Managing Youth ASB Properly: A Multi-Agency Model That Works

Youth anti-social behaviour (ASB) is rarely just nuisance. It is often the visible symptom of a repeating pattern. A basic definition could be: concentrated harm to community. It’s harm concentrated in specific places and times. Often involving a small cohort of young people. Youth ASB is shaped by school absence, exploitation risk, housing instability, and unmet needs. These problems are only exacerbated by weak coordination across services.

The public feels the impact sharply. The UK’s ONS reported over 1 million incidents of ASB across England and Wales last year. They further reported that 37% of people experienced or witnessed ASB. It’s this low-level crime that ruins peoples lives.

National policy has emphasised hotspot responses. Local authorities are pushing for prevention, and stronger local accountability. Both the Police and their partner agencies are embracing victim-focused practice

But most places still struggle with the same operational constraints:

• Fragmented information across police, local authority, housing, education, youth services, and third sector providers

• Parallel casework and inconsistent thresholds

• Slow escalation and unclear ownership

• Too much reliance on individual relationships rather than a repeatable operating model

This article provides a practical, multi-agency approach you can implement. It’s relevant to community safety partnerships, neighbourhood policing teams, local authority ASB units, youth services, housing providers and commissioned charities.

Why single-agency responses stall (and why multi-agency is the “force multiplier”)

A single agency can disrupt behaviour temporarily. But, sustained reductions need coordinated action across:

• People: the young person, peer group, family system, victims

• Places: parks, shopping areas, transport hubs, estates, specific addresses

• Pathways: school attendance, exclusions, exploitation risk, substance use, mental health, housing conditions

• Processes: triage, case allocation, intervention delivery, enforcement, and measurement

This is consistent with a problem-solving / problem-oriented approach: define the problem precisely, analyse drivers, select a tailored response, and assess impact (rather than repeating generic enforcement cycles). Problem-oriented approaches can produce meaningful reductions in crime/violence. This only occurs when they are properly implemented and supported by the right infrastructure.

The operating model: 7 steps to multi-agency youth ASB management that actually works

1) Define the problem properly (stop treating “youth ASB” as one thing)

Start with a tight, shared definition:

• What behaviours are occurring? (noise, intimidation, criminal damage, off-road bikes, shop nuisance, harassment, fire-setting, etc.)

• Where: micro-locations, not broad suburbs

• When: time bands, school days vs weekends, seasonal spikes

• Who is harmed: victims, businesses, vulnerable residents

• Who is involved: cohort size, repeat names, peer clusters

• What would success look like: measures you can track in 4–8 weeks

National ASB strategy has increasingly leaned into hotspot approaches and faster visible consequences. In addition, prevention and youth support in hotspot areas.

Practical tip: create a single page “problem profile” that every partner signs off within 10 working days.

2) Establish a multi-agency “triage table” with clear thresholds

The most effective partnerships separate two workflows:

A) Volume triage: low/medium harm issues—managed quickly with standard actions and clear timeframes.

B) Harm cohort management: A smaller set of repeat individuals/locations—managed with higher intensity coordination and senior oversight.

• A chair (rotating is fine, but ownership must be explicit)

• Defined membership (police, local authority ASB, housing, YOT/youth services, education link, commissioned third sector)

• Decision rights (who can authorise what, and within what timescale)

• A standard agenda template: new referrals → repeat cohort → hotspot locations → victims at risk → actions due

3) Put victims first—design the process around “felt safety”

Victim confidence collapses when there is no visible progress, no updates, and no pathway to escalation.

Statutory guidance in the UK places heavy emphasis on victim impact. It includes the ASB Case Review / Community Trigger as a safety net where responses are perceived to be inadequate.

A victim-first multi-agency model includes:

• A named victim liaison owner (not necessarily police)

• Minimum update cadence (e.g., every 7–14 days for active cases)

• A clear escalation route and “thresholds for review”

• Tracking of vulnerability and repeat victimisation

4) Build information sharing into the workflow (not as an afterthought)

Multi-agency working fails most often at the same point: “We can’t share that.”

