Research and analysis

Risk and protective factors of anti-social behaviour perpetration

Published 7 August 2025

Applies to England and Wales

Executive summary

Background and context

The Home Office commissioned Ipsos UK to conduct qualitative research to develop an understanding of the risk and protective factors of anti-social behaviour (ASB) perpetration. This research aimed to explore the factors which put individuals at risk of perpetrating ASB, as well as deter such behaviour. The research also sought to understand how these factors differ by type of ASB (environmental, personal, nuisance (College of Policing, 2023)) and by young or adult perpetrators.

There is limited existing evidence on risk and protective factors, particularly protective factors of ASB, highlighting the need for new data collection on the topic. While there is existing evidence on the risk factors of ASB, this research seeks to further inform this evidence base, and address gaps in understanding of protective factors and how risk and protective factors differ by type of ASB and age of perpetrator.

Furthermore, this research will help inform the development of interventions, such as those referenced in the ASB Action Plan (HM Government, 2023) and Safer Streets Fund.

Ipsos took a qualitative research approach, conducting national stakeholder interviews and holding local workshops with a range of local stakeholders throughout March and April 2023.

Key findings

Risk factors

The research identified 7 risk factors that stakeholders perceived influenced the likelihood of ASB perpetration. These risk factors align with factors set out within the broader existing evidence base. However, this research provides new insights from stakeholders regarding risk factors for different types of ASB and ages of perpetrators. For instance, stakeholders perceived risk factors to be common to all types of ASB yet could make some distinctions between risk factors for young and adult perpetrators.

For adult perpetrators of ASB, some of the specific risk factors mentioned included mental health issues and substance misuse. Stakeholders thought younger perpetrators to be more susceptible to risk factors, such as an unstable home environment, lack of education and schooling, and peer pressure.

Stakeholders identified the following risk factors they considered reflected their own experience of responding to ASB locally:

Poverty and deprivation

Stakeholders acknowledged this as a risk factor for perpetrators of all ages and related to all types of ASB. Stakeholders acknowledged that most ASB ‘hotspots’ were also areas with high levels of deprivation, and this has been further heightened by the cost-of-living crisis and the pandemic. They often saw poverty and deprivation as restricting access to opportunities and support services, noted particularly for young perpetrators.

Mental health issues

Whilst mental health issues were referenced both in relation to young people and adults, stakeholders generally spoke about mental health issues in relation to adult perpetration. They made reference to mental health services becoming increasingly overwhelmed, which caused frustration, as they saw mental health services often being the ‘missing link’ to tackling ASB.

Drug and alcohol misuse

Stakeholders cited substance misuse as a risk factor for young people and adult perpetrators. They mentioned cannabis use, as a type of ASB incident, more frequently in relation to young people but alcohol consumption more in relation to adult perpetration. Stakeholders linked substance misuse with all types of ASB.

Trauma and childhood adversity

Stakeholders noted that ASB often stems from negative early life experiences and, while complex and difficult to tackle, understanding trauma and childhood experiences is crucial to understanding the root causes of ASB. Stakeholders often referred to this risk factor as influencing all types of ASB committed by both young people and adults.

Home and family environment

Stakeholders saw this as a risk factor underpinning all types of ASB but cited it almost exclusively in relation to ASB committed by young people. They referenced not having a capable guardian, such as parents or other family members, as a primary risk factor for ASB perpetration by young people. Stakeholders also acknowledged the impact of parents/guardians not always being willing to take responsibility for their children’s behaviour.

Education and schooling

Stakeholders saw schooling as a critical tool to help children develop valuable life skills and provide employment opportunities for them in the future. They suggested that those who do not attend school, those excluded from mainstream schools, and those attending alternative forms of schooling are more at risk of ASB perpetration. The everyday interaction between educational professionals and young people was also seen as key to recognising risk factors that might put them at risk of perpetrating ASB.

Peer pressure

Stakeholders identified peer pressure as a risk factor for ASB perpetration, influencing all types of ASB, but more likely ASB committed by young people. They highlighted young people being susceptible to getting caught up in a group mentality. Social media was also mentioned as exacerbating peer pressure.

Factors that decrease likelihood of ASB perpetration

Stakeholders described a variety of ‘protective’, ‘preventative’ and ‘deterrent’ factors when discussing what reduces the likelihood of ASB perpetration. Stakeholders highlighted the following factors as decreasing the likelihood of ASB perpetration. As with risk factors, the current research produced new insights regarding how these protective factors differ by type of ASB and age of perpetration.

A supportive home environment

Stakeholders emphasised the positive impact of role models in preventing ASB perpetration. They highlighted the importance of consistent role models who displayed prosocial behaviours as supporting individuals to consider the consequences of their actions.

Engagement in education and schooling

Stakeholders also explained that being in school provides a physical protection from perpetrating ASB while also equipping children with a variety of life skills.

Access to support services and youth provisions

Stakeholders cited access to services (for example, mental health support) and activities, in particular initiatives set up for children and young people (for example, youth activity hubs), can help counteract the risk factors for ASB perpetration, occupying individuals and providing them with valuable life skills.

Local community

Stakeholders raised how a strong sense of community cohesion could provide an important protective factor against ASB perpetration. They emphasised a need to build relationships and encourage open communication, seen as fostering improved relationships between potential victims and perpetrators of ASB, which could be effective in preventing ASB, particularly personal and nuisance ASB.

Physical environmental factors

Stakeholders identified the possibility of discouraging ASB through physical measures in environments where ASB usually takes place. Discussions included having visible CCTV in public places, restricting access to places and law enforcement presence, seen as being effective in deterring individuals from perpetrating ASB through fear of being caught.

Use of sanctions

Stakeholders, predominantly those from the police, noted that it was important to consider the most appropriate type of sanction to prevent future ASB perpetration. However, stakeholders from other local services raised the negative reinforcement that can result from the use of sanctions, with the behaviour rather than the symptoms of the ASB being addressed. There was some recognition that punitive approaches can be effective for low-level ASB and among younger perpetrators, as these are less likely to be influenced by deeply entrenched risk factors.

Conclusions and implications

Stakeholders noted that the risk factors for ASB are complex and often interlinked. Furthermore, risk factors are common across all types of ASB, with multiple factors often influencing ASB perpetration. As a result, practitioners should consider developing a cross-cutting, holistic approach to tackling ASB nationally and locally that is reflected in policy and intervention developments. For a holistic response to be effective, there needs to be a multi-agency, joined-up approach. Agencies and services must work together to respond to and prevent ASB perpetration.

For a successful, long-term reduction of ASB, responses need to focus on the root causes of perpetration rather than responding to only the symptoms of ASB (that is, the behaviour). As such, interventions should seek to directly address the risk factors of ASB rather than simply responding to ASB.

Stakeholders cited a range of interventions that have been developed locally to address ASB. These include early intervention and diversionary activities which aim to engage young people seen at risk of committing ASB, family support interventions and community-based initiatives which aim to foster collective efficacy at a local level in tackling ASB. However, further evaluation of the effectiveness of interventions, focusing on ‘what works’ and measuring the extent to which interventions are addressing risk and protective factors, is required. Ensuring that robust, impact evaluations are conducted will aid the facilitation of sharing of best practice in tackling ASB.

1. Introduction

1.1 Background and context

The Home Office commissioned Ipsos UK to conduct qualitative research to develop an understanding of the risk and protective factors of anti-social behaviour (ASB). While there is existing evidence on factors which increase the likelihood of ASB, there is limited insight into protective factors, as well as how risk and protective factors differ by type of ASB (personal, nuisance and environmental) and age of perpetrators.

This research seeks to address this evidence gap, allowing insights to be gathered which can inform the development of interventions aimed at tackling the causes of ASB. Furthermore, evidence on protective factors will inform the development of preventative interventions, including early intervention, with the intention of proactively preventing ASB from occurring.

To address these gaps in knowledge, the research sought to hear from both local and national stakeholders from agencies and organisations that deal with ASB. Stakeholders were also asked about interventions that had been developed locally to tackle ASB.

1.2 Research aims and questions

The overarching aims of the research were to:

• explore the risk and protective factors for ASB perpetration
• understand how these factors differ by type of ASB and age of perpetrator

More specifically, this research sought to answer:

• what are the factors that drive individuals to perpetrate ASB?
• how might we categorise these driving factors into a framework/typology?
• are these driving factors consistent with existing evidence?
• how do driving factors differ by type of ASB (personal, nuisance, environmental)?
• how do driving factors differ between young and adult perpetrators?
• what are the factors that protect individuals from perpetrating ASB?
• how might we categorise these protective factors into a framework/typology?
• how do protective factors differ by type of ASB (personal, nuisance, environmental)?
• how do protective factors differ between young and adult perpetrators?
• what do insights on drivers and protective factors mean for intervention design and effectiveness?

1.3 Methodology

1.3.1 Summary of the fieldwork design

Ipsos conducted a qualitative approach using interviews and workshop discussions with a range of local and national stakeholders between March and April 2023. Due to the consistency in views and experiences across the national and local stakeholders interviewed, the term stakeholders is used to reference perspectives from both these groups.

