Dr Kirsty Cameron

Whilst antisocial behaviour has been in UK policy and practice since the 1990s, and has subsequently been subject to academic scrutiny and debate, little has been said about migrant and refugee experiences of antisocial behaviour victimisation. Whilst existing criminological and sociological research would indicate the likelihood of increased risk of antisocial and criminal behaviour for people from ethnic minority backgrounds, how migrants to the UK experience antisocial behaviour, and what responses are provided following victimisation, remains unclear. Working with charitable organisation Migration Yorkshire, this research explored how migrants, refugees, asylum seekers and other recently settled populations experience antisocial behaviour and the responses they receive from services. Qualitative research methods were used to engage with migrants, refugees and asylum seekers, as well as stakeholders working with these groups. Findings suggest migrants often experiences persistent antisocial behaviour, particularly racist and migration status targeted behaviours in the wider community and/or antisocial behaviour from service providers and professionals. There appears to be numerous barriers to reporting antisocial behaviour and, when reported, migrants often experienced poor service and racist attitudes. The impact of antisocial behaviour on migrants can be significant and longstanding, building on previous trauma and existing inequalities. This research can offer a first step towards improving responses to migrants who have experienced antisocial behaviour, and an exploration into how we might be able to reduce instances of antisocial behaviour for these groups.

Antisocial Behaviour (ASB) interventions, introduced in the 1990s, have been used by successive governments to manage, control and change the behaviour of certain populations, particularly those living within social housing. However, whilst initially subject to significant academic scrutiny, attention towards ASB and the related interventions have waned in recent decades. Based on research reported in the author’s upcoming chapter contribution to the Social Policy Review 36, this paper will explore the findings of a qualitative longitudinal research project into the experiences of alleged perpetrators of ASB, considering whether ASB interventions are effective at changing behaviour as intended. The study employed a theoretical framework of intersectional vulnerability to understand the impact of ASB interventions on alleged perpetrators behaviour and vulnerability. Findings suggested that ASB interventions may change behaviour in some instances, but not necessarily in a way that would prevent further ASB intervention. ASB interventions also appeared to exacerbate existing vulnerabilities or introduce new vulnerabilities to alleged perpetrators. Additionally, alleged perpetrators could be asked to change behaviours linked to vulnerabilities such as domestic abuse, mental ill-health and disability, but without access to support referrals or provision. The apparent focus of behaviour management, control and change appeared to result in vulnerabilities being ignored, side-lined or exacerbated during and following ASB intervention, increasing levels of hardship for alleged perpetrators and resulting in the most vulnerable being especially impacted by intervention processes.

Antisocial behaviour and vulnerability have become tied together in policy since the death of Fiona Pilkington and her daughter following sustained ASB, however, whilst there is acknowledgement that perpetrators of ASB may be vulnerable, they are still generally seen as at least partially responsible for their actions. Whilst women and girls are traditionally more likely to be viewed as vulnerable, when their behaviour is seen as challenging, the status of vulnerability may be removed by services in order to justify more punitive sanctions. This paper proposes a more nuanced understanding of vulnerability to explore women’s experiences of ASB intervention. Drawing on longitudinal, qualitative research with women living in social housing who are alleged to be engaged in ASB, this research finds women feel particularly judged and intimidated by their housing officers, are routinely punished for being victim of abuse and disability may be ignored and/or mental health exacerbated as a result of ASB interventions that do not appear to take into account vulnerability.

Antisocial behaviour (or ASB) interventions were designed to prevent, manage and punish behaviour with the capability of causing nuisance and annoyance, ranging from untidy gardens and noise nuisance to physical violence and drug dealing (Burney, 2005; Mackenzie et al, 2010). Whilst stakeholders arguably take a ‘what works’ approach to interventions (Brown, 2013), the impact of ASB interventions on alleged perpetrators themselves has been less explored in academic debate. Drawing on a theoretical framework of intersectional vulnerability to understand the content of qualitative longitudinal interviews with alleged perpetrators of ASB and contextual interviews with ASB professionals, it could be argued that ASB interventions may change behaviour, heighten vulnerability or sometimes result in both changed behaviour and heightened vulnerability. Perpetrators appear to routinely be asked to change behaviour linked to their vulnerability without support being provided alongside ASB intervention. Additionally, tenants’ vulnerability can be heightened by changing their behaviour as required, with alleged perpetrators facing a difficult choice between making the changes required by their housing provider to prevent further ASB interventions and subsequently increasing their vulnerability or not changing their behaviour and risking further ASB intervention, potentially impacting their housing security. Overall, it appears the focus on behaviour change through ASB interventions reported by housing providers and tenants, rather than a nuanced understanding of vulnerability and subsequent support provision (alongside ASB intervention if necessary) can heighten vulnerability for already vulnerable tenants and asks them to make impossible choices where all outcomes could lead to increased hardship for them and their households.

