In this working paper, Katelyn Owens examines the impact of ASBOs and CBOs, highlighting how enforcement, definitions, and structural inequalities shape their effectiveness and consequences for marginalised communities.
Drawing on her research into Behavioural Control Orders (BCOs), Owens outlines how these orders, designed to curb antisocial behaviour, often reproduce structural inequalities. She explores the ambiguous definitions of antisocial behaviour, the inconsistent enforcement of ASBOs and CBOs, and the disproportionate impact on socioeconomically disadvantaged groups, juveniles, and ethnic minorities.
Based on these insights, she examines how BCOs interact with both legal structures and individual agency, arguing that antisocial behaviour and state interventions are mutually constitutive. Owens also assesses whether the “success” of these orders can be meaningfully measured, given the absence of national data and clear criteria for evaluation.
As Owens notes in her introduction, despite legislative reforms intended to improve the management of antisocial behaviour, the fundamental challenges of proportionality, discrimination, and lack of evidence remain. In this working paper, she aims to inform policy and practice by highlighting gaps in oversight and calling for a more evidence-based, equitable approach to Behavioural Control Orders.
Owens stresses the importance of addressing the structural conditions underlying antisocial behaviour:
Positive requirements and BCOs can only partially mitigate antisocial behaviour; without addressing poverty, inequality, and marginalisation, state interventions risk perpetuating the very harms they aim to prevent.
The Centre for Crime and Justice Studies’ working paper series publishes research and analysis of an exploratory nature. Working papers are not formally peer-reviewed, but are intended to stimulate reflection and discussion on current and relevant areas.