1.3.2 National stakeholder interviews

Ipsos carried out 8 in-depth one-hour interviews online via Microsoft Teams with national stakeholders to explore understanding of the risk and protective factors of ASB. The team interviewed a range of national stakeholders, including stakeholders from charities, fire and rescue services, policing, local authorities and social housing agencies.

1.3.3 Local stakeholder workshops

The researchers conducted 4 regional workshops with local stakeholders, which included agencies and services such as policing, housing and local authorities. Each workshop was conducted online via Microsoft Teams and lasted 2 hours, with between 6 to 12 stakeholders attending. Overall, 35 stakeholders attended the workshops. The regional workshops conducted included stakeholders from East and West of England, North of England and Wales.

The team aimed to conduct a workshop for the South of England, but due to a lack of available stakeholders, they held 2 East and West of England workshops, also attended by stakeholders in the South of England. In these workshops, moderators facilitated an interactive discussion among stakeholders about the risk and protective factors of ASB and relevant interventions.

Interviews with national stakeholders and the workshop discussions with local stakeholders both sought to explore the broad themes related to the research questions, namely:

• exploring the causes of ASB perpetration
• exploring the protective factors against ASB perpetration
• understanding how these risk and protective factors differ by age of perpetrator and type of ASB
• understanding how knowledge of these risk and protective factors may translate into interventions designed to address ASB

A range of national and local stakeholders were identified for the research, via Home Office contacts, members of the National ASB Strategic Board and stakeholders previously interviewed for research conducted by Ipsos UK on behalf of the Home Office on the incident journey of ASB (Home Office, 2023a). Details of the sample of national and local stakeholders, including the type of stakeholder, organisation, job role and region, are included in the sample breakdown in Annex B.

1.4 Limitations of the research approach

This report provides valuable insights into the risk and protective factors of ASB; however, there are some necessary caveats to be considered, particularly with the profile of the sample who took part in the research.

While the research included stakeholders representing a range of national and local sectors (outlined in Section 1.3.2 and Section 1.3.3), due to the timescales required for recruitment and fieldwork, the sample does not include stakeholders from all sectors who may have knowledge of the factors seen as influencing ASB perpetration. In particular, the views of stakeholders from the education sector or third-sector organisations (for example, voluntary organisations and social enterprises) are not represented in this research.

Furthermore, while the report provides insights from stakeholders across several localities and sectors, these views may not represent the broader views of these stakeholder groups. Therefore, caution should be exercised when generalising the findings to other contexts or populations.

Finally, it is important to consider that the findings set out in this report reflect stakeholders’ perceptions of the risk and protective factors of ASB, and does not include insights from perpetrators themselves about their own perceptions of the risk and protective factors that influenced the likelihood of ASB perpetration.

1.5 Report structure

This report is structured as follows:

Chapter 2: Stakeholders’ perceptions of the definitions and perpetration of ASB
This chapter explores the terminology used to describe risk and protective factors, the definitions of ASB, and how local incidences of ASB differ by types of ASB and age of perpetrators.

Chapter 3: Risk factors for perpetrating ASB
This chapter summarises the key risk factors that emerged through this research. This section also recognises the complexity of risk factors increasing the likelihood of ASB perpetration.

Chapter 4: Factors that decrease likelihood of ASB perpetration
This chapter explores the intrinsic relationship between protective and risk factors, and interventions developed seeking to prevent ASB.

Chapter 5: Conclusions
This chapter explores the insights that can be drawn from research to inform policy and intervention implications.

2. Contextual findings on how stakeholders define and respond to ASB

Besides understanding the risk and protective factors of ASB perpetration, the current research also explored how stakeholders defined ASB and the terminology used to describe risk and protective factors. Furthermore, we asked stakeholders to consider how risk and protective factors differed by type of ASB and age of perpetrators. This chapter reflects findings from these discussions, which provide important context in understanding the risk and protective factors of ASB outlined later in the report.

2.1 Defining ASB

In discussing their role and the work they deliver in response to ASB, stakeholders also referenced the incidence of ASB locally and nationally, and what behaviours they perceive as being anti-social. Definitions of ASB and understanding of what behaviours constitute ASB differed between both national and local stakeholders. There was common understanding of the types of behaviours considered to be ASB, which aligned with the legal ASB definition (HM Government, 2014). This included neighbourhood disputes, disruptive noise, use of unlicensed or uninsured vehicles, drunk and disorderly behaviour, drug use and groups congregating in public spaces. However, local stakeholders also cited behaviour as ASB referencing criminal activity. This included organised crime, county lines, domestic abuse, and violence against women and girls, demonstrating differences of opinion with the crossover between ASB and crime.

A few stakeholders explained that the 3 categorisations of ASB (environmental, personal, nuisance (College of Policing, 2023)) can be unhelpful when it comes to tackling ASB, given the great degree of overlap among the different types of ASB.

“I don’t really work to personal, nuisance and environmental, I don’t find the categories useful…because what I want to do is be able to use ASB data to inform what I’m doing on an operational level to influence, where’s the hotspots … that’s just a mass plot of everything. I can’t break it down into anything useful to try and understand where I need to be shaping my service, because the overlap of some of them is beyond.” – Local stakeholder, Wales, local authority

Stakeholders who held this view explained that sometimes this made it difficult for services and agencies to classify behaviours according to this framework. As a result, this inconsistency in how stakeholders defined ASB was seen to impact on the role and responsibility of local agencies and services in tackling ASB. This finding echoes previous Home Office research on responses to ASB locally (Home Office, 2023).

2.2 Terminology used to describe risk and protective factors

Overall, stakeholders understood the terms ‘risk factors’ and ‘protective factors’ as factors that increase and decrease the likelihood of someone perpetrating ASB, respectively. When asked whether alternative terminology was also used, a few local stakeholders spoke of using the term ‘vulnerabilities’ instead of risk factors as that better acknowledged it was often the individual’s circumstances which influenced their perpetration. Other terms used instead of ‘risk factors’ included ‘needs’, ‘circumstances’ and ‘behaviour’. Again, this was seen to better reflect the wide remit of factors that can cause an individual to be at risk of perpetrating ASB.

When discussing risk factors, stakeholders could make some distinctions between those committed more commonly by young people aged 17 and under, and adults. However, in the main, stakeholders acknowledged the factors discussed could put individuals of all ages at risk of perpetrating ASB.

There was common understanding of what ‘protective factors’ meant among both local and national stakeholders, with factors being seen as the inverse of the root causes of ASB. However, stakeholders said they rarely used the term ‘protective factors’ to describe these factors in their work. Instead, the term ‘protective factors’ was often used interchangeably with describing interventions, with stakeholders describing protective factors as provision put in place to prevent ASB.

2.3 Intervention approaches to tackling ASB

While not the focus of the research, stakeholders were asked to reference examples of interventions they are aware of locally that seek to address the root causes of ASB, rather than just the symptoms. They provided several examples, but these only included high-level references to either the activities delivered or sometimes just the name of the intervention.

Intervention type	Aim
Diversionary interventions	Redirecting those at risk of perpetrating ASB. Diversionary interventions may be short term, that is, putting on alternative events during nights of the year which tend to be associated with a spike in ASB, or longer term, that is, setting up activity hubs.
Community interventions	Emphasising the role of the community and encouraging community ‘buy-in’ to increase the effectiveness and sustain the longer-term impact of other interventions.
Mediation/restorative justice	Encouraging mutual understanding and trying to increase empathy among perpetrators in understanding the impact of ASB on victims.
Early interventions	Supporting families and teaching children and young people what is deemed ‘acceptable behaviour’, and how to cope with challenging emotions and situations in a healthy way.

A comprehensive review of interventions being delivered locally and their efficacy was outside the scope of the research. However, national and local stakeholders were asked to discuss the different types of interventions that were being delivered aimed at addressing the causes of ASB. Chapter 3 and Chapter 4 discuss these different approaches. Annex A has a table listing examples of interventions mentioned by local and national stakeholders, which had been developed to address the causes of ASB.

In discussing the range of interventions being delivered locally, stakeholders also referenced the importance of ensuring the sustainability of delivery, as well as measuring the effectiveness of these programmes of work. There was some anecdotal reference made to the perceived impact of the interventions being delivered; however, as a ‘what works’ assessment was outside the remit of this research, it is not possible to validate these examples with further evidence.

The range of risk factors referenced by stakeholders highlighted the link between ASB and social justice issues. This highlights the importance of national and localised approaches to tackling ASB to be grounded in social justice, which is everyone deserves equitable access to economic, political and social rights and opportunities. Individuals and communities should therefore have access to support and resources that ensure needs and issues are addressed and prevented. This was reflected in the views of stakeholders who highlighted the need for policy and intervention development to tackle wider societal issues in addressing the causes of ASB.

3. Risk factors

Key findings:

Building on existing evidence, the research identified 7 perceived risk factors which increase the likelihood of ASB perpetration. The risk factors identified were: poverty and deprivation, mental health, substance misuse, trauma and childhood adversity, home and family environment, education and schooling and peer pressure.

