A group blocking a doorway, intimidating shoppers, damaging property or creating repeated trouble around a park cannot be waved away as harmless youthful mischief. People need a visible presence, straight answers and a response that matches what is happening on the ground.
That is where the argument over youth diversion vs dispersal orders in Grimsby becomes more complicated than it first appears. Section 35 dispersal powers and Public Space Protection Orders can bring immediate relief. Youth diversion can reduce the likelihood that a low-level incident becomes the first step into repeated offending. One is a tactical tool. The other is a longer-term intervention.
Treating them as rivals misses the point. The question is whether each tool is being used for the job it can actually do.
What dispersal powers and PSPO enforcement do on the beat
Under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, police officers and authorised council officers can use statutory powers to deal with anti-social behaviour in a defined area.
A Section 35 dispersal power allows an officer to direct a person to leave a specified area and not return for up to 48 hours. The power is designed for an immediate problem: disorder developing around a particular location, a group causing intimidation, or behaviour that officers judge is contributing to harassment, alarm, distress or crime.
That short time limit tells us something. A dispersal order is not a rehabilitation programme. It is a pressure-release valve.
It can clear a trouble spot. It can give shop workers, residents and police officers room to regain control. It can prevent a situation from escalating on that day. Those are not small benefits, particularly for people who have been dealing with repeated nuisance and feel that nobody is listening.
North East Lincolnshire Council and Humberside Police have also used multi-agency operations, including Op Mastery in Grimsby town centre, to enforce PSPO conditions, issue Fixed Penalty Notices and address anti-social behaviour. These operations matter because town-centre safety is rarely a single-agency problem. Police powers, council enforcement, business reports, CCTV, youth services and local intelligence all have to line up.
A PSPO can impose restrictions in a defined public space where persistent behaviour is having a detrimental effect on the quality of life of local people. The exact conditions matter. A broad label such as anti-social behaviour tells residents very little unless they are also told what conduct is being addressed, where the order applies, how it is enforced and what happens after an order is issued.
There has also been a proposal to consider borough-wide park dispersal powers through a PSPO, with a possible 24-hour dispersal power. That proposal should be discussed carefully. Parks are not identical spaces, and a power that may be appropriate around one hotspot could be excessive or ineffective elsewhere. Enforcement must follow evidence, not simply follow a map.
The practical tools look like this:
| Measure | What it is designed to do | What it can achieve quickly | What it does not resolve |
|---|---|---|---|
| Section 35 dispersal power | Remove individuals from a specified area for up to 48 hours | Interrupt a developing incident and restore calm | The reasons people return to the same behaviour |
| PSPO enforcement | Restrict specified conduct in a defined public space | Set clear boundaries and support enforcement | Family problems, exclusion from education, substance misuse or lack of safe activities |
| Fixed Penalty Notice | Penalise certain breaches where the legal conditions are met | Provide a formal consequence for qualifying behaviour | Sustained behaviour change in young people |
| Youth diversion | Address low-level offending without immediate formal prosecution | Connect a young person with support and reduce escalation | Serious offences or cases requiring formal criminal justice action |
The distinction is straightforward, but it is often lost in public debate. A dispersal notice can move people away from a location. It cannot, by itself, give them a reason not to return.
A dispersal order can change what happens on a street tonight. Diversion is meant to change what happens on that street next month.
Why tactical relief is not the same as prevention
Residents are sometimes told that a dispersal operation has been successful because a location was quiet during the operation. That may be true. But it is only one part of the measure.
The proper question is what happened afterwards. Did the behaviour stop, or did it move to another street, estate, park or transport route? Were the same young people identified again? Did businesses receive a follow-up? Were victims and witnesses told what action had been taken? Was new community intelligence collected?
This is where the phrase anti-social behaviour reduction in Grimsby needs some discipline. Reduction should mean more than a short period without complaints. It should mean fewer repeated incidents, fewer victims and less pressure on the same small group of residents, traders and public services.
Dispersal zones across North East Lincolnshire can be useful when officers have a clear problem to tackle and the public understands the boundaries. They are less convincing when used as a substitute for a plan. If a group is moved from the town centre to a nearby residential area, residents there may reasonably ask whether the operation reduced harm or simply relocated it.
The power also depends on good information. Officers need to know who is involved, what behaviour has occurred and whether the person being directed to leave is connected to that behaviour. A blanket assumption that every young person in a group is an offender is not community safety. It is poor practice, and it risks damaging trust with families who may later be asked to support prevention work.
A strong operation therefore has several parts:
1. A defined problem. Residents and businesses should be able to understand what conduct prompted the action, rather than being given vague references to disorder.
