Research and analysis

Police perceptions of powers within the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014

Published 14 November 2023

Applies to England and Wales

Author: Laura Dewar

Acknowledgements

I am very grateful to a number of colleagues for their support with the research: with the interview analysis, and in reviewing and quality assuring this report. Particular thanks go to Phillippa Lewis, Gagandeep Toor, Charlotte Boulton, James Long and Lee Smith. I would also like to thank the participants for giving up their valuable time to be interviewed.

Executive summary

Background and context

With the launch of the Anti-social Behaviour Action Plan, anti-social behaviour (ASB) has been identified as a priority by the current government. There is a small body of research, largely comprising case studies, that speaks to the effectiveness of the powers from the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (‘ASB powers’) in specific areas and contexts. Meanwhile, some previous research has flagged concerns about the process and use of the different ASB powers. The ASB Action Plan placed emphasis accordingly on ensuring ASB powers are fit for purpose and used effectively, including launching a public consultation on ASB powers.

The present research fed into the development of the consultation and, more generally, aims to develop the evidence base for police use and perceptions of the ASB powers to get a more detailed understanding of how these are working and if the police are using them to their full potential. Home Office researchers took a qualitative approach including interviews with police ASB leads and practitioners to gather perspectives from both those with a strategic force-wide view and individuals who directly implemented the powers.

Key findings

The main findings from the research were:

Awareness:

Police were generally aware of what ASB powers are available to them.

ASB powers:

Police were generally content with the range of powers available to them although they noted some minor potential changes to the legislation which they perceived could be useful.

Effectiveness:

Police considered the powers generally effective when put in place, although sometimes this was a short-term impact.

Decision-making around powers:

• police use decision-making models and force policy ASB tools and powers frameworks when considering resolution of ASB incidents, including use of powers
• police showed a strong preference for using a non-enforcement resolution in the first instance; therefore, they more commonly used powers where more informal measures had not led to a change in behaviour
• familiarity and ease of use generally influenced whether an officer selected a power
• where the police used powers, Community Protection Notices and their warning stage (CPN/W) were normally the first step up from informal measures and were therefore used in a broad and flexible way
• police typically used Criminal Behaviour Orders (CBOs), Dispersal Powers and Public Space Protection Orders (PSPOs) with offences committed in the public space, whereas they more commonly used Civil Injunctions (CIs) for neighbour disputes

Barriers to using powers:

• knowledge and confidence in using ASB powers was a significant barrier, but the specifics varied – newer police officers and those outside neighbourhood or specialist teams could lack the detailed knowledge and confidence to use powers, whereas sometimes other agencies or legal officers might not be aware of what the powers are at all
• legal processes were another barrier to the successful use of ASB powers where relevant, and conversely, the extent and quality of relationships between police and legal colleagues and services appeared to lead to efficient use of court-based ASB powers

Levels of use:

• generally, police reported Dispersal Powers and CPNs to be best used, while perceptions of CIs use depended partly on direct experience on using them
• police noted that CBO and Closure Powers have potential further opportunities for use, but most times police should initially use other tools and powers where possible
• PSPOs were generally used by local authorities (LA) but police gave a few examples of additional places they could be used

Next Steps

The government has already taken some steps to improve ASB power use by rebranding the ‘Community Trigger’ as an ‘ASB Case Review’ and, guided in part by the present research, undertaking a consultation on potential amendments of the existing ASB powers. The government will next consider further guidance on the specific power implementation process and further clarifications within the overall guidance on different agency accountability, benefits of the different powers and best practice.

Meanwhile, given the positive examples of use of ASB powers by specialists in ASB, including those at Police Community Support Officer (PCSO) level, police forces without that role in post should consider whether they are a useful addition. Police forces and other agencies should also consider further training on ASB powers – for the police, this could include broader groups such as response officers and investigating officers.

To consider the barriers highlighted for court-based ASB powers, relevant legal agencies should give further consideration to introducing further training for magistrates, judges, Crown Prosecution Service and other legal staff on the ASB powers. They could also consider a standardised penalty for CI and CBO breaches and a review of ASB victim rights and support in court.

1. Introduction

Understanding the effectiveness of powers from the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (ASB powers) has been identified as a priority by the current government. Accordingly, this research fed into the development of the ASB powers consultation and, more generally, aims to develop the evidence base in relation to police use and perceptions of existing ASB powers.

1.1 Background

HM Government (2014) officially defines anti-social behaviour (ASB) as:

• 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, or
• conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person

There has been a recent government prioritisation of ASB:

• the Beating Crime Plan, first published in July 2021, set out an ambition to “make sure that the tools available to those seeking to tackle anti-social behaviour are effectively deployed”
• in July 2022, a cross-government ASB strategic board established and communicated principles around ASB powers, which included mention of agencies providing appropriate interventions including criminal justice options
• the ASB Action Plan includes a commitment to encourage use of powers where appropriate and strengthen ASB powers where agencies indicate this would be useful
• a consultation that included questions on the expansion of ASB powers, in part guided by the present research, ran from 27 March 2023 to 22 May 2023 – the consultation response was published alongside this report on 14 November 2023.

1.1.1 ASB powers

The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 was introduced in England and Wales bringing in 6 new powers to replace the 19 pre-existing ones, which included Anti-social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs).^{[footnote 1]} The new enforcement powers, covered within this research, are:

• Civil Injunction (CI)
• Criminal Behaviour Order (CBO)
• Community Protection Notice (CPN)
• Closure Notice (CN) and Order
• Dispersal Notices
• Public Space Protection Order (PSPO)

In addition, the government introduced 2 further measures – the ‘ASB Case Review’^{[footnote 2]}, and Community Remedy – designed to be simpler and more flexible, and to put victims and communities at the heart of the response. The insights found on these powers are in Annex E.

1.1.2 Previous research

Recent research reflected stakeholders’ views that powers do not seek to address the causes of ASB which limits effectiveness and highlighted that utilising legal powers is challenging due to delays in the court system (Home Office, 2023b). Whereas there is a small body of research, largely comprising case studies, demonstrating effectiveness of the ASB powers in specific areas and contexts (Resolve, 2021; Lambeth Council, 2018), some previous research has flagged concerns about the process and use of the different ASB powers. For instance, issues with the CI such as inconsistent penalties for breaches (Civil Justice Council, 2020) or the potential for PSPO and dispersal powers to lead to people who are street homeless to experience displacement and perceive themselves to be constantly policed (Heap et al., 2022).

1.2 Aims

Accordingly, this research aims to develop the evidence base for police use and perceptions of the ASB powers, specifically to establish:

• police awareness of the different ASB powers
• police views on how the powers are currently used
• police perceptions of any barriers or challenges to using powers, or examples where they are not used as fully as they might
• police views on the effectiveness of ASB powers

1.3 Methodology

This study used a qualitative approach comprising 24 interviews, including 38 police officers and staff across 11 different police forces^{[footnote 3]}.

We split participants into 2 types ^{[footnote 4]}:

• ASB leads: Individuals formally deemed to be leading within their force on ASB
• ASB practitioners: Police officers and staff who held a caseload of ASB incidents with the opportunity to use ASB powers and tools directly

Further methodology considerations are in Annex B and the topic guides which contain the research questions are in Annex C.

1.4 Report Structure

Chapter 2 considers the decision-making process that precedes the use of ASB powers including decision-making models and ASB tools and powers framework. The report then explores powers across multiple chapters.

• Chapter 3 considers powers primarily used for individuals.
• Chapter 4 considers location-based powers.
• Chapter 5 draws conclusions and recommendations from the findings.

2. ASB 2014 powers and tools – decision-making process

This chapter sets out the factors influencing the decision-making process undertaken in different forces when considering use of powers to tackle ASB.

The Anti-Social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014 was introduced as part of a localised approach to tackling ASB to ensure agencies and local authorities (LAs) could make decisions that best fit the needs of their communities. This has led to piecemeal data on how powers and tools are being used as there is no central authority responsible for collecting and publishing data on ASB powers.^{[footnote 5]}

Although the Home Office provides national guidance, recent research has found that operational practices for ASB differ both across and within different police forces (Home Office, 2023b).

2.1 Factors considered in powers decision-making

Police typically reference the formal decision-making models or elements of them when talking about making decisions around tackling ASB. This included mention of a risk assessment tool called THRIVE. Important features of their risk decisions were that the response should be proportionate and necessary, and should consider both perpetrator characteristics such as age and history of offending as well as victims and their vulnerability.

The response comprises considering power use alongside a range of tactics including use of the SARA model where a cluster of ASB incidents have been identified happening in the same location, for example.

In line with previous research (Home Office, 2023b) and the ASB statutory guidance, the police generally reference a process map or framework during their decision-making, which sets out how and when they should use different ASB tools and powers (see Figure 1). They showed a strong preference for first using a non-enforcement resolution.^{[footnote 6]} This was mainly when wanting to use resources efficiently (for example, not using powers where informal approaches were a sufficient deterrent) and not wanting to criminalise individuals unnecessarily, particularly children and young people.

