In the light of experience since 1998 does it appear that the Anti-Social Behaviour Order has had a significant impact in dealing with the problems which it was designed to tackle?

Many authorities, such as Flintshire, haven’t seen a need to utilise the ASBO with existing procedures effectively tackling anti-social behaviour. Practices including threats of eviction from council housing, the imposition of curfews, electronic tagging and the use of Acceptable Behaviour Contracts, have frequently been preferred to the ASBO. Prior to its introduction, ‘a recurrent theme in debate in Parliament was to question the need for the new provision,’ due to existing measures that were already being used effectively in tackling the problem. The continued use of these measures by many authorities, in preference to the ASBO, questions its impact in tackling cases of anti-social behaviour. On the other hand, in Flintshire the absence of an application was said to be a ‘measure of success,’ reflecting well on existing methods used to tackle anti-social behaviour rather than a rejection of the ASBO. 

        The impact of the ASBO again seems to have been weakened by the ‘excessively bureaucratic’ processes associated with its implementation. The 2002 Home Office report on the ASBO, lists as one of the main problems with the order, ‘unnecessary bureaucracy and red-tape associated with applying.’ This has been supported by evidence that on average it takes a total of ‘66 working days to get an order granted and nearly six out of 10 cases required three or more court hearings.’ This indicates a failure in attempts to meet the government objectives, which were designed so that ‘an application would go ahead on the first hearing and adjournments would be allowed only exceptionally.’ This vision that orders would be granted in a single hearing has been described as ‘naïve’ which gains much support from Home Office findings which state that there are ‘excessive delays at all stages of the application process.’ Excessive bureaucracy and the consequent delays must therefore be regarded as a key reason for the ASBO’s limited impact since its introduction in 1998.

        The apparently high cost of applying for an ASBO has also been given as an explanation for the inconsistent application of the order with reports suggesting the average cost of application being ‘£5,350.’ However the legitimacy of this argument has been questioned, as ‘much of the costs include the payment of staff…who would be completing this work anyway,’ a sentiment that was echoed in the 2002 Home Office report. This claim may not therefore be as well founded as many have argued and it has been suggested that the excuse is one that could be attributed to those authorities who have failed to effectively adjust to the new procedure.

The inconsistent implementation of the ASBO across the country doesn’t mean that the measure has not had a significant impact on this area of the law. Some authorities such as the West Midlands had applied for 92 ASBOs by June 2002, and have experienced much success with the measure. Additionally, recent figures indicate a sharp increase in ASBOs issued over the last two years, with some authorities making extensive use of the measure. In June 2000, it was stated that ‘over 70 ASBOs’ had been issued in comparison to the 654 reported by June 2002. This is indicative of the fact that initial teething problems are being overcome and local authorities are more comfortable with the application procedure. The statement by the Home Secretary supported this view as he announced that where they have been applied, ASBOs have been ‘strongly welcomed by the police, local authorities and the communities they are designed to protect.’ 

A close working relationship between local authorities, the police force and other partner agencies along with the construction of an effective protocol has been put forward as a crucial element necessary for the successful implementation of the ASBO. Where these have not occurred it has been suggested by Peter Wynne as one of the key reasons for a council’s failure to implement the measure. However, where a protocol does exist, in authorities like Wrexham, the ASBO is described as ‘a very useful tool’ in tackling such behaviour. Evidence shows that where applied, the order resulted in ‘a reduction in the anti-social behaviour targeted,’ and ‘improved (the) quality of life of the community.’ The author of the Home Office report, Siobhan Campbell, also commented that ‘the ASBO has managed to curb unruly behaviour and help rebuild the quality of life in the communities.’ However, despite this limited success, it is appreciated that more needs to be done so that ‘even more communities will see real benefit from using ASBOs.’ These sentiments were echoed by Frank Whiteley, Association of Police Officers, who after experiencing much success with the ASBO in Beswick, Manchester, described his approach to the measure as being ‘cautiously optimistic’ and this seems to be the general consensus amongst local authorities.

        It would be an exaggeration to state that the ASBO has been a success since its implementation in 1998, as its application has been varied and where applied it has not always had the desired effect, with breaches occurring and incidents of anti-social behaviour often continuing. However, the measure has by no means been a failure. Evidence shows that some authorities have made effective use of the measure which has consequently reduced cases of anti-social behaviour. Further to this, following moves to make the application procedure easier under the Police Reform Act 2002, statistics suggest that authorities are becoming more comfortable in implementing the ASBO, and as a result, it seems its impact in the future will be more significant than experienced in the first few years.

---