For several years, successive UK governments have vowed to crack down on antisocial behaviour, and with an election likely next year, the current Conservative Government has pledged to take fresh action; but as Leeds Beckett Criminology Lecturer Kirsty-Louise Cameron points out, with vague and often differing definitions of what antisocial behaviour is, some people could find themselves facing eviction and even prosecution for actions many would consider acceptable.

Antisocial behaviour interventions, first introduced to the UK in the 1990s, have become an accepted part of the policy and practice landscape in relation to social housing provision. However, since their introduction, social housing provision has experienced further residualisation, with austerity policies particularly impacting social housing tenants and providers, significantly reducing their incomes alongside cuts to other publicly provided support services. Whilst antisocial behaviour was subject to academic and media scrutiny in the 1990s and 2000s, little research has been conducted in recent years to evaluate the impact and effectiveness of these interventions in relation to changing behaviour and supporting tenants. Additionally, focus of previous research has (to a large extent) been focused on housing professional and complainant of antisocial behaviour viewpoints, with little opportunity offered to alleged perpetrators of antisocial behaviour to report their own experiences of antisocial behaviour intervention. This paper offers findings from a qualitative, longitudinal research project undertaken with alleged perpetrators of antisocial behaviour living within social housing. The research sought to evaluate the effectiveness of antisocial behaviour interventions at changing behaviour alongside the wider impact these interventions had on the tenant themselves. Findings suggest a significantly detrimental impact of these interventions on health, wellbeing, and tenants’ feelings of being ‘at home’ in their social housing property alongside little evidence of successfully changing behaviour as required by the social housing provider.

The term antisocial behaviour (ASB) was introduced into policy in the 1990s by the New Labour government. Defined as behaviour that causes or is capable of causing nuisance, annoyance, alarm or distress, New Labour and the subsequent Coalition and Conservative administrations introduced numerous measures to control antisocial behaviour, with responses ranging from a warning letter or mediation to legal action and eviction. Whilst ASB is apparently tenure-neutral, social housing is repeatedly used as an arena to roll-out ASB interventions with providers frequently accepting management of ASB complaints as one of their key responsibilities. Despite much previous research on antisocial behaviour from the point of view of victims or services responding to it, research from the perspective of alleged perpetrators, has been limited. This paper presents findings from a doctoral research project into the views of social housing tenants who are allegedly engaged in ASB which sought to answer the following research questions: • How do social housing tenants subject to antisocial behaviour (ASB) interventions define and perceive antisocial behaviour, in relation to themselves and others? • How are ASB interventions perceived by those alleged to be engaged in ASB and does this change over time? • To what extent are they impacted, or their behaviour changed, by these interventions and how does this change over time? Qualitative, longitudinal interviews were undertaken with 15 social housing tenants, with interviews with 4 Key Informants within social housing providers to provide context for the study. This paper will focus on exploring how ASB interventions are perceived and experienced by those alleged to be engaged in ASB and how (if at all) this changes over time.

The term antisocial behaviour (ASB) was introduced into policy in the 1990s by the New Labour government who reported there was an enforcement gap, leading to residents on some estates suffering from abuse, disorder and intimidation. Defined as behaviour causing nuisance, annoyance, alarm or distress New Labour and the subsequent Coalition and Conservative administrations introduced numerous measures to control antisocial behaviour; with responses ranging from a warning letter or mediation to legal action and eviction, resulting in exclusion from future social housing tenancies. Whilst ASB is apparently tenure-neutral, it is arguably easier to enforce ASB legislation on the marginalised population found within social housing than those living as private occupiers. It is therefore social landlords who are repeatedly used to roll-out punitive ASB interventions and providers are consequently heavily involved in ASB management. Despite much previous research on antisocial behaviour from the point of view of victims or services responding to it, research from the perspective of alleged perpetrators has been limited. Utilising a multi-method toolkit approach, including visual methods, diaries and longitudinal qualitative interviews with twenty social housing tenants who are allegedly engaged in ASB and qualitative interviews with five key informants, sector experts on ASB, this paper presents emerging analysis from ongoing doctoral research to explore three key research questions: • How do social housing tenants subject to antisocial behaviour interventions define and perceive antisocial behaviour, in relation to themselves and others? • How are ASB interventions perceived by alleged perpetrators? • What impacts do ASB interventions have on alleged perpetrators?

