Supporting perpetrators of anti-social behaviour
For local authority social care staff
- ensure that the needs of perpetrators of anti-social behaviour, who may themselves have care and support needs, are identified
- work jointly with safeguarding partners to support perpetrators of anti-social behaviour to reduce such behaviour
- offer support to people with mental illness or substance misuse problems that may put others at risk
- work with other emergency services to identify frequent users who may need support from social care.
The courts have referred to the importance of supporting people with care and support needs and anti-social behaviour.  Previous Government guidance  advises against ‘drastic interventions’ in favour of other methods such as supporting people with anti-social behaviour, in particular if their behaviour is related to drug or alcohol use, mental illness or disability. While this guidance is no longer in force, its advice remains sound.
It is vital that housing, social care, health and the police work together to provide the right support for people who may present a risk to people with care and support needs because of their own inability to cope. Cullen  argues that when individuals have not been able to access local authority support because do not meet the eligibility criteria they place demands on emergency services. These demands can be minimised by joint working to assess risk and early intervention.
The ‘No secrets’ consultation  noted inclusive housing responses to anti-social behaviour perpetrators:
For many housing officers perpetrators were just one of the categories of people who needed housing, and they had the same housing rights as anyone else. The landlord responsibility was to try and help keep them safe in the community and to keep the other tenants safe from any of their offending behaviour. Other supported housing organisations went further and said it was important to work with them. “Unless work takes place with abusers, they will continue to abuse”.
In all cases it is important for agencies to work together to ensure that people identified as a possible risk to others as a result of their own circumstances receive the support they need to reduce their behaviour and the risk they pose to others. The danger of ignoring people with such complex needs was graphically illustrated in the serious case review into the death of Steven Hoskins, where one of the principle perpetrators, Darren Stewart, was clearly in need of support himself.
Darren Stewart: extracts from the serious case review into the death of Steven Hoskins 
The chaotic contours of Darren’s early life were defined by neglect, discord, assaults, truanting from school and thefts. He was a ‘runaway’ child who went on to live in an unknown number of care homes and secure services. He was sent to prison for arson and later was convicted of a street robbery. His misuse of alcohol and amphetamines and being ‘on the move’ came to characterise his adult life. Between 1998 and 2006 he had five children with three teenage partners, all of whom were vulnerable. These were volatile relationships.
Darren self-harmed and was aggressive towards others. He was thought to have a borderline personality disorder. A serious case review was held into the serious harm of one of his own children.
He moved frequently and prior to Steven’s murder his life was ‘characterised by referrals followed by non-attendances, unplanned crisis attendances, “overdoses”, arrests and detentions under the Mental Health Act. However, Darren’s engagement with the service was poor’.
Between January 2005 and Steven’s murder on 6 July 2006, Darren made seven visits to minor injury units; and at least eight to accident and emergency services. He consulted his GP on 15 occasions and out of hours GP services on 21 occasions. In addition, he made 24 calls to the ambulance emergency call out, at least eight of which were to Steven’s bedsit.
Between December 2004 and 6 July 2006, there were 49 police contact logs [in Cornwall alone] in respect of Darren and his girlfriends.
Looking back over Darren’s life there appears to have been a marked tendency to under-respond to the gravity of his aggressive acts and no account appears to have been taken of the destabilising factors of his alcohol and substance misuse. He had an uncanny gift for identifying those who were vulnerable and lonely and became violent when they sought to disengage from him.