Independent Working Group on Antisocial Behaviour: review report

Current understanding of Antisocial Behaviour from data and research evidence

Challenges in measuring prevalence of Antisocial Behaviour

There are major difficulties in measuring the prevalence of antisocial behaviour. The meaning of antisocial as defined in legislation is ambiguous (see also below). The statutory definition of ‘behaviour that causes or is likely to cause alarm and distress’ is open to wide interpretation and meaning will vary according to levels of tolerance, individual experience and the perceived vulnerability of those who are exposed to it. The definition can encompass low level forms of behaviour such as littering as well as activity which would be regarded as criminal such as vandalism, graffiti and more. This blurring of categories, including non-criminal and criminal behaviours, has implications for the rights of those accused of antisocial behaviour as well as victims, it also has implications for researching antisocial behaviour, given that it encompasses such a wide range of behaviours which may have many different causal pathways.

There are inconsistencies across data sources about how antisocial behaviour is measured - as for example between Police Recorded Crime (PRC) and the Scottish Crime and Justice Survey (SCJS). And ways of recording have varied over time in some data sources, making it difficult to measure trends. It should be noted that PRC can only include what is reported to the Police, and data from the SCJS show consistently high levels of under-reporting across a range of crime types. If trust and confidence in the Police is low this too can lead to under-reporting^[7]. Importantly there is a dearth of data on civil actions related to antisocial behaviour, particularly at the national level. Given that antisocial behaviour is often concentrated in certain areas (most especially areas of multiple deprivation experiencing high levels of social stress), aggregate data at a national level is likely to underplay its local impact. Aggregate data also does not always capture the intensity of how antisocial behaviour is experienced, especially amongst those who are repeat victims.

The data reviewed below, therefore, require to be interpreted with caution.

What do we know about prevalence of reported antisocial behaviour from the available data?

The overall trends suggest that most forms of antisocial behaviour, that are reported, are at best falling or stable as measured variously by PRC data, SCJS and the Scottish Household Survey (SHS); and self-report studies (Growing Up in Scotland and the Edinburgh Study of Youth Transitions and Crime). The main exception is antisocial behaviour associated with drugs (misuse or selling) in the SHS^[8]. This Survey also showed a slight uptick in all forms of antisocial behaviour recorded during the period of Covid-19.

PRC statistics now group four offences under the category of ‘antisocial’: threatening and abusive behaviour; drunkenness and other disorderly conduct; urinating etc; and racially aggravated conduct^[9].These offences separately, and when taken together, exhibit a marked downward trajectory over time (there has been a 62% reduction since 2012/13 in total number of antisocial offences, with a 38% reduction in the most commonly recorded form - threatening and abusive behaviour - Figure 1).

The SCJS highlights a 22% decrease over the period 2012/13 in the number of those reporting that people behaving in an antisocial manner in public was common or very common; however victimisation from harassment and abuse (which corresponds to some interpretations of antisocial behaviour) rose over the start of this period and has been roughly stable since (Figure 2). The overwhelming majority of those reporting victimisation experienced verbal abuse (over four-fifths in every year). Threats of violence, and vandalism to property were much less commonly reported (Figure 3).

The SHS includes four types of antisocial behaviour: damage (vandalism, graffiti or damage to property); harassment (groups or individuals harassing others); drugs (misuse or dealing); and rowdy behaviour (drunkenness, hooliganism or loutish behaviour). The number of respondents reporting that these forms of behaviour are common or very common in their neighbourhood is relatively low (in the most recent survey only 15% of respondents reported that drugs was a common or very common problem, and this was the highest of all reported antisocial behaviours that year). Moreover, in keeping with the SCJS, the overall trends for damage, harassment and rowdy behaviour are down, albeit with an uptick over the Covid-19 lockdown period (see below). By contrast antisocial behaviour associated with drug misuse or selling exhibits a rising trend (25% rise over time since 2005) (Figure 4).

Self-report studies also show falling levels of offences associated with antisocial behaviour over time. The Growing Up in Scotland (GUS) study included nine questions on offending from the Edinburgh Study of Youth Transitions and Crime (ESYTC) enabling a comparison of self-reported offending for two cohorts born approximately twenty years apart. Comparing self-reported prevalence across the nine offence types, Figure 5 shows that over 70% of the Edinburgh Study cohort^[10] self-reported involvement in any offence at age 12 (ever) and 14 (in the last year) in contrast to around 30% of the GUS cohort at those ages. The same pattern is evident across all offence types, including graffiti/spray painting, being rowdy or rude in public, and vandalism and damage^[11].

