

Similarly, although not possible to include in this research, a common view among victims or witnesses was that not enough is being done to prevent ASB. Interviews found that agencies and organisations favoured a community approach, while possible preventative measures mentioned by victims or witnesses to make people feel safe and reduce ASB included educational programmes for young people, increased police or security presence locally and tougher punishment for persistent perpetrators to act as a deterrent to future ASB. Agencies also highlighted the importance of understanding and addressing the causes of ASB in developing prevention approaches. This includes understanding the range of factors which could be driving ASB, such as substance misuse and mental health issues.

5.6 Considerations for future research

This research explored the different stages of the ASB incident journey from the perspective of agencies, organisations and victims. As the focus was on understanding experiences across the different stages, there was limited ability for the research to explore each stage in depth. While the research provided an overview of local approaches that have been developed in response to ASB, it was not possible for the research to provide detailed insight on the different ways of working, such as:

• the completion of risk assessments
• the use of different tools and powers
• further exploring the decision-making process of different agencies and organisations in their application of the tools and powers, providing examples of good practice and identifying inconsistencies

The research explored the implementation of the Community Trigger process, but only from the perspective of agencies and organisations due to none of the victims spoken with knowing or having experienced the Community Trigger process. While agencies and organisations discussed this process, this was often at a high level due to the time available within the interviews conducted. Therefore, further exploration of the implementation of the process across different agencies and organisations is needed, alongside understanding how this process operates alongside the application of separate individual complaints processes. It is also important that any further review of the Community Trigger process hears directly from victims of ASB about their experiences of the process.

Annexes

Annex A: ASB types

The following types of ASB were asked about in the survey:

• youths/teenagers/groups hanging around
• drunken behaviour
• vandalism
• inconsiderate behaviour
• loud music/noise
• people using/evidence of drugs
• people being intimidated/harassed
• environmental ASB
• nuisance neighbours
• vehicle-related ASB
• aggressive begging
• sexual ASB
• problems with out-of-control dogs

Annex B: ASB tools and powers

Civil injunctions

A civil injunction prohibits a person from doing a specific act and/or requires them to do something.

An injunction is granted for a specific period of time, will name the person responsible for supervising compliance with the injunction and can include a power of arrest if breached. The injunction will require the person who is committing ASB either to do a certain thing or prohibit them from doing a certain thing with the aim of stopping the ASB and also preventing the individual involved from getting into crime. This is a purely civil order and does not give the individual a criminal record.

Criminal behaviour order (CBO)

This is used against the most persistent ASB perpetrators who also engage in criminal activity. It orders an individual to not engage in specific acts or go to certain locations.

It is granted for a specific period of time and can sometimes include supervised compliance.

Dispersal powers

A constable in uniform can use dispersal powers to direct a person in a public place to leave and not return for a period of time (a maximum of 48 hours).

Public space protection order (PSPO)

A PSPO is a power that identifies a public place and prohibits specified things from being done in the restricted area. The order cannot be in place for more than 3 years.

Community protection notice (CPN)

CPNs are designed to stop a person, business or organisation from committing ASB which spoils the community’s quality of life.

Remedial order

This happens when a perpetrator does not comply with CPN.

It requires the perpetrator to either carry out specific work or to allow specific work to be carried out on behalf of the perpetrator by specified local authorities, for example cleaning graffiti or repairing damage.

Closure order/notice

Prohibits access to a premises for a period specified in the notice and may prohibit access by all persons except those specified, at all times and in all circumstances.

Annex C: Sample demographic profiles

Quantitative sample

Table A1: Gender

Gender	Percentage of sample
Male	52%
Female	48%
Other	1%

Table A2: Age

Age range	Percentage of sample
18 to 24	13%
25 to 34	20%
35 to 44	18%
45 to 54	18%
55 to 64	15%
65 and above	17%

Table A3: IMD area

IMD area	Percentage of sample
1	21%
2	19%
3	18%
4	17%
5	15%
Other	9%

Table A4: Region

Region	Percentage of sample
North East	5%
North West	13%
Yorkshire and Humberside	9%
West Midlands	10%
East Midlands	7%
East Anglia	9%
South West	9%
South East	16%
Greater London	17%
Wales	5%

Table A5: Employment

Employment status	Percentage of sample
Employed	69%
Not employed	11%
Retired	17%
Student/pupil	3%

