Introduction

The research looked at the operation, views and experiences of the relevant agencies in selecting and processing Anti-Social Behaviour Order (ASBO) cases. Its aim was to identify both the conceptual and practical issues that have arisen in different locations and in different agencies.

The findings are summarised under the following headings:

• • Variations in attitudes and experience in different boroughs

• • Interagency partnership and cooperation

• • Criteria for selecting and processing cases

• • The problem of definition

• • The shift from ASBOs to CRASBOs

• • Formulating the conditions for ASBOs

• • The provision of support and welfare services

• • The use of ASBOs in relation to ABCs and Parenting Orders

• • Breaches and enforcement

Variations in attitudes and experience in different boroughs

Interviews with relevant staff were conducted in eight local authorities. Considerable differences were found in the different boroughs in relation to:

• • the number of staff involved in dealing with anti-social behaviour;

• • the number of ASBOs issued; and

• • the types of offences for which ASBOs were deployed.

The size of the Anti-Social Behaviour Unit in each borough was taken by the researchers as an indicator of how seriously anti-social behaviour and ASBOs were viewed in each location. The variation may, however, also reflect the level and nature of anti-social behaviour in each locality. Different boroughs adopted different strategies to deal with anti-social behaviour and frequently used other measures, apart from ASBOs, to respond to different forms of anti-social behaviour. Table 2.1 below provides an indication of the numbers of staff in the eight boroughs surveyed in the anti-social behaviour (ASB) team and the number of ASBOs issued up to December 2005.

In general, there was an identifiable division between those agencies that advocated the use of ASBOs – the police, the Anti-Social Behaviour Unit, housing department and magistrates – and the various welfare and support agencies – the Youth Offending Teams (YOTs), probation, social services and others – who were more sceptical about their use. It was evident that these groups had oppositional perspectives, with the advocates seeing ASBOs mainly as a preventive sanction and the sceptics seeing it essentially as a mode of enforcement (see Table 2.2) Although there are considerable differences of perspective, it did not mean that these agencies were not able to work together and in a certain number of cases to agree on the use of ASBOs.