Youth diversion or policing for Grimsby ASB?

Those are meaningful results. They are also not an argument for choosing enforcement over youth support, or youth support over enforcement.

They show something more practical. Public spaces need an immediate response when behaviour becomes threatening or disruptive. Young people who are repeatedly drawn into offending need a route away from the criminal justice system. One deals with what is happening now. The other is meant to stop the same pattern returning next week, next month, or next year.

That is the real question behind youth diversion versus policing for Grimsby ASB: not which side wins, but whether the two parts are being used properly, in the right place and with enough accountability.

Section 35 powers deal with the immediate problem

Section 35 dispersal powers, introduced under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, allow police officers to direct individuals to leave a specified area for up to 48 hours. The power is designed for situations where anti-social behaviour is taking place, or where officers believe people are contributing to a risk of further ASB, crime or disorder.

For residents and shop workers, the practical meaning is straightforward. If a group is causing intimidation outside a shop, harassing passers-by, damaging property or creating a persistent disturbance in a defined area, officers can require them to leave rather than simply wait for the behaviour to escalate into a more serious offence.

That visible presence matters. A dispersal direction can clear a flashpoint quickly. It can give a town-centre business a breathing space, allow a venue or public square to settle, and make it clear that public space is not available for whoever is most willing to dominate it.

But a Section 35 direction lasts for no more than 48 hours. It is not a rehabilitation programme. It does not establish why a young person keeps appearing in the same place, whether there are problems at home, or whether they are being pulled into offending by older individuals. It does not, by itself, change the next decision that person makes.

This is where public debate often goes wrong. Some people see dispersal powers as heavy-handed and assume they cannot sit alongside youth support. Others treat them as a complete answer to youth ASB. Neither view is useful.

The power is a tactical tool. Used lawfully and proportionately, it can protect a public space in the moment. It should not be presented as a long-term crime prevention strategy on its own.

A dispersal direction can move a problem out of the square. It cannot, by itself, move a young person out of the pattern.

There is also a difference between a young person being directed to leave an area and being permanently labelled a criminal. A Section 35 dispersal direction is not the same as a conviction, and it should not be described as long-term rehabilitation. That distinction matters, particularly when residents are asking for straight answers about what police powers actually do.

Safer Streets 5 offers a useful test of the dual-track approach

The Safer Streets 5 work in Grimsby gives us a clearer picture of how enforcement and prevention can operate together.

The reported reductions are notable:

There is no reason to brush these figures aside. An 88% reduction in alcohol-related ASB in St James’ Square suggests that targeted activity, environmental measures, enforcement and partnership work had a substantial effect in that location. The 35% reduction in town centre ASB points in the same direction.

At the same time, figures need context. A reduction in recorded incidents tells us what happened in the reporting data during the period being measured. It does not answer every question residents may have. We still need to know whether the improvement is holding, whether problems have moved to nearby streets, and whether young people who were repeatedly involved have received support that changes their future behaviour.

That is not an attempt to undermine the results. It is what proper accountability looks like.

Multi-agency work such as Operation Mastery brings together Humberside Police, council ASB officers and enforcement partners to target ASB and shop theft in Grimsby town centre. This kind of operation recognises that town-centre safety is not solely a police matter. Shops, transport locations, licensing teams, council officers, youth workers and residents all see different pieces of the problem.

The policing response may include patrols, intelligence gathering, arrests or dispersal directions where the legal threshold is met. Council teams may deal with environmental problems, tenancy issues, licensing matters or longer-term ASB casework. Retailers provide reports about repeat theft, intimidation and damage. Youth services may know which young people are disengaging from school or spending long periods in vulnerable spaces.

That combined information is community intelligence. It is more useful than a series of disconnected complaints sitting in separate systems.

Safer Streets initiatives have also included substantial investment in CCTV, with £2.2 million identified for a security system across the programme. Cameras are not a substitute for officers on the beat, and they cannot replace youth workers. Their value depends on whether footage is monitored, accessed when needed and connected to a response. A camera that records an incident but does not help identify, deter or protect anyone is not a complete safety measure.