There was collective agreement among national and local stakeholders that risk factors for ASB are multi-faceted and interlinked; no singular factor leads to ASB in isolation, rather the compounding effect of multiple risk factors causes individuals to commit ASB.

Stakeholders felt that most risk factors were relevant to all types of ASB.

An unstable home life, lack of education and susceptibility to peer pressure all put people, but particularly young people, at risk of perpetration. Poverty and deprivation, and trauma and childhood adversity played an important role for all ages. Mental health and substance abuse were closely linked to adult perpetration.

This chapter explores what interviewed stakeholders perceived to be risk factors that might increase an individual’s likelihood to perpetrate ASB. As highlighted in Chapter 1, the focus of this research was not to review existing literature, but it is worth acknowledging the overlap between risk factors identified by previous literature and those that emerged from the current research (Farrington & Welsh, 2012).

This research identified 7 perceived risk factors which can increase the likelihood of ASB perpetration:

• poverty and deprivation
• mental health issues
• drug and alcohol misuse
• trauma and childhood adversity
• home and family environment
• education and schooling
• peer pressure

More broadly, when discussing risk factors and approaches to tackling ASB, stakeholders highlighted the need to tackle the root causes of perpetration (that is, the risk factors), rather than only responding to what stakeholders described as the ‘symptoms’ of ASB (that is, the behaviours). They emphasised that addressing the risk factors at the core of ASB perpetration would be more likely to be conducive to a long-term reduction of ASB.

“It’s just understanding really that most people aren’t anti-social just for the sake of it. There’s usually a reason behind it, and it’s usually the easy option just to go for the behaviour. I think if you tackle the actual underlying issue it’s far more successful in the long run.” – Local stakeholder, East of England, local authority

Intersection between risk factors

Stakeholders consistently described risk factors for ASB perpetration as being multi-faceted and interlinked, reflective also of the existing evidence base (Tanner-Smith et al., 2012). They felt there is no singular factor which causes ASB but rather the interaction between risk factors and their compounding effects cause individuals to perpetrate ASB. For example, stakeholders spoke of the influence of societal and structural issues as well as community and individual factors on ASB perpetration. As such, to effectively tackle ASB, stakeholders emphasised the importance of a multi-agency approach which seeks to address these risk factors holistically.

“I think poverty deprivation and adversity are big drivers of anti-social behaviour. It leads people to do things that they wouldn’t normally do, and then if you link that in with things like aces and trauma, peer pressure and social media I think you have a perfect storm of anti-social behaviour.” – Local stakeholder, East of England, policing sector

3.1 Poverty and deprivation

Stakeholders perceived poverty and deprivation as key risk factors for ASB perpetration, acknowledging that most ASB ‘hot spots’ (that is, areas with high prevalence of ASB), were also areas with high levels of deprivation. This is supported by findings from the Crime Survey for England and Wales 2019-2020 (ONS, 2020a), which found that those living in the 20% most deprived areas in England and Wales were more likely to have experienced ASB, compared to those living in the 20% least deprived areas in both England (48% versus 38%) and Wales (50% versus 32%) (ONS, 2020b). Stakeholders acknowledged poverty and deprivation as a risk factor for perpetrators of all ages and for all types of ASB.

“I think it’d be remiss not to mention poverty and depravation. Most of our high ASB hot spot areas and communities and estates are also our areas of high depravation and as we move further into the cost-of-living crisis.” – Local stakeholder, East of England, policing sector

Stakeholders explained how the current state of the economy, weakened by the pandemic and cost-of-living crisis, had worsened levels of deprivation across England and Wales, in turn exacerbating the risk of ASB perpetration. Stakeholders recognised that there were several pathways through which poverty and deprivation could increase the likelihood of ASB perpetration. For example, direct links were made with noise nuisance, explaining that individuals with limited financial means may need to work longer hours to cover living costs, causing them to be awake and potentially making noise (for example, using household appliances) at what their neighbours may consider to be anti-social hours (for example, late at night).

In addition, stakeholders acknowledged that poverty and deprivation may increase the likelihood of ASB perpetration indirectly, underpinning other factors which may put individuals at risk of perpetrating ASB. For instance, poverty and deprivation may contribute to an unstable home and family environment, and a lack of access to support for mental health issues or drug and alcohol misuse.

Broken Window Theory

Many stakeholders referenced the Broken Window Theory (Roger et al., 2013) when discussing the causes of ASB. This theory broadly states that in areas where high prevalence of disorder is visible, such as vandalism and graffiti, this can prompt further crime or disorder being committed. In line with this theory, stakeholders described how visible signs of ASB in an area can encourage further ASB by creating an environment which appears as though this behaviour is the norm.

“I think it’s that kind of broken window scenario that, if you live in an area where there are boarded-up properties, and there is that lack of interest on the estate, then people are just going to think that’s the norm. And there’s no way out, sometimes, and then just carry on with behaviour that continued already.” – National stakeholder, charity sector

There was a consistent view that ASB perpetration is more likely to occur in deprived areas with a visible lack of investment and care. This was seen to influence the sense of pride and community cohesion for those living in these areas (discussed further in Chapter 4).

“We know that if we don’t tackle the environmental risk factors or drivers, areas start to feel unsafe, communities start to feel unsafe, natural policing community starts to fall off because people don’t know their neighbours, they don’t feel safe in their communities. And that just gives an area the impression that agencies and services don’t care.” – Local stakeholder, South of England, policing sector

High-density housing

Stakeholders described how there tends to be more high-density housing in deprived areas, with residents often living in close proximity and sharing communal spaces. It was viewed that the environment created by this type of housing could encourage all types of ASB. However, they made reference particularly to nuisance ASB, such as noise disturbances and neighbourhood disputes, and environmental ASB, for example, littering and graffiti in communal spaces.

“Most anti-social behaviour is caused by nuisance youths, and nuisance neighbours … and they’re mostly crimes of harassment, so neighbours playing loud music, banging on the walls.” – National stakeholder, policing sector

The pandemic was seen to exacerbate these issues. Stakeholders recounted how during the pandemic, ASB increased among those in high-density housing, as for individuals confined to their homes, opportunities for conflict and disputes increased. Stakeholders highlighted further consideration being given to the design of housing complexes, that is, better sound insulation to prevent incidents’ of noise nuisance.

“Because people are at home more, therefore when the next door neighbour is causing problems that ordinarily they wouldn’t see because they’re at work, that is now then being reported through to us.” – Local stakeholder, Wales, housing sector

There was also mention that since the pandemic, general tolerance levels for ASB among the public had decreased. For example, stakeholders cited how neighbours no longer tolerated the usual noises of children playing or of loud music, instead becoming far more irritated by this than they had before the pandemic. Stakeholders also referenced the impact of people working from home more and therefore individuals have more exposure to their neighbours, heightening the likelihood of neighbourhood disruption.

“From the fallout from COVID[sic], tolerance is, like, sub-zero at the moment.” – Local stakeholder, housing sector

Conversely, stakeholders also acknowledged that individuals living in poor conditions or unstable home environments would try to spend as much time as possible outside of their home during the pandemic. However, with places where they would usually spend their time outside of the home closed (for example, school, jobs, shops), these individuals were more likely to find themselves in public spaces with nothing to do, increasing their risk of ASB perpetration.

“People with poor living conditions, people who lived in squalor didn’t want to stay at home, they wanted to go out, they wanted to meet people because it was awful at home. So you know if you don’t live somewhere very nice it actually forces you onto the street. If it forces you onto the street, you know boredom kicks in, mischief et cetera.” – National stakeholder, policing sector

Stakeholders referenced the impact of limited access to support and services on ASB perpetration. For instance, they expressed the view that poverty and deprivation often restricted access to opportunities and support services, noting how a family’s lack of disposable income might exclude them from being able to participate in local activities and initiatives that can act as protective factors against ASB (discussed further in Section 4.3). Stakeholders explained that even where these support services and opportunities were free, funding cuts caused by austerity had reduced their availability. Chapter 4 further discusses the importance of having local services which provide activities and support, which also foster community engagement.

“ASB tends to be committed by younger members of the community who perhaps haven’t got the same opportunities that other people of their age, or the background or disposable income that would allow them to join other activities or become involved in different hobbies.” – National stakeholder, policing sector

3.2 Mental health issues

As acknowledged in the existing literature, mental health issues also emerged as a prominent risk factor for ASB perpetration, particularly instances of repeated perpetration. Stakeholders expressed the view that mental health problems could cause ASB perpetration directly (for example, certain behaviours that others may perceive as ASB) or indirectly (for example, other risk factors which might increase the likelihood of ASB perpetration, such as drug and alcohol misuse, which is discussed further in Section 3.3).

“I think off the back of, kind of, COVID[sic] lockdowns and those types of restrictions. From my perspective, I think, and personal experience I think there’s been an increase in, kind of, mental health issues linked to younger people.” – National stakeholder, housing sector

Stakeholders noted that mental health problems could put someone at risk of perpetrating all types of ASB. Although referenced in relation to both young people and adults, stakeholders generally spoke about mental health issues as a risk factor for adults.