Source data: Scottish Crime and Justice Survey - gov.scot

Source data: Scottish Crime and Justice Survey - gov.scot

Source: McAra, L. and McVie, S. (2025 in press), A quiet revolution: What worked to create a ‘Whole System Approach’ to juvenile justice in Scotland - University of Edinburgh Research Explorer, in C. M. Langton & J. R. Worling (Eds.), What Works with Adolescents Who Have Offended: Theory, Research, and Practice by Calvin M. Langton (9781119591047) | BooksDirect. Wiley Blackwell.

What are the most common disposals used for those committing antisocial behaviour?

As highlighted above, there is limited data on civil actions related to antisocial behaviour and so what is known about the use of disposals at a national level, stems mostly from criminal justice statistics. In keeping with the decline in police recorded antisocial behaviour there has been a corresponding decline in the number of antisocial behaviour fixed penalty notices (ASB FPNs) issued over time: a 90% reduction since 2012/13. However, ASB FPNs are not the only non-court disposals available. Indeed in 2021/22, they only made up 35% of such disposals. Police formal warnings for antisocial behaviour made up just under half of all non-court disposals, with just under a fifth (17%) involving a fiscal fine^[12].

Convictions for designated antisocial behaviour offences (threatening and abusive behaviour; drunkenness and other disorderly conduct; urinating etc; and racially aggravated conduct) have also decreased over time - declining in total by 32% since 2012/13, albeit with an uptick in the last year for which published data is available (from 6,893 to 9,136). In 2021/22, the most common form of court disposal for ASB related offences was a fine (33% of all antisocial behaviour disposals), followed by a Community Payback Order (21%), with imprisonment (including Youth Offenders’ Institutions) making up 12% of all disposals^[13].

What do we know about the age of those involved in antisocial behaviour?

There is little systematic data collected on the age profile of those committing antisocial behaviour. Whilst it is often assumed that antisocial behaviour is the province of young people, the available data tells a different story.

The most recently published Criminal Proceedings Statistics (2021/22)^[14] show that two thirds of those convicted in the criminal courts for antisocial behaviour related offences were over age 30 (either in the 31-40 or over 40 age groups), with those under age 21 making up only 6% of convictions. The most common age for police formal warnings was over 40 and for ASB FPNs between the age of 21 and 30.

Source data: Criminal proceedings in Scotland statistics - gov.scot

What do we know from research about the causes and contexts of antisocial behaviour?

Given the wide variety of behaviours that the term antisocial behaviour has been applied to, it is unsurprising that there is not one simple causal pathway. Taken together the Scottish and international research demonstrates that such pathways are, rather, multi-level and complex, encompassing structural, situational and individual level factors. It should be noted that there is an overlap in terms of those involved in antisocial behaviour and other forms of offending, with similar proximal and distal causes in the early teenage years (with implications for policy, see below). As the definition of antisocial is linked to actual or likely alarm and distress in those experiencing or witnessing specific behaviours, understanding more about factors which cause people to fear certain situations or behaviours, and what drives levels of tolerance or intolerance would also benefit from investigation.

Edinburgh Study data shows that around a third of those in the cohort who were involved in antisocial behaviour as an adult (reporting being rowdy/rude in public; vandalism/damage or graffiti/spray painting) were also involved in more serious forms of offending including violence^[15]. And a high proportion (66%) of those reporting involvement in antisocial behaviour in adulthood had also been involved in antisocial behaviour as teenagers. Such behaviours in the teenage years were predicted by: early trauma and experience of victimisation; high levels of conflict with, and low levels of monitoring by, caregivers; truancy from school; and use of drugs and alcohol. These findings find support in the wider literature regarding substance misuse and school antisocial behaviour (from truancy and/or exclusion) (see A Review of Antisocial Behaviour in Scotland - Data Survey and Literature Review for further details).

The conspectus of research included in the report commissioned by the Independent Working Group (see A Review of Antisocial Behaviour in Scotland - Data Survey and Literature Review), highlights poverty as a critical backdrop to antisocial behaviour. This is backed up by victim surveys which have consistently shown that those reporting antisocial behaviour as common within their neighbourhood are disproportionately from areas of multiple deprivation^[16]. Research has found that housing management policies are a contributing factor, with many of those clustered in social housing, being from the poorest sections of the community, with disproportionally high levels of family stress and mental health problems. Under such conditions, nuisance neighbours and neighbourhood disputes are more likely^[17]. However, research also shows that residential turnover is linked to increased risk of offending, both antisocial behaviour and more serious forms of offending. And that areas with the greatest residential stability are more likely to be able to mobilise to tackle such offending^[18].