The same principle applies to dispersal powers. The number of directions issued may sound impressive, but residents need to understand what happened afterwards. Were repeat individuals identified? Were vulnerable young people referred to support? Did the trouble return when the order expired? Those are the details that separate a working strategy from a headline.

The Haven Centre addresses what enforcement cannot

The Haven Centre on Osborne Street opened on 6 December 2023. During Safer Streets 5 operations, it recorded more than 1,500 attendances by young people between March and September.

That figure does not tell us how many young people attended once, how many returned regularly, or what specific outcomes followed. It does tell us that a structured youth venue can attract considerable engagement during a period when town-centre safety work is under way.

That matters because youth diversion is not simply about giving young people somewhere to pass the time. Done properly, it creates an alternative to the street, an opportunity for trusted adults to notice problems early, and a route into activities or support before behaviour becomes entrenched.

Youth diversionary activities in North East Lincolnshire may sit alongside police action in several ways. A young person involved in a low-level offence might be offered a Community Resolution, referred through Outcome 22, or directed towards voluntary early intervention rather than being processed through the formal criminal justice system. These routes are not a free pass. They are intended to require accountability without making a first or minor offence the defining feature of a young person’s future.

The standard must still be clear. A referral should mean more than being handed a leaflet. It should connect the young person to something that has a realistic chance of helping: safe activities, mentoring, education, family support, substance misuse assistance where needed, or work on emotional and behavioural difficulties.

The Haven Centre’s attendance figures are encouraging, but attendance is only the front door. The serious questions are about engagement and follow-through:

• Do young people return because the provision is useful and trusted?
• Are those at higher risk receiving consistent support rather than being repeatedly moved on?
• Are parents or carers involved where appropriate?
• Can police and council teams identify whether diversion is reducing repeat incidents?
• Is there a clear route for young people who need specialist help rather than general activities?

Residents should not be asked to choose between compassion and standards. Young people need both. A youth provision that avoids difficult conversations is not prevention. Enforcement that never asks what happens next is not enough either.

What the evidence says about diversion and prosecution

The comparison between youth diversion and formal prosecution is often presented as a moral argument. It is better treated as an evidence question.

A College of Policing review found that young people diverted by police to non-criminal justice alternatives had a reoffending rate of 44%, compared with 50% for those processed through the formal criminal justice system. That is not a guarantee that diversion will work for every individual. It is evidence that avoiding formal processing can produce better outcomes for some young people, particularly where the response is proportionate and properly delivered.

The difference is not enormous, and it should not be exaggerated. A six-point gap does not prove that every case should be diverted. Serious violence, coercion, persistent offending and immediate risks to the public require a firm and lawful response. Victims must not be treated as an afterthought in the name of intervention.

But the figures do challenge the assumption that formal prosecution is automatically the most effective route for low-level youth offending. A criminal justice process can impose consequences, yet it can also deepen contact with the system, disrupt education and attach a criminal identity at an early stage. If the offence is minor and the risk can be managed, a properly supervised diversion route may offer a better chance of preventing repetition.

The useful comparison looks like this:

The strongest Grimsby youth crime prevention options are therefore not found in one column alone. They sit in the handover between the two.

A police officer may identify a young person involved in low-level offending. The next step should not be automatic escalation or automatic release. It should be a considered decision based on the seriousness of the behaviour, previous history, vulnerability, the risk to others and whether a suitable intervention is available.

That requires officers and partner agencies to have real alternatives. Telling people to divert young offenders without funding reliable programmes is just another form of official optimism.

The danger of treating ASB as one single problem

Anti-social behaviour is used to describe a wide range of experiences. A noisy group outside a shop, harassment of an older resident, repeated criminal damage, shop theft and threats involving weapons are not the same problem. They may overlap, but they need different responses.

This is particularly important when discussing young people. Some are causing harm. Some are being exploited. Some are both offending and vulnerable. A group of teenagers involved in intimidation may include a young person being directed by older offenders. A child repeatedly appearing in public spaces late at night may be missing school, experiencing neglect or using substances. None of these possibilities excuses harmful behaviour. They do affect what effective prevention should look like.