2. A visible presence. Officers and partner agencies should be seen where the trouble is occurring, not only after the event. Presence is not theatre when it reassures victims and improves intelligence.
3. Proportionate enforcement. The response should distinguish between serious intimidation, persistent damage and ordinary groups of young people using public space.
4. A route beyond the operation. Repeat names, vulnerable individuals and low-level offenders should not disappear into a paperwork gap once the dispersal period ends.
5. A public account afterwards. The community needs to know what was done, what was learned and what will happen next.
The 18-month, £330,000 Grimsby town-centre crackdown announced in October 2023 was framed as a multi-agency response to crime and anti-social behaviour, with 80% of the funding coming from the Office of the Humberside Police and Crime Commissioner. Its proposed youth hub on Osborne Street was particularly significant because it recognised the limit of enforcement alone.
The funding and the timescale suggest a programme rather than a single day of action. But the public should still ask for measurable progress. How many young people were offered diversion? How many returned to services? Which hotspots changed? Was the hub opened and operating as intended? The specific operational status of that planned facility is not established in the available information, so it would be wrong to treat an announcement as proof of delivery.
That is the difference between a promise and a safety outcome.
What youth diversion changes
Youth diversion is intended for cases where early support can deal with low-level offending or risky behaviour without immediately sending a young person through formal prosecution. North East Lincolnshire Council’s Youth Justice Service operates a diversion scheme with that purpose.
The reasoning is not soft-hearted or naïve. It is practical. Early formal prosecution can attach a criminal justice identity to a young person before the pattern of offending has become fixed. The council cites research indicating that young people formally prosecuted early are six times more likely to reoffend than those supported through preventative intervention.
That figure should not be used carelessly. It does not mean every young person offered diversion would otherwise become a prolific offender. It does mean that formal processing can carry risks, and that a low-level offence may be better handled through a structured intervention when the circumstances allow it.
National research evaluated by the College of Policing found that police-initiated diversion reduced reoffending from 50% to 44% compared with formal criminal justice processing. That is a six-percentage-point reduction, not a claim that diversion solves youth offending across the board. It is also national evidence, not a Grimsby-specific result.
The distinction matters because local policy should be judged against local outcomes. We need to know whether young people in Grimsby are being reached promptly, whether families understand the offer and whether the support continues beyond the first meeting. A referral that exists only on paper will not reduce harm.
Effective diversion can involve work around:
- education attendance and exclusion;
- family conflict and unstable home circumstances;
- substance misuse;
- emotional wellbeing and trauma;
- peer pressure and exploitation;
- practical consequences of offending;
- safe, structured activities after school and in the evening;
- repairing harm where that is suitable and agreed.
The intervention should fit the behaviour. A young person involved in repeated shop theft may need a different response from someone caught carrying a knife, threatening another person or participating in serious violence. Diversion is not a universal alternative to prosecution, and serious offences will often require formal criminal justice action.
Nor should the word be used to disguise inaction. Families and victims are entitled to know that diversion contains a clear expectation of changed behaviour. Support without boundaries is not prevention. The best schemes combine accountability with a realistic route out.
Youth diversionary activities need to be more than somewhere to go
The proposed Osborne Street youth hub was important not simply because it offered a building. A youth hub can provide a point of contact between young people, youth workers, schools, police and other services. That connection is often what is missing when agencies each hold a fragment of the problem.
But a building does not divert anyone by itself.
For youth diversionary activities in Grimsby to work, they need trusted adults, consistent opening times and activities that young people will actually attend. They also need a clear relationship with enforcement. If a young person is repeatedly identified in a hotspot, the response should not be limited to telling them to leave. Someone should be able to ask what is happening, what support has already been offered and whether the support is reaching them.
A successful hub or outreach programme should be able to answer practical questions:
- Is it available at the hours when anti-social behaviour is most likely to occur?
- Can a young person attend without already being known to a service?
- Are families brought into the conversation where appropriate?
- Can youth workers connect someone quickly to substance misuse, education or domestic abuse support?
- Is there a route for traders and residents to share information without turning every concern into a demand for arrest?
- Are attendance, repeat incidents and outcomes being monitored?
Community intelligence is central here. Residents often know which alleyway is being used, which shop is being targeted and which time of day brings the trouble. They may also know which young people are vulnerable rather than simply troublesome. That knowledge needs to reach the right professionals, safely and lawfully.
The public should not be expected to investigate young people or confront groups themselves. Reporting patterns through the proper channels is safer and more useful than neighbourhood speculation. A report that includes location, time, behaviour, descriptions and immediate risk gives the beat officer or council team something to work with.