Lead, Force C: ‘if you look at the [ASB] powers in isolation, you’re missing three-quarters of the issue. …the trauma informed approach for solution of the people you’re dealing with because…the majority of the time …they’re doing this type of stuff as a result of something else is going on in their lives… So we try our best… And we all wanna get there [use powers] when it’s absolutely 100% that is the only thing that we think is gonna work… [Can put] performance frameworks around [but] that’s not the story as it the story [sic] is outcome for an individual and what we’ve done to prevent.’

However, they did also note that using a power on first or early contact would be appropriate for higher risk ASB incident or perpetrators, such as evidence of drug use in a property, so they might apply for a Closure Order. Whereas police highlighted the positive aspects of dealing with ASB flexibly on a case-by-case basis, research has flagged these as inconsistencies which could lead to young people progressing up the ladder at different speeds in different areas (Crawford et al., 2017).

Figure 1: Flowchart depicting a typical ASB tools and power process

2.2 Police and agency involvement in powers decision-making

There is a typical process by which police handle an ASB incident, although the specifics will vary depending on force policy. This comprises recognising and recording the ASB incident, involving neighbourhood or specialist teams, and discussing ASB cases in a range of police or cross-agency meetings (see Table 1). The official guidance encourages a multi-agency response to ASB incidents and findings showed police generally had regular contact with other agencies during the process of information gathering and decision-making around ASB tools and powers, sometimes sharing workload.

Practitioner, Force K: ‘We’ll maybe see [street drinkers] in the town and we’ll give their daily warning…if somebody maybe has been seen 5 or 6 days on the trot [the LA ASB coordinator will] do a CPN.’

Working practices and relationships with LAs could vary within a police force.^{[footnote 7]} At times they referenced other agencies being reluctant to use powers which meant either their administration was reliant on police resource or did not progress at all. Although relationships with other agencies were important, for court-issued powers, the police relationship with legal departments and CPS was more pivotal in influencing their use of those powers. For example, forces with special relationships with lawyers helped them to fast-track the implementation of powers.

Police involved in investigating and tackling ASB had typically received training on ASB but it was not necessarily detailed or recent. Often practitioners felt that they mostly learned about ASB tools and powers ‘on the job’, although views varied on whether further formal training would have been useful or if learning by doing is the best way to develop skills. Universally, views were that information or guidance on the practicalities of using powers provided by more experienced colleagues or, less frequently, access to force-level guidance documentation encouraged increased use of powers. Leads showed general agreement, at times noting the context of the police workforce generally comprising more student or newly qualified officers.

ASB practitioner, Force G: ‘Once I’d been to my first ASB job and I came back and I said, OK… how are we gonna deal with this? What we’re gonna do? [I was told] you can give them a level one letter. Ohh, can I? And it was only after I’d been to the job. So if I’d have joined a safer neighbourhood and they just said. Right. OK, here’s your…training on anti-social behaviour then that would have probably been more beneficial I think.’

Table 1: Stages of police ASB resolution process and how that relates to ASB powers decisions

Stage	Who involved	Action	Details	Implications
Reporting of the incident	Force call handler and despatch.	Initial recording of the incident. Decisions around level of risk and further action.	If incident deemed to be ASB, passed through to an appropriate ASB contact. Cross threshold of risk – immediate action.	ASB definition being broad and subjective led to overlap between ASB and crime, which are recorded and treated separately. May mean opportunities for using tools and powers are missed where crime is identified.
Dealing with the ASB incident	Varied – typically neighbourhood team, sometimes specialist ASB team.	Consider use of ASB tool or power.	ASB specialist teams were sometimes involved from the beginning. Otherwise required a referral from the neighbourhood team – then gave advice or took further actions.	Specialists tended to reference their willingness to use powers due to their familiarity with the process and the time they could dedicate to a specific incident.
ASB governance systems	Police and sometimes other agencies.	Meetings held that related to ASB	Cases escalated to consider patterns in locations, perpetrators and victims. Present: LAs, housing associations and youth offending services. Less often: social services or mental health services.	These gave a further chance for tactics including use of powers to be discussed.

3. ASB powers with individuals: police perception of use, challenges and solutions

Three of the powers are primarily or wholly for individual perpetrators and they use prohibitions and positive requirements to direct behaviour away from what is considered anti-social. For a figure mapping out how all the ASB powers relate together, please see Annex E.

3.1 Community Protection Notices and Warnings (CPN/W)

3.1.1 Definition, guidance and national picture

Community Protection Notices (CPN) aim to stop a person aged 16 and over, a business or an organisation committing ASB. Primarily they can be issued by police officers or LA officers.^{[footnote 8]} In those cases, the relevant agency would need to demonstrate they have reasonable grounds that the conduct is detrimentally affecting the quality of life of those in the locality and the behaviour is unreasonable and persistent in nature. This power comprises first providing a written Community Protection Warning (CPW) to a perpetrator requesting them to stop specific conduct deemed unreasonable and outlining that they will receive a CPN if their behaviour continues. If the police or LA consider the perpetrator has not addressed their behaviour after a reasonable amount of time they will issue the CPN which outlines a list of requirements. These can be both stop or start actions to avoid further ASB. Breaching a CPN is a criminal offence – possible penalties include a fixed penalty notice (FPN), a fine on conviction or paying for remedial work.

Statutory guidance states this power is particularly suited to environmental issues such as graffiti, rubbish and noise nuisance.

In the year ending 31 March 2023, 2,495 CPNs were issued. ^{[footnote 9]}

3.1.2 Police perceptions of use and effectiveness

Interviewees commonly considered the CPN process (CPN/W), issuing a CPW with the option to escalate to the CPN, a useful step up from more unofficial warnings, due to being able to issue them without applying to the court. Generally, they felt police use was sufficient, although occasionally they felt that police officers not in neighbourhood teams could use CPNs more than they did.

Interviewees made a few explicit references to where other agencies could use the CPN/W more. Within those examples, they generally noted that those agencies were better placed than the police to take forward CPNs for environmental issues. A minority view was that neighbourhood disputes could also be better dealt with by agencies issuing CPNs rather than police.

The CPN process was generally thought effective, particularly for ASB incidents that were considered to be low level, as CPNs were rarely breached. Sometimes CPWs given to the main perpetrators in a group led to other group members desisting. Where used, the CPN/W processes were considered useful steps as they provided opportunities for evidence gathering for a CI or CBO application.

Practitioner, Force C: ‘I know this guy in one of our areas [had] 18 calls a day, it was absolutely catastrophic, couldn’t get hold of him. Issued him with the CPN. Behaviour couldn’t continue, then managed to get hold of his mam. And I found out that he was suffering because his dad died. Nan left the house to him. His Nan died and basically needed bereavement counselling. Believe it or not. So I put one of them down as a stipulation on the CPW and you’ve got to have that as well as not allowing any people in the house after a certain time or in certain numbers. Never had the call since.’

There were varied experiences with using the CPW specifically, ranging from police finding the vast majority of people given a CPW ceased behaviour to needing to progress to a CPN almost all the time.

Why someone adheres to a warning comes down to 2 main factors – the characteristics of the perpetrator and the ASB incident influences how likely the person is to change their behaviour. For instance, perpetrators not previously known to police were less likely to need to move to the CPN, whereas the CPW had less influence on those under the influence of alcohol, particularly if dependent on alcohol. An alternative influence was police decisions around leniency, specifically how many opportunities perpetrators had to comply. ^{[footnote 10]} Where discussed, some reported waiting to receive multiple reports of ASB before using a CPW or a CPN; others moved forward with the next step in the process immediately. ^{[footnote 11]} This inconsistency is not necessarily an issue as it was often remarked that police should deal with ASB on a case-by-case basis.

Lead, Force K: ‘You go through this process, you get to a CPN, you get the conditions in place, they breach it and they get fined. And at that point, they’re thinking I’m on a second, this is costing me money and I don’t like that. So you do tend to have a drop off there…but then you get your persistent ones that will be either gripped by addictions or whatever it might be. But they just keep on going which is when you then go down to the CBO.’

Interviewees perceived that use of the CPN/W has increased over the years. This was most commonly related to upskilling, and they generally now think of CPN/W as a broad and flexible power. They noted it was sometimes initially used purely for environmental ASB but is now mostly used to tackle street drinking, neighbourhood issues and for instances of cuckooing. ^{[footnote 12]}

Where mentioned, views were mixed on whether the CPN/W could be used with parents of those under 16. They gave examples when it had been used in that way, but an alternative view was that it was not possible or that other approaches such as Parental Order or Diversion should be used instead.

3.1.3 Police perceptions of challenges and potential solutions

Generally, interviewees perceived the CPN/W to be a straightforward tool. Many reported no specific barriers to use, although some highlighted a couple of aspects that limit or could improve the amount of use.

They often noted that extending CPN/W for use with juveniles aged 15 years and under would improve police ability to manage perpetrators of that age. Currently, if someone aged 15 years and under breaches an Acceptable Behaviour Contract or Agreement, ^{[footnote 13]} the only remaining steps are either a CI or a CBO – as per Figure 1 – where generally the police would welcome a police-issued power rather than involve the courts at that stage.

