40.9%
Experienced OR witnessed
2025–26
Adults reporting ASB in their local area in the previous 12 months. Includes witnesses; not a direct-victim rate.
← Crime & safety
Antisocial behaviour · England and Wales · 2025–26
A place can feel less safe even when headline crime falls.
40.9% of adults experienced or witnessed antisocial behaviour in their local area. This is not the percentage who were direct victims. Repeated noise, intimidation or damage can change how people use their neighbourhood.
Evidence last reviewed 9 October 2026
Three measures. Three different questions.
26.6%
Perceived a local problem
2025–26
Adults saying ASB is a very or fairly big problem locally. Perceptions are not a count of incidents.
1,049,100
Recorded ASB incidents
2025–26
Police records including British Transport Police. Kept separate from recorded crime; reporting and recording affect totals.
What people describe
Selected survey categories, 2025–26. People can report more than one type; these percentages must not be added. A survey description is not a legal finding that a crime occurred.
Perceptions over time
+8.6percentage pointsYE Mar 2016–YE Mar 2026England and Wales · %17.9% → 26.6%YE Mar 2016–YE Mar 2026
A different survey question from experience/witnessing. Gaps remain where no comparable observation is published.Sources and data
ASB is separate from recorded-crime totals. Police reports and survey perceptions are different measures. Pandemic collection and behaviour changes; police recording completeness varies. Question context changed from April 2025 for survey ASB; do not infer a purely behavioural increase.
Source dataset →| Period | % | Status |
|---|---|---|
| YE Mar 2016 | 17.924 | Outturn |
| YE Mar 2017 | 18.435 | Outturn |
| YE Mar 2018 | 21.658 | Outturn |
| YE Mar 2019 | 21.825 | Outturn |
| YE Mar 2020 | 23.395 | Outturn |
| YE Mar 2023 | 22.199 | Outturn |
| YE Mar 2024 | 25.117 | Outturn |
| YE Mar 2025 | 23.557 | Outturn |
| YE Mar 2026 | 26.559 | Outturn |
Reports recorded by police
-54.2%YE Mar 2013–YE Mar 2026England and Wales · incidents2,292,726 → 1,049,100YE Mar 2013–YE Mar 2026
ASB incidents, including British Transport Police. Reporting, enforcement and recording affect the series; these are not all criminal offences.Sources and data
ASB is separate from recorded-crime totals. Police reports and survey perceptions are different measures. Pandemic collection and behaviour changes; police recording completeness varies. Question context changed from April 2025 for survey ASB; do not infer a purely behavioural increase.
Source dataset →| Period | incidents | Status |
|---|---|---|
| YE Mar 2013 | 2,292,726 | Outturn |
| YE Mar 2014 | 2,103,528 | Outturn |
| YE Mar 2015 | 1,980,933 | Outturn |
| YE Mar 2016 | 1,840,592 | Outturn |
| YE Mar 2017 | 1,823,352 | Outturn |
| YE Mar 2018 | 1,663,315 | Outturn |
| YE Mar 2019 | 1,454,103 | Outturn |
| YE Mar 2020 | 1,382,733 | Outturn |
| YE Mar 2021 | 2,051,984 | Outturn |
| YE Mar 2022 | 1,305,334 | Outturn |
| YE Mar 2023 | 1,047,636 | Outturn |
| YE Mar 2024 | 1,043,268 | Outturn |
| YE Mar 2025 | 1,030,281 | Outturn |
| YE Mar 2026 | 1,049,100 | Outturn |
Illustrative situation · not a real case or impact estimate
The route home starts to change.
A resident avoids a bus stop after repeated intimidation. No injury appears in a hospital total, yet their journey takes longer and they feel less independent. A useful response would ask whether repeat incidents stop and whether people feel able to use the space again, alongside checking police reports.
Find local police records →How to move the needle
Match the response to the harm.
More activity is not the same as better outcomes. These appraisal questions make the evidence, delivery costs and uncertainties visible. They do not add new scored actions to the national plan.
01 · Evaluated approach · results depend on delivery
Put skilled teams where harm repeats
College of Policing reviews support targeted hot-spot policing. The English Grip evaluations found different results between years; a patrol total is not proof of fewer victims.
Judge success by: Repeat victimisation, serious injuries, crime in nearby comparison streets and public confidence.
Who delivers, who pays, and what remains uncertain?
- Accountable delivery
- Chief constables, PCCs and local partners
- Costs and funding
- Staff time, supervision, analysis and partner capacity; a local whole-life cost and funding allocation are still required.
- Limits of the evidence
- Much of the international evidence concerns short follow-up periods. Check displacement, community trust and whether benefits persist.