Mental health problems are strongly associated with perpetration of many behaviours designated as ‘antisocial’ (for details and further references see our commissioned report): and there is some evidence that this may be a growing problem. Research on adolescent mental health during lockdown, commissioned by the Chief Scientist Office^[19], found that around 13% of those surveyed were on or over the clinical threshold for depression and anxiety, rates which are significantly higher than the pre-pandemic national average (in Scotland) for this age group. Around one in three (29%) of the sample also met the clinical threshold for avoidance and intrusive thoughts - the measure here is a screening measure for post-traumatic stress disorder. Rates were found to be particularly high amongst those already vulnerable pre-pandemic, in terms of both mental health problems and family context. Edinburgh Study data also highlights the worsening of mental health conditions linked to pandemic lockdowns in the adult population - with just under half of those who were on or over the clinical threshold for depression, and a third of those on or over the clinical threshold from anxiety, reporting that their condition had worsened^[20].

What do we know from academic research about what works in tackling antisocial behaviour?

Developing a specific Antisocial Behaviour Strategy is challenging given the definitional issues outlined above and given the overlaps with other forms of offending behaviour. Research however does give some indicators about the characteristics of policy and programmes likely to be effective in reducing associated behaviours, including what doesn’t work. As indicated in the research, successful policy would require both long term investment to tackle the underlying causes of behaviours designated as antisocial behaviour, through preventative work, as well as investment in ‘situational’ initiatives designed to tackle antisocial behaviour that is currently concentrated in specific neighbourhoods.

(i) What doesn’t work

There is strong evidence from research that approaches which are purely punitive and deterrent in orientation (involving no support for those causing antisocial behaviour) are not effective in reducing antisocial behaviour, in the case of both young people as well as adults, and indeed may be counterproductive (increasing rather than reducing antisocial behaviour)^[21]. With regard to young people, the 2004 antisocial behaviour legislation in Scotland was implemented during a particularly punitive phase of youth justice, in a context in which there were efforts to reduce persistent offending, through the use of fast-tracking children’s hearings. Enforcement was a principal driver with the introduction of Antisocial Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) for 12 to 15 year olds, dispersal orders, and parenting orders. A failure of implementation meant that only around 15 ASBOs for younger children aged 12-15 years old were ever made (at the time of this report) and no parenting orders. The wider policy frame led to an increase, not a decrease in the number of persistent offenders (by 15%)^[22], as well as increases in referrals to the Reporter, criminal convictions for 16 and 17 year olds and use of custody for older children^[23].

(ii) What works

Early and effective intervention to support children and families: almost all the research literature, including large scale systematic reviews, highlights the critical importance of early intervention. Such approaches can be politically challenging to sustain given that success will only be measurable over the longer term and not across more short term electoral cycles. There is strong evidence from Scotland, that investment in early and effective intervention and in diversion - through the Whole System Approach - has resulted in major reductions in youth offending as measured by reductions in offence referrals to the Reporter (by 89% from their peak in 2005/06), major reductions in criminal convictions for older children (by 93% since their peak in 2006/07), and receptions to custody for 16 and 17 year olds (reducing by 98% over the same time frame, with youth imprisonment now abolished for this age group through the Care and Justice (Scotland) Act 2024))^[24].

Situational intervention and outreach: research highlights the role of increasing opportunities and outreach programmes for children and young people living under stress, as efficacious in reducing antisocial behaviour^[25]. The report commissioned by the Working Group sets out a range of such prevention initiatives (see A Review of Antisocial Behaviour in Scotland - Data Survey and Literature Review). These include projects aimed at increasing opportunities for young people both in terms of employability and access to leisure (such as sports facilities and swimming pools); developing safe spaces for young people to go; and education programmes on the impacts of behaviours. The projects are scattered across Scotland and the wider UK, and dependent on availability of resource - provided in some cases by the retail sector, charities, and local authorities. There is, however, a need for a more robust evidence-base about the outcomes of some of these types of programmes, particularly given that there is no overriding strategic thinking about services which have evolved in a particular locale, and, given the mix of funding streams, there is no guarantee that such services can be sustained over the medium to longer term.

Environmental intervention: in addition to activities and outreach, there is a long history of research on situational crime prevention, demonstrating that adjustments to the local environment can reduce the risks of antisocial behaviour and crime more generally and enhance feelings of safety for the community. Where there is a perception that a place is safe it can increase the number of law-abiding members of the community who use the space, increasing the capacity for ‘capable guardianship’, which in turn makes the space safer^[26]. Urban design, good street lighting, removal of graffiti all can help. Contextual safeguarding is one specific variation of situational crime prevention which shows promise, setting environmental intervention within a child protection as well as a public health, trauma informed framework - important when also dealing with adults involved in antisocial behaviour (see our commissioned report for further details).