“I would say an individual’s mental health and well-being is probably a risk factor that significantly increases their ability to perpetrate, or experience ASB.” – National stakeholder, housing sector

While stakeholders frequently mentioned poor mental health as generally increasing the likelihood of perpetrating ASB, they rarely cited specific disorders or conditions. Related to this was the view that mental health issues often went undiagnosed so often untreated, which could exacerbate the risk of perpetrating ASB.

“You’ve got people who kind of don’t know they are committing ASB due to the fact that they’ve got serious mental health issues or they’ve got addictions to drug and alcohol and they will commit ASB be it noise, fly tipping, throwing rubbish out, swearing at people at bus stops.” – National stakeholder, policing sector

Understanding of mental health issues

Besides citing mental health issues as a risk factor for ASB perpetration, stakeholders also acknowledged the influence of people’s responses to and perceptions of others’ mental health issues. For instance, stakeholders gave examples of where victims and witnesses of ASB sometimes lacked awareness and understanding of potential mental health issues which could influence ASB.

“Those with mental health needs or additional vulnerabilities living in areas with those that may not experience or have any experience of those needs, and there’s just a massive misunderstanding which then leads to further conflict.” – Local stakeholder, East of England, policing sector

This highlights the importance of interventions aimed at providing opportunities for individuals to discuss ASB and its impact. Stakeholders cited examples where mediation and restorative justice had been successfully used to encourage mutual understanding between ASB perpetrators and victims, noting how these aimed to increase understanding of each party’s personal circumstances to reduce conflict and hostility. For example, a stakeholder spoke of Community Justice Panels run by members of the community trained in restorative justice.

Mental health support services

Despite citing mental health issues as increasing an individual’s likelihood to commit ASB, stakeholders frequently reported that mental health support services were becoming increasingly overwhelmed, and therefore unable to provide the support required. Stakeholders perceived the pandemic worsened this situation, with some suggesting the closure of mental health support services during lockdown periods meant mental health issues were often undiagnosed and left untreated. Furthermore, the closure of other services, such as charities and GPs, who can signpost to mental health services, further restricted access to mental health support.

Stakeholders felt that mental health support services were often the missing link to tackling ASB, noting it often fell to other services, such as housing and police, to respond to ASB perpetration.

“Other agencies, you know, especially, sort of, health, are really, really stretched, but often they’re, kind of, the missing link and the missing piece to the jigsaw that we need.” – Local stakeholder, Wales, policing sector

Stakeholders cited frustration where mental health issues were clearly a key component of ASB perpetration, as without support from mental health support services, opportunities to minimise future ASB perpetration are limited. As such, increasing access to mental health services would likely have a knock-on effect for other services responding to ASB, reducing the demand on these agencies while also tackling the root cause of ASB. However, as referenced in the methodology, no stakeholders spoken with for this research work in mental health services. As a result, this highlights the need for further consultation with practitioners working in this sector in considering improvements to existing services.

“It’s this big vicious circle … certainly for, sort of, anti-social behaviour around housing … you know, get called to something and there’s such a high level of mental health issues, they’re submitting, like, the safeguarding and risk forms and things, but it just seems to rumble on and on and on. So definitely the mental health provision and services is a massive factor, I think it needs more investment because that will have a knock-on effect into policing, housing.” – Local stakeholder, West of England, housing sector

3.3 Drug and alcohol misuse

As mentioned in Section 3.2, stakeholders often saw mental health issues and drug and alcohol misuse as being interlinked, highlighting these as common vulnerabilities that can influence all types of ASB perpetration. For instance, how the impact of drugs and alcohol could lead to personal ASB (for example, increasing likelihood of conflicts), nuisance ASB (for example, noise disturbances related to the night-time economy) and environmental ASB (for example, through littering, such as nitrous oxide cannisters). Once again, this points towards a need for a holistic approach to tackling ASB risk factors involving wrap around support to understand the intersecting factors causing ASB perpetration.

“Alcohol, drugs misuse, mental health issues. I would say between about 40 to 50% of cases now, that councils, and local authorities, and housing providers are dealing with, will have those as significant vulnerabilities and factors.” – National stakeholder, charity sector

Cannabis use

When discussing substance misuse as a risk factor for ASB perpetration, stakeholders often referenced cannabis use among young people as an example of ASB. While stakeholders did not make direct links between cannabis use increasing the likelihood of ASB perpetration, they spoke of cannabis use as a type of ASB. For instance, of the odour caused by cannabis use as a form of environmental ASB. However, there was little consensus among agencies about who is responsible for tackling cannabis use. For instance, responsibility could be passed from one service to another (for example, environmental health, housing associations, neighbourhood teams and police), with stakeholders noting that the inconsistent response worsened the problem as it prohibited the problem being effectively tackled.

“So if you take the example of somebody smoking cannabis, it’s kind of thinking actually, we’re probably not going to deal with that as a landlord but the police aren’t going to deal with it either, and the drug services probably aren’t going to be engaging with somebody that is smoking some weed once a day, you know what I mean? It’s like, so where does that, kind of, where does that sit? And from a perpetrator and a victim perspective, really.” – National stakeholder, housing sector

This suggests that further clarification is needed, nationally and locally, setting out which agencies are responsible for dealing with cannabis use, what powers are available to them, and who can use them.

Alcohol and the night-time economy

Stakeholders often discussed alcohol consumption in relation to the night-time economy and typically linked this to adult perpetration of ASB. Nonetheless, they acknowledged that alcohol consumption extends beyond the night-time economy, often playing a role in neighbourhood disputes, with intoxication fuelling disruption among neighbours (for example, causing noise disruption and increasing likelihood of conflicts between residents). Stakeholders also reasoned that intoxicated people are more likely to act impulsively, thereby increasing the likelihood of ASB.

“Some people when they drink alcohol behave in a really dangerous and risky way that enables them to create crime. So anything that could look at those sorts of things would be very useful.” – National stakeholder, policing sector

3.4 Trauma and childhood adversity

As mentioned in Chapter 2, stakeholders highlighted the importance of considering risk factors as vulnerabilities, noting that ASB perpetration often stems from difficult early childhood experiences. Trauma and childhood adversity were referenced as a core factor influencing ASB perpetration. Stakeholders also acknowledged how trauma and childhood adversity could influence other factors, such as mental health issues or substance abuse.

“I think understanding what people have experienced through their life and being trauma-informed is really important to understanding why they’re exhibiting certain behaviours now. So, somebody that had experienced massive trauma when they were young, you know, there will be links to that in terms of how they’re behaving at the moment.” – National stakeholder, housing sector

Stakeholders did not see trauma and childhood adversity as being linked to any specific type of ASB. Stakeholders noted this could impact the perpetration of ASB by both young people and adults, depending on how these negative early experiences manifested at different points in an individual’s lifetime. As such, stakeholders felt it is often difficult for agencies tackling ASB to effectively identify and respond to this risk factor.

However, they saw the importance of understanding an individual’s trauma and childhood experiences as crucial to truly understanding why someone perpetrates ASB. In light of this, several stakeholders spoke of local services increasingly adopting a trauma-informed approach to responding to ASB. They saw such an approach as being essential in effectively tackling the underlying risk factors when responding to ASB.

“Understanding more, as my career has developed, around average childhood experiences, risk factors around why people become anti-social in the first place, becoming more trauma-informed, and trauma-informed practice.” – National stakeholder, charity sector

3.5 Home and family environment

Echoing existing evidence, stakeholders frequently linked a disruptive home and family environment with an increased likelihood of ASB perpetration. They saw this as a risk factor underpinning all types of ASB and, while a driver of ASB for both young people and adult perpetrators, stakeholders discussed this risk factor primarily in relation to individuals aged 17 and under.

As highlighted in Section 3.1, stakeholders noted that young people living in a disruptive home environment may seek to spend less time at home and more time in public places, which in turn increases the likelihood of getting involved in ASB. This emphasises the importance of diversionary interventions, such as activity hubs, which provide places to go and activities for young people to engage in, particularly those who may be trying to avoid spending time in their home environment. Some examples of these interventions included events put on during nights of the year which tend to be associated with a spike in ASB (such as bonfire night) as well as sports-based initiatives for young people in local communities.

Lack of a capable guardian

Linked to family and home environment was the view that a lack of a capable guardian was a risk factor for ASB committed by young people. Without this, children often went unsupervised and were more likely to spend time in places and with people who may facilitate ASB, such as through peer pressure (discussed in more detail in Section 3.7).

“When I think about the young people often there is that parents don’t know where they are, where they’re playing, who they’re playing with, when they’re going to come home, when they’re not going to come home, have they eaten, have they not eaten. So, they’re, kind of, out there in terms of really survival mode sometimes.” – National stakeholder, charity sector

However, stakeholders highlighted the link between poor supervision and poverty and deprivation. They pointed out the cost-of-living crisis has exacerbated this, with it becoming increasingly common for parents/guardians to have to work more than one job, limiting their capacity to closely supervise their children/adolescents.

When discussing a lack of a capable guardian, stakeholders also referenced learnt behaviours that stem from family values, often passed down by older family generations. They saw a lack of prosocial behaviours being advocated at home as influencing the likelihood of ASB. A local stakeholder who worked in social housing gave an example of how they have been tackling these generational beliefs and behaviours.

