Search results

Anti‐social behaviour remains high on local and national policy agendas, and is a major area of concern for policy makers, local authorities, housing providers and communities. The Shelter Inclusion Project was set up in Rochdale in 2002 to develop an innovative model of floating support for households that are having difficulty complying with their tenancy agreements because of reported anti‐social behaviour, or who are homeless as a result. The three‐year pilot project (October 2002 to October 2005) is being evaluated by the Centre for Housing Policy, University of York. Interim findings (at September 2004) suggest that the project has made a positive impact on addressing anti‐social behaviour for its service users; most people are still in their same tenancy and anti‐social behaviour actions have ceased for those leaving the service.

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.

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 further the understanding of experiences of anti-social behaviour in LGBTIQ+ youth in university settings.

The discussion reflects on qualitative interviews with LGBTIQ+ young people studying at university (n=16) exploring their experiences of anti-social behaviour including harassment, bullying and victimisation in tertiary settings.

The findings demonstrate that attention should be paid to the complex nature of anti-social behaviour. In particular, LGBTIQ+ youth documented experiences of microaggressions perpetrated by other members of the LGBTIQ+ community. Using the taxonomy of anti-social behaviour against LGBTIQ+ people developed by Nadal et al. (2010, 2011), the authors build on literature that understands microaggressions against LGBTIQ+ people as a result of heterosexism, to address previously unexplored microaggressions perpetrated by other LGBTIQ+ people.

Future research could seek a larger sample of participants from a range of universities, as campus climate may influence the experiences and microaggressions perpetrated.

Individuals within the LGBTIQ+ community also perpetrate microaggressions against LGBTIQ+ people, including individuals with the same sexual orientation and gender identity as the victim. Those seeking to respond to microaggressions need to attune their attention to this source of anti-social behaviour.

Previous research has focused on microaggressions and hate crimes perpetrated by non-LGBTIQ+ individuals. This research indicates the existence of microaggressions perpetrated by LGBTIQ+ community members against other LGBTIQ+ persons. The theoretical taxonomy of sexual orientation and transgender microaggressions is expanded to address LGBTIQ+ perpetrated anti-social behaviour.

In an analysis of the recent White Paper Respect and Responsibility ‐ Taking a Stand Against Anti‐Social Behaviour, the author argues that anti‐social behaviour lacks an effective definition and that little theoretical rigour is contained in the document. Its main concern is with the marginalised members of the population but at the same time it offers little possibility of constructive interventions.

The author is a newly appointed Anti‐Social Behaviour Reduction Officer. He outlines his role and the use of anti‐social behaviour contracts. The appointment of a specialist officer has meant that the provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act have been implemented in the area for the first time. Attempts are also being initiated to implement schemes that may prevent such behaviour in the first place.

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.

To explore the way in which responses to urban disorder have become part of the anti-social behaviour (ASB herein) toolkit following the 2011 disorders in England. In particular, the purpose of this paper is to unpack the government’s response to the riots through the use of eviction. It is argued that the boundaries of what constitutes ASB, and the geographical scope of the new powers, are being expanded resulting in a more pronounced unevenness of behaviour-control mechanisms being deployed across the housing tenures.

Using a qualitative research design, 30 in-depth interviews were undertaken with housing, ASB, and local police officers alongside a number of other practitioners working in related fields. These practitioners were based in communities across east London, the West Midlands and Greater Manchester. This was augmented with a desk-based analysis of key responses and reports from significant official bodies, third sector and housing organisations.

Findings from the research show that responses to the 2011 riots through housing and ASB-related mechanisms were disproportionate, resulting in a rarely occurring phenomenon being unnecessarily overinflated. This paper demonstrates, through the lens of the 2011 riots specifically, how the definition of ASB continues to be expanded, rather than concentrated, causing noticeable conflicts within governmental approaches to ASB post-2011.

This research was undertaken as part of a PhD study and therefore constrained by financial and time implications. Another limitation is that the “riot-clause” being considered here has not yet been adopted in practice. Despite an element of supposition, understanding how the relevant authorities may use this power in the future is important nonetheless.

Much effort was expended by scholars to analyse the causes of the 2011 riots in an attempt to understand why people rioted and what this says about today’s society more broadly. Yet very little attention has been focused on particular legislative responses, such as the additional riot clause enacted through the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. This paper focuses on this particular response to explore more recent ways in which people face being criminalised through an expansion of behaviour defined as ASB.

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.

Alley gating schemes have been given impetus by government funding. A simple causal relationship is assumed by the presence of the gates and a reduction in crime and disorder. The post‐implementation research discussed in this article shows that implementation and installation decisions may have unintended consequences for the displacement of problems and the creation of new signal crimes in areas subject to alley gating.