Regional inequality remains a defining feature of life in the UK, with stark contrasts in outcomes between the North and South of England. The concept of a "postcode lottery" is often invoked in discussions around antisocial behaviour (ASB) services and victim support, highlighting the absence of a consistent, national approach to ensuring equitable access to help and guidance. This fragmentation mirrors broader economic, social, and cultural disparities across UK regions. As a highly centralised state, many areas are left behind, prompting policy responses such as devolution and targeted funding under the "levelling up" agenda.

Deprived areas include higher than national average rates of deprivation, crime and anti-social behaviour (ASB).^[1] The term "left behind" is frequently used to describe communities—urban, rural, and coastal—characterised by persistent social and economic disadvantage, including elevated rates of deprivation, crime, and ASB. The UK is widely recognised as one of the most regionally unequal countries in the developed world. Policy initiatives like the "Northern Powerhouse" (2014) and "levelling up" reflect ongoing efforts to address these disparities, particularly between the North and Greater London. However, regional inequalities continue to hinder efforts to reduce the conditions that foster antisocial behaviour.

If inequality shapes how communities experience social and economic challenges in the post-austerity era, it logically follows that experiences of ASB also vary. Yet, the specific impact on "left behind" communities is rarely central in policy discussions on ASB reduction.

Young People and the North

The regional inequality that both draws the biggest attention and paints the clearest picture is that between the North of England and the rest of the country, in particular, London. If we follow through on the idea that ‘left behind’ areas are those that are also more likely to experience higher and more persistent ASB, that it begets the question that the North, therefore, languishes behind the rest of the country due to it’s neglect and underinvestment. Young people are also, as is now understood, more likely to be victims of ASB, than to perpetrate it. Young people in the North, therefore, are doubly disadvantaged, and therefore it is important to understand the intricacies of this disadvantage in order to best conjure up policy solutions. Research from the Institute of Public Policy Research (IPPR), highlights the impact of these regional inequalities on young people in the North, painting a grave picture.

Child poverty has risen in all of the North’s regions since 2014/15. The West Midlands and the North West have overtaken London in levels of child poverty, though with some recent improvements in the North East.^[2] Of course, poverty accelerates decline in local areas, creating the perfect conditions for anti-social behaviour to occupy the space where the buzz of business, culture and progress would normally occupy. The government has rightly recognised that the issue of child poverty and improving young people’s opportunity cannot be done from the centre alone, the government highlights that the strategy will be “UK-wide, drawing on devolved and reserved levers and working closely with devolved governments, recognising the progress that has been made on their poverty strategies and policies, and with mayors and other leaders of local government”.^[3]

Education is also another vital marker in both the stark regional inequalities present across the country. The government have stressed  the strong link between attendance and attainment – also the well-known link between truancy and street crime and anti-social behaviour – government sees reducing absence from school as a priority.^[4] Schools remain an important pillar of both social mobility and the reduction in crime in a community, operations such as operation subpole from the police have illustrated the importance of working with education in order to reduce anti-social behaviour. ^[5] It is also suggested that improving educational attainment between England’s regions could raise £14.4 billion.^[6] The report outlines higher levels of deprivation in many parts of the North are reflected in poorer school outcomes, even where schools are rated highly the challenge of persistent disadvantage still results in inequalities in educational outcomes.^[7] This marks a nation whereby outcomes are extremely varied, where a young person in the North West and that of London will have varying opportunities due to their postcode, and therefore will more likely experience anti-social behaviour, along with all the accompanying impacts that this results in.

Social Cohesion, Regional Inequality, and Antisocial Behaviour

Indeed, if any series of events was to indicate the consequences of regions left behind, languishing behind the rest of the country, it would be the riots and ensuing chaos following the Southport murders. In the aftermath of the chaos, many called for a renewed look at investment in areas such as Southport and many like it.^[8] Most areas that experienced the highest levels of violence and disorder, feature higher levels of deprivation that the national average, and often feature in the North of England.^[9] The austerity of the 2010’s exacerbated and accelerated decline in areas that have featured stark outcomes since at least the 1980s, with now the social cohesiveness of public spaces such as libraries, parks and community centres at risk along with the fall in community policing.