“There’s a lot of learnt behaviour, so we’ve been working with families from the grandparents down to the parents, now we’ve got the youths of those families that are continuing to cause the same ASB.” – Local stakeholder, housing sector

While some young people have parents or other family figures present, these figures are not always willing to take responsibility for their children’s behaviour. In turn, they may also be less likely to engage with agencies and services who are trying to help address the causes of ASB. For example, stakeholders noted some parents will rarely engage with parenting orders issued by the authorities (court orders given to guardians to help prevent ASB (Family Lives, 2023)).

“Parents, now have, legally, no responsibility. So, when we’re dealing with young people to do with ASB, parents have no formal input or requirement to input and when we have tried to look at things, parenting orders aren’t even worth the paper they’re written on and it’s completely pointless, it’s a pointless exercise when all of us are stretched to the extreme resource-wise.” – Local stakeholder, Wales, local authority

Stakeholders frequently cited early interventions put in place to support families aimed at preventing the likelihood of ASB. One example given was the Supporting Families programme, attributing its success to the holistic approach adopted.

“That family intervention project was really good because from my experience, it looked at things in a holistic way. It talked about what’s mum doing, how’s mum coping with the individuals and their behaviour. Are they going to school? Oh, actually, she’s not getting up and not even cleaning the house and there’s no food in the cupboard. Well, actually, let’s take her shopping and let’s get your benefits right. You know, are there any more benefits you can get? And you know, come and tidy up your house, get yourself together. And that’s the detail some of the family intervention.” – National stakeholder, charity sector

3.6 Education and schooling

Stakeholders agreed schooling is a critical tool to help children develop valuable life skills and provide employment opportunities for them in the future. They thought the pandemic had exacerbated the extent to which a lack of schooling and education has increased the risk of ASB perpetration, whereby young people not in school could not benefit from the protective factors it offers.

“When they’re not at school, not learning, not actively engaging, obviously potentially when they leave school, they’re not going to be able to get a job, you know, and that could potentially lead into anti-social behaviour … So I think education has a real key role there to play in dealing with anti-social behaviour.” – Local stakeholder, Wales, housing sector

Stakeholders emphasised the importance of schools and colleges providing an environment where children were closely supervised, keeping children ‘off the street’ and out of trouble. They also explained the benefits of schooling went beyond educational attainment, with attendance at school teaching them valuable social skills which, as discussed in Section 4.2, can act as protective factors against ASB perpetration.

“If they’re not in school where they’re being watched, monitored et cetera, they’re out in the community doing whatever they want with whoever they want. And obviously, then we can’t keep tabs on them, we can’t keep an eye on them.” – Local stakeholder, Wales, local authority

In line with this, stakeholders suggested that those who do not attend school, those excluded from mainstream schools, and those attending alternative forms of schooling are more at risk of ASB perpetration as it is much harder to manage well-being and truancy outside of school.

“We have a lot of young people that are involved in ASB that have fallen out of the education system.” – Local stakeholder, South of England, policing sector

Stakeholders described how the everyday interaction between educational professionals and young people was key to recognising risk factors that might put them at risk of perpetrating ASB. They explained how schools could provide valuable insight into a child’s behaviour and circumstances, vital for designing the most effective response to tackling a young person’s ASB.

Stakeholders gave the example of teachers playing a key role in identifying mental health issues among young people. For instance, some made links between undiagnosed autism and behaviours which could present as ASB. Stakeholders noted that autism assessments often came about from referrals through school, explaining that if a child was not frequently attending school, an autism diagnosis may be delayed. This then resulted in being unable to access specialist support services, which were noted as an effective tool in preventing ASB perpetration (or related behaviours presenting as ASB).

Similarly, relationships between educational professionals and children are vital in recognising a lack of guardian or unstable home environment. This insight was seen to help identify children and young people most at need of interventions to support their family and home environment (as discussed in Section 3.5).

“The links with the schools are absolutely vital. They’ve got more information about young people than any other agency would know. They know the families, they know the backgrounds.” – Local stakeholder, Wales, local authority

3.7 Peer pressure

A few stakeholders identified peer pressure as a risk factor for ASB perpetration, noting that it could encourage all types of ASB. As with home and family environment, they largely mentioned peer pressure as a risk factor for ASB committed by young people. Stakeholders highlighted the importance of friendships, noting that young people can be influenced by their peers and get caught up in a group mentality, copying certain behaviours to fit in.

“I think in relation to what also influences perpetration around young people, you would say, is peer pressure, and wanting to be seen as cool, popular, you know. They feed off each other.” – National stakeholder, charity sector

Furthermore, stakeholders acknowledged that social media likely increased the extent to which peer pressure might influence young people’s behaviour, noting that witnessing their peers carry out ASB online adds to the perception that this type of behaviour is the norm and emulating it may be a way to fit in socially. Stakeholders referenced the role of diversionary interventions which have been discussed earlier in the section, as well as the role of schools encouraging prosocial behaviours among peers and in society.

4. Factors that decrease likelihood of ASB perpetration

Key findings:

Stakeholders used the terms ‘protective’, ‘preventative’ and ‘deterrent’ when describing factors that reduced the likelihood of ASB perpetration; however, they also referenced interventions developed to tackle the causes of ASB.

Existing research on factors that decrease likelihood of ASB is limited. However, through discussions with stakeholders, the research identified the following key factors: a supportive home environment, education and schooling, access to employment opportunities and support services, community cohesion, physical environmental factors and use of sanctions.

Stakeholders referenced protective factors and preventative approaches in addressing the causes of ASB, yet policing stakeholders in particular were more likely to advocate for a more punitive, enforcement approach aiming to deter perpetrators from perpetrating ASB.

This chapter explores what stakeholders considered to be the protective factors that decrease the likelihood of individuals perpetrating ASB. Throughout the research, stakeholders referred to these factors in several ways, describing them as ‘protective’, ‘preventative’ or ‘deterrent’ factors. While stakeholders tended to use these terms interchangeably, they provide a useful way to classify the factors and approaches seen to decrease the likelihood of ASB perpetration.

Discussions with academics in the field revealed there is limited existing research specifically on protective factors that reduce an individual’s likelihood to perpetrate ASB, highlighting a need to conduct further research. This research sought to address this gap in understanding. Through discussions with national and local stakeholders, this research identified the following 6 factors that might decrease the likelihood of ASB perpetration, which this chapter discusses in more detail:

• a supportive home environment
• education and schooling
• community cohesion
• access to employment opportunities and support services
• physical environmental factors
• use of sanctions

This chapter categorises these factors throughout as:

Protective – factors that protect individuals from ASB preparation, offering (typically children and young people) alternative pathways to ASB and fostering positive behaviours, which enable individuals to build resilience against risk factors which may encourage ASB perpetration. For example, a supportive home environment, education/schooling and a sense of community cohesion might protect individuals from perpetrating ASB in this way.

Preventative – factors that prevent ASB perpetration tend to be specific interventions aiming to tackle ASB perpetration. These are often put in place to target individuals most at risk of perpetrating ASB. Examples discussed in this chapter include access to youth support services and community interventions.

Deterrent – factors that deter individuals from perpetrating ASB through fear of negative consequences. For example, use of sanctions and aspects of the physical environment (for example, CCTV).

These different protective factors can be both proactive and reactive in responding to ASB. While specific interventions have been developed in response to local ASB issues, which include use of sanctions, stakeholders also referenced the important role of local services in tackling the causes of ASB. These can be both proactive and reactive, but proactively these services exist to address issues and provide support that are broader than directly addressing ASB perpetration.

Better access to leisure facilities, mental healthcare and employment, for instance, should exist irrespective of tackling the causes of ASB but their existence can contribute to tackling risk factors and preventing ASB perpetration. This is important to consider when considering the range of approaches that can be delivered in addressing ASB, which involves funding of specific interventions and broader local service delivery.

When asked about factors that decrease the likelihood of ASB perpetration, stakeholders explained that these were sometimes the inverse of risk factors discussed in Chapter 3. For instance, while an unstable home and family environment could increase an individual’s likelihood to perpetrate ASB, having a stable home and family environment could decrease someone’s likelihood of perpetrating ASB. However, stakeholders also noted that, due to the overlap between different risk factors, a range of protective factors could decrease the likelihood of ASB perpetration.

A few stakeholders described the cumulative effect of protective factors, explaining that the more protective factors held by an individual, the less likely they were to commit ASB in general. This again highlights the need for agencies to take a holistic approach when looking to deter individuals from ASB perpetration.

“I would say to a degree having more protective characteristics would reduce all types of ASB … I would say for most anti-social behaviour, verbal abuse, inappropriate behaviour et cetera. it’s those protective characteristics are likely to assist in reducing ASB.” – National stakeholder, housing sector

4.1 A supportive home environment

As discussed in Chapter 3, stakeholders highlighted an unstable home and family environment as a key risk factor for ASB perpetration. In line with this, stakeholders considered the presence of a trusted guardian and a supportive home environment as important factors which can protect individuals from perpetrating ASB. While they referenced this factor in relation to all types of ASB, it was almost exclusively discussed by stakeholders with regards to young people.