Practitioner, Force C: ‘An area [I] don’t like is the juveniles… they’re breaching the ABC, we keep meeting with them and the parents with other partners and offering all sorts of intervention. But until they turn 16 it’s all voluntary at this stage. They’re not quite criminal but their behaviour is not acceptable…. until they turn 16 [there] is nothing more we can do with them.’

Some interviewees suggested that more involvement from other agencies or agencies issuing more CPN/Ws would be helpful. CPN/Ws were generally well understood by police ASB practitioners but interviewees reported that awareness raising would be useful to encourage use by some local councils, inexperienced police officers and police officers outside of neighbourhood teams. ^{[footnote 14]}

For one force, the lack of the system to process the FPN for a breach meant they didn’t use CPN/W, although they reported they were satisfied with using other powers instead. For instance, typically they found the CI to be a viable alternative in the context of being familiar with using that power and finding they had sufficient evidence for its use when might have considered CPN/W as an alternative.

Practitioner, Force I: ‘I’ve never felt the need to use it purely because I’ve gone through the ASB warning letter and Acceptable Behaviour Contract. If they’ve breached that I’ve generally had enough to go for an injunction.’

There was mention that obtaining a FPN took too much time or effort. They mentioned other logistical barriers, although these did not have an obvious solution – for instance, not being able to identify the person or locate someone with no fixed abode to present with the CPW/CPN.

Some made suggestions on how to improve the quality of CPN/W and its effectiveness further. First, although no specific concerns were raised, they suggested a level of supervision or guidance on conditions placed by police officers would safeguard that they are fair and realistic. Some force policy already had a formal oversight process in place. Second, they requested further guidance on how to manage breaches, particularly around prosecuting on the criminal threshold or the process of organising FPNs. Third, and less common, ensuring that use and outcomes including breaches are properly tracked, to both ensure further measures are taken where necessary ^{[footnote 15]} and to provide formal evidence of their effectiveness.

3.2 Civil Injunctions (CI) and Criminal Behaviour Orders (CBO)

3.2.1 Definition, guidance and the national picture

According to the statutory guidance an agency such as the police or local council can apply for a CI to prevent or stop the harassment, alarm and distress, or in a housing context to stop nuisance or annoyance. ^{[footnote 16]} The case is heard in County Court or High Court for those aged 18 years and over and youth court for those aged 17 years and under, with the legal threshold set at ‘the balance of probability’.

Meanwhile, a CBO is issued by a criminal court against a person convicted of an offence, which the prosecution applies for once the offender has been convicted and the court is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the perpetrator has caused or was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to others. The statutory guidance states that the application for the CBO does not require a link between the criminal behaviour and the ASB for it to be issued. Examples given for use are threatening others in the community, persistently being drunk and aggressive in public, or to deal with ASB associated with burglary or street robbery.

For both, the statutory guidance sets out that the youth offending team must be consulted if an agency intended to apply against someone aged 17 years and under. Where successful, both involve setting prohibitions and specific requirements designed to address the person’s behaviour.

Adults breaching those conditions can be fined or sent to prison, whereas for those aged 17 years and under breaches of CI are given supervision, curfew, activity requirement, or detention in most serious cases.

In the year ending 31 March 2023, police forces in England and Wales issued 1,006 CBOs and 693 CIs.

3.2.2 Police perceptions of use and effectiveness

Interviewees mostly reported that CIs are rarely or never used by police ^{[footnote 17]} within their police force, although the police demonstrated pockets of CI activity where there were specialist ASB teams or coordinator roles. ^{[footnote 18]} This was particularly in cases where there was no LA involvement and easier access to legal resource. For instance, an interviewee gave an example of a direct link to a solicitor well versed with ASB legislation which enabled them to apply for CI quickly.

Sometimes police officers were aware of CI being used at higher levels by other agencies, such as LAs and Housing. Where police did not apply for the CI, they were sometimes still involved, most commonly providing evidence towards the case or sometimes made aware of a breach leading to power of arrest.

Police generally favoured CBOs over CI so reported more frequent use than CIs. Conversely, there were very few mentions of CBO use by another agency.

Practitioner, Force H: ‘[The CI] is something we certainly consider for a number of jobs…if it’s at that stage we might be looking for partners to potentially take the lead if it’s appropriate for them to do so…it is more where partner agencies are getting the complaints and the evidence.’

CBOs were generally regarded as effective once successfully put in place. As some forces use CIs sporadically, they were less clear on how effective they are; however, those who use CIs flagged their flexibility with a lower evidential threshold and speed comparative to CBOs noted as key contributors to their effectiveness. For both powers, interviewees thought their effectiveness relied on access to positive requirements and agency ability to manage breaches. ^{[footnote 19]} In addition, there was a remark that while CBOs are used successfully in their force area, CIs might actually be more efficient (see below).

Lead, Force E: ‘For various reasons I think Civil Injunctions might be the most efficient individual power. Our force tend to favour Criminal Behaviour Orders and I don’t have a great deal of faith in [CBOs] and if I’m honest I’d far rather my officers, bearing in mind they’re almost identical in preparation… look at injunctions for individuals …opposed to CBOs… Probably a lack of understanding of what Civil Injunctions look like and how we get them coupled with capacity issues.’

Interviewees typically considered both powers to be useful with repeat perpetrators of ASB towards the end of an escalation process, hoping the behaviour would cease before they are needed. Using other tools and powers first also built up the evidence to show that using a further power is necessary. Accordingly, the offence of breaching a CPN was noted several times to be the catalyst for a CBO application.

CBOs typically were applied for on the back of offences that took place in the public space, most commonly shop lifting but also often in relation to public order offences under the influence of alcohol. CIs meanwhile were most used or thought useful for neighbourhood disputes. More generally, interviewees noted that CIs are most useful when behaviour is towards a specific person, whereas CBOs were for more general untargeted ASB.

Interviewees tended to note CBO use in their area was appropriately infrequent given police perceive CBOs as a ‘last resort’. They did sometimes mention opportunities for further use of CBOs being impacted by lack of knowledge for some police officers and challenges with court processes – see Section 3.2.3.

Views were mixed on whether CIs could be used more, including by the police, but the more commonly held view was that the CBO is the more natural option for police use since they were more familiar with the process of working with the Criminal Justice System (CJS) in criminal cases. For those who reported not using CIs, only one example was given where this was linked to directly experiencing difficulties while using them. ^{[footnote 20]} Those who didn’t use them commonly noted that often someone appropriate for a CI is also due in court on a criminal offence and so that has swayed them towards using a CBO instead, although there was a view that CI use might increase given challenges with getting prompt court dates for CBOs.

Police officers who had applied for CIs sometimes used them where evidence was not sufficient for a criminal case. Occasionally they applied for a CBO alongside a CI, most commonly as they could obtain a CI quicker than a CBO to offer the victims some respite until the criminal case was concluded. In some situations where victims and witnesses of ASB declined to come forward or attend court due to feared repercussions from the perpetrators, CIs gave a means to bring perpetrators to justice given the lower burden of civil proof and ability to admit hearsay evidence. Interviewees made repeated mentions more generally of the challenges of encouraging ASB victims to officially report and attend court. A counter point was made that a lower burden of proof does not always lead to a less time-consuming process.

Practitioner, Force F: ‘So the main problem with anti-social behaviour is that the victim is absolutely petrified of the perpetrators and a lot of the time won’t speak to the police because they’re scared of repercussions and the fact is that these perpetrators do probably then go on and say if you grass to the police, I’m going to do this, this and this. So they feel trapped. So a lot of the time we can go in there and do a hearsay statement, so we’ll say spoke to resident A, B, C and D and they are telling us this. And so that’s really one of the most effective tools.’

3.2.3. Police perceptions of challenges and potential solutions

Interviewees noted the main barriers for CI were knowledge and unfamiliarity with the civil threshold. The main barriers for CBOs were within the court process either through delays in getting to court or difficulties when the court case was held.

As noted previously, CI was not often front of mind for ASB practitioners compared to other powers for individuals. Although ASB practitioners were aware of CIs, interviewees thought they perceive the process as too complicated due to lack of familiarity with it compared to criminal court processes. Therefore, generally those ASB practitioners and their supervisors would be more likely to select or advise using another tool or power. Interviewees also suggested that given it was a civil power (emphasised by ‘civil’ being in the name), it perhaps was more appropriate for other agencies to use. Interviewees gave examples where once a practitioner had used CI and knew the process, they were more likely to apply for future ones.

Generally, interviewees considered CBOs more straightforward although better understood by ASB and neighbourhood specific teams than in the wider police force. This was because those dealing with a crime might not consider factors in the wider picture such as ASB. Similar to CIs, where CBOs were considered too hard, this was less of a problem once the officer had some experience using them.

Capacity and the amount of paperwork was also a barrier for the police. Although experience varied, often forces reported having limited legal staff to take forward the CI in contrast to the process when applying for CBO. Meanwhile, for CBOs there was only a short time period to gather sufficient evidence. This is because it had to be applied for at the point of charging an individual for a criminal offence – noted to be particularly difficult when needing to access partner agency information out of hours – and had to meet a criminal evidential threshold regarding victims and witnesses not being willing to attend court.