02 · Delivery prerequisite · effect not quantified here
Build skills, not just officer numbers
Workforce totals describe capacity. The Home Office workforce and pay evidence also considers training, experience and retention; none is itself a causal estimate of crimes prevented.
Judge success by: Competence, investigative quality, victim experience and staff retention, alongside outcomes.
Who delivers, who pays, and what remains uncertain?
- Accountable delivery
- Chief constables and College of Policing
- Costs and funding
- Training, abstraction from duties and supervisory time; compare with alternative deployments.
- Limits of the evidence
- Specify the skill gap, training content and supervision. Do not apply a national crime-reduction percentage to an extra officer.
03 · Workforce evidence · causal effect uncertain
Retain experience without promising a crime dividend
The Police Remuneration Review Body assesses pay and workforce evidence. Recruitment and retention are legitimate delivery questions, but a pay award is not an evaluated crime-prevention programme.
Judge success by: Vacancies, voluntary exits, specialist capability and service quality.
Who delivers, who pays, and what remains uncertain?
- Accountable delivery
- Home Office, Treasury and police employers
- Costs and funding
- Recurring pay and pensions, with an explicit settlement or budget trade-off. No additional funding is assumed.
- Limits of the evidence
- Separate affordability, vacancies and retention from claims about crime. Local exit evidence is needed.
04 · Programme-specific evidence · no blanket promise
Choose specific youth support that can be evaluated
Youth provision, targeted therapeutic support and violence reduction are different interventions. The College toolkit separates approaches; evidence for one does not validate every youth programme.
Judge success by: Victimisation, serious injuries, engagement and wellbeing, using an appropriate comparison.
Who delivers, who pays, and what remains uncertain?
- Accountable delivery
- Councils, schools, health services and Violence Reduction Units
- Costs and funding
- Qualified staff, safeguarding, premises and sustained delivery; require a funded local business case.
- Limits of the evidence
- Define eligibility and the service before estimating benefit. Participation is not evidence of fewer offences.
05 · Evidence-informed prevention · local appraisal needed
Fix the recurring problem in the place
The College reviews situational prevention, including lighting and security. The ASB pilot evaluation describes implementation and perceived effects; it should not be read as a national causal impact estimate.
Judge success by: Repeat calls, repeat victimisation, use of public space and effects in neighbouring streets.
Who delivers, who pays, and what remains uncertain?
- Accountable delivery
- Councils, housing providers, police and businesses
- Costs and funding
- Capital works plus maintenance and staff; specify who pays and avoid unfunded upkeep.
- Limits of the evidence
- Diagnose the cause with residents. Brighter lighting or enforcement may not address harassment or neighbour disputes.
06 · Candidate for assessment · no effect size assumed
Treat alcohol-related harm as a specific problem
Night-time disorder calls for a defined intervention: licensing, venue management, transport and treatment have different mechanisms. The College toolkit provides intervention-specific evidence.
Judge success by: Alcohol-related injuries, repeat incidents and emergency-service demand, including displacement.
Who delivers, who pays, and what remains uncertain?
- Accountable delivery
- Licensing authorities, police, public health and venues
- Costs and funding
- Enforcement, treatment and business compliance costs; funding and distributional effects need appraisal.
- Limits of the evidence
- Do not assume that all ASB is alcohol-related, or transfer findings from drink-driving enforcement to street violence.
07 · System constraint · outcomes must be tested
Make the response work for victims
Court caseloads and crime outcomes expose pressure after a report. Support, investigation and court capacity need to work together; counting charges alone misses victim experience.
Judge success by: Time to resolution, victim withdrawal, repeat harm and access to support.
Who delivers, who pays, and what remains uncertain?
- Accountable delivery
- Ministry of Justice, CPS, police and commissioned support services
- Costs and funding
- Staff, legal capacity and victim support across agencies; one budget saving may move costs to another.
- Limits of the evidence
- A larger caseload does not establish why cases take longer. Do not claim a quantified benefit without evaluation.
A06, A07 and the existing W05 assessment remain the national decision records. These questions need proportionate appraisal and review before any new national priority, funding commitment or impact claim. Open the existing assessment links →
Sources, coverage and assurance
ONS Crime Survey, adults aged 16+ in households, England and Wales; appendix D1, D3 and D4. The experience series currently retains two observations across the questionnaire-context change; it is not presented as a comparable long-run trend. Perceptions and recorded ASB have separate histories. Survey estimates carry sampling uncertainty. National figures do not measure the safety of a postcode.
Official downloads are checked before publication; analytical interpretation remains subject to review. This page is not independently assured or certified under the AQuA Book.
Official tables and notes →