Prosocial role models

Stakeholders highlighted the importance of supervision from a supportive parent/guardian. They noted how parents/guardians might prompt individuals to consider the consequences of their actions both for themselves (that is, their parent/guardian might punish them for their behaviour, acting as a deterrent for repeating this behaviour), but also for the victim (meaning their parent/guardian might encourage them to think about the negative impact their behaviour has had on the victim), inducing empathy which could protect against them repeating similar behaviour.

“It’s all about having that guiding light and principle that someone is checking what you’re doing.” – National stakeholder, policing sector

Stakeholders also highlighted the importance of having the support of parents/guardians in encouraging the engagement of young people in interventions designed to address the causes of this behaviour.

“Where there [are] unsupportive parents, we’ve found that appropriate adult is working for us, we’re running a mentoring programme and we’re finding really good results where young people have a trusted adult to speak to, and to guide them on the right path but we can’t do that for all cases where the parents don’t want to engage. Definitely having a trusted adult makes a difference.” – Local stakeholder, Wales, local authority

4.2 Education and schooling

Stakeholders also emphasised education and schooling as factors that could reduce the likelihood of ASB perpetration, especially among young people. In terms of specific types of ASB, stakeholders noted education and schooling protected against all types of ASB.

Supervision at school

Stakeholders noted how being in school provides children with a physical protection from committing ASB. As discussed in Section 4.1, the presence of a supportive adult can protect children and young people from ASB perpetration. In line with this, stakeholders noted how supervision from a trusted adult, such as a teacher, can offer the same support.

Schools and colleges provide supervised environments for children to spend time, keeping them ‘off the street’ and out of trouble. Stakeholders reasoned that most ASB took place outside of school and so spending time at school meant less time where young people could commit ASB.

“When they’re not at school, not learning, not actively engaging … when they leave school, they’re not going to be able to get a job, and that could potentially lead into anti-social behaviour.” – Local stakeholder, Wales, local authority

Skills development

Besides providing supervision, more broadly, access to education provides children with the opportunity to learn a variety of skills (for example, social skills, academic capabilities, employment skills). While stakeholders predominantly referenced schooling and education as a factor decreasing the likelihood of ASB perpetration among children, stakeholders also made links with adult perpetration (for example, through consequences of this factor on employability in adult life).

For instance, stakeholders emphasised the link between schooling and educational attainment with future employment opportunities. They saw employment as offering individuals with a sense of routine and financial stability which can, to some extent, address factors such as poverty, mental health issues and substance misuse.

“Making provisions for young people, giving them things to do, those opportunities to be able to do things. I guess that that goes onto later life for adults, you know, giving those adults whether it be meaningful work or giving them employment in the first place. Having those opportunities can often lead away from ASB.” – Local stakeholder, Wales, housing sector

Stakeholders also spoke about the role of school-based interventions which sought to support the development of prosocial behaviours. Such interventions could increase empathy among students by teaching them to recognise the impact that ASB can have on victims, which could help prevent such behaviour. As noted in Section 1.4, the research team could not speak with anyone from within the education sector as part of this research, so they could not capture the range of interventions already being delivered by these sectors and the potential impacts of reduced funding on these interventions.

“[Teaching that] this is what it’s like for people in the community, if there’s a big group of you and sitting at the back of the bus and you’re being a bit loud and a bit boisterous … an old lady’s on the bus at the front and all she can hear is all this shouting and loud music and swearing … so that talking to them about how their behaviour may, without them deliberately doing anything, impact on people. And I think that that should be part of the national curriculum, and every year 6 child in this country should have that.” – National stakeholder, charity sector

4.3 Local community

Throughout the research, stakeholders perceived that a strong sense of community (for example, individuals within a community having good relations with each other) could act as a protective factor against ASB perpetration for all types of ASB and for both young people and adults. The general consensus among stakeholders was to consider the role of the community when designing interventions to tackle ASB.

They reasoned that encouraging individuals to have a sense of pride in their local environment may provide an incentive to protect the area from damage caused by ASB (particularly environmental ASB, such as property damage or graffiti). Stakeholders referenced how a sense of belonging could also encourage a sense of pride in local communities. This could influence increased community engagement in addressing community safety issues locally. This aligns with the Broken Window Theory (mentioned in Section 3.1), which states that visible signs of ASB in an area, such as graffiti or damaged property, can encourage further ASB.

“Making sure homes are safe and well maintained, and it will encourage people to take a sense of pride in where they’re living as well.” – National stakeholder, housing sector

Interpersonal relations within the community

Stakeholders also linked a sense of pride in the community to community engagement. They discussed how strong interpersonal relationships within communities could help protect against ASB. They explained how these relationships could, in some cases, de-escalate incidents that could have otherwise led to ASB, or protect against repeat ASB. If members of a community, such as the residents of a housing complex, already had an existing connection, it was seen that they would be more likely to openly communicate, thereby reducing the chances of nuisance and personal ASB. For example, stakeholders reasoned that where neighbours already knew each other, they would be more likely to respond to a noise disturbance politely due to their pre-existing relationship, thereby also reducing the potential for escalation.

As mentioned in Section 3.2, interventions designed to improve communication between perpetrators and victims of ASB, such as mediation and restorative justice, may be effective in preventing ASB within communities.

Role models within the community

As discussed in Section 4.1, stakeholders emphasised the importance of prosocial role models in protecting children and young people from perpetrating ASB. While for some, this is provided through the presence of a guardian figure, such as a parent or other family member, stakeholders acknowledged role models are also often present within the local community.

Stakeholders regularly spoke of ‘community interventions’, referring to initiatives set up to decrease ASB perpetration within local communities, which were also often run by members of that community. Stakeholders suggested community-based initiatives, such as local sports groups, provide children and young people with the opportunity to interact with positive role models within their community, while also teaching children valuable social skills.

“They [children and young adults in the community] see their role models as the people going round in nice cars who are obviously clearly engaging in criminal activity. That’s who they look forward to, so absolutely critical we have role models in our community, but also obviously that opportunity that they can see a way out of their communities, or actually can contribute to their communities in terms of, you know, delivering social outcomes.” – Local stakeholder, North of England, policing sector

However, stakeholders acknowledged that support and buy-in from the local community often played a critical role in the long-term sustainability and effectiveness of interventions set up to prevent ASB. It was also pointed out that communities could only sustain interventions with the continued support of funding opportunities.

“I think it is a community responsibility. We often talk about a partnership response, but we forget that it’s the community here that are a significant stakeholder in all of that conversation. Because it’s where you live, it’s how safe you feel, and it impacts on everybody.” – National stakeholder, charity sector

4.4 Access to support services and youth provisions

As outlined in Chapter 3, there are several risk factors that put both children and adults at risk of perpetrating ASB. In line with this, stakeholders suggested that a key way to prevent ASB perpetration was to provide access to support services and opportunities which could help counteract these risk factors. Stakeholders acknowledged that improved access to support services and opportunities could prevent ASB perpetrated by both young people and adults and all types of ASB.

Access to services, whether this be specific support services such as mental health support or general youth provision to occupy young people and provide them with valuable life skills, can help prevent individuals from perpetrating ASB.

Access to support services

As mentioned above, there are a multitude of factors that could increase an individual’s likelihood to perpetrate ASB, such as poverty and deprivation, mental health issues, and substance misuse. Access to support services which aim to tackle the causes of ASB perpetration could, therefore, prevent individuals from perpetrating ASB. For example, stakeholders emphasised the importance of improving access to mental health support services when looking to prevent ASB.

Some stakeholders acknowledged that directly treating the root causes of ASB (that is, the risk factors) was likely to have long-lasting effects, compared with enforcement approaches to tackling ASB, which focused on responding to the behaviour rather than addressing the core reasons for this behaviour. This is discussed further in Section 4.6.

Youth services

When discussing factors which might prevent ASB perpetration, stakeholders placed importance on youth provisions, such as activity hubs or centres. The perceived benefits of these were similar to those provided by schooling – placing children in a supervised environment where they can interact with prosocial role models and learn valuable life skills, such as teamwork. Stakeholders also made links between access to youth services and building self-efficacy and self-esteem, which, as noted in Section 4.3, they perceived as helping to protect young people from committing ASB.

“You don’t want to say to kids I want to do this intervention with you because you’re causing ASB, using football as a mechanism because they like football for example, as the mechanism to get them in, but when you get them in it’s about those other social skills that they need to excel in life.” – National stakeholder, policing sector

However, stakeholders acknowledged that there was no one-size-fits-all approach to engaging young people in these initiatives. They explained that to encourage young people to engage in initiatives and for there to be a long-term impact on their behaviour, they need to be tailored to young people’s interests and daily life.