The court process was a challenge for both CBO and CI. There would often be delays in the CBO case being heard which could negatively affect the case where the defendant had not come to the attention of the police between the offence and court date, or when it became difficult to keep the victim engaged. As noted earlier, this led to practitioners who were more familiar or accustomed to using CI opting to use that instead or running a simultaneous CI and CBO. In one area where force solicitor availability was good, interviewees wished they could use them for CBO applications as they would have for ASBOs.

CIs sometimes experienced delays and court was flagged as an issue to the extent one interviewee explicitly referred to research conducted by the Civil Justice Council. Interviewees noted that delays in the court processes could affect the success of the intervention as it wouldn’t have a chance to affect change before the situation could escalate.

More commonly, challenges would happen where the case was heard ^{[footnote 21]} – it was perceived as being ‘hit or miss’ whether the court would approve the CBO. Both the delays in being heard and treatment in court were attributed to the low prioritisation of ASB by some judges. Numerous instances were reported where the CBO was not discussed or CPS did not understand or were resistant to the CBO. This led to the police often needing to attend court to ensure the CBO, which required extra officer time and resource, although a minority view was that police should be willing to defend it.

Practitioner, Force D: ‘The officer didn’t go to court and then the CPS didn’t bother doing the CBO. That happened a few times. But I think if the officer actually goes to court…then the CPS are quite good.’

This experience was not universal and there was an example where a CPS Single Point of Contact (SPoC) was proactive and supportive, working well with their police contact.

Practitioner, Force J: ‘It depends where you get a lot judges don’t like these powers…I know that we applied for CBO and the judge wouldn’t even look at it. Just didn’t even open it.’

Interviewees also noted issues if the CI or CBO was breached. Not all officers knew how to manage CBO breaches, and those who did could not do so consistently, generally due to resourcing. For CI, interviewees mentioned various logistic issues, such as needing 2 officers to use the power of arrest, and the arresting officer needing to attend court. ^{[footnote 22]}

When CI and CBO breaches were brought back before the courts, it was sometimes difficult to meet the criminal threshold for evidence presented, and issues continued with needing engaged victims to provide evidence directly. While noting these challenges, interviewees recalled various instances where they perceived being called to court for the breach had limited influence on offenders due to them being given a low financial penalty. This also caused the officers involved to feel the work they had put into successfully applying for the power was not justified. A note was made that this was also easier with the previous ASBO power as the breach was a criminal offence. For one force, the logistics involved in the CI have led to the legal department not agreeing to use CIs.

Lead, Force E: ‘We arrested somebody…persistent ASB offender in the city centre who had a CBO. [They] were brought before the court and received a £1 fine which then hugely undermines all the work that goes into doing it because it’s not insignificant. To get that response from the court is almost a bit of an affront to those who are seeking [it] and the time we spent pursuing.’

Beyond their experiences going to court, interviewees noted that other agencies were reluctant to apply for a CI most notably due to the cost to local councils of bringing the case to court, which had to be weighed against other priorities and limited budgets. In some cases, the amount of work also discouraged them in the context of staffing cuts.

Agencies also sometimes preferred that the CI and CBO are not used with young people, particularly the Youth Offending Service, to avoid criminalising them. These sometimes led to conflicts in court with other agencies.

Practitioner, Force D: ‘Youth Offending Service become a sticky wicket with me as well. If I start looking for one on a child or young person. I understand why because they are trying to keep the youths out of the custody route and stop them getting criminal offences against their name.’

Interviewees strongly indicated that having access to power of arrest for CI, currently only possible where violence or threat of violence is present, would improve their efficiency. They also mentioned power of entry as a useful addition. It was noted as well that access to standardised templates, particularly for CIs, would increase the likelihood of being used.

4. ASB powers for locations and places: police perception of use, challenges and solutions

Three of the powers are designed to be implemented primarily or wholly in specific locations or areas and therefore often involving multiple people. This is done through directing individuals to leave, not enter or change their behaviour while in a certain location. For a figure mapping out how all the ASB powers relate together, please see Annex E.

4.1 Closure Notices and Orders

4.1.1 Definition and guidance

There are 2 closure powers to allow the police or council to close premises quickly where they are being used or likely to be used to commit nuisance or disorder:

• Closure Notices (CN) apply up to 48 hours due to nuisance to the public or disorder near the premises. They prohibit all persons but those who own or live in the property, as well as any other named person. The council or police issue CNs out of court. Courts can extend the CN if required, such as if it adjourned a hearing
• Closure Orders apply for up to 6 months, applied for at the magistrates’ court after the CN, due to disorderly, offensive or criminal behaviour on the premises, serious nuisance to the public or disorder near the premises. They can prohibit all persons from access to all or part of the premises

Every issue of a CN must be accompanied by an application to the magistrates’ court for a Closure Order. Penalty on breach is up to 3 months in prison for the notice and up to 6 for the Order.

No national data is available on the use of closure powers.

4.1.2 Police perceptions of use and effectiveness

Interviewees generally reported familiarity with these closure powers, although they have not used them frequently. This was generally not regarded as a significant under-use; CNs and Orders are intended for instances where no other viable options were available due to the risk of causing homelessness. Where used, interviewees considered the powers effective in ceasing the ASB in the short term; sometimes only the threat was needed to see a change in behaviour.

Police use was typically concentrated in urban residential settings and in the night-time economy. These were generally specified as social housing rather than other private residents. Interviewees noted sometimes housing associations or LAs used them, at times working together with the police.

Practitioner, Force D: ‘They’re probably one of the most effective bits of legislation in the act because they can be used for problem houses, blocks and shops. We can utilise them in different ways… Sort of thing that can be used for quite clear anti-social behaviour.’

Where closure powers were used, there was often a criminal offence with accompanying ASB. This was usually regarding cuckooing, but also houses where prostitution and the selling and taking of illicit substances often took place. Less commonly, there was mention of use with licensed premises and in those cases, some interviewees considered use of specific licensing laws to be more appropriate.

Where there were vulnerable victims involved, such as cases of cuckooing, interviewees often noted that they would do a ‘partial closure’. This prohibited anyone but the tenant and those specified from entering the property. The time the Closure Order is in place was noted as an opportunity for the resident to access support and for agencies to consider a move to other, more suitable, accommodation.

Lead, Force H: ‘The Closure Orders are much better now because we can partially close whereas before it was everybody…or nobody out… Cuckooing is our main use for Closure Orders. We’ve got vulnerable individuals in there.’

4.1.3 Police perceptions of challenges and potential solutions

Responses were more mixed on barriers and challenges when using closure powers, which tended to be influenced by working practices, such as how quickly police could adapt to the quick turnaround of work needed.

Interviewees noted that those who were aware of closure powers generally considered the application process straightforward, but varying knowledge of closure powers and how to apply for them between individual teams impacted their use. Beyond neighbourhood teams, closure powers weren’t thought to be well known and teams most likely to use closure powers could be those that focus on disorder reduction rather than ASB specifically. Interviewees noted that enforcement of closure powers would be useful beyond neighbourhood teams as breaches could happen outside of their working hours.

Lead, Force E: ‘Closure Notices amongst neighbourhood teams for anti-social behaviour….is widely known…wider knowledge about that closure power for night-time economy type things for the response inspectors is probably not known.’

Beyond knowledge, the time and resource needed in a time limited manner could also be a barrier to applying for and issuing a CN and subsequent Order. As stated in Section 4.1.1, once a CN is put in place, it lasts 48 hours and there is an expectation that during this time the agency should present sufficient evidence to obtain a Closure Order from the magistrates’ court as a longer term measure.

Generally, interviewees who worked with other agencies spoke positively about it. Although it was useful to share information and workloads with other agencies, given the quick turnaround of work needed, the key relationship driving success appeared to be with the courts. However, it was also noted that partner agencies could rely on the police to use the powers. Whereas police are less likely to consider budgets in their decision-making, court costs for other agencies would factor in whether they used a closure power.

The legal process could also be a challenge, but this was less widespread and significant than for CI or CBOs. ^{[footnote 23]} Still, success in applying for a CN is influenced by factors such as capacity of legal teams, difficulties with building up enough evidence of ASB impacting the community, and the ability to be seen in courts in a timely manner.

Lead, Force G: ‘The police have paid for the 2 Closure Orders…done in the last year, our legal department don’t have the capacity to continue with that. [Barriers are around] access to courts and timing to get into a court list. You’ve got to wait a number of weeks before we can get in front of a magistrate.’

Interviewees mentioned a few potential improvements to the power: a line in the legislation that explicitly mentions using for vulnerable people; an extension to 72 hours to get the Closure Order to court; adding a power of entry; and an improved ability to vary an Order.

4.2 Dispersal powers and Public Space Protection Orders (PSPOs)

4.2.1 Definition, guidance and the national picture

Dispersal powers require a person committing or likely to commit ASB, crime or disorder to leave an area for up to 48 hours. A police officer ranked inspector or higher authorises dispersal powers to be used in a specific area for a period of up to 48 hours. It is issued by a police officer in uniform, including Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs), and can be issued to anyone aged 10 years and over, although a person aged years 15 and under can be taken home or to a place of safety. The officer must specify the area and can determine the time and route to leave, and they can confiscate any item that could be used in ASB, crime or disorder. Breaching this Order is a criminal offence which could lead to a fine and up to 3 months in prison.

