The government's added welcome new weapons to the armoury for tackling antisocial behaviour this week. To take just one example, the action plan, acknowledges that inordinate damage is done by just a few "neighbours from hell" and seeks to identify and tackle them with a series of "trailblazing" schemes (pages 10-11).

Trouble is, most people in the sector don't think that the problem has been a shortage of tools. Rather, it is the will and the money that have been lacking. In terms of the latter, there was nothing new on the table. £11m to fund 276 crime reduction partnerships is spreading the jam very thinly. As for the will: Blunkett is calling for the end to what he describes as a "culture of inaction". To this end he is pointing the finger at the housing sector, for its belief in the liberal "garbage" of trying to understand the yobs before the plight of the victims.

And there are those in the sector who will warmly agree with him. Why, after all, can areas like Manchester manage to issue 50 antisocial behaviour orders while others tolerate generations of the same family causing mayhem? Yes, it might cost £5000 for an ASBO but what about the cost of empty properties – and the £4bn that antisocial behaviour costs the taxpayer?

There has clearly been a mood shift in the sector – highlighted by the tougher stance the National Housing Federation is taking and the fact that associations are at last taking up the system pioneered by Irwell Valley's chief executive, Tom Manion, of rewarding good tenants while penalising bad ones. It's not that long ago Manion was considered a pariah. Now it's time for housing associations to join forces with their local authorities to tackle nuisance – as is happening in Sheffield (page 10) – and draw up a chair in the local crime reduction partnerships.

Why can Manchester manage to issue 50 ASBOs while others tolerate generations of the same family causing mayhem?

In the meantime, it's understandable if many housing managers feel a sense of indignation at being put in the dock by the home secretary. Councils and housing associations up and down the country can cite cases where vulnerable tenants are being harassed by yobbish teenagers but feel powerless to do anything about it. When the police start responding to their calls for help, then we'll really be getting somewhere.

Damage limitation … but welcome
When five independent board members of the stature of those on the Places for People board start accusing their chairman of bad governance, it throws into question both the credibility of the country's largest housing association and the whole sector. The Housing Corporation's speedy decision to put Places for People under supervision is therefore a necessary and welcome move to limit the damage to the sector's reputation. Will this get to the bottom of the row?

Source

Housing Today