“Kids aren’t hard to reach … it’s about the way you might reach out to them … it doesn’t have to be in a hall, it can be on the street … being creative or engaging with a youth offending team about doing a car mechanic course or a beauty course, so I think we need to be creative … the important thing is stopping them doing something, but longer-term prevention with the right positive requirements.” – National stakeholder, charity sector

4.5 Physical environment

Stakeholders mentioned that ASB can be addressed by putting in place physical measures in environments where ASB usually takes place to deter individuals from perpetrating ASB through fear of being caught and dealing with negative consequences, while also restricting access to physical environments where ASB typically takes place. They saw this as relevant to all types of ASB committed by young people and adults.

Increased surveillance

Stakeholders explained that having surveillance measures in public places discourages individuals from perpetrating ASB as it increases concern over authorities witnessing and punishing them for their behaviour. For example, this might involve having visible CCTV in public places to make individuals feel that their behaviour is being watched.

However, the presence of CCTV cameras may not be enough of a deterrent if there is a view that no one is monitoring them and responding to ASB incidents captured by it. This emphasises the importance of closely monitoring and responding to behaviour captured on CCTV to ensure that putting it in place effectively deters individuals from perpetrating ASB.

“You might have a CCTV overlooking a park area, but if it’s not monitored or nothing happens when there are for example off-road bikes there, they’re going to continue there, knowing there are no consequences. So, you can’t just have a camera without actual resources to man that camera.” – Local stakeholder, East of England, policing sector

Besides CCTV, stakeholders (specifically those working in the policing sector) maintained that a strong presence of law enforcement personnel in an area could act as a deterrent against perpetrating ASB. Similar to the rationale behind CCTV, if individuals felt their ASB was likely to be witnessed by people in positions of authority, such as the police, they were often deterred due to fear of negative consequences (for example, sanctions).

Stakeholders also noted the importance of law enforcement personnel embedding themselves within the community and establishing trust with individuals living in the area as opposed to being seen as a purely authoritative role. For instance, stakeholders described how a key part of the role of police community support officers (PCSOs) was to build a good rapport with the community, while also providing increased visible police presence in their work alongside regular police officers.

Restricted access to areas

Stakeholders also referenced physical preventative measures that restrict access to places where ASB takes place. For example, they suggested alley gating (lockable gates installed to prevent individuals from accessing alleyways) and removal of physical structures which might offer covert places for perpetrators to engage in ASB. Further information on alleygating can be found on the College of Policing website (College of Policing, 2016).

Typically, stakeholders described how these changes to the physical environment protected against environmental and nuisance ASB. For instance, alleygating tended to prevent individuals from perpetrating environmental ASB such as graffiti and littering. Physical measures related to reducing sound, such as soundproofing housing complexes or limiting the number of adjoining walls between homes, were generally seen to prevent nuisance ASB incidents, such as disturbance from noise (for example, loud music).

4.6 Use of sanctions

While stakeholders from all sectors included in this research cited the use of sanctions^{[footnote 1]} as a method that can reduce the likelihood of repeated ASB, policing stakeholders were consistently more likely to reference the use of sanctions or tools and powers, compared to stakeholders from other sectors. Stakeholders acknowledged sanctions could reduce the likelihood of ASB perpetration for perpetrators of all ages and for all types of ASB.

For example, policing stakeholders in particular cited enforcement approaches such as warnings and Community Protection Notices in deterring ASB perpetration. Stakeholders acknowledged that sometimes sanctions could deter against ASB perpetration as it leads to negative consequences for the perpetrator, which could discourage them from engaging in similar behaviour in the future.

Stakeholders perceived this approach to be more effective for low-level ASB and among perpetrators aged 17 and under, where peer pressure was one of the main reasons behind the behaviour rather than factors such as mental health issues and substance misuse, which were more deeply engrained.

“You get a lot of kids, they’re not necessarily bad kids, they just get mixed up with the wrong crowd or they get involved in certain types of behaviour … having that enforcement, perhaps a letter or something a bit more formal can be a deterrent.” – Local stakeholder, Wales, housing sector

Failure to tackle the ‘root causes’ of ASB

Stakeholders representing other sectors highlighted that a punitive approach was not always effective in protecting against ASB perpetration. They described enforcement measures as ‘sticking plasters’ and felt that, to be effective in the long term, interventions need to be informed by an understanding of the underlying issues which cause ASB perpetration.

“If we either go hand in hand with enforcement and support, or support first, that often can have much better longer-term outcomes.” – Local stakeholder, South of England, housing sector

Instead, stakeholders highlighted the importance of adopting a more therapeutic approach to tackling ASB, with focus given to providing support to perpetrators to tackle the core issues at the root of their behaviour.

“So we kind of tried to embrace that, so obviously that is around, you know, looking at the root causes of behaviours, whether drugs and alcohol are being used to mask certain traumas from earlier life, all that type of stuff. So a lot of support network, therapeutic type work with the aim of improving that person’s well-being and trying to get them to a point where their destructive behaviours maybe are reducing and they’ve got other ways of dealing with, you know, things that have happened to them.” – National stakeholder, housing sector

In line with this, stakeholders noted it was therefore important to consider the most appropriate type of sanction when deterring against ASB perpetration. For instance, stakeholders reported the threat of eviction could be a key deterrent for ASB perpetration. While they discussed this mainly in relation to adult perpetrators, stakeholders also noted that the threat of eviction because of the ASB committed by a young person could prompt parents or guardians of young perpetrators to directly address their child’s ASB or start engaging in interventions designed to tackle it (for example, activities offered by schools or the community).

“The threat of somebody losing their house is a huge deterrent to stop people actually further committing. In fact, I think it’s the main deterrent.” – Local stakeholder, East of England, local authority

However, stakeholders who worked in the housing sector expressed frustration at the limited powers they possess regarding issuing ASB sanctions. This suggests that increasing the extent to which individuals in the police and housing sectors work together to issue these sanctions might help to tackle ASB. The recently published ASB Action Plan states that perpetrators should face eviction after 3 proven incidents of ASB followed by 3 warnings from a landlord, and should be de-prioritised in accessing social housing (HM Government, 2023; para 33a and b). Nonetheless, stakeholders also acknowledged that following through with eviction because of ASB may not effectively protect against future ASB perpetration as it does not address the core reasons behind the behaviour and so is likely to continue once the resident is rehoused.

5. Conclusions and implications

Understanding the factors that increase and decrease the likelihood of ASB perpetration is central to developing effective approaches to tackling ASB. This research builds on existing evidence on risk factors of ASB perpetration, as well as address gaps in understanding of the factors that prevent, protect or deter individuals from perpetrating ASB. The extent to which these risk and protective factors vary according to different types of ASB, and age of perpetrators, also informs the design and delivery of interventions.

The findings from this research have highlighted several policy and intervention implications:

Risk factors

Risk factors identified by the research include individual, societal and structural factors at both a national and local level. The key risk factors identified by this research mirror those reflected in existing literature. These include poverty and deprivation, mental health issues, drug and alcohol misuse, trauma and childhood adversity, home and family environment, education and schooling, and peer pressure.

Stakeholders echoed existing research by highlighting how risk factors are often interlinked and complex. As a result, this raised the importance of developing a cross-cutting, holistic approach to tackling ASB, which is reflected in policy and intervention development. For example, interventions should look to address specific individual risk factors, such as mental health issues, while also considering the wider societal circumstances at play, such as levels of poverty and deprivation.

Risk factors were common across all types of ASB, with many factors often influencing ASB perpetration. Consideration should therefore be given to delivering a range of interventions that seek to address the combination of factors which influence ASB. These interventions should be framed by developing a holistic, multi-agency approach to tackling ASB. Such an approach should be reflected at a strategic and intervention level, nationally and locally, as reflected in the ASB Action Plan.

The findings show the influence of these factors on ASB varies more by the age of the perpetrator than by type of ASB. For instance, stakeholders mostly discussed the home and family environment, education and schooling, and peer pressure as putting young people at risk of perpetrating ASB, whereas mental health and substance abuse were more closely linked with adult perpetration. However, poverty and deprivation, as well as trauma and childhood adversity, were seen to play an important role in influencing the likelihood of ASB perpetration for all ages. Intervention development will need to include a range of interventions that seek to address the causes of ASB, which will include interventions for young people, adults or both. This means practitioners may aim diversionary interventions at young people or there could be an intervention available to both young people and adults, that is, improving mental health provision or support services.

For a successful, long-term reduction of ASB, responses need to focus on the root causes of perpetration rather than only responding to the symptoms of ASB (that is, the behaviour). While reference was made to the use of enforcement approaches to respond to ASB (this tended to be from policing sector stakeholders), national and local stakeholders highlighted the importance of identifying the causes of ASB to effectively address ASB perpetration. As such, interventions should seek to directly address the risk factors of ASB rather than simply responding to ASB.

Approaches to tackling ASB perpetration should consider how best to facilitate a multi-agency approach by removing barriers to local joined-up working. Stakeholders referenced multi-agency approaches already being delivered locally in responding to ASB that can provide an opportunity for an assessment of the risk factors at play for individuals known to perpetrate or at risk of perpetrating ASB. Encouraging more of these assessments could aid services to select an appropriate combination of interventions. However, as evidenced in previous research, resourcing pressures and limited availability of some services such as mental health support services, limited the extent to which they have the capacity to engage with other agencies in the local area (for example, attending multi-agency meetings, responding to referrals from services).