PSPOs are designed to stop individuals or groups committing ASB in a public space. They are issued by councils after consultation with police, the Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC), owner of the land and other community representatives they see fit. Restrictions can be set uniformly or be targeted towards certain behaviour by certain groups at certain times. These can be enforced by either a police officer or council officer and a breach is a criminal offence which can receive a FPN or a fine on prosecution.

In the year ending 31 March 2023, police issued 6,015 dispersal powers ^{[footnote 24]}. The national number of PSPO is not currently collected; however, a survey of 100 councils found that 51% had at least one PSPO in place when they were asked in 2017.

4.2.2 Police perceptions of use and effectiveness

Interviewees reported dispersal powers to be generally well utilised by the police. ^{[footnote 25]} Most police officers were aware of PSPOs in place in LA areas covered by their police force, although there were a few examples given of places which would benefit from the council using a PSPO.

Generally, interviewees thought dispersal powers are effective as a short-term quick fix but noted that longer-term problem solving should be used as well. They also considered PSPOs to be sometimes effective, potentially even through public knowledge of it alone, although views were mixed on how well it worked in the case of prolific drinkers. For both powers, interviewees felt that the most effective part was moving people on or causing immediate behaviour change, (for example, handing over alcohol) rather than pursuing breaches through bringing them into custody. They also noted that the powers were useful in gathering intelligence on individuals who may require further intervention in the future.

Most frequently, both dispersal powers and PSPOs were used in city centres, particularly in the context of night-time economy. PSPOs were typically ongoing with review points every couple of years. Equally, sometimes dispersal powers were issued on an ongoing basis, for instance a dispersal zone would be in place every weekend following a reviewal process to ensure there was evidence for it continuing. One example was given where dispersals were ongoing as part of a specific operation.

Lead, Force A: ‘I think they’re quite often used…by operation command inspectors when they’re on [for] night-time economy…people gathering around…put the Dispersal Order in to try and get rid of some people before anything happens.’

Interviewees noted the need for dispersal orders fluctuates throughout the year with key trigger points being over the summer, at Halloween and on Bonfire Night. They would also sometimes be issued due to intelligence on an upcoming event which would bring large crowds together. Less frequently they would be issued spontaneously for example, when police would come across a large group or individual on the day. Councils typically issued PSPOs with conditions around alcohol consumption in the area but also included conditions around drug use – specifically nitrous oxide – begging, and dog control and fouling.

4.2.3 Police perceptions of challenges and potential solutions

Interviewees broadly reported that dispersal powers are straightforward to understand and use and didn’t report any significant barriers or challenges. ^{[footnote 26]} For PSPOs, police sometimes had heard from the LA that it was time consuming to apply for although they didn’t have direct experience in putting one in place. As mentioned previously, interviewees gave a few examples of locations that police officers perceived would benefit from a PSPO not receiving one. The suggested reasons ranged from reluctance of the relevant LA given the resource needed to complete the application, to specific LAs not knowing about the PSPO power.

The primary challenges for dispersal powers were around having enough police to enforce them and tracking if the individual had been warned previously, whereas with PSPO for police it was around original enforcement and dealing with any breaches. Many noted that it fell to police to enforce PSPOs despite the ability for council officers to use the power. ^{[footnote 27]} Although police were generally content to police conditions around alcohol, they felt environmental ASB conditions were for the LA to enforce. Where active enforcement of breaches was used, some had a process in place with the council, though many noted that they would want local councils to have more of a role in the enforcement of breaches than they currently did. Some also noted that the public did not always understand how PSPOs are enforced and breaches are handled, which could cause some confusion or unrealistic expectations.

Lead, Force A: ‘The issue we have with PSPO is in the enforcement of them…they are toothless because there’s nothing that really goes behind them…it has to be the council legal team that enforces them. Don’t know if the council is going to take on the FPNs going forward, that might need clarifying.’

A second, relative minor barrier, that was discussed was a variance in how knowledgeable officers would be about dispersal powers and PSPOs. ^{[footnote 28]} It was less likely that those in rural areas would know about dispersal powers although it was thought to be rarely needed in that context. Meanwhile, those spoken to tended to be aware of PSPOs in their local area but were less certain that this knowledge is widely held throughout their force. In one force, a technological improvement was being put in place which would alert officers to where dispersal powers could be used to assist with building up knowledge.

Lead, Force J: ‘In the recent training some of our more rural teams weren’t aware of this power and hadn’t considered it for anti-social behaviour involving young people. They’d always seen it as a night-time economy disorder tool.’

Participants put forward ideas for how to improve dispersal powers which included whether the powers could last for longer. For PSPOs, beyond encouraging the further involvement of LAs in enforcement of PSPOs, interviewees noted logistical improvements such as the booklet being able to fit in police vests and the provision of cards to give to individuals in the PSPO area.

5. Conclusion and recommendations

Interviewees were generally aware of and content with the range of powers available from the ASB 2014 legislation, although they noted some potential minor changes to the legislation which they perceived could be useful. They considered the powers generally effective when put in place, although it was noted particularly for Closure Powers and Dispersals that this effect was only in the short term.

Police decision-making around whether to use an ASB power is influenced by official decision-making models, force-level ASB tools and powers frameworks, as well as a principle of generally using non-enforcement approaches in the first instance. Reported variation in using specific powers was primarily driven by either the agency or individual working knowledge and confidence in the process of implementing those powers and perceptions of delays and challenges involved in the legal process.

Perceptions of whether use was at its optimum varied by power. Generally, interviewees were satisfied with the level of frequency in which they used CPNs and dispersal powers, although some desired the option to use CPNs with individuals aged 17 years and under. Perceptions of using CIs were mixed – some, particularly those who had experience with them, considered that further police use of this power would add value, whereas some felt that this power is better suited for other agencies. Challenges with using CBOs and Closure Powers meant it was likely that opportunities for use were missed but these were also considered powers that are appropriately infrequently used. The council used PSPOs although interviewees gave a few examples where police would want further use.

5.1 Next steps

The government has already taken some steps to improve power use by rebranding the ‘Community Trigger’ as an ‘ASB Case Review’ and undertaking a consultation on potential amendments of the existing ASB powers. The government will next consider further guidance on the specific power implementation process, and further clarifications within the overall guidance on different agency accountability, benefits of the different powers and best practice.

Meanwhile, given the positive examples of use of ASB powers by specialists in ASB, including those at PCSO level, police forces without that role in post should consider whether they are a useful addition. Police forces and other agencies should also consider further training on ASB powers – for the police, this could include broader groups such as response officers and investigating officers.

To consider the barriers highlighted for court-based ASB powers, relevant legal agencies should consider introducing further training for magistrates, judges, CPS and other legal staff on the ASB powers, a standardised penalty for CI and CBO breaches, and a review of ASB victim rights and support in court.

Annexes

Annex A: ASB powers

Table A1: 2014 ASB powers descriptions

Power	What is this?	Who can use it?
Civil injunction (CI)	Can require individuals (aged 10 years and over) to take part in ‘positive requirements’, which could help them redress their behaviour. Breaching is not a criminal offence.	A variety of public bodies (including local councils, housing providers, the police and environmental agencies) can apply to the courts.
Criminal Behaviour Order (CBO)	Prohibit or require an individual to do something that helps them to address their anti-social behaviour. Breaching is a criminal offence.	The court can only apply a CBO to an offender when requested to do so by the prosecution. Typically, police will raise but sometimes local authorities (LAs).
Community Resolution (CR)	Out-of-Court Disposal where a contract is formed with the perpetrator where they agree to carry out an action to make amends, be punished or rehabilitate. There is a legal obligation to consult the victim wherever possible on whether and how to use CR – this is through a specific Community Remedy document.	Police
Community Protection Notice (CPN)	A Community Protection Warning (CPW) must be issued before a CPN. A CPW is a warning to an individual that their behaviour must stop or they will face further intervention. A CPN is issued if evidence of an individual continuing their behaviour, and can require an individual, business or organisation to stop doing specified things, do specified things or take reasonable steps to achieve a specified result.	LAs, police officers and designated social landlords can issue CPNs to an adult (aged 16 years and over), business or organisation.
Public Space Protection Order (PSPO)	Prohibit any activity associated with ASB in a specified place, including curfews or restricting access to a public right of way.	Made by LAs
Dispersal Powers	Gives power to disperse those behaving (or likely to behave) anti-socially from a specified public space for up to 48 hours.	Police
Closure Notices (CN)	Used as a preventative measure to restrict access to a property believed to be associated with a ‘nuisance’ or have or will likely be associated with future disorder.	Police and LAs

Annex B: Methodology

Fieldwork composition and coverage

This research focused on the police as they are one of the main agencies involved in tackling ASB and the stakeholders most relevant for the Home Office. Additionally, the availability of quantitative data on police use of powers allows for more effective targeting of resource. Given the aims of the research was to gather rich in-depth insights into police perception, the research team selected a qualitative research methodology.

