---

Antisocial Behaviour

I entirely agree that it is important to evaluate the outcomes of ISOs. I hope that the Minister will touch on that in his reply. It is important to know that legislation is successful in its intention, otherwise why bother? The Home Affairs Committee report on antisocial behaviour published in April 2005 welcomed the introduction of ISOs and said that they usefully complemented the aims of ASBOs in preventing antisocial behaviour. The Committee was disappointed that take-up was not matching expectations. Many organisations said that ISOs were potentially of great benefit. For example, the Magistrates Association said that they should be granted as a matter of course if magistrates are satisfied that they will help prevent repetition of the behaviour. The Local Government Association ““warmly welcomed”” them, arguing that the approach"““fits firmly with the LGA vision to reducing anti-social behaviour.””" The Committee expressed disappointment that social services departments and other key players such as local education authorities, the child and adolescent mental heath services and youth services were often not fully committed to antisocial behaviour strategies. It stated:"““Given the concerns expressed by the ADSS””—" the Association of Directors of Social Services—"““amongst others that the Government’s ASB strategy is too punitive, we are somewhat disappointed that social services are not making greater efforts to…support measures such as ISOs and Parenting Orders.””" I hope that the directors of the new children’s services that are being set up by local authorities will have a more positive approach. Funding is a key issue. There was no initial funding for ISOs, and many organisations, including the Home Affairs Committee, complained that lack of cash was a barrier to take-up. A ring-fenced £500,000 was eventually made available in June 2005, more than a year after ISOs were introduced. I understand that the take-up was poor, but that could have been for a variety of reasons. The money came late, and often it takes time for knowledge about funding streams to spread. The ISO is new and we must remember that the use of ASBOs was slow to begin with, but has sped up in the past two years as their value has become fully appreciated. In view of the criticisms of funding that the ring-fenced money for ISOs addressed, I am disappointed that it has proved short-lived and that the funding arrangements have changed. Funding for this financial year, and from now on, will be available through the £45 million uplift given to the Youth Justice Board as part of its prevention budget. That means that it now comes from a general pot of cash. Youth offending teams have been asked to submit plans to the Youth Justice Board for how they will spend their allocations from the preventive money. I believe that the latest funding arrangements for ISOs will not help to increase their use. Because the money is not ring-fenced, ISO money will be in competition with other preventive work, much of which is informal and does not have the force of a court order behind it. Given, I believe, that youth offending teams have not fully appreciated the value of ISOs as a preventive measure, it is likely that they will not see it as one of their preventive tools and will prefer to use the money on other projects. That seems to be borne out by the fact that of the 156 YOTs in the country only six have applied for specific money to resource ISOs. If, for example, a court decided that it was appropriate to have an ISO that involved one-to-one counselling sessions with a trained therapist on an aspect of a young person’s behaviour, and funds had not been set aside, the resources would have to come from another part of the budget. That might not be a serious barrier to an ISO, if it cost about £1,500 to £2,500, especially at the beginning of a financial year. However, it might become a barrier as funds are used for other purposes. Of course, nobody is happy about applying for orders that carry no resources, and indeed take from existing ones, be it the YOTs, the children’s service’s or the local primary care trust’s. Indeed, that argument, between local and national Government, is well-worn and has gone on down the years. Furthermore, housing associations and other social landlords can apply for stand-alone ASBOs, to which courts can attach an ISO. It is likely that those applications will increase from social landlords under pressure from tenants to deal with antisocial neighbours and behaviour on their estates. If one of the criteria for granting an ISO is that the magistrate be satisfied that arrangements for implementing the order are available locally, how can he or she be satisfied if specific money has not been set aside and there is no transparency in the availability of that money?