To foster genuine social cohesion and empower communities, the state should actively support the creation and preservation of democratic spaces that vanished during the austerity period. However, current frameworks often fall short, offering symbolic gestures rather than substantive support. Legislative reform, particularly of the Localism Act 2011, presents a critical opportunity to strengthen community ownership and expand the commons.

Many modern social cohesion strategies, while well-intentioned, are chronically underfunded and fail to offer communities a meaningful stake in shared resources. For solidarity to thrive, communities should have real control over the spaces they inhabit—not merely access contingent on unstable funding. The state can play a pivotal role in facilitating this shift through a combination of legislative change and targeted investment. The Localism Act 2011 introduced the concept of Assets of Community Value (ACVs), allowing communities to nominate local landmarks—such as pubs, parks, and cultural venues—for protection. When an ACV is listed for sale, the law provides a six-month moratorium, giving community groups time to raise funds under the ‘community right to bid’.^[10]

The limited time window and lack of guaranteed purchase rights often leave communities unable to secure these assets. Moreover, the legislation does not extend to derelict or unused sites, which could otherwise be revitalized for public benefit. The expansion and protection of community-owned spaces is not merely a symbolic gesture—it is a foundational element of democratic life and social resilience.

The stark economic consequences of regional inequality, therefore, not only seek to act as a way for persistent continuation of a  ‘postcode lottery’ for anti-social behaviour provision but also threaten to tear the fabric of social cohesion across the country, threatening both our politics and our communities from fears of violence and disorder.

Local Government Finance and the Regional Inequality Paradox

Regional inequality is caught in a financial paradox with local council funding; research has highlighted that a combination of deprivation, levels of reserves and economic output are exacerbating existing issues with the local government funding system. Council funding is key for ASB provision and the resilience of our communities, and it is unfortunately under immense strain across the country.^[11] it is perhaps therefore notable to state that analysis has found that one in five councils in England will be at risk of financial failure, with councils in the North (305) twice as likely ‘at risk’ compared to those in the South (17%) and London (15%).^[12] This is in part due to the administrative differences in councils in the North, who feature a higher number of metropolitan boroughs and unitary authorities, which are five times as likely to be at risk than county councils, which are predominantly located in the south. This does not discount the issue of deprivation and economic imbalance, which was found to be a key indicator. If the pertinent issue of local authority finance is to be resolved to create more resilient, safeguarded communities, then regional inequality should be at the forefront of policy solutions.

Addressing the Geography of Discontent in UK Regional Policy

Regional inequalities continue to be a prominent factor in British politics, inequality between regions in the UK has in some senses, become the most important distributional concern throughout the country, given rise to a profound sense of a  ‘geography of discontent’. Regional inequalities continue to be a focal point of conversation in UK political discourse, with policy interventions such as the Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill looking to begin the process of addressing this balance through a redistribution of power, democracy and governance, with the principal aim of allowing finances to be better used and collected by local economic regions, as can be seen in Greater Manchester, West Yorkshire and the West Midlands. However, other stresses seek to further press the regional inequalities in the UK, this includes, as the Institute of Fiscal Studies has highlighted, UK public sector nominal wage growth being capped at 1% for all workers earning above £21,000 between 2010 and 2017. This cap, during this time period, it is argued, did not affect all equally. Since public workers are disproportionately female and concentrated in the North, the policy substantially increased both the gender pay gap, and the North-South divide.^[13] Policy solutions, therefore, should be considered on their aggravating effects outside of their main provisions, particular when accounting for problems such as regional inequality and other key disparities.

Conclusion

ASB provision, does, in fact recognise the often-localised challenges faced form anti-social behaviour in different areas, one of these elements is Community Safety Partnerships. Introduced by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, CSPs bring together local partners to formulate and deliver strategies to tackle crime and anti-social behaviour in their communities. CSPs are a key feature of the ASB landscape, and we repeat calls for continued support and funding so they can be as effective as possible.