Affordable housing across the globe appears to be becoming harder to access, with social housing stocks depleting and facing decades of residualisation and funding cuts in many countries. Landlords managing these properties have always enacted social control mechanisms on their tenants through tenancy agreements, but control and punishment of behaviour perceived as antisocial has arguably increased in recent decades. Those alleged to be engaged in nuisance behaviour often have multiple, overlapping vulnerabilities, including mental ill-health, disability, addictions or poverty, and frequently have unmet support needs. This paper is drawn from ongoing doctoral research into the impact of interventions used to change or control the behaviour of social housing tenants allegedly engaged in nuisance behaviour. Qualitative longitudinal interviews are currently being undertaken with allegedly antisocial tenants of social housing, alongside qualitative interviews with Key Informants working in the sector to answer the following research questions: • How do social housing tenants subject to antisocial behaviour (ASB) interventions define and perceive antisocial behaviour, in relation to themselves and others? • How are ASB interventions perceived by those alleged to be engaged in ASB and does this change over time? • To what extent are they impacted, or their behaviour changed, by these interventions and how does this change over time? The focus of this paper is to explore how these interventions take into account (or side-line) the unmet support needs of social tenants, and the impact of interventions on those with disabilities, victims of domestic violence or with addictions. The findings from this UK study can offer insight into wider, international housing issues. Early findings from first wave interviews suggest vulnerabilities are overlooked in favor of punitive interventions, with little support given to perpetrators, and significantly negative impacts on tenants’ mental health as a result, including the exacerbation of existing conditions and increased suicidal thoughts.

ASB interventions have been framed as a necessity to allow residents to feel safe and secure within their own homes by intervening with those who act in a way that causes nuisance or annoyance (Burney, 2005; Carr, 2010), however, little research has been conducted into how the ontological security of alleged perpetrators of ASB is impacted by ASB interventions. This research situates ontological security within the theoretical framework of vulnerability, suggesting a lack of ontological security can heighten vulnerability amongst arguably already vulnerable ASB perpetrators living within social housing (Brown, 2013; Hunter, Nixon and Shayer, 2000; Jones et al., 2006). Reporting from a wider, qualitative longitudinal research project conducted with alleged perpetrators of ASB, this article explores how ASB interventions impact ontological security, finding negative impacts on tenants’ feelings of safety and being ‘at home’, feelings of insecurity, feelings of being watched and ability to be themselves.

Both migration and antisocial behaviour (ASB, defined as behaviour that causes nuisance, annoyance, alarm or distress) are contentious issues, with the UK Labour government prioritising both since taking office in 2024 (Home Office, 2025; Sigona, 2025). Levels of migration and cultural diversity are often placed alongside debates of community cohesion (Collic-Peisker and Robertson, 2014). Additionally, ASB has been viewed as a potential threat to community cohesion, reducing levels of trust amongst local residents (Home Office, 2023). Politically, issues of cultural diversity, community cohesion and nuisance and distressing behaviour are often linked (Collic-Peisker and Robertson, 2014), however, despite this, there has been limited research linking these two issues. Therefore, this research aimed to explore migrant experiences of ASB. Qualitative interviews were conducted with people who had moved to the UK and people who work with asylum seekers, refugees and other migrant populations based in the Yorkshire and Humber region of England. The research found that participants regularly experienced ASB. Some of these behaviours did not appear to be targeted at migrant populations and were instead thought to be witnessed due to living in or visiting areas with high levels of socioeconomic issues which are also more likely to experience higher levels of ASB (Home Office, 2023). Nevertheless, participants reported many behaviours they felt were targeted at them due to intersecting issues of ethnicity, migration status, age and/or gender. Whilst ASB could come from a number of sources, including both children and adults living in the local area, it was also reported from services such as the police, welfare providers and housing providers, suggesting the organisations who are tasked with preventing and responding to ASB may also be perpetrators of distressing behaviour much of which seemed to be motivated by racist or xenophobic views. These findings help to highlight a significant gap in understandings of who are perpetrators and who are victims of ASB and demonstrates the importance of listening to migrant experiences when exploring issues of social integration and/or unrest.