Cut Anti-Social Behaviour
Conservative · what the evidence says
An independent, source-checked look at Conservative’s policy “Cut Anti-Social Behaviour” — what it would actually do across the things that affect your life. Every claim below quotes the source behind it. How this works.
Affordable housing — Mixed picture
minor · low confidence
The main link to affordable housing is a plan to make it easier to evict social tenants for anti-social behaviour, which could improve neighbours' security but risks pushing vulnerable people into homelessness and reducing their housing security. The rest of the policy (hotspot policing, community payback) does not materially affect housing affordability.
The evidence
- The policy includes legislating to evict social tenants who repeatedly disrupt neighbours. — conservatives.com (manifesto) — “legislating to evict social tenants who repeatedly disrupt neighbours”
- Over one in four social housing residents had been affected by anti-social behaviour in the past year, equivalent to one million households. — gov.uk (media) — “over one in four social housing residents had been affected by anti-social behaviour in the past year, equivalent to one million households”
- Of those social housing residents who reported ASB, 55% were dissatisfied with the outcome. — gov.uk (media) — “Of those who reported it, 55% were dissatisfied with the outcome”
- Eviction without addressing underlying causes may displace the problem rather than solve it and can lead to homelessness. — lettingshub.co.uk (media) — “Eviction without addressing these underlying causes may displace the problem rather than solve it, and can lead to homelessness, which incurs further costs and negative social outcomes”
- Social landlords already have a range of powers to tackle anti-social behaviour including legal remedies and possession proceedings. — commonslibrary.parliament.uk (government) — “Social landlords already have a range of powers to tackle anti-social behaviour, including dispute resolution, acceptable behaviour contracts, and legal remedies such as community protection notices and injunctions, and …”
Biggest unknown: Whether easier eviction leads to homelessness for displaced tenants or merely shifts the problem, and whether courts and landlords apply the broader ASB definition fairly to vulnerable groups.
Our reading: The policy's direct relevance to O1 (affordable housing) is almost entirely through its social-tenant eviction strand. The hotspot policing and community payback elements primarily affect O5 (safety/crime), not housing affordability or supply. On the positive side for O1, a large share of social housing residents are affected by ASB and dissatisfied with current responses. Faster eviction of persistent disruptors could improve tenure quality and neighbourhood conditions for the majority of neighbours, which is a component of 'decent home' in the O1 rubric. Existing landlord powers are already substantial, so the marginal effect of streamlined eviction on neighbours' security is real but modest. On the negative side, the risks to housing security are concrete. Eviction without addressing root causes (poverty, mental health, substance misuse) is projected to displace rather than solve the problem and risks homelessness for evicted tenants — directly worsening their housing situation. The broadened ASB definition raises a credible, cited risk that vulnerable social tenants (neuro-divergent individuals, those from lower socio-economic backgrounds) may face wrongful eviction. De-prioritising evicted tenants from future social housing allocations further reduces their access to affordable, secure housing. These are genuine downsides to the housing security of a subset of the social housing population. The policy does nothing on supply, rent levels, house prices, or social stock — the core affordability indicators. The mixed verdict reflects real but opposing effects on tenure security: improved conditions for ASB-affected neighbours, worsened security for tenants at risk of eviction. Both effects are minor in population scale relative to the full O1 landscape. Confidence is low because the scale of wrongful or displacement-causing evictions is not quantified in the evidence provided.
Personal liberty & free speech — Hurts
minor · moderate confidence
The policy lowers the legal bar for evicting social tenants and increases coercive police contact in hotspot areas, both of which expand the state's reach over individuals. The main risk is that a broadened definition of anti-social behaviour could be applied against vulnerable people who pose no genuine threat.