Table A6: Income

Income	Percentage of sample
Under £5,000	2%
£5,000 to £9,999	3%
£10,000 to £14,999	7%
£15,000 to £19,999	6%
£20,000 to £24,999	8%
£25,000 to £34,999	13%
£35,000 to £44,999	12%
£45,000 to £54,999	10%
£55,000 to £99,999	18%
£100,000 or more	11%
Prefer not to answer	10%

Table A7: Ethnicity

Ethnicity	Percentage of sample
White	88%
Asian	5%
Black	2%
Multiple/mixed	2%
Other/prefer not to say	3%

Table A8: Social grade

Social grade	Percentage of sample
A – Upper middle class	6%
B – Middle class	47%
C1 – Lower middle class	27%
C2 – Skilled working class	7%
D – Working class	8%
E – Lower level of subsistence	5%

Table A9: Accommodation type

Accommodation type	Percentage of sample
House/bungalow	77%
Flat	21%
Other	2%

Table A10: Household makeup

Household makeup	Percentage of sample
I live alone	18%
I live with family/friends	81%
Prefer not to say	1%

Table A11: Housing tenure

Housing tenure	Percentage of sample
Own	69%
Rent	27%
Other	4%

Table A12: Long-term physical or mental health conditions

Long-term physical or mental health conditions	Percentage of sample
Yes	35%
No	61%
Other	4%

Table A13: Reduced ability from long-term physical or mental health conditions (n=894)

Reduced ability from long-term physical or mental health conditions	Percentage of sample
Yes, a lot	38%
Yes, a little	46%
Not at all	15%
Prefer not to say	1%

Victim interview sample

Table A14: Victim interview sample

Characteristic	Response	Quotas (per case study area)	Quotas (all interviews)	Quota achieved
Experience of ASB	Victim or witness of ASB in previous 12 months	All	50	50
Victim or witness (any type)	Witness (or both)	Minimum (min) 2	Min 10	37
Victim or witness (any type)	Victim (or both)	Min 2	Min 10	13
Extent to which ASB impacts their life currently	A great deal	Min 2	Min 10	15
Extent to which ASB impacts their life currently	A fair amount	Min 2	Min 10	15
Extent to which ASB impacts their life currently	Just a little	Min 2	Min 10	15
Extent to which ASB impacts their life currently	Not at all – only included if also consider experience to be a crime or anti-social behaviour	Maximum (max) 1	Max 5	5
Type of ASB experienced	Personal threat	Min 2	Min 10	19
Type of ASB experienced	Community-nuisance	Min 2	Min 10	54
Type of ASB experienced	Environmental	Min 2	Min 10	23
Gender	Male	Min 4	Min 20	22
Gender	Female	Min 4	Min 20	28
Ethnicity	White British	Min 3	Min 15	34
Ethnicity	Other ethnicity	Min 3	Min 15	16
Age	18 to 34	Min 2	Min 10	14
Age	35 to 54	Min 2	Min 10	21
Age	55 and above	Min 2	Min 10	14
Working status	Working	Min 2	Min 10	40
Working status	Not working	Min 2	Min 10	11
If reported incident	Reported	Min 2	Min 10	29
If reported incident	Not reported	Min 2	Min 10	21
If accessed support	Accessed	Min 2	Min 10	10
If accessed support	Not accessed	Min 2	Min 10	40

Victim focus group sample

Table A15: Victim focus group sample

Characteristic	Response	Cardiff	Leicester	Westminster	Newcastle upon Tyne	Liverpool
Experience of ASB	Victim or witness of ASB in previous 12 months	12	11	12	12	12
Victim or witness (any type)	Witness (or both)	6	11	10	10	9
Victim or witness (any type)	Victim (or both)	6	3	7	2	5
Extent to which ASB impacts their life currently	A great deal	0	3	0	2	0
Extent to which ASB impacts their life currently	A fair amount	6	5	8	4	10
Extent to which ASB impacts their life currently	Just a little	6	3	4	3	2
Extent to which ASB impacts their life currently	Not at all	0	0	0	3	0
Type of ASB experienced	Personal threat	4	10	6	5	5
Type of ASB experienced	Community-nuisance	9	11	11	5	12
Type of ASB experienced	Environmental	10	8	3	2	2
Gender	Male	7	5	4	6	5
Gender	Female	5	6	8	6	7
Ethnicity	White British	5	4	7	10	8
Ethnicity	Other ethnicity	7	7	5	2	5
Age	18 to 34	1	2	2	3	5
Age	35 to 54	8	6	6	5	5
Age	55 and above	3	3	4	4	2
Working status	Working	10	8	9	9	8
Working status	Not working	2	3	3	3	4
If reported incident	Reported	7	6	9	8	7
If reported incident	Not reported	5	5	3	4	5
If accessed support	Accessed	9	1	0	0	1
If accessed support	Not accessed	3	10	12	12	11