Of course, more needs to be done to not only safeguard the ASB victims’ experience, so that whatever region of the UK, you can be guaranteed efficient, comprehensive and timely support, but to also ensure that we address the root causes that allow ASB to persist.

For inquiries into policy work at resolve, or any other policy related questions, please contact:

Harrison Box, Policy Officer

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

References

“‘No More Sticking Plasters’ – LGA Survey Lays Bare Local Government Funding Crisis.” 2024. Local.gov.uk. Local Government Association. 2024. https://www.local.gov.uk/about/news/no-more-sticking-plasters-lga-survey-lays-bare-local-government-funding-crisis.

College of Policing. 2024. “Operation Subpole – Reducing Anti-Social Behaviour by Working with Schools | College of Policing.” College of Policing. Operation Subpole – Reducing anti-social Behaviour by Working with Schools | College of Policing. July 15, 2024. https://www.college.police.uk/support-forces/practices/operation-subpole-reducing-anti-social-behaviour.

Colover, Sarah, and Paul Quinton. n.d. “Neighbourhood Policing: Impact and Implementation.” College of Policing. https://assets.college.police.uk/s3fs-public/2021-02/np_rea_summary.pdf.

Commissioner, Children’s. 2013. “A Child Rights Impact Assessment of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill,” June.

Department for Education. 2003. “Every Child Matters.” https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7c95a4e5274a0bb7cb806d/5860.pd.

Gibbs, Penelope. n.d. “Prison Reform Trust Consultation Submission More Effective Responses to Anti-Social Behaviour.” https://prisonreformtrust.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/old_files/Documents/Prison%20Reform%20Trust%20submission%20More%20effective%20responses%20to%20anti%20social%20behaviour.pdf.

Gov.uk. 2024. “Tackling Child Poverty: Developing Our Strategy (HTML).” GOV.UK. October 23, 2024. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/tackling-child-poverty-developing-our-strategy/tackling-child-poverty-developing-our-strategy-html.

GrantThornton LLP. 2024. “Regional Inequalities in England Weakening Councils’ Financial Resilience,” February 29, 2024. https://www.grantthornton.co.uk/news-centre/regional-inequalities-in-england-weakening-councils-financial-resilience/.

Green, Daniel. 2025. “Interview: Lucy Powell on the ‘Under-Appreciated’ King’s Speech, Labour Heroes and the Art of Political Gags - LabourList.” LabourList. July 17, 2025. https://labourlist.org/2025/07/lucy-powell-kings-speech-anniversary-labour-government-house-of-commons/.

Hamilton, Claire. 2025. “Fight to Save Southport Pier ‘Will Continue after Funding Blow.’” BBC, March 3, 2025. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cyveqpvj56vo.

Hilhorst, Sacha. 2025. “PLACES to COME TOGETHER REBUILDING LOCAL SOLIDARITIES against the FAR RIGHT a Decade of National Renewal.” Institute of Public Policy Research. https://ippr-org.files.svdcdn.com/production/Downloads/Places-to-come-together-July-25.pdf?dm=1751982610.

Hochlaf, Dean, and Ross Mudie. 2022. “Transforming Educational Opportunities to Support Inclusive Growth.” Centre for Progressive Policy. 2022. https://www.progressive-policy.net/publications/new-horizons.

Mason, Matt, and Francisco Rowe. 2024. “The Role of Social Media and Local Deprivation in UK Anti-Immigration Riots. By Matt Mason and Francisco Rowe.” University of Liverpool, August 30, 2024.

McGlade, Helen, and Joni Kelly. 2018. “Investigating Educational Disadvantage and Place-Based Approaches in the North East of England - Education Policy Institute.” Education Policy Institute. 2018. https://epi.org.uk/publications-and-research/investigating-educational-disadvantage-and-place-based-approaches-in-the-north-east-of-england/.

Nibloe, Matthew. 2025. “Levelling Down: The Distributional Consequences of Public Pay Caps.” Institute of Fiscal Studies, July. https://doi.org/10.1920/wp.ifs.2025.2725.