A blunt enforcement response may be appropriate for an active threat. It may also miss the young person who is most at risk of being pulled further into crime. A purely supportive response may fail the shop worker, resident or passenger who is being targeted. The job is to distinguish between those situations rather than forcing every case into one category.

This is why community intelligence matters. Residents, retailers and venue staff often notice patterns before they appear in formal statistics. They know which alley is being used, which doorway is attracting intimidation, when a group tends to arrive and whether the problem is new or recurring. Reports should be specific and timely, not fuelled by rumour. Dates, locations, descriptions of behaviour and the effect on those present are more useful than broad claims that an area has become unsafe.

The authorities, for their part, need to explain what can be done with that information. Residents should not be told simply to report everything and then left without any sense of whether reports are being joined up. Straight answers do not require the release of sensitive operational details. They do require a clear explanation of the response, the limits of police powers and how partners are involved.

Enforcement and support need the same local plan

The most credible approach to anti-social behaviour reduction in Grimsby is a dual-track plan with a visible public face and a measurable follow-up.

The visible part includes patrols, properly used dispersal powers, action against shop theft and criminal damage, safer town-centre design, functioning CCTV and prompt attention to repeat locations. People should be able to see that the area is being managed. That does not mean constant confrontation. It means a dependable presence and a response that does not disappear after the first busy weekend.

The less visible part includes youth workers, referral routes, early intervention, family support and activities that young people will actually attend. It also includes work with schools, retailers, housing providers and substance abuse services where those issues are affecting behaviour.

For this to work, agencies should be able to answer five basic questions:

1. Which places and behaviours are causing the greatest harm?

A strategy should focus on patterns, not just the loudest complaint or the most recent incident.

2. Which individuals need immediate enforcement action?

Serious or persistent offending cannot be softened by vague language about diversion.

3. Which young people are suitable for intervention?

Diversion should be based on risk, vulnerability and the circumstances of the offence, not on a wish to make figures look better.

4. What happens after the first response?

A dispersal direction, Community Resolution or referral is a step. It is not the result.

5. How will residents know whether the strategy is working?

Regular reporting should include more than totals. It should explain repeat ASB, displacement into nearby areas, youth engagement and outcomes over time.

There is a temptation in public safety work to announce an operation, publish a photograph and move on to the next concern. Residents deserve more than that. A programme should be judged by whether people feel safer, whether businesses can operate without intimidation, whether young people are being prevented from entering a cycle of offending, and whether repeat locations are genuinely improving.

The reported Safer Streets 5 reductions provide a strong starting point. They do not remove the need for scrutiny. If crime falls in the town centre but rises just beyond the operational boundary, that should be examined. If young people attend a centre but the same names continue to appear in incident reports, that should be examined too. Success is not a single percentage. It is a pattern that holds.

So which works better for Grimsby ASB?

Policing is the right tool when there is immediate danger, persistent disorder, intimidation, criminal damage, theft or a clear need to protect victims and public space. Officers need the powers and resources to act. Residents should not be expected to tolerate escalating behaviour while agencies wait for a long-term intervention to take effect.

Youth diversion is the right tool when a young person has committed a low-level offence or is showing early signs of being drawn into ASB, and when there is a credible programme available to address the behaviour. The evidence on non-criminal justice alternatives supports using that route carefully rather than treating prosecution as the automatic answer.

The better conclusion is not that policing has failed, or that diversion is soft. It is that each addresses a different part of the problem. Enforcement creates immediate control. Diversion creates an opportunity for change. Neither deserves to be used as public relations shorthand for a complete solution.

Grimsby’s results under Safer Streets 5 suggest that the combined approach can make a difference. The task now is to make sure the figures are followed by durable work: continued visible policing, properly supported youth provision, reliable referrals and public reporting that gives residents more than reassurance.

If you see recurring ASB, report the behaviour with the location, time and specific impact. If you are a retailer, keep reporting repeat incidents even when the individual case appears minor. If you are involved in youth work or community activity, make sure agencies know what provision exists and where the gaps are.

Community safety is built from that information. But the responsibility does not stop with the public. Residents can provide community intelligence. The police, council and partner agencies must turn it into action, explain what they have done and show whether it worked. That is the standard Grimsby should expect.