The research team selected police forces using purposive sampling ^{[footnote 29]} informed by the following factors:

• ASB incident data (year ending 31 March 2022) including comparisons to population size
• geography, looking specifically at spread across UK and rural versus metropolitan considerations
• ASB power use (unpublished HMICFRS data for year ending 31 March 2022)
• evidence of best practice – HMICFRS inspection and national stakeholder feedback

Participants

Interviews were generally paired between 2 ASB leads or practitioners to maximise ability to draw on broad experiences across ranks and different parts of the police force area and allow for natural discussion between participants. ASB leads sometimes elected to be accompanied by tactical advisors of lower ranks. Accompanying officers were categorised as ASB leads as they were typically of sergeant rank and above. ASB leads recruited practitioners in their force and, given leads often spoke to the diversity of their force area, where possible researchers requested that the practitioners should represent different geographic areas. As forces vary in structure, researchers decided to allow self-identification into groups, but this did lead to some crossover in what ranks were included as leads versus practitioners.

Table B2: Distribution of police ranks among the participant groups

Police Rank	ASB lead	ASB practitioner
Police Community Support Officer (PCSO)	-	7
Police Constable (PC)	-	11
Sergeant	1	2
Inspector	3	1
Chief Inspector	6	-
Superintendent	3	-
Police staff	3	-
Unknown	1	-

Fieldwork took place between 1 December 2022 and 30 January 2023. Interviews typically lasted 60 to 90 minutes, depending on whether there were one or 2 interviewees in that discussion. The research team recorded and transcribed all interviews using video call software and, where possible, a note taker was present. The team followed data protection regulations for data collection, management and storage of information.

Quality assurance and analysis processes

Transcripts went through a quality assurance process utilising the video recordings and the notes to correct any errors. The research team then undertook a thematic analysis of the transcripts to identify the main themes emerging from the interviews. To identify these, they individually reviewed the interview transcripts and met to discuss and agree the main themes emerging from each participant group.

Annex C: Research Questions and topic guides for ASB leads and ASB practitioners

Research questions

Are police aware of all the ASB 2014 powers?

• if not, what can be done to improve this awareness?

How are the powers currently used?

• what drives that difference between different PFAs?
• what drives variation in use of powers?
• what factors are involved in the decision-making process of whether to use a power/ which power to use?
• are powers used as individual interventions or in combination, and what drives this thinking?
• to what extent do they work with other agencies?

When and in what cases are the different powers used?

• ASB categories
• ASB specific offences
• offender types
• victim types

Are there cases where an ASB power is implemented less frequently than they’d like or should be applied but aren’t?

• what action is taken instead?
• what are the barriers?
• what are potential solutions?

Which powers are considered by police to be the most effective/least effective?

• why?
• what evidence is there to support effectiveness?
• if not effective, what needs to be changed?
• do the current list of powers suit police needs in tackling ASB?

Topic guide for ASB Leads

Notes	Guide section	Timings
Introductions	Sets the scene, reassures participants about the interview, confidentiality. Discuss the general work and aims. Develop an understanding of what role the officer has in their force and at what rank. This will provide useful background and establish rapport.	5 mins
ASB experience and context	The first section of the interview will gauge understanding of ASB powers by the interviewee including training experiences for both them and the force more generally. It will also touch on broad force ASB policy and the interviewees perception of prevalence and issues within the force area.	10 mins
Use of ASB powers	In the next section we explore the decisions made at officer level as to whether and how to use ASB powers, use and barriers to use.	20 mins
ASB power effectiveness	Focus here is on police officer perceptions of how effectiveness of ASB powers can be measured, and in their opinion whether the powers suit police need and what can be done to make them more effective.	10 mins
Conclusion	Confirm the officer is happy with the interview and if they have any questions.	5 mins

Welcome and Introduction

Thank participant for taking part.

Introduce self and role in the Home Office.

Explain outline of the research: to better understand police use and perceptions of ASB powers. We want the discussion to be informal in nature. We’re interested in your perspective so there is no right or wrong answer. Please do draw on your own experiences and provide specific but anonymised examples of incidents if this helps you to answer a question. Take participant through the structure of the interview and how questions will flow so they know what to expect. We are aware that COVID-19 would have impacted on your policing of ASB in recent years. We are focusing on your experiences prior to March 2020 or since measures were lifted in Spring 2021 where possible. Discussion will take approximately an hour.

We are going to record the discussion to allow for accurate analysis.

Inform participant of the outcome of the project: inform ministerial thinking and policy. No plans to publish but research might be referred to in published documents. Any questions?

MODERATOR TO THEN ASK ALL THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS IN TURN.

ASB experience and Context

Could you please explain what you define to be ASB?

• what is this definition informed by?

Based on your experience, how much of a problem do you consider ASB to be in your PFA?

• would you say ASB is increasing or decreasing?
• what do you think are the most/least common types of ASB in [PFA]?
• do views differ across the force?

Tell me about any experience you had with policing with pre-2014 ASB Powers for example, ASBOs.

• how effective do you think they were?
• what were the main limitations, if any?

What training and other guidance do police officers and staff receive on ASB in your PFA?

• does this vary by role?
• what feedback, formal or informal, have you received on this training?
• how is this received?
• is there is any further training planned?

Use of ASB powers – general

We are now going to be discussing the circumstances in which ASB powers might be used.

Firstly, can you briefly describe processes in place, for example, meetings or other forums, where response to ASB incident(s) is discussed.

• is there a criteria for what is discussed?
• who attends?

What factors would you say are typically weighed up when deciding which action to take for specific ASB incident(s)? Both by individual officers and during any meetings described previously.

• what formal guidance and processes underpin this decision-making?
• when would you escalate to seniors for example, a meeting?
• what factors make it more or less likely a power would be enacted?
• what non-enforcement actions do you typically take instead?
• what are your main considerations on which power to use?
• is there any consideration for a ranking/ordering of powers that is, by seriousness?
• how would this vary between officers? Or between an individual officer and when discussed in a meeting?
• how would other agencies be involved in this decision-making?
• how do you think this might vary between different PFAs?

When you decide to utilise a community resolution, would you use a Community Remedy document?

• in what circumstances?
• how effective do you find this approach?

Is your force involved in any Community Trigger/ ASB Case Reviews?

• In what circumstances?
• What other agencies are involved for example, PCC?

Use of ASB powers – specific

We are now going to be discussing the ASB powers in more detail. We are particularly interested in focusing on the powers intended to enable an effective response to ASB, namely:

• Civil Injunction – requiring individuals to take part in ‘positive requirements’ through an application to County Court (by police or others)
• Criminal Behaviour Order – prohibits/requires an individual to do anything during prosecution process for an offence
• Community Protection Notice – This is issued by police and others to set conditions for an individual, business or organisation if following a warning the behaviour continues
• Dispersal Powers – Police power to disperse individuals or groups from a specified public area for up to 48 hours
• Closure Notices – Used as a preventative power to restrict access to a property
• Public Space Protection Order – LAs prohibit activity associated with ASB in a specified place

Focusing on (in turn):

• Civil Injunction
• Criminal Behaviour Order
• Community Protection Notice
• Dispersal Powers (section 34/5?)
• Closure Notices
• Public Space Protection Order

How frequently do you think this power is used by your force?

Note: for PSPO phrase miss off ‘by your force’ as they don’t enact this power.

• compared to other powers?
• compared to other forces?
• compared to other agencies (in your area)?

Do you think use is increasing or decreasing, if so why?

In what circumstances do you think this power is best suited for police use? Note: for PSPO phrase miss off ‘police use’ as they don’t enact this power.

• what ASB types (for example, personal, environmental, nuisance)
• what specific ASB incidents?
• what perpetrator profile(s)?
• what victim profile(s)?
• what geographical location for example, public place?

Are there opportunities where you feel this power should or could be used but isn’t?

• other officers?
• other agencies?
• what action is taken instead?
• any examples of use where could have taken different approach?

What are the main barriers to enacting this power?

Cover:

• understanding
• workload
• CJS context
• length of time
• scope/threshold for use of power

Do you see examples of this power in combination with any others?

• what benefits does this bring?
• are there any unintended consequences? If so, what?

ASB powers effectiveness

How effective is this suite of powers in tackling ASB?

• how do you define success when using a power?
• which do you think are the most or least effective powers and for what reasons?
• how do the powers fit in the broader context of tackling ASB?

Is there anything that can be done to make tackling ASB more effective?

• in the powers and the wording of legislation?
• in the guidance?
• something else?

Conclusion

Do you have any questions about what we have spoken about today?

Is there anything I have not covered that you would like to comment on?