The evidence
- The policy legislates to evict social tenants who repeatedly disrupt neighbours, extending state coercive power over housing. — conservatives.com (manifesto) — “legislating to evict social tenants who repeatedly disrupt neighbours”
- The policy rolls out hotspot policing to all forces, increasing targeted police presence and associated enforcement activity. — conservatives.com (manifesto) — “rolling out Hotspot Policing to all forces”
- Hotspot policing in Leicestershire led to higher numbers of arrests, increased intelligence-led stop searches, and greater use of anti-social behaviour powers. — leics.police.uk (media) — “hotspot policing in Leicestershire led to higher numbers of arrests, increased intelligence-led stop searches, greater use of anti-social behaviour powers”
- Critics including Shelter have raised concerns that broadening the ASB definition could unfairly prejudice neuro-divergent individuals or those from poorer socio-economic backgrounds. — jmw.co.uk (media) — “broadening the definition of anti-social behaviour to include acts "capable of causing inconvenience or nuisance" could unfairly prejudice neuro-divergent individuals or those from poorer socio-economic backgrounds witho…”
- Public Space Protection Orders, which use a similarly broad ASB definition, have been used to criminalise vulnerable groups including the homeless. — theguardian.com (media) — “Public Space Protection Orders (PSPOs), which share a similar broad definitional approach to ASB, have been used to criminalise vulnerable groups like the homeless”
- Eviction without addressing underlying causes may displace the problem and lead to homelessness. — lettingshub.co.uk (media) — “Eviction without addressing these underlying causes may displace the problem rather than solve it, and can lead to homelessness”
Biggest unknown: Whether courts apply the broadened 'capable of causing inconvenience' ASB definition narrowly (limiting liberty costs) or broadly, sweeping in vulnerable or neuro-divergent tenants.
Our reading: O10 scores the liberty cost of enforcement powers, not the safety benefit (which belongs to O5). Three liberty-relevant mechanisms are present. First, hotspot policing materially increases arrests, stop searches, and use of ASB enforcement powers in targeted areas — a direct, evidenced expansion of coercive state contact (E12). Second, the eviction measure lowers the evidential threshold for removing a person from their home: shifting from behaviour that 'has caused' harm to behaviour merely 'capable of causing inconvenience' (E36) is a meaningful reduction in the legal protection a social tenant holds against state-backed dispossession. Third, that broadened definition — flagged by critics including Shelter (E44) and corroborated by the PSPO precedent (E45) — raises a credible risk that the coercive reach extends to neuro-divergent individuals and other vulnerable groups who are not genuinely disruptive. Eviction without addressing root causes risks homelessness (E48), compounding the liberty cost. Together these represent a real, if targeted, worsening of personal liberty. The effect is minor rather than major because it is scoped to hotspot zones and social tenants exhibiting repeated disruptive behaviour, not the general population. The biggest uncertainty is judicial and administrative discretion: if courts interpret the broadened definition narrowly, the liberty cost shrinks substantially.
Community cohesion & belonging — Helps
moderate · moderate confidence
Cutting anti-social behaviour through hotspot policing and community payback should make communities feel safer and more trusting, which directly strengthens belonging. The main caveat is that the eviction element could displace vulnerable people rather than resolve the underlying harm, potentially worsening cohesion elsewhere.
The evidence
- The policy commits to hotspot policing across all forces, expanded community payback, and legislation to evict repeatedly disruptive social tenants. — conservatives.com (manifesto) — “cut anti-social behaviour in town centres by rolling out Hotspot Policing to all forces, expanding community payback, and legislating to evict social tenants who repeatedly disrupt neighbours”
- Over one in four social housing residents were affected by ASB in 2022, equivalent to one million households, and 55% of those who reported it were dissatisfied with the outcome. — gov.uk (media) — “over one in four social housing residents had been affected by anti-social behaviour in the past year, equivalent to one million households”
- 36% of people experienced or witnessed some type of anti-social behaviour in the year ending June 2024, and it is the top crime concern for 69% of Crime and Community Survey respondents. — charitytoday.co.uk (media) — “For the year ending June 2024, 36% of people had experienced or witnessed some type of anti-social behaviour”
