Danielle Hoskinson - 05006349 2,500 words
'Critically discuss government policies for tackling the areas of youth nuisance.'
Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) were introduced in 1999 as a way of tackling youth nuisance following the introduction of The Crime and Disorder Act in 1998. The Home Office (1997) refer to this as a 'community safety order'. The government recommended this order to be applied to youth aged over ten who became a nuisance to communities and displayed anti- social behaviour.
The first two years found that local authorities and the police were reluctant to try out the order in areas. The Home Office reports on the three most common offences which received ASBOs in the first two years, these were verbal abuse, threats and harassment. The report suggests that some areas were under the impression that ASBOs did not work and therefore did not apply for them. A main reason for this thought was that the number of youths breaching ASBOs and appealing against them slowed the process down. As a result of this decline in social confidence towards tackling youth nuisance, the government introduced a new action plan which promotes the use of ASBOs.
To examine whether Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) and Acceptable Behaviour Contracts (ABCs) are effective, we must firstly have a look at the statistics available for scrutiny.
The Home Office website reports that out of the 12,675 ASBOs issued at all courts in the UK between April 1999 and December 2006, 5,110 of these were issued to youths (aged 10-17 years). There were a further 287 ASBOs issued to persons of 'unknown age'. The youth stats alone account for 40% of the ASBOs issued in the seven and a half years.
The Home Office claims that the goals of taking action against anti-social behaviour and issuing ASBO's is to 'protect victims, witnesses and the community, enable the perpetrator to understand the consequences of their behaviour and make sure the perpetrator changes their behaviour. The Home Office also suggests that most types of anti-social behaviour fit into at least one of the following categories: 'street problems, nuisance neighbours or environmental crime.'
The Home Office gives three examples of cases where ASBOs have worked effectively in areas. However, The National Audit Office (NAO) Report examines the work of the Home Office and considers the progress made. In the overall conclusion of the report the NAO found that the majority of people who received an anti-social behaviour intervention did not re-engage in antisocial behaviour. Areas of success also include a reduction in the amount of people perceiving high levels of anti-social behaviour (reducing from 21% 2002-03 to 17% by 2005-06) However Contracts were less effective with people aged under 18 where just over 60% displayed further anti-social behaviour. The NAO suggest this outcome could be due to 'a failure to engage the young person sufficiently in forming a contract and to support them, for example in disengaging from the society of certain of their peers.' The findings conclude that just over half of the sample cases breached their ASBOs, with a third of this group doing so on five or more occasions. Although it is not stated on the summary how many cases were subjected to being part of the sample audit, we can see that this is an extremely high amount of cases which are being breached and must consider the effectiveness of behaviour orders.
Following the report recommendations were made to assist in effective use of orders, some of which were: more efficient case management systems, providing targeted support, making training available to staff and case managers and to work alongside other organisations to implement action plans.
There has been a substantial increase in the number of ASBOs issued over the last nine years. The Home Office suggests that the last twelve months have showed a particular increase and interest in ASBOs issued - sending out a clear message to those who wish to participate in such deviant and criminal ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
Following the report recommendations were made to assist in effective use of orders, some of which were: more efficient case management systems, providing targeted support, making training available to staff and case managers and to work alongside other organisations to implement action plans.
There has been a substantial increase in the number of ASBOs issued over the last nine years. The Home Office suggests that the last twelve months have showed a particular increase and interest in ASBOs issued - sending out a clear message to those who wish to participate in such deviant and criminal acts.
Although there has been an increase in the number of ASBOs being issued we must consider that the reason could be that more youths are being targeted by the government and local authorities. Morgan (2006) suggests that the ASBO route is possibly being used to fast track youths into prison - as they are issued knowing that they will be breached and the youth has a higher chance of being sanctioned with a custodial sentence if they have previous offences. Morgan continues to discuss the ASBO conditions which are ongoing for several years - causing youths to breach the orders more easily. It is then easier to make a case against a youth who has a previous record than no record.
Other government policies include that of the Youth Offending Team (YOT) and its involvement through referrals from the Youth Offending Panel (YOP). Following the introduction of such programmes, the National Audit Office (2004) suggests that the reconviction rates for young offenders had fallen and juveniles were more likely to make amends for their wrong doings.
Anti Social Behaviour Policies have been open to much criticism, this is due to the ease of instructing such an order, the wide range of behaviours which are disallowed and the consequences of when someone breaches an ASBO.
Millie et al (2005) suggests that the governments Anti Social Behaviour programmes are reinforcing declining in standards which are subsequently focused on young people. Morgan & Newburn (2007), as cited in Morgan & Reiner (2007) also criticise the use of ASBOs and suggest that they are not used appropriately as the lower tier levels of prevention which should be followed are not being met. For example, prior to an ASBO being issued there should be warning letters, home visits and ABCs agreed - although they suggest that this is not always the case.
It can be argued that the ASBO culture represents a major impact on communities. As the ASBO handouts are given by professionals only and so communities have less involvement in the process and decision making of what happens to the youths in their communities. This suggests that the role of the adults within a community is that they are only to observe and record the behaviour of the young people. It can be argued that young people who come from disadvantaged communities are being penalized by the court system and the authority of the professionals as they are subjected to invasion controls and often sent to custody for what was previously seen as a minor act of misbehaviour. In the past youth work was perceived by young people to be a participation of fun, learning and sports but can now arguably be seen as a punishment which does not address their needs - more so follows the government's agenda.
