Will sanctions have any benefit?

Antisocial behaviour is nothing new. In Victorian days, aristocratic young men used to shock respectable parts of London by taking wine, women and song to excess – with a bit of violence thrown in.

Today, as then, antisocial behaviour manifests in different ways and in different areas – but more often than not, the perpetrators are young and the victims are tenants in social housing.

Many believe the battle is being lost and the government is seeking more weapons for its armoury. The home secretary is often accused of sounding tough to appear populist but, in this case at least, that is unfair. When a Liverpool newspaper canvassed local MPs on whether they supported efforts to crack down on antisocial behaviour they were almost unanimous in their support – some sounded a lot more draconian than David Blunkett. This is a genuine response by politicians faced week in, week out by constituents whose lives are made a misery by a small minority. And the demands for tough action come loudest from victims, most on low incomes themselves.

Thus far, some of the measures introduced by the government have worked better than others. And now it plans another: the power for local authorities to cut housing benefit. The consultation document issued by the Department of Work and Pensions suggests this could be either a court-based sanction that could follow a tenant being found guilty of a civil or criminal offence relating to antisocial behaviour, or an administrative sanction enforced by the council.

There has been a chorus of objections from housing and children's organisations. They say the key is to offer support to vulnerable people, engage with problem families and use devices such as acceptable behaviour contracts to change behaviour.

But even the liberals accept that persistent, aggressive, antisocial behaviour demands real sanctions. So we are left with the underlying questions: what should be the threshold for punitive action? Are any further sanctions needed? Would cutting benefit work? And when we ask that, we mean: would it work in modifying the behaviour of those whose benefit is cut and, more importantly, would it act as a deterrent? The honest answer is probably that we don't know. People do respond to sticks as well as carrots – in some areas heavy police and housing action against drug dealers has helped turn areas around – but not all sticks are effective, and they are seldom effective on their own. Cutting benefit is, after all, just another form of fine.

Where authorities use prevention, support and enforcement, they may make a difference – using just one or two of these is a recipe for failure

As the Home Office itself acknowledges, evaluations of schemes to reduce antisocial behaviour are scarce and there is little standardisation of methodology. What does seem clear is that success is more likely with a three-legged stool.

Where the authorities use prevention, support and enforcement they may make a difference – using just one or two legs is a recipe for failure. The politicians point to the anger and powerlessness of people who are afraid to lead their own lives because they are the victims of harassment, noise and nuisance. They claim it is profoundly unfair to provide continuing financial support for the housing costs of those who behave without regard to their neighbours.

Yet it would also be profoundly unfair to send fragile family units into a cycle of disintegration because they have been unable to control an unruly teenager – or indeed to penalise a mother and children because of the sins of the father.

Judging by the tone of the consultation document, the government looks pretty set on introducing a housing benefit sanction.