Topic guide for ASB practitioners

Notes	Guide section	Timings
Introductions	Sets the scene, reassures participants about the interview, confidentiality. Discuss the general work and aims. Develop an understanding of what role the officer has in their force and at what rank. This will provide useful background and establish rapport.	5 mins
ASB experience and context	The first section of the interview will gauge understanding of ASB powers by the interviewee including training experiences for both them and the force more generally. It will also touch on broad force ASB policy and the interviewees perception of prevalence and issues within the force area.	10 mins
Use of ASB powers	In the next section we explore the decisions made at officer level as to whether and how to use ASB powers, use and barriers to use.	20 mins
ASB power effectiveness	Focus here is on police officer perceptions of how effectiveness of ASB powers can be measured, and in their opinion whether the powers suit police need and what can be done to make them more effective.	10 mins
Conclusion	Confirm the officer is happy with the interview and if they have any questions.	5 mins

Welcome and Introduction

Thank participant for taking part.

Introduce self and role in the Home Office.

Explain outline of the research: to better understand police use and perceptions of ASB powers. We want the discussion to be informal in nature. We’re interested in your perspective so there is no right or wrong answer. Please do draw on your own experiences and provide specific but anonymised examples of incidents if this helps you to answer a question. Take participant through the structure of the interview and how questions will flow so they know what to expect. We are aware that COVID-19 would have impacted on your policing of ASB in recent years. We are focusing on your experiences prior to March 2020 or since measures were lifted in Spring 2021 where possible. Discussion will take approximately an hour.

We are going to record the discussion to allow for accurate analysis.

Inform participant of the outcome of the project: inform ministerial thinking and policy. No plans to publish but research might be referred to in published documents. Any questions?

MODERATOR TO THEN ASK ALL THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS IN TURN.

ASB experience and Context

Could you please explain what you define to be ASB?

• what is this definition informed by?

Based on your experience, how much of a problem do you consider ASB to be in your PFA?

• would you say ASB is increasing or decreasing?
• what do you think are the most/least common types of ASB in [PFA]?
• do views differ across the force?

What powers are currently available to you to tackle ASB?

• could prompt with: enforcement powers, granted by 2014 legislation, applied to the perpetrator or area

Tell me about any experience you had with policing with pre-2014 ASB Powers for example, ASBOs.

• how effective do you think they were?
• what were the main limitations, if any?

What training and other guidance have you received on ASB?

• does this vary by role?
• is this sufficient?
• do you know if there is any further training planned?

Use of ASB powers – general

We are now going to be discussing the circumstances in which ASB powers might be used.

What factors would you typically weigh up when deciding which action to take for specific ASB incident(s)?

• what formal guidance and processes underpin this decision-making?
• when would you escalate to seniors for example, a meeting?
• what factors make it more or less likely a power would be enacted?
• what non-enforcement actions do you typically take instead?
• what are your main considerations on which power to use?
• is there any consideration for a ranking/ordering of powers that is, by seriousness?
• how would this vary between officers?
• how would other agencies be involved in this decision-making?

When you decide to utilise a community resolution, would you use a Community Remedy document?

• in what circumstances?
• how effective do you find this approach?

Use of ASB powers – specific

We are now going to be discussing the ASB powers in more detail. We are particularly interested in focusing on the powers intended to enable an effective response to ASB, namely:

• Civil Injunction – requiring individuals to take part in ‘positive requirements’ through an application to County Court (by police or others)
• Criminal Behaviour Order – prohibits/requires an individual to do anything during prosecution process for an offence
• Community Protection Notice – This is issued by police and others to set conditions for an individual, business or organisation if following a warning the behaviour continues
• Dispersal Powers – Police power to disperse individuals or groups from a specified public area for up to 48 hours
• Closure Notices – Used as a preventative power to restrict access to a property
• Public Space Protection Order – LAs prohibit activity associated with ASB in a specified place

Focusing on (in turn):

• Civil Injunction
• Criminal Behaviour Order
• Community Protection Notice
• Dispersal Powers (section 34/5?)
• Closure Notices
• Public Space Protection Order

How frequently is this power used by you or your team?

Note: for PSPO phrase miss off ‘by your force’ as they don’t enact this power.

• compared to other powers?
• compared to other forces?
• compared to other agencies (in your area)?

Do you think use is increasing or decreasing, if so why?

In what circumstances would you typically choose to use this power? Note: for PSPO phrase miss off ‘police use’ as they don’t enact this power.

• what ASB types (for example, personal, environmental, nuisance)
• what specific ASB incidents?
• what perpetrator profile(s)?
• what victim profile(s)?
• what geographical location for example, public place?

Are there opportunities where you feel this power should or could be used but isn’t?

• other officers?
• other agencies?
• what action is taken instead?
• any examples of use where could have taken different approach?

What are the main barriers to enacting this power? Cover:

• understanding
• workload
• CJS context
• length of time
• scope/threshold for use of power

Would you use this power in combination with any others?

• what benefits does this bring?
• are there any unintended consequences? If so, what?

ASB powers effectiveness

How effective is this suite of powers in tackling ASB?

• how do you define success when using a power?
• which do you think are the most or least effective powers and for what reasons?
• how do the powers fit in the broader context of tackling ASB?

Is there anything that can be done to make tackling ASB more effective?

• in the powers and the wording of legislation?
• in the guidance?
• something else?

Conclusion

Do you have any questions about what we have spoken about today? Is there anything I have not covered that you would like to comment on?

Annex D: ASB tools

Verbal warnings and ASB letters

Most first-time ASB perpetrators would receive a verbal warning followed by an ASB letter, although some forces reported use of multiple types of each, while others more strictly moved up through the escalation process. Force practices varied where in some cases there were different grades of ASB letter to escalate through where the tone ranged from gentle to strongly suggesting action will be taken if behaviour continues. They reported these as sometimes effective in changing behaviour for low-level incidents.

Home visits and onwards referrals

Some interviewees reported home visits being used for both adults and youth ASB, although more commonly for youth. At times the police carried these out jointly with other agencies such as housing or the Youth Offending Service.

Where housing was involved, the perpetrator or their family’s tenancy could be looked at for leverage.

Onwards referrals to divert the perpetrator were often considered, especially for young people. For young people, this could include looking at education and employment as well as their interests. Police could offer adults drug and alcohol service referrals or the use of mediation.

Police considered diversion to be effective for young people who were not considered the ‘leaders’ of groups of young people or who were not the highest level of perpetrators. More broadly, police considered community schemes useful for providing young people with ‘something to do’ although it was noted these were less frequently offered due to limited funding opportunities.

Acceptable Behaviour Contracts and Good Neighbour Agreements

Where warnings and diversions had not worked, police offered Acceptable Behaviour Contracts (ABC), particularly to young people. These were sometimes called Acceptable Behaviour Agreements (ABA) as it was noted they were not legally binding. An interviewee gave an example of where these were specifically written up with the young person to ensure they were content with the conditions, although generally the process of setting these up was not fully explored. However, research has flagged that not all young people with an ABC have an accurate grasp of what they were signing, its legal standing or the potential implications (Crawford et al., 2017). Several concerns have been raised including about young people’s agency to question the conditions, the lack of evidence available in many cases, and the increased scrutiny placed on individuals which could propel them into possible criminalisation.

Interviewees mentioned Good Neighbourhood Agreements, albeit less frequently, as an option for adults.

Community resolutions

Although these were not formal practice, and therefore not noted in Figure 1 in Chapter 2, interviewees gave examples of using an informal community resolution in response to an ASB incident, such as getting the perpetrators to make the relevant repairs.

Practitioner, Force J: ‘I did use a [community resolution] but I didn’t know I was doing it at the time…There was an area on some private land in some woods, and kids were going up….for years… It was trashed. There was glass everywhere. I mean it was a real hazard for them because that part of the world as well was just like a Tinder box and they were lighting…fires. So I went to the landowner and said, look what would you like me to do? He worked with me. We worked with [a charity and the] arson reduction team. The kids cleared up. I made them do 2 days of clearing up that area. We got 2 tons of rubbish and I put them on an arson reduction course and they got a certificate…for them to use for their college. They were never named…but the landowner was happy with that.’

Annex E: Powers used for or by ASB victims: police awareness and perceptions of use

Figure 2: Flowchart depicting where individual powers fit in a typical ASB tools and power process

There are 2 powers which focus specifically on putting the ASB victims first – Community Trigger (CT)^{[footnote 2]} and Community Remedy. Given the research focus on enforcement powers, limited time was spent on these 2 powers, including only ASB leads being asked about police involvement in the CT.

Community Trigger (CT)

Definition, guidance and national picture

The CT gives victims and communities the right to request a review of their ASB case where a local threshold is met, typically 3 complaints in the previous 6 months. It brings agencies together to take a joined-up problem-solving approach to find a solution for the victim. The main bodies are councils, the police, Integrated Care Boards (ICB) and registered providers of social housing. Where the threshold is deemed to be met, it is their responsibility to share information, review what action has been taken and decide whether additional actions need to take place. They should then inform the victim of the outcome of their review. Statutory guidance suggests that the local Police and Crime Commissioner (PCC) must be consulted when setting up a CT procedure and they should also consider involvement from Community Safety Partnerships (CSPs).

In the year ending 31 March 2023, there were 993 CTs involving the police.

Police perception of use and effectiveness

ASB leads showed awareness of the CT but were typically not involved in the process. Instead, most commonly, they reported LAs led the CT process, although sometimes the PCC office or the police themselves led instead. Where the PCC office wasn’t leading, they generally had some involvement as an arbiter or providing some oversight, although sometimes the PCC office was reportedly not involved at all.

