Social housing providers face a variety of challenges when dealing with ASB. After our regional roundtable for members of the south, it was clear that one of the most common issues faced when dealing with ASB, was vulnerable residents including those with mental health challenges. This is exacerbated by the decline of mental health services and social housing being treated as the ‘4th emergency service’.
The connection between mental health and antisocial behaviour is evident, not only the connection between victims, and how this affects their mental health, of those who have been a victim of ASB, 43% says it has affected their mental health, 47 % say they have considered moving home and 54 % say they feel unsafe in their local area.[1] Mental health has a two pronged effect, people with mental health are more likely to be both victims and perpetrators of crime, particularly ASB. A Home Office (2002) review of ASBOs found that for 60% of those issued an ASBO, there was a mitigating factor such as mental distress, addiction, or learning disabilities.
Data from the most recent round table shows a clear uncertainty amongst social housing in how to deal with vulnerable residents that cause ASB despite their negative experiences of mental health. It is expedient to note that most people with mental health problems do not commit ASB, however ‘among people who are accused of ASB’ there is a ‘high correlation with unmet mental health support need’. Therefore, problems accessing mental health services contribute not only to homelessness but also to challenges for others in the community dealing with ASB.
With mental health challenges on the rise, and a reduction in mental health services, it is clear there needs to be clarification on identification, enforcement and support with residents who commit anti-social behaviour, but who have complex mental health that makes them vulnerable.
Suggestions for best practice
Realising the domino effect poor mental health has, a possible suggest to highlight is the importance of successful prevention, to prevent those from going into a stress response which eventually leads to ASB. By acting early, and using prevention, as cited from Shelter, it is ‘proven to deliver consistently good outcomes for the individuals involved’ and from a business perspective, it helps by ‘reducing void and court costs’. [2]Meaningful partnership working could also be key to ensuring people have a decent chance of sustaining their tenancies, including to ‘consider developing a shared framework, for identifying risk and vulnerability’. Research from London Councils, highlights that there was notably, ‘encouraging examples of multi-agency triage where mental health professionals are fully engaged in the process’. [3]A noted issue of mental health in ASB, is presented by the challenge of formally identifying mental health issues within the management of ASB cases, due to the complex nature of the issues. Therefore, effective multi-agency working whereby mental health professionals are involved in the process, could help alleviate some of the challenges in identifying mental health in ASB cases, and therefore possibly drive better outcomes for community safety.
Policy landscape: Proposed reforms of the Mental Health Act
Currently, the Mental Health act is the main piece of legislation when dealing with complex mental health cases in this country. The Mental Health act, however, has some ‘gray areas’ from a community safety perspective which, according to London Councils, ‘do not adequately address engagement with community partners’ especially where there are ‘issues regarding patient confidentiality’.
The King’s Speech 2024 included a commitment to legislate to modernise the Mental Health act. The briefing notes accompanying the King’s speech highlighted concerns about ‘increased rates of detention under the act and its application to autistic people’ and those ‘with a learning disability’.[4]
Following calls for reform, the previous Johnson government published a white paper, outlining the planned ideas of reform, this white paper was meant with a broadly supportive response from the current government. The proposed principle were as follows: choice and autonomy, least restriction, therapeutic benefit and the person as an individual. It was cited that before implementing the principles they will be considered with ‘practical application’ in mind, and to ‘address any issues of compatibility’. [5] In short, it aims to have a human-centric approach to care, and to aim to implement the act’s powers in ‘the least restrictive’, including an aim to ensure patients are supported before they are discharged. The aim of the reforms, is for people to ‘receive earlier support and better meant health services in the community’.[6]
It is clear therefore, that the proposals will be sought to be prominent amounts practitioners, and the wider community. It is therefore important we keep informed on the changes proposed when the Mental Health Act goes through the parliamentary process, we aim to have an open dialogue on any concerns or queries regarding the proposed reforms of the Mental Health Act.
[1] https://www.ourwatch.org.uk/ASB-and-mental-health
[2] https://sheltercymru.org.uk/reframing-anti-social-behaviour/
[3] http://www.hampshiresab.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Mental-Health-and-Anti-Social-Behaviour-London-Councils-2014.pdf
[4] https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9132/
[5] https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/reforming-the-mental-health-act/reforming-the-mental-health-act#part-1-proposals-for-reform-of-the-mental-health-act
[6] https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/reforming-the-mental-health-act/outcome/reforming-the-mental-health-act-government-response