It can therefore be argued that the ASBO agenda is not meeting the needs of young people as they no longer have any contribution to the community, but rather, are seen as deviants who need controlling within communities. There appears to be no understanding of the needs of these young people and an approach to look at the baseline factors which are driving young people towards anti-social behaviour with a view to identifying some preventative programmes may be more appropriate. It can be argued that ASBOs derived from a control order than anything else, as they cannot be seen as a punishment as they have no redeeming factors - such as prisoners are rewarded for good behaviour, ASBO owners are not rewarded for acts of good behaviour. It may also be argued that as a result of such ignorance to young people's needs, that society is strictly ignoring young people and choosing to exclude them from communities, rather than engage them and identify ways of involving them to be a part of their community.
Young people can be seen as one of the most vulnerable groups in society, although it is always those who are subjected to anti-social behaviour who are portrayed and accepted as the victims. Although there should be a duty of care to perceive the young people as victims also, as anti-social behaviour can be a cry for help and not a direct intention of deviance.
An article in The Guardian (2005) suggests that only around 3% of ASBO applications have been rejected. Arguments also include the assumption that such name badges are criminalizing young people, although opposite to this is the assumption that young people approve of an ASBO and favour other young people who have received one.
The Home Office lists other approaches to youth nuisance, which include warning letters and interview, contracts and agreements, fixed penalty notices, parenting orders, individual support orders, noise abatement notices and injunctions.
Although we have seen many criticisms to the governments approach to tackling youth nuisance through ASBOs, we must also consider some approaches which have received positive comments. For example, there are sports based activities and programmes in place which tackle the likes of youth vandalism - it is recorded by The Home Office that these are enjoyable means of increasing self confidence and interpersonal skills 'in a manner that is widely accessible'. However, The Home Office does stress that such an approach should not be seen as rewarding those who behave in a nuisance manner, but rather as a way of building relationships with young people and allowing them to see for themselves the consequences such deviant acts can have and alternatives to participating in anti-social behaviour. Although this is seen as a good initiative for deterring young people from getting involved in anti-social behaviour and then possibly escalating into criminal activities, we must consider that these opportunities are not available all year round and whenever a young person feels they need to be distracted. They are also often only run in certain areas and times, which may involve the young person having to travel or unable to go that day. Such issues need to be addressed and such activities need to be available more often if it is believed that these would deter young people away from crime and into education/ learning.
Another key element to youth nuisance can be the idea of poor parenting - which can be described as including inconsistent discipline, poor supervision and often conflicts within the home.
Parenting programmes have also been established which aim to improve the skills of parents with a view to reducing the risk of poor parenting whilst also promoting and reinforcing family relationships.
Politicians have popularised a vocabulary of anti-social behaviour and developed a quasi-legal framework that encourage people to interpret certain kinds of behaviour in a particular way. There is little evidence that young people's behaviour has deteriorated over the years, but undoubtedly that behaviour has been experienced as increasingly problematic. In embracing what were previously considered to be trivial concerns best dealt with informally or even ignored, politicians have transformed the framework within which people make sense of their experiences. In particular, the notion that certain problems lie outside the remit of official intervention has given way to an expectation that something must be done. A variety of experiences ranging from minor irritations such as noisy children to serious incidents such as assaults are now brought together under the category of antisocial behaviour, with prescribed solutions involving the authorities. In that sense, the general problem of 'antisocial behaviour' has been politically constructed. The significance attributed to these local problems by politicians, and their determination to be seen to deal with them, is testament less to political cunning than to a lack of political imagination. There is in fact an implicit recognition that the issue has emerged in the context of declining communities and social atomisation. Whether this had led to a significant increase in nuisance behaviour or has simply left people feeling more vulnerable and less able to check such behaviour is a moot point. What is striking, however, is that the political elite has no idea how to go about counteracting atomisation and cohering society, beyond simply targetting its most obvious manifestations. More thoughtful advocates of ASBOs and other, similar civil orders will acknowledge that these are a poor substitute for genuine civility or community. The question is whether they are better than nothing, or indeed, for some, like Frank Field, a step towards generating those things. With political parties increasingly unable to develop radical new social or economic policies in an age dominated by Margaret Thatcher's dictum 'there is no alternative', the focus of politics has shifted to the everyday.
http://www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk/asbos/asbos2.htm
21st October 2008 1349hrs
http://www.respect.gov.uk/article.aspx?id=9066
21st October 2008 1419hrs
http://www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk/asbos/asbos011.htm
21st October 2008 1503hrs
Home Office (1997) Getting to grips with crime\; A new framework for local action, London, Home Office
Morgan, R & Newburn, T (2007) Youth Justice in Maguire, M, Morgan, R & Reiner R The Oxford Handbook of Criminology 4th Edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press
Morgan, R (2006) New labours dominance of the law and order agenda: Oxford University Press
National Audit Office (2004) The Management of Sickness Absence in the Prison Service, London: National Audit Office
A Triumph of hearsay and hysteria - 5th April 2005, The Guardian