There was often reference to either that the CT process had been reviewed or was in the process of being reviewed. Emphasis was also placed on ensuring the chair had some independence from the initial incident.

Lead, Force H: ‘[Have] a framework for community triggers. Any Community Trigger comes through to the local authority community safety managers. They [look] at each other’s triggers so we get a bit of movement away from marking your own homework. We are looking at independent chairs.’

Although they did not mention effectiveness explicitly, ASB leads generally spoke positively about CTs as a way to ensure a quality service and learn from any mistakes. They did note that, for some cases, a satisfactory resolution would always be difficult to achieve and so could not ensure a positive outcome from every CT.

Police perceptions of challenges and potential solutions

The main challenges for CTs were awareness of them – for both police, other agencies and the public – and the time taken to undertake the review. ASB practitioners were not explicitly asked about CTs given they were unlikely to be involved, but only a couple of spontaneous mentions was further evidence for CTs not being well known among practitioners.

Interviewees repeatedly mentioned that changing the name to ASB Case Review would be useful to improve police and public understanding of the CT process.

Community Remedy

Definition, guidance and the national picture

The Community Remedy gives victims a say in the out-of-court punishment of perpetrators of less serious crime and ASB, including allowing them to consider a restorative justice approach. It is a document, typically used by the police, which lists actions which the victim may choose for the perpetrator to undertake.

There is no data nationally on use of Community Remedy for ASB incidents, although community resolutions more generally favoured by police are Out-of-Court Disposal (OOCD). In the year ending December 2022, 142,000 Community Resolutions ^{[footnote 30]} were used, which made up 70% of the total OOCDs (Ministry of Justice, 2023).

Police perception of use and effectiveness

The vast majority of ASB leads and practitioners were not aware of the Community Remedy document specifically. Where ASB leads had heard of it, they commonly reported that it sat with the PCC office.

Although ASB leads did not mention effectiveness explicitly, there was general support for the approach of involving victims in the process of establishing an outcome for an ASB incident.

Police perceptions of challenges and potential solutions

The main challenge for use of the Community Remedy was knowledge, unsurprisingly given most leads and practitioners were unaware of it. Meanwhile, ‘community resolutions’ was a familiar concept, but they reported it sat within the crime realm and therefore not generally formally used for ASB incidents. Interviewees gave examples of officers attempted to formally log use of a community resolution but could not. Informal use of community resolutions is further explored in Annex D.

Where the Community Remedy document had been seen there were some instances where interviewees described it as confusing or not fitting well with force-level practices and computer systems.

Lead, Force C: ‘The problem we had [was] it would mean an amendment to NICHE disposal codes’.

A potential challenge for increasing its use was that, despite general support for involving the victim, interviewees noted that there is not always a clear ASB victim, it is important to manage expectations, and appropriate services might not always be available.

Annex F: References

Civil Justice Council (2020) Anti-social behaviour and the civil courts. [Accessed 31/07/2023]

College of Policing (2013) National decision model. Updated December 2014. [Accessed 31/07/2023]

College of Policing (2022) Problem-solving policing. [Accessed 31/07/2023]

Crawford, A., Lewis, S. and Traynor, P. (2016) ‘“It ain’t just what you do, it’s (also) the way that you do it”: The role of Procedural Justice in the Implementation of Anti-Social Behaviour Interventions with Young People’, European Journal of Crime Policy Research, vol. 23, pp. 9-26. [Accessed 31/07/2023]

Critchfield, E., Kennedy, H and Myhill, A. (2021) Recognising and responding to vulnerability-related risks guidelines. Evidence review part two: Frontline policing vulnerability risk assessment tools. College of Policing. [Accessed 31/07/2023]

Heap, V., Black, A. and Devany, C. (2022) Living within a Public Spaces Protection Order: the impacts of policing anti-social behaviour on people experiencing street homelessness. [Accessed 31/07/2023]

HMICFRS (2022) ASB Powers data 1 April 2017 to 30 September 2022. Unpublished. His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services.

HM Government (2023) Anti-social behaviour action plan. [Accessed 31/07/2023]

HM Government (2014) Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 [online]. [Accessed 31/07/2023]

Home Office (2021a) Beating crime plan. [Accessed 31/07/2023]

Home Office (2021b) Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014: Anti-social behaviour powers Statutory guidance for frontline professionals (revised March 2023). [Accessed 31/07/2023]

Home Office (2022a) Anti-social behaviour principles. [Accessed 31/07/2023]

Home Office (2023a) Community Safety Partnerships Review and Anti-Social Behaviour Powers: Government consultation. [Accessed 31/07/2023]

Home Office (2023b) Anti-social behaviour: incident journey, from reporting to resolution. [Accessed 31/07/2023]

Lambeth Council (2018) PSPO extension consultation report. [Accessed 31/07/2023]

Mills, H. and Ford, M. (2018) Anti-social behaviour powers and young adults. Centre for Crime and Justice Studies. [ Accessed 31/07/2023]

Ministry of Justice (2023) Criminal Justice Statistics quarterly: December 2022. [Accessed 31/07/2023]

Resolve (2021) Tackling Antisocial Behaviour: the tools and powers (resolveuk.org.uk). [Accessed 07/09/2023]

1. Other policing powers may become relevant such as the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. There are relevant ASB powers that can be enacted by agencies other than the police – for instance, a housing authority could issue a notice under absolute grounds for possession. ↩

2. Previously named Community Trigger until a rebrand due to the ASB Action Plan 2023. ↩ ↩²

3. We also examined force policy documents where possible to understand the official processes. ↩

4. ASB leads were normally high-ranked officers working strategically, including on other portfolios. Practitioners were typically in neighbourhood or ASB specialist teams and of Police Constable (PC), Police Community Safety Officer (PCSO) or police staff rank. ↩

5. As demonstrated later, His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services collect powers data directly from the police for the purposes of inspection activity. This does not include other agencies who can use powers so is likely an underestimation. ↩

6. For more information on ASB tools see Annex D. ↩

7. Police forces areas typically consist of multiple local authority areas. ↩

8. Although social landlords can also issue them if designated by the council. ↩

9. The data referenced throughout is from an unpublished His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services collection, containing data on the number of orders issued after being applied for by police forces. However, this does not provide a full picture of powers use in England and Wales and is likely an underestimate of true rates, as other organisations (notably LAs) can issue certain powers. Furthermore, some forces have difficulty differentiating between interventions issued by the police and by other bodies, and some forces cannot provide data or can only provide estimates, inaccurate or partial returns. ↩

10. This was likely due to their perceptions of the ideal timing for intervention – for some the quicker they intervened the more successful they perceived it to be whereas others felt that sometimes time is needed to give people a chance to change their behaviour. ↩

11. This was sometimes related to perpetrator characteristics as instances were noted where specifically those under influence of alcohol were given further warnings due to potential poor recall of what they had been asked to do. ↩

12. The practice of taking over the home of a vulnerable person in order to establish a base for illegal drug dealing. ↩

13. More information on this intervention is found in Annex D. ↩

14. Although in some cases other agencies worked with the police to issue CPNs. ↩

15. Discretion in use mentioned in Section 3.1.2 aside. ↩

16. Statutory guidance states that these must not be trivial, and reasonable and proportionate judgements should be made about the appropriateness of the response before applying. ↩

17. CI was also less commonly mentioned as a power used to tackle ASB than CBOs or CPNs, indicating a knowledge or familiarity barrier which is further explored in Section 3.2.3. ↩

18. Equally an example was given in another force of a specialist officer focusing on CBO applications which resulted in an increase in CBOs there. ↩

19. For the later see Section 3.2.3. ↩

20. In that case they had found that juveniles would fail to attend the civil court even with police attending their residence to escort them. ↩

21. Although an example was given where the CBO would not be applied at all if a defendant pled guilty to the crime they were charged with, which left them unable to apply the CBO. ↩

22. Whereas private companies can fulfil that role for criminal convictions. ↩

23. The closure powers were not explicitly compared to court processes for the other powers. However, it is possible that the differences in the process might account for the difference that it is potentially more straightforward to resource an intense period of activity started by police versus timing attachment of an CBO to a criminal case and waiting for court dates given at discretion of the court. ↩

24. This data may be an underestimate of true rates due to recording issues, as more than one use of a dispersal power can be used for a single incident. ↩

25. Although most spoken to were not inspectors, the rank who would typically authorise a dispersal order. ↩

26. Although most spoken to were not Inspectors - the rank who would typically authorise a dispersal order . ↩

27. Formally PCSOs can use dispersal but not PSPO powers but it varied to the degree this worked in practice. PCSOs would remind people in PSPO spaces that they were not allowed to consume alcohol but would need to alert a PC if the person continued to breach the conditions. ↩

28. It is also possible that perception of the powers could influence use, for instance dispersal powers being thought of as a short-term fix and for PSPOs a lack of backing and understanding from some of the public. ↩

29. A purposive sample is a non-probability sample that is selected based on characteristics of a population and the objective of the study. ↩

30. For all crime types, not only ASB. ↩