Piotrowska, Patrycja J., Christopher B. Stride, Simone E. Croft, and Richard Rowe. 2015. “Socioeconomic Status and Antisocial Behaviour among Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.” Clinical Psychology Review 35 (1): 47–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2014.11.003.

Swift, Ryan, Daniel Galloway, India Gerritsen, and Marcus Johns. 2025. “THE KIDS AREN’T ALRIGHT STATE of the NORTH 2025 Institute for Public Policy Research.”

Telford, Luke, and Jonathan Wistow. n.d. “Exploring the Problems of a ‘Left Behind’ Place in the Context of ‘Levelling Up.’” Accessed August 5, 2025.

UK Government. 2024. “English Devolution White Paper.” GOV.UK. 2024. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/english-devolution-white-paper-power-and-partnership-foundations-for-growth/english-devolution-white-paper.

^[1] Telford, Luke, and Jonathan Wistow. n.d. “Exploring the Problems of a ‘Left Behind’ Place in the Context of ‘Levelling Up.’”

^[2] Swift, Ryan, Daniel Galloway, India Gerritsen, and Marcus Johns. 2025. “THE KIDS AREN’T ALRIGHT STATE of the NORTH 2025 Institute for Public Policy Research.”

^[3] Gov.uk. 2024. “Tackling Child Poverty: Developing Our Strategy (HTML).” GOV.UK. October 23, 2024. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/tackling-child-poverty-developing-our-strategy/tackling-child-poverty-developing-our-strategy-html.

^[4] Department for Education. 2003. “Every Child Matters.” https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7c95a4e5274a0bb7cb806d/5860.pdf.

^[5] College of Policing. 2024. “Operation Subpole – Reducing Anti-Social Behaviour by Working with Schools | College of Policing.” College of Policing. Operation Subpole – Reducing anti-social Behaviour by Working with Schools | College of Policing. July 15, 2024. https://www.college.police.uk/support-forces/practices/operation-subpole-reducing-anti-social-behaviour.

^[6] Hochlaf, Dean, and Ross Mudie. 2022. “Transforming Educational Opportunities to Support Inclusive Growth.” Centre for Progressive Policy. 2022. https://www.progressive-policy.net/publications/new-horizons.

^[7] McGlade, Helen, and Joni Kelly. 2018. “Investigating Educational Disadvantage and Place-Based Approaches in the North East of England - Education Policy Institute.” Education Policy Institute. 2018. https://epi.org.uk/publications-and-research/investigating-educational-disadvantage-and-place-based-approaches-in-the-north-east-of-england/.

^[8] Hamilton, Claire (2025) ‘Fight to save Southport Pier “will continue after funding blow”’, BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cyveqpvj56vo

^[9] Mason, Matt, and Francisco Rowe. 2024. “The Role of Social Media and Local Deprivation in UK Anti-Immigration Riots. By Matt Mason and Francisco Rowe.” University of Liverpool, August 30, 2024.

^[10] Hilhorst, Sacha. 2025. “PLACES to COME TOGETHER REBUILDING LOCAL SOLIDARITIES against the FAR RIGHT a Decade of National Renewal.” Institute of Public Policy Research. https://ippr-org.files.svdcdn.com/production/Downloads/Places-to-come-together-July-25.pdf?dm=1751982610.

^[11] “‘No More Sticking Plasters’ – LGA Survey Lays Bare Local Government Funding Crisis.” 2024. Local.gov.uk. Local Government Association. 2024. https://www.local.gov.uk/about/news/no-more-sticking-plasters-lga-survey-lays-bare-local-government-funding-crisis.

^[12] GrantThornton LLP. 2024. “Regional Inequalities in England Weakening Councils’ Financial Resilience,” February 29, 2024. https://www.grantthornton.co.uk/news-centre/regional-inequalities-in-england-weakening-councils-financial-resilience/.

^[13] Nibloe, Matthew. 2025. “Levelling Down: The Distributional Consequences of Public Pay Caps.” Institute of Fiscal Studies, July. https://doi.org/10.1920/wp.ifs.2025.2725.