Focus group dates

Table A16: Focus group dates

Location	Dates (2022)
Liverpool	14 March and 21 March
Cardiff	15 March and 16 March
Westminster	15 March and 17 March
Newcastle upon Tyne	22 March and 24 March
Leicester	24 March and 30 March

Agencies and organisations interview breakdown

Table A17: Agencies and organisations interview breakdown

Agency/organisation	Cardiff	Newcastle upon Tyne	Leicester	Liverpool	London[footnote 31]	Total
Police	2	4	0	3	1	10
Local authority	1	3	4	2	6	16
Housing	0	2	0	5	0	7
Other	0	2	0	0	0	2
Total	3	11	4	10	7	35

Annex D: List of sources reviewed for desk review

ASB Help (2021), Chair’s Pack for Community Trigger Best Practice

ASB Help (2021), Community Trigger Best Practice – website support page

ASB Help (n.d), Community Trigger Activation: Multi-Agency Meeting (Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014; Part 6, Sections 104 to 105 and Schedule 4)

ASB Help (n.d), Community Trigger/ASB Case Review Self-Assessment

Blaby District Council (2017), Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland, The Incremental Approach: Anti-Social Behaviour Protocol for Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland (2017)

Brighton and Hove City Council (n.d), Case study: Brighton (Seafield Road)

Brighton and Hove City Council (2018), Victim and witness service standards leaflet 2018

Brighton and Hove Community Safety Partnership (2020), Case study: Multi-agency use of CPNs 2020

Brighton and Hove Community Safety Partnership (2020), Case study: Norfolk Square 2020

Brighton and Hove Community Safety Partnership (n.d), Collaboration with a range of housing providers to address community harm caused by anti-social behaviour and crime

Brighton and Hove City Council (n.d), Brighton and Hove Victim and Witness Service Standards

Brighton and Hove Community Safety Partnership (n.d), A good practice guide: Supporting Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) and hate incident victims and witnesses

College of Policing (2021), Recognising and responding to vulnerability-related risks guidelines: evidence review part two

College of Policing (2019), Neighbourhood policing guidelines: Supporting material for frontline officers, staff and volunteers

Croydon Council (n.d), Police safer neighbourhood teams: Police and partner agencies work together with local communities to identify and tackle issues of concern

Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (2021), Help with anti-social behaviour for social housing tenants

V. Heap, (2021), Exploring the effects of long-term anti-social behaviour victimisation

Housing Associations’ Charitable Trust (HACT) (2018), Rethinking customer insight: Moving beyond the numbers

Home Office (2011), National standard for incident recording counting rules

Home Office (2022), Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014: Anti-social behaviour powers – Statutory guidance for frontline professionals

Home Office Analysis and Insight (n.d), Anti-Social Behaviour Evidence Pack

Leeds City Council (n.d), Case study: Leeds

Legislation (2014), Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014

Legislation (2014), Explanatory Notes: Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014

Mayor of London/London Assembly (2022), Safer Neighbourhood Boards

North Yorkshire Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner, Community safety partnerships

Office for National Statistics (2020), Methodology note on the possible order effect on responses to questions on anti-social behaviour from changes in the Crime Survey for England and Wales questionnaire - Appendix tables

RESOLVE (2021), Tackling Antisocial Behaviour: The Tools and Power – A collation of 17 case studies demonstrating the tools and powers employed to tackle antisocial behaviour in the UK)

Richmond Council (n.d), Case study: Richmond Council

Sturge and Brown (2020), Research Briefing: Tackling anti-social behaviour

Wandsworth Council (n.d), Case study: Wandsworth Council

Youth Justice Board, Home Office and Association of Chief Police Officers (n.d), A guide to Anti-Social Behaviour tools and powers

---

1. Civil injunctions, criminal behaviour orders, dispersal powers, public space protection orders, community protection notices and remedial orders, and closure notices and orders. ↩

2. Tackling anti-social behaviour ↩

3. Victim/witness fieldwork was conducted with individuals from Westminster, whereas stakeholder interviews were conducted with those in London more broadly due to the capacity of London’s agencies and organisations to take part on the interviews. ↩

