Search results

The purpose of this paper is to assess the implementation of the minimum level of protection against the loss of the home that arises from Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights in The Netherlands. The paper focuses on anti-social behaviour-related cases in which the landlord requests the court to issue an eviction order.

The paper is based on a statistical analysis of nearly 250 judgements concerning housing-related anti-social behaviour.

A significant difference is found in the court’s attitude against drug-related anti-social behaviour and other types of nuisance. Moreover, it is found that in two-thirds of the cases, the tenant advanced a proportionality defence. Although the European Court stresses the need of a proportionality check, the Dutch courts ignore the tenant’s proportionality defence in 10 per cent of the cases and issue an eviction order in the majority of all cases. Advancing a proportionality defence does not result in any difference for the court decision.

The paper presents original data on the legal protection against eviction in cases concerning anti-social behaviour. This is the first study that analyses the approach towards housing-related anti-social behaviour in the context of the European minimum level of protection. Whilst centred on legislation and procedures in The Netherlands, its findings and discussion are relevant in other jurisdictions facing similar issues.

The purpose of this paper is to present research which evaluated the impact of Dispersal Orders in an English town.

The study used a mixed method design to, qualitatively, explore the impact of the intervention on young people and, quantitatively, the impact on recorded crime/anti-social behaviour.

The use of Dispersal Orders in the town being studied highlighted a number of issues detrimental to young people. Powers appeared to be used to control the congregating rather than anti-social behaviour of young people and their use could increase young peoples’ feelings of vulnerability.

The findings suggest that Dispersal Orders (and the newer Public Spaces Protection Orders (PSPOs)) may be ineffective if they are used without the focus of a specific anti-social behaviour issue.

The findings suggest that the use of Dispersal Orders to deal with non-anti-social behaviour issues are likely to alienate young people and have the potential to inadvertently place them at further risk. They also suggest that the PSPO could very well exacerbate the substantial issues which have been identified in the present research.

This research is original and suggests that the negative findings of earlier pieces of research into Dispersal Orders can be replicated in very different geographical environments and in areas with low levels of general deprivation where no substantial anti-social behaviour issues were identified. Furthermore, it uses original data to contextualize contemporary developments in anti-social behaviour, namely the introduction of PSPOs.

Anti‐social behaviour legislation has resulted in a growth of the administrative mechanisms to enforce it. New guidance has been issued recommending an incremental approach and the number of orders and interventions has increased. This article examines the criticisms and assumptions on the effectiveness of anti‐social behaviour orders in the context of recent and emerging research.

The purpose of this paper is to reflect on the “new” approach to tackling anti-social behaviour outlined in the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. Despite it being difficult to ascertain whether such measures will be more inclusive and appropriate than those previously introduced – certainly at this early stage – the authors set out to evaluate the strengths, limitations and challenges of this “new” agenda and in doing so drawing upon the propositions insights from radical moral communitarianism in order to inform the discussion.

The paper takes the form of a conceptual analysis of government policy. The authors draw on the work of a number of key academics and commentators to enhance the discussion.

In many respects, the authors have rehearsed some familiar lines of argument and analysis. Indeed, many of New Labour's anti-social behaviour measures were in many cases counterproductive, particularly in the case of children and young people invariably increasing the likelihood of offending rather than curtailing it. Understanding this, the authors propose that it would appear logical where at all possible to deal with anti-social behaviour informally, that is, outside the formal anti-social behaviour framework and through the comprehensive balanced intervention proposed from a radical moral communitarian perspective which seeks to avoid formal criminalisation except as a last resort. With regard to the “new” anti-social behaviour measures the authors argue that rather than punishing the actions as a contempt of court practitioners need to devise suitable, more appropriate ways of dealing with the matter before them. The Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act (2014) provides practitioners with the space to do this particularly with the process being streamlined and much of the previous bureaucracy removed.

By focusing on the introduction of the “new” anti-social behaviour measures the paper will be of use to local decision makers (i.e. Youth Offending Team practitioners, Police and Crime Commissioners, and Directors of Children's Services). The paper highlights some potential issues and ambiguities that practitioners working within the new anti-social behaviour framework may face.

The authors set out to critically reflect on the “new” powers set out in the recent Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act (2014). Nevertheless, the authors are not offering the paper as an alternative blueprint for dealing with anti-social behaviour but rather seeking to provoke further discussion on some of the potential issues and ambiguities the authors have identified within the new legislation. At the same time, the authors incorporate insights from the radical moral communitarian perspective which promotes a fairer, more equal world, based on mutual respect between all citizens, founded on the notion of commitment to and involvement in society.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the impact of enforcement action on individuals and families living in social housing as a mode of intervention for dealing with anti‐social behaviour.

Relevant housing legislation and policy documents are reviewed. The paper then draws on empirical data from Shelter Cymru's case file records of households in social housing who have been subject to enforcement action following an allegation of anti‐social behaviour. Evidence obtained from other studies on housing intervention projects is used to contrast the position of the households studied with those in similar situations who have been provided with support as an alternative to enforcement action.

The legislative framework favours enforcement as a means of dealing with anti‐social behaviour. A number of remedies utilise the management role of social landlords, and the framework of housing tenure, to introduce the concept of “conditionality” into housing entitlement. This approach to the management of anti‐social behaviour compounds the social disadvantage of already vulnerable households by undermining long‐term security of tenure and thereby increasing the risk of homelessness and social exclusion. These outcomes contrast with those from studies of similar households in receipt of support within housing intervention projects which have been shown to deliver reductions in anti‐social behaviour and sustainable outcomes for families, communities, and landlords.