- Hotspot policing can foster a greater sense of safety and trust between police and community by showing tangible results. — necsws.com (media) — “Hotspot policing can foster a greater sense of safety and security within communities by reducing crime and increasing visible police presence”
- UK hotspot trials have shown meaningful reductions in ASB and crime, including an 8.2% reduction in ASB offences in Nottinghamshire and a 15.4% reduction in serious violence in Leicestershire hotspot areas. — nottinghamshire.pcc.police.uk (media) — “an 8.2% reduction in anti-social behaviour offences between April and December 2024, compared to the previous year”
- Community payback can provide visible reparation to local communities, and a government plan set an ambition for reparative work to start within 48 hours with communities involved in deciding the punishment. — gov.uk (media) — “perpetrators will be made to repair damage, with an ambition for reparative work to start within 48 hours of their offence, with communities involved in deciding the type of punishment”
- Evicting tenants without addressing underlying causes such as poverty, mental health, and substance misuse may displace the problem rather than solve it and can lead to homelessness with further negative social outcomes. — lettingshub.co.uk (media) — “Eviction without addressing these underlying causes may displace the problem rather than solve it, and can lead to homelessness, which incurs further costs and negative social outcomes”
- Broadening the definition of ASB to acts 'capable of causing inconvenience or nuisance' risks unfairly prejudicing neuro-divergent individuals or those from poorer socio-economic backgrounds. — jmw.co.uk (media) — “broadening the definition of anti-social behaviour to include acts "capable of causing inconvenience or nuisance" could unfairly prejudice neuro-divergent individuals or those from poorer socio-economic backgrounds witho…”
Biggest unknown: Whether evicting repeat ASB offenders from social housing displaces the problem (and people) into private renting or homelessness rather than resolving it, which would undercut cohesion gains in receiving areas.
Our reading: The three policy levers each bear on O15 differently. Hotspot policing has the clearest positive signal: UK trial evidence shows measurable reductions in ASB and crime in targeted areas, and independent sources directly link visible policing to improved community safety perceptions and police-community trust — both core components of social cohesion. Given that ASB affects roughly a third of the population and ranks as the top crime concern, population-scale effects on felt safety and trust are plausible if the rollout sustains the trial gains. Community payback supports cohesion through two mechanisms: visible reparative work in the community (strengthening the norm that harm is addressed) and reduced reoffending relative to short custodial sentences. The government plan's commitment to community involvement in determining punishment adds a civic participation dimension relevant to O15. The eviction element is more ambiguous. It offers real relief to affected neighbours — one million social housing households — whose quality of community life and sense of belonging is materially damaged by persistent ASB. On the other hand, evidence warns that eviction without support for underlying causes (poverty, mental health, substance misuse) displaces rather than resolves the harm, potentially exporting ASB to private renting or homelessness, with knock-on effects on cohesion in receiving communities. The broadened definition of ASB also risks sweeping in vulnerable or neurodiverse tenants, with critics citing comparable definitional expansions being used against homeless people. On balance, the hotspot policing and community payback elements are likely to produce a genuine, if moderate, improvement in social trust and sense of safety at community level within a parliamentary term. The eviction element introduces a real downside risk concentrated among the most vulnerable, which constrains the magnitude but does not reverse the overall direction. Confidence is moderate because the scale of the rollout is uncertain and trial gains may not fully replicate nationwide.
Crime, justice & national security — Helps
moderate · moderate confidence
Rolling out hotspot policing, expanding community payback, and toughening eviction powers for disruptive tenants would likely reduce anti-social behaviour and street crime, based on real UK trial evidence — though eviction without tackling root causes may displace rather than solve some problems.