In practice, the blocker is usually not legality. It’s inconsistent governance, unclear purpose, lack of structure, and fear of getting it wrong.

Recent UK guidance and reviews have highlighted the importance of multi-agency information sharing. This includes the role of legislative gateways in specific contexts and the need for practical frameworks that allow partners to pool insight to prevent harm.

A pragmatic way to operationalise this:

• Define purpose: “prevent harm and reduce youth ASB in X geography”

• Agree minimum data needed for triage and case management (not “everything”)

• Create a consistent risk triage pack (what gets shared, when, and with whom)

• Track consent and lawful basis where relevant (and standardise language)

• Log every access and change (audit trail)

5) Use a single multi-agency case plan per young person / hotspot (not parallel plans)

A young person involved in repeat ASB often has:

• A school plan

• A youth service plan

• A police plan

• A housing plan

• A family support plan

• A mental health plan

If these are not aligned, you end up with duplication and conflict. (And the young person learns quickly that the system is not coordinated). Your case plan should have:

• A single set of objectives

• Roles per agency (one owner per action)

• Time-bound actions (7 days / 14 days / 30 days)

• Intervention sequencing (what must happen first)

• A review cadence (2-weekly for high harm; 4-weekly for medium)

6) Build an “intervention menu” that blends prevention, disruption, and consequences

The most effective partnerships avoid the false choice between “support” and “enforcement”. You need both—sequenced and targeted.

Toolkits built for partnership problem-solving emphasise selecting measures that fit the local drivers. These include: place-based prevention, behaviour change supports, diversion, restorative approaches, situational prevention, and targeted enforcement.

A balanced intervention menu often includes:

Prevention / support (root causes):

• Attendance re-engagement and family work

• Mentoring, structured youth activity, therapeutic supports

• Exploitation screening and safeguarding pathways

Situational / place-based (reduce opportunity):

• Lighting, access control, estate design fixes

• Retail and transport partnership measures

• Hotspot patrol patterns tied to time bands

Disruption / consequences (reduce immediacy and escalation):

• Restorative justice options with victim input

• Clear conditionality (“if X happens, Y follows”)

• Fast, visible community reparation where appropriate (and safe)

7) Measure what matters (and report it in a way partners will actually use)

If you want sustainable buy-in, you need a dashboard that speaks to each stakeholder:

Operational measures (weekly):

• Repeat calls for service at hotspot locations

• Repeat named young people (frequency and severity)

• Time from referral → first action

• Actions overdue by agency

Outcome measures (monthly/quarterly):

• Victim repeat reporting / satisfaction proxy

• School attendance re-engagement (where shareable)

• Reduced harm concentration in hotspots

• Reduced escalation into violence / exploitation pathways (where measurable)

The UK’s ASB policy direction emphasises improved reporting and accountability for action.

“What good looks like” in practice (a quick scenario)

A town-centre hotspot is generating repeated nuisance, intimidation and minor criminal damage involving a rotating peer group.

A functioning multi-agency model will:

1. Identify the micro-hotspot and time band within days (not months)

2. Link incidents to a small cohort and map association patterns

3. Triage each young person into a shared plan with thresholded escalation

4. Align school, youth service, neighbourhood policing, local authority ASB, and local businesses on a single action set

5. Deliver quick place-based changes plus targeted interventions for the repeat cohort

6. Track progress weekly and show the partnership what is working

The technology problem nobody wants to say out loud

Most multi-agency projects fail because the operating system is missing. Not because people do not care.

Common symptoms:

• Actions agreed in meetings but not tracked to completion

• Data stored in emails and spreadsheets (no audit trail, no continuity)

• Case histories not visible across partner teams

• No reliable reporting of “what changed” and “what worked”

If you want consistent delivery, you need:

• A shared workflow (triage → plan → actions → review)

• Role-based access controls per agency and per case

• Full audit history of changes and decisions

• Secure document handling and structured case notes

• Reporting that does not require manual collation

Sources

• Crime in England and Wales – Office for National Statistics
• GOV.UK
• Improving multi-agency information sharing
• d1lmpjji0e63yt.cloudfront.net