The findings provide important lessons for the future direction of anti‐social behaviour policy throughout the UK and beyond. In the context of devolved polity in the UK the paper argues for the Welsh Assembly Government to take a lead in developing policies and legal responses which recognize the housing rights of marginalised groups, and for the introduction of support into social housing to counter the trend toward punitive treatment of social tenants as a response to anti‐social behaviour.

The unique nature of the empirical data set from Shelter Cymru's case file records provides an important insight into the social impact of anti‐social behaviour law and policy on some of the most vulnerable members of society.

The purpose of this paper is to critically explore the impact of anti-social behaviour orders (ASBOs) on young people with mild learning disabilities. In an attempt to identify why young people (under the age of 18) with learning disabilities are exposed to the criminal justice system, an emerging body of evidence is considered. The research provides an insight into some of the difficulties vulnerable young people may encounter, such as receiving unrealistic prohibitions and the lack of support provided after receiving a court order. The research also highlights the lack of professional awareness and understanding of learning disabilities and considers the level of training available to professionals. The paper closes with a discussion of the themes identified from the literature reviewed and some of the changes proposed by the coalition government regarding the future of the criminal justice system.

Although a strict systematic review of the literature was not required for the literature review, a less rigorous systematic approach was employed. When searching for literature, the general principles and guidelines of the Cochrane Collaboration were employed, this included inclusion and exclusion criteria. The eligibility criteria guided the focus of the literature review and determined the relevance of the research. During the literature review it was recognised that much of the research is discussion/review based, and currently there is a limited amount of empirical research available. An eco-systems perspective was employed to consider the connections between young people, the environment and anti-social behaviour (ASB).

The findings from the literature review, illustrate a growing body of evidence which suggests that young people with learning disabilities have been “caught up” in ASB measures. It is positive that more recently, there has been a much needed focus on early identification and diversion away from the criminal justice system, for those with mental health conditions and learning disabilities. The research findings presented by Cant and Standen, and Talbot, provide possible explanations as to why vulnerable young people are made subject to ASBOs. Indeed this lack of sufficient training has not gone unnoticed by other researchers.

Although the author is aware of the valuable insight qualitative research can provide, the methodological limitations raise questions regarding the validity of the research the author has considered, especially as most of the research the author has drawn upon is based on exploratory approaches. Nevertheless, the concurring themes drawn from the research findings raise much curiosity around the potential links between disability awareness training and the identification of young people with mild learning disabilities.

Despite the governments recent proposal to abolish the ASBO and introduce a new approach to tackling ASB, it appears unclear as to how the new measures will differ from the existing ones. The recent proposed measures are set out in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. Although the accompanying guidance for frontline professionals clearly sets out the need for early intervention, which sits alongside a new menu of ASB powers, including the Criminal Behaviour Order (which seems very similar to the ASBO), it is disappointing that the guidance does not give any direction of how new measures will impact on young people with learning disabilities.

Although the ASBO was not initially designed to target children and young people, it is clear from the literature that certain families and young people are often singled out and labelled as “anti-social”. It is unsurprising, that children and young people from poor families, with low educational attainment, limited employment opportunities and live in the most marginalised and deprived communities are amongst those who are singled out as being particularly problematic.

The research findings have helped me to understand some of the potential difficulties vulnerable young people may encounter if they come into contact with the criminal justice system. As there appears to be a lack of empirical research available which considers the connections between learning disabilities and ASBOs, further research within this area of practice would be beneficial. The research invites an alternative perspective which adds to the existing literature.

This article explores understandings of and responses to anti‐social behaviour (ASB) among members of a local authority specialist ASB unit, and the perceptions and experiences of local citizens whose complaints had been dealt with by that unit. It suggests that ASB officers operate in a ‘space’ between the demands of policy makers and the needs of residents and communities. Whilst complainant satisfaction is a key indicator of performance, the way this is achieved is more varied than a simple reliance on enforcement.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the anti-social behaviour (ASB) measures for under-18s contained in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill, examining how they differ from the current ASB framework and their likely implications for young people and society.

The paper is based on desk-based research of the proposed and existing ASB measures. It also draws on the author's experience as a parliamentary campaigner on the Bill for the Standing Committee for Youth Justice.

The paper finds that there is little difference in the substance of the proposed and existing ASB measures for under-18s. The key change of note is that the new powers will be easier and quicker to obtain, which is likely to be particularly counterproductive for children and young people.

This paper will be valuable to practitioners seeking to understand the new ASB proposals and their likely implications for practice and society.

This article considers the use of Asbos as a response to problematic behaviour exhibited by children and young people under the age of 18 years. Drawing on research conducted on behalf of the Youth Justice Board, it suggests that the perceptions of key professionals involved in the Asbo process may have a greater impact on their use than the level of anti‐social behaviour in an area.

Anti‐social behaviour orders (ASBOs) are increasingly used against young people. This article argues that their offending behaviour frequently masks a catalogue of individual and material disadvantage of which the behaviour may be a consequence. The criminal consequences of a breach of an ASBO only serve to exacerbate the disadvantage.