In addition to taking a multi-agency approach at a local level, the variety of risk factors which can increase individuals’ likelihood of ASB perpetration calls for a cross-governmental response. A national response to ASB requires different government departments – such as the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities; the Department for Education; and the Department of Health and Social Care – to work collaboratively to address the multiple risk factors of ASB (Home Office, 2023). This is particularly relevant in addressing the role of broader societal issues, such as poverty and deprivation, which were seen to increase the likelihood of other risk factors being present and the perpetration of ASB. Stakeholders acknowledged poverty and deprivation as a key risk factor for ASB perpetration, recognising that most ASB ‘hot spots’ (that is, areas with high prevalence of ASB) were also areas with high levels of deprivation. Due to high levels of deprivation, these areas will have a range of issues that need to be considered as part of broader approaches and not just those aimed at tackling ASB.

Factors that decrease likelihood of ASB perpetration

Stakeholders perceived several factors as decreasing the likelihood of ASB perpetration. These included a supportive home environment, education and schooling, community cohesion, access to employment opportunities and support services, physical environmental factors and use of sanctions. These factors can be aligned broadly to 3 categories of approaches to tackling ASB – protective, preventative and deterrent. This highlights the different ways in which ASB can be addressed, acknowledging that broader efforts to address social justice issues alongside more tailored interventions can collectively tackle ASB. Such an approach requires a cross-government and holistic response to policy and intervention development aimed at preventing ASB. At a strategic, government level, approaches to prevent ASB should align with efforts to address societal issues such as poverty and deprivation, unemployment, non-attendance at schools and housing. This should be reflected in the resources and support available to local areas to address local needs, many of which will contribute to the perpetration of ASB.

Stakeholders cited the range of interventions that have been developed locally to address ASB. These include early intervention and diversionary activities, which aim to engage young people seen at risk of committing ASB, family support interventions and community-based initiatives, which aim to foster collective efficacy at a local level in tackling ASB. It was apparent from speaking with stakeholders, echoed also in the existing literature, that a holistic, trauma-informed approach is required to address ASB. The research has identified that a range of factors may influence ASB perpetration, which therefore may require a combination of approaches. To inform this, practitioners should assess the range of risk factors influencing ASB perpetration alongside protective factors at play. To support these responses to ASB, it is important that practitioners can access a range of interventions when developing approaches that seek to address the causes of ASB. As highlighted in the paragraph above, these interventions should also include access to broader forms of support such as employment, education and mental health issues.

To ensure that interventions reflect local and individual circumstances and needs, practitioners should adopt a co-production approach with communities when designing interventions. This will enable communities to inform the design of interventions that best reflect local community need, which will improve likely engagement of individuals in these interventions. Stakeholders gave examples of developing diversionary activities, such as sport clubs or free holiday clubs for children and young people. However, there was limited uptake of these initiatives, which led to them reflecting on the importance of engaging communities in understanding the interests and needs of communities, to ensure local buy-in to services provided.

Evidence-based practice should inform the development and funding of approaches aimed at addressing ASB. Gathering ‘what works’, as well as what has been ineffective, is essential to informing national and local policy and intervention approaches. Stakeholders highlighted the importance of conducting robust evaluations of interventions in aiding the development of evidence-based practices. They highlighted the importance of sharing both best practice and examples of interventions that have been ineffectual. They made reference to the government developing a centralised database, which was thought to have been developed previously, that would enable local areas to access this information to help inform local decision-making in developing interventions.

To aid the sustainability and effectiveness of interventions, practitioners should consider providing longer-term funding initiatives, supported by robust evaluations. Stakeholders acknowledged that interventions also need to be set up in such a way to be sustainable long term. They saw short-term funding as limiting the capacity of services to develop joined-up working and, importantly, links with local communities. Therefore, besides longer-term funding, practitioners need to consider additional ways of sustaining interventions, such as encouraging buy-in from members of the community.

Considerations for future research

The focus of this research was hearing from national and local stakeholders on what they perceive to be the risks and protective factors of ASB perpetration, so it does not consider the views and experiences of ASB perpetrators. Further research with perpetrators of ASB would allow for individual insights to be heard that could provide further understanding of the role of the risk and protective factors identified through this research.

Conducting robust, process and impact evaluations is important to developing a knowledge base of what works and what does not work in addressing ASB. This includes both at an intervention level and in relation to the use of tools and powers. Where existing evidence does not exist, consider piloting approaches which are evaluated to determine efficacy in preventing ASB.

Annexes

Annex A: Intervention examples mentioned by stakeholders

Many of the stakeholders could cite a range of interventions developed to address the causes of ASB. The following table details the type of interventions mentioned by local and national stakeholders, the principal aims behind the design of those interventions, and specific interventions cited.

Intervention type	Aim	Interventions cited
Diversionary interventions	Redirecting those at risk of perpetrating ASB. Diversionary interventions may be short term, such as, putting on alternative events during nights of the year which tend to be associated with a spike in ASB or longer term, such as, setting up activity hubs.	Merseyside: ‘Operation Banger’ held an open-air cinema on bonfire night and used a local bus company to help transport young people home. Sefton: ‘Operation Beach Safe’ – protection orders banning alcohol and ASB behaviours on beaches. Vocational courses and training to prison leavers. ‘Ministry of Life’ runs creative and musical workshops, youth clubs and events for young people in Cardiff; using music and the arts as an engagement tool to empower young people.
Community interventions	Emphasising the role of the community and encouraging community ‘buy-in’ to increase the effectiveness and sustain the longer-term impact of other interventions.	Stakeholders largely discussed community interventions in a more conceptual sense. Here, the onus is placed more on adjusting the mindset of communities, creating more advocacy and pride, and encouraging positive relationships as opposed to tangible schemes/interventions.
Mediation/restorative justice	Encouraging mutual understanding and trying to increase empathy of perpetrators in understanding the impact of ASB on victims.	Community Justice Panels – run by members of the community trained in restorative justice.
Early interventions	Supporting families and teaching children and young people what is deemed ‘acceptable behaviour’ and how to cope with challenging emotions and situations in a healthy way.	‘Thrive Project’ – working with schools, providing work experience and alternative provision. ‘Fearless’ providing in-school presentations. National ‘Supporting Families’ programme, including parenting support. Football and other sport club provisions to school-age children.

Annex B: Full sample breakdown

National/local	Sector	Number
National	Policing sector	2
National	Housing sector	2
National	Charity sector	2
National	Fire and rescue sector	2
Total national		8
Local	Policing sector	11
Local	Housing sector	9
Local	Local authority	17
Total local		37
Total national and local stakeholders		45

Annex C: Discussion guide

The national stakeholder discussion guide is available for download.

Download ‘National stakeholder discussion guide’

References

College of Policing (2016) Alley gating. Available from: https://www.college.police.uk/research/crime-reduction-toolkit/alley-gating [accessed 22/10/2023]

College of Policing (2023) Anti-social behaviour powers. Available from: https://www.college.police.uk/guidance/anti-social-behaviour-powers [accessed 22/10/2023]

Family Lives (2023) What is a parenting order? Available from: https://www.familylives.org.uk/advice/teenagers/behaviour/what-is-a-parenting-order [accessed 22/10/2023]

Farrington, D.P. and Welsh, B.C. (eds.) (2012) The Oxford Handbook of Crime Prevention. Oxford University Press, UK.

HM Government (2023) Anti-Social Behaviour Action Plan. Available from: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1145943/Anti-social_Behaviour_Action_Plan_March_2023.pdf [accessed 22/10/2023]

HM Government (2014) Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. Available from: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2014/12/contents/enacted [accessed 22/10/2023]

Home Office (2023) Anti-social behaviour: incident journey, from reporting to resolution. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/incident-journey-of-anti-social-behaviour-from-reporting-to-resolution/anti-social-behaviour-incident-journey-from-reporting-to-resolution [accessed 22/10/2023]

ONS (2020a) Crime in England and Wales: year ending March 2020. Office for National Statistics. Available from: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/crimeinenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2020 [accessed 24/10/2023]

ONS (2020b) CSEW 2019/2020 annual trend and demographic tables. Office for National Statistics. Available from: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/datasets/crimeinenglandandwalesannualtrendanddemographictables/current [accessed 22/10/2023]

Roger, A, Castree, N and Kitchin, R. (2013) A Dictionary of Human Geography. Oxford University Press

Tanner-Smith, E.E., Wilson, S.J. and Lipsey, M.W. (2012) ‘Risk factors and crime’. The Oxford Handbook of Criminology (Chapter 5). Oxford University Press, UK.

1. The 2014 Act also establishes a range of tools and powers that can be used by local agencies and organisations in responding to ASB. These include Civil Injunctions, Criminal Behaviour Orders, Dispersal Powers, Public Space Protection Orders, Community Protection Notices and Remedial Orders, and Closure Notices and Orders. The police commonly exercise Civil Injunctions, Criminal Behaviour Orders, Dispersal Powers and Community Protection Notices. Local authorities commonly exercise Closure Powers and Public Space Protection Orders. Absolute grounds for possession only apply to housing associations. ↩