4. Victims were screened on their response to ‘To what extent does the anti-social behaviour incidents you experienced/witnessed impact your life currently?’ using a 1 to 5 scale ranking system. Code 1 responses were considered ‘a great deal’. ↩

5. Including those who entered the survey and completed the screening questions but were ultimately screened out because they were not eligible to participate. ↩

6. The IMD score is a measure of relative deprivation based on 37 separate indicators ↩

7. Attributions of quotes from focus group participants do not include age information due to data recording practices. ↩

8. Further information on these tools and powers is provided in Annex A. ↩

9. Anti-social behaviour powers: Statutory guidance for frontline professionals (the document was revised after the fieldwork period and changes have not been factored into analysis). ↩

10. Tools and powers include civil injunctions, criminal behaviour orders, dispersal powers, public space protection orders, community protection notices and remedial orders, and closure notices and orders. The police commonly exercise civil injunctions, criminal behaviour orders, dispersal powers and community protection notices. Local authorities commonly exercise closure powers and public space protection orders. Absolute grounds for possession only apply to housing associations. ↩

11. Out-of-court disposal is where an offender has admitted guilt and takes into account the full circumstances of the offense, offender and views of the victim. The punishment is set outside of court, usually as a ‘community remedy’ where the victims have a say in what the perpetrator is served with – that is, repairing damage. ↩

12. Home Office, Anti-social Behaviour Principles (July 2022) ↩

13. Clinical commissioning groups were set up by the Health and Social Care Act 2012 to organise the delivery of NHS services in each of local area in England. They have since been integrated into care systems as a result of the Health and Care Act 2022. ↩

14. College of Policing, Neighbourhood Policing Guidelines: Supporting material for frontline officers, staff and volunteers (2019) ↩ ↩²

15. DLUHC and MHC&LG, Help with anti-social behaviour for social tenants (2021) ↩

16. RESOLVE, Tackling Antisocial Behaviour: The Tools and Power (2021). ↩

17. ASB Help, Chair’s pack (2021) ↩

18. Blaby District Council, The Incremental Approach: Anti-Social Behaviour Protocol for Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland 2017 (2017). ↩

19. Community safety partnerships are statutory partnerships of local organisations which aim to reduce crime and the fear of crime, ASB, alcohol and drug misuse and re-offending ↩

20. V. Heap, Exploring the effects of long-term anti-social behaviour victimisation, International Review of Victimology (2021) ↩

21. Home Office, Defining and measuring anti-social behaviour (2004) ↩

22. Safer neighbourhood teams were introduced by the Metropolitan Police in 2004 and comprise a small team of police officers and police community support officers who are dedicated to policing a certain community or area ↩

23. As part of the survey, respondents were asked what types of ASB they had experienced or witnessed. Those who had experienced more than 3 different types of ASB were randomly allocated 3 types of ASB to continue answering questions about. Due to this and the fact that the same incidents could be reported to different agencies, the numbers in Table 3.1 do not add up to 100%. ↩

24. A Safer Neighbourhood Board is in place in every London borough. Their aim is to bring the police and communities together to decide local policing and crime priorities, solve problems collaboratively and make sure that the public are involved in a wide range of other community safety decisions: https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/mayors-office-policing-and-crime-mopac/my-area-0/safer-neighbourhood-boards ↩

25. Examples of national policing guidelines include those published by the College of Policing which cover conflict management, obtaining initial accounts, neighbourhood policing and vulnerability-related risk. These guidance documents include essential elements (for forces and individual officers) to consider, important information and practical advice and resources. ↩

26. Critchfield, Kennedy and Myhill, Recognising and responding to vulnerability-related risks guidelines: Frontline policing vulnerability risk assessment tools (2021) ↩

27. Home Office, Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014: Anti-social behaviour powers – Statutory guidance for frontline professionals (2021). ↩

28. ‘County Lines’ is where illegal drugs are transported from one area to another, often across police and local authority boundaries (although not exclusively), usually by children or vulnerable people who are coerced into it by gangs.’ (National Crime Agency. ↩

29. Cuckooing is when gangs use violence and abuse to target the homes of vulnerable people and use them as bases for drug dealing. (Crimestoppers. ↩

30. This data referenced was cited in the interview with the local authority stakeholder and not verified. ↩

31. Stakeholder interviews were conducted with those in London more broadly due to availability of relevant individuals. ↩