The real comparison: speed against staying power
The strongest case for dispersal powers is speed. When people are being harassed or a town-centre business is dealing with repeated disorder, waiting for a long-term programme to take effect is not acceptable. There must be a response that protects people in the moment.
The strongest case for diversion is staying power. If the same young people continue to offend, moving them on every weekend is not a strategy. It is a cycle.
| Public safety need | Best immediate response | Longer-term response |
|---|---|---|
| A group is causing intimidation outside a business | Visible police presence, targeted enforcement and, where lawful, dispersal powers | Identify repeat individuals and address the reasons for the pattern |
| Young people are gathering in a park without clear offending behaviour | Engagement, reassurance and proportionate patrols | Safe activities, youth work and a clear local offer |
| A low-level offence has occurred | An appropriate outcome that recognises harm and responsibility | Youth Justice Service diversion where the case and risk are suitable |
| A pattern of repeat offending is emerging | Coordinated police and council action | Multi-agency intervention, family support and monitoring |
| Residents report repeated disorder but receive no updates | Clear reporting route and named agency response | Regular public information on actions, outcomes and remaining gaps |
The choice should not be made according to which response looks tougher. It should be made according to the risk, the behaviour and the likelihood of preventing repetition.
A dispersal notice may be entirely justified for a young person involved in immediate intimidation. That same young person may also need diversion afterwards. These are not contradictory positions. Public safety comes first, but public safety includes stopping the next incident rather than only ending the current one.
What a credible Grimsby strategy should look like
A serious strategy for safer streets in Grimsby and North East Lincolnshire would join enforcement and prevention rather than setting them against each other.
First, the public needs a clear account of where powers are being used and why. If a dispersal zone is introduced, residents should understand its geographical limits, the period of operation and the behaviour it is intended to address. If a park PSPO is proposed, the case should be based on evidence from that park, not on general anxiety about young people.
Second, repeat locations need ownership. When a problem shifts from the town centre to West Marsh, Cleethorpes or another neighbourhood, the response should follow the harm. The phrase Safer Streets West Marsh ASB should represent a coordinated local effort, not a label applied to a project without a public account of its results.
Third, enforcement data should be connected to prevention data. The number of dispersal directions or Fixed Penalty Notices may show activity, but not whether people are safer. The more useful questions are whether repeat incidents fell, whether victims received support and whether young people were linked to suitable services.
Fourth, youth services need enough continuity to build trust. A young person who has been excluded from school, is under pressure from older peers or is dealing with substance misuse is unlikely to change because of a single warning. Nor will a referral succeed if the family cannot get an appointment or does not understand what happens next.
Fifth, police and council leaders should explain failure as well as success. If behaviour was displaced, say so. If the youth hub opened later than planned, say so. If a programme reached fewer young people than expected, explain why and what is being changed. Accountability is not an attack on the people doing the work. It is how a community knows whether the work is real.
The public does not need louder promises. It needs a chain of responsibility from the first report to the final outcome.
There is also a balance to be struck around language. Calling every gathering of young people anti-social can make residents less precise and authorities less effective. At the same time, refusing to name intimidation, criminal damage or persistent harassment because the offenders are young does nobody a favour. Clear descriptions produce better decisions.
The verdict: use both tools, but measure the right thing
Dispersal orders and PSPO enforcement have a legitimate place in Grimsby’s crime prevention approach. They can restore order quickly, protect businesses and residents, and show that public space is not abandoned when problems arise.
But they are tactical measures. A 48-hour dispersal power cannot address the circumstances that bring a young person back to the same street. A PSPO cannot provide a trusted adult, repair a family relationship or replace a youth service. Enforcement can create the breathing space in which prevention becomes possible. It cannot be mistaken for prevention itself.
Youth diversion offers the better long-term prospect for suitable low-level cases because it aims to interrupt the criminalisation cycle and deal with underlying needs. The national evidence points in that direction, while the local evidence must still be developed and published with care. Diversion should be firm, structured and properly resourced. It should never mean that victims are forgotten or that repeat behaviour is tolerated.
For residents, the most useful contribution remains accurate reporting. Note the place, time, behaviour and immediate risk. Report repeated patterns rather than relying on social media claims. If you are a trader, pass on incidents through the agreed business and police channels. If you are a parent or youth worker, ask what support is available before a low-level incident becomes a lasting label.
And then ask for the follow-up. What happened after the dispersal? Which service took responsibility? Was the young person offered suitable intervention? Did the hotspot improve, or did the problem simply move?
Those are the straight answers that turn a visible presence into a safer community.