The evidence
- The policy commits to rolling out Hotspot Policing to all forces, expanding community payback, and legislating to evict social tenants who repeatedly disrupt neighbours. — conservatives.com (manifesto) — “cut anti-social behaviour in town centres by rolling out Hotspot Policing to all forces, expanding community payback, and legislating to evict social tenants who repeatedly disrupt neighbours”
- Over one in four social housing residents were affected by ASB in the past year — around one million households — and 55% of those who reported it were dissatisfied with the outcome. — gov.uk (media) — “over one in four social housing residents had been affected by anti-social behaviour in the past year, equivalent to one million households”
- 55% of social housing residents who reported ASB were dissatisfied with the outcome. — gov.uk (media) — “55% were dissatisfied with the outcome”
- For the year ending June 2024, 36% of people had experienced or witnessed some type of anti-social behaviour, and 69% of Crime and Community Survey respondents identified it as their top crime concern. — charitytoday.co.uk (media) — “36% of people had experienced or witnessed some type of anti-social behaviour”
- Around £60 million in dedicated funding was committed to support hotspot policing, initially across 10 trailblazer areas before expanding to all forces in England and Wales in 2024. — gov.uk (media) — “dedicated funding (around £60 million) to support an increased police presence for hotspot policing, initially in 10 trailblazer areas before expanding across all forces in England and Wales in 2024”
- Hotspot policing trials in the UK showed significant reductions in crime: Southend-on-Sea saw a 74% reduction in violent crime on patrol days. — youthendowmentfund.org.uk (media) — “74% reduction in violent crime on days when foot patrols were conducted in "hotspot" areas”
- Peterborough saw a 39% decrease in crime and a 20% reduction in emergency calls from targeted PCSO patrols. — youthendowmentfund.org.uk (media) — “39% decrease in crime and a 20% reduction in emergency calls due to targeted patrols by Police Community Support Officers”
- Leicestershire's hotspot programme delivered a 15.4% reduction in serious violence in hotspot areas and an 8.6% reduction outside them, over a four-month period. — leics.police.uk (media) — “15.4% reduction in serious violence in hotspot areas and an 8.6% reduction in areas outside hotspots, suggesting wider preventative benefits”
- Nottinghamshire reported an 8.2% reduction in anti-social behaviour offences in hotspot areas between April and December 2024 compared to the previous year. — nottinghamshire.pcc.police.uk (media) — “8.2% reduction in anti-social behaviour offences between April and December 2024, compared to the previous year”
- Community sentences including community payback are 8.3% more effective at reducing reoffending than short prison sentences. — prisonreformtrust.org.uk (media) — “community sentences are 8.3% more effective in reducing reoffending than short prison sentences when comparing similar offenders and offences”
- In Scotland, the reconviction rate for Community Payback Orders (29.2%) was substantially lower than for those discharged from custody (43.8%). — committees.parliament.uk (government) — “reconviction rate for Community Payback Orders was 29.2%, compared to 43.8% for those discharged from prison custody”
- Eviction without addressing underlying causes such as poverty, mental health, and substance misuse may displace the problem rather than solve it, and can lead to homelessness. — lettingshub.co.uk (media) — “Eviction without addressing these underlying causes may displace the problem rather than solve it, and can lead to homelessness, which incurs further costs and negative social outcomes”
- The Home Office identifies poverty, mental health issues, substance misuse, and unstable home environments as risk factors for ASB — many of which are experienced by social housing residents. — resolveuk.org.uk (media) — “The Home Office identifies risk factors for anti-social behaviour, including poverty, mental health issues, substance misuse, and unstable home environments, many of which are experienced by social housing residents”
Biggest unknown: Whether the eviction strand reduces ASB at population level or merely displaces it, given evidence that poverty, mental health, and substance misuse are underlying drivers and that eviction can lead to homelessness.
Our reading: The policy has three distinct mechanisms. First, hotspot policing: multiple UK trials (Southend, Peterborough, Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire, West Midlands) consistently show meaningful reductions in crime and ASB in targeted areas, with some evidence of wider spillover benefits. These are measurable, real-world UK results, not just theoretical. The national rollout already had a government funding commitment, making this more than aspiration. The evidence here points clearly toward an O5 improvement. Second, expanded community payback: the evidence shows community sentences reduce reoffending more than short custodial terms (8.3% differential per MoJ research; Scotland reconviction data shows a 14.6 percentage point gap). Faster, visible reparative work also addresses community perception of justice, directly relevant to O5. Third, social housing eviction: this is the weakest strand. While it offers faster relief to victim-neighbours, the underlying drivers of ASB in social housing (poverty, mental health, substance misuse) are not addressed by eviction. Evidence suggests displacement to homelessness is a plausible outcome, which would not reduce ASB at population level. This limits confidence in the eviction strand's net safety benefit, though it may help specific victims. On balance, two of three mechanisms have solid UK-trial evidence behind them. The hotspot policing strand alone — given its consistent measured effects across multiple forces — is sufficient to score a real O5 improvement. The community payback strand reinforces this. The eviction strand is uncertain and may be partially self-defeating but does not negate the gains from the other two. Confidence is moderate rather than high because national rollout effects may differ from trial conditions, and the eviction strand introduces genuine uncertainty about displacement.