Housing management and mobilising the ‘collective efficacy’ of communities: as highlighted above, hotspots where antisocial behaviour is rife include some of the most disadvantaged neighbourhoods, with high population turnover, and low attachment to the neighbourhood. Collective efficacy occurs when there is community mobilisation to tackle disorganisation and neglect and to support community action aimed at inclusion^[27]. Programmes which aim to build collective efficacy have been shown by research to reduce crime and antisocial behaviour in the locale and to increase feelings of safety^[28].

Wh at did we learn from the survey commissioned by the Working Group?

As highlighted above, a survey formed a key element of the report that was commissioned by the Independent Working Group. The aim of the Qualtrics survey was to explore current perceptions and experience of antisocial behaviour amongst a range of stakeholders. It should be noted that more responses to the survey were received from organisations that worked with people who were experiencing antisocial behaviour than those who were causing antisocial behaviour and the findings require to be interpreted in that light.

Three key areas of impact were noted:

• Impact on the Workforce: A high number of responses (including from the transport and retail sectors) highlighted the negative impacts of antisocial behaviour on staff including their experience of verbal abuse, threatening behaviour and physical assault, with concerns that this could create challenges for staff retention and recruitment.
• Impact on the Community: Community-based impacts were referenced across many responses - antisocial behaviour was reported as generating fear within communities, with terms such as being ‘scared’ and ‘nervous’ commonly used in answers to the open questions. Concerns were expressed about the potential impact on community cohesion and quality of life for residents; a particular concern was about the neighbourhood reputation and the ways in which negative perceptions could be perpetuated. The findings suggest that the impacts on community risk creating a self-fulfilling prophecy: in a context where young people do not feel safe, this may encourage them to take action to protect themselves, thus amplifying the potential for antisocial behaviour.
• Impact on Commerce: The negative impacts that antisocial behaviour possesses for ‘commerce’ was a further key theme identified - most responses referenced how customers’ or service users’ experiences could be adversely affected by antisocial behaviour, causing them to feel ‘unsafe’, ‘wary’ and ‘fearful’, and ultimately, resulting in them avoiding retail destinations or refraining from using services like public transport.

Concerning approaches to preventing antisocial behaviour, most qualitative responses converged on the following key themes: the role of multi-agency and partnership working; the use of surveillance and monitoring; education inputs; and training.

A key theme concerned a lack of resources and the need for greater funding to prevent and tackle antisocial behaviour, with attention being given to ‘budget and resource challenges’, there being ‘not enough staff in each relevant organisation’, and a lack of investment in public services ‘to address growing mental health concerns’.

Certain responses also highlighted that preventing and tackling antisocial behaviour would benefit from a more joined-up approach, including better communication and information sharing between agencies. Whilst other responses referenced the need to address poverty and deprivation as underlying or root factors leading to antisocial behaviour.

Importantly, the findings from the survey were largely confirmed by the stakeholder engagement undertaken by the Working Group and which are reported in more detail below.

Conclusions

The following conclusions flow from the review of data and research on the prevalence, causes and contexts of antisocial behaviour and what works in reducing it:

• There is a need for more systematic data collection around an agreed set of behaviours designated as antisocial behaviour, including key demographics relating to perpetrators and victims.
• Investment to facilitate data sharing between agencies would be of benefit, to enable tracking of cases through systems, and in support of better prevention models.
• Learning from, and continuing to invest in, the major success of recent policy related to youth crime (given the crossover between antisocial behaviour and other offending behaviours) would be important given that the whole system approach (encompassing diversion and early and effective intervention) has contributed to major reductions in offence, referrals to the reporter, criminal convictions in the courts for 16 and 17 year olds and the lowest rates of custody for 16 to 21 year olds in over half a century.
• It is critical to invest in availability of mental health and substance misuse services for children and adults which meet current and future demands.
• Research suggests the need for housing allocation policies that pre-emptively avoid potential conflicts by considering compatibility factors (e.g. known antisocial behaviour issues), ensuring that the needs of victims and affected communities are prioritised while remaining mindful of fairness and avoiding discrimination.
• Consideration of the situational and environmental factors when developing policy responses is also critical: learning in particular from the literature on contextual safeguarding.
• There is a need to map existing prevention services across Scotland, review more strategically and assess sustainability in the context of the mix of funding streams - both third sector and from business as well as the statutory sector.