Understanding the Overlap Between ASB and Addiction
As part of Addiction Awareness Week 2025, we wanted to explore the overlap between addiction and anti social behaviour, and what this means for the teams managing cases on the frontline. Across housing, community safety and policing, practitioners are supporting an increasing number of individuals whose substance use affects stability, daily routines and their ability to meet tenancy expectations.
To strengthen this discussion, we are grateful to have insight from Mark Gilman, a national specialist in Harm Reduction, who has contributed his experience on how different forms of addiction present, the role of treatment, and the realities practitioners face when supporting some of the most complex cases.
Officers often describe the same challenges: inconsistent engagement, behaviour that impacts neighbours, and underlying health or safeguarding issues that make progress less straightforward. National evidence from OHID, NICE, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs and the Carol Black Review reflects what practitioners see every day: addiction rarely exists in isolation. It often sits alongside mental health needs, trauma, exploitation, poverty and wider pressures that shape how someone is able to manage their home and relationships within their community.
Mark highlights that addiction has many profiles. Some individuals experience addiction quietly, with little outward disruption. Others are managing multiple dependencies such as crack cocaine, alcohol, opioids, pregabalin or benzodiazepines and are living in chaotic circumstances where instability becomes the norm. In the highest risk situations, accommodation can become a site for exploitation or dealing, with drug dealers targeting vulnerable individuals whose homes can be used for supply. These situations create significant harm for neighbours and require coordinated support and timely enforcement.
This article brings together indicators, barriers and practical approaches that support consistent, confident responses when ASB and addiction intersect.
Recognising When ASB May Be Linked to Addiction
Addiction can appear in different ways within ASB reports. Teams frequently encounter cases involving:
- noise linked to chaotic routines
- high levels of visitors and associated disturbances
- deterioration in property condition
- drug paraphernalia in communal areas
- unpredictable or volatile behaviour
NICE guidance highlights that substance use often coexists with poor mental health, which can make it difficult for individuals to maintain routines or meet tenancy expectations. These behaviours can mask significant vulnerability or exploitation. Understanding what is driving instability helps officers choose interventions that make a practical difference rather than treating the presenting behaviour in isolation.
Mark notes that understanding how someone uses substances is essential to selecting the right interventions. Some individuals may be prescribed opioid substitution medications such as methadone or buprenorphine, while also using substances like crack cocaine or alcohol alongside them, which contributes to instability. Others follow abstinence based plans supported by mutual aid groups and tend to present with more consistent routines. Practitioners often find it helpful to ask whether someone is engaged with treatment and what their treatment plan involves
Barriers to Engagement: Why Progress Is Not Always Linear
National treatment data from OHID shows that individuals affected by addiction often struggle with consistent engagement. Cognitive impairment, anxiety around enforcement, lack of routine, or previous negative experiences with services can all play a role.
Mark adds that many individuals at the heavier end of addiction also have coexisting mental health conditions. Some use substances as a form of self medication, often in the absence of timely mental health support. This contributes to the volatility and unpredictability that officers experience.
Practitioners consistently report that engagement improves when expectations are clear and the support offer is structured rather than informal. This often means being very explicit about what will happen, when it will happen, and what the individual needs to do between contacts.
Useful approaches include:
- Setting out actions in writing so the individual is not relying on memory or verbal agreements. Officers often use short, simple written plans that outline what will happen that week and what the individual has agreed to work on.
- Keeping contact predictable, for example by agreeing a regular day or time for check ins. Many officers say that erratic contact unintentionally reinforces chaotic routines, while predictability helps people settle into a pattern.
- Making each contact task focused, rather than broad catch ups. This might involve reviewing one specific action, addressing a barrier, or checking progress against an agreed expectation.
- Building in quick wins, such as helping with a phone call, arranging a GP link up, or supporting a benefits query. These small steps often increase trust and create early momentum.
- Agreeing who is responsible for what across agencies to prevent assumptions or duplication. When everyone is clear on their role, individuals receive more consistent messages and officers feel less pressure to carry the full weight of the case alone.
- Creating a single shared narrative, particularly for individuals who receive visits from multiple services. This prevents mixed messages and helps partners present a united approach to expectations and consequences.
- Recording missed appointments and partial engagement in a measured, factual way. This creates clarity and ensures any patterns are identified early, helping teams decide if expectations need adjusting or if escalation may be required.
These practical steps reduce case drift and give individuals a better chance of making sustained progress. They also help officers demonstrate that support has been realistic, proportionate and offered in a way that someone with fluctuating stability can reasonably follow.
Understanding the Impact on Neighbours
The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 emphasises the importance of evidencing harm, not just noting behaviour. Addiction-related ASB can cause a wide range of harms, including:
- ongoing noise and disruption
- fear caused by volatile behaviour
- concerns about frequent visitors
- deterioration of communal spaces
- children or vulnerable neighbours feeling unsafe
In a small number of cases, households experiencing multiple dependencies may be targeted by others for exploitation. As Mark Gilman notes, some properties can become bases for wider criminal activity where harm escalates quickly and affects whole blocks or neighbourhoods.
Mapping the harm helps partners understand the scale of the issue and what needs to change. It also supports proportionate and defensible decision making if escalation becomes necessary.
Relapse: Planning for the Reality Rather Than Reacting to It
Relapse is a recognised part of many recovery journeys. OHID’s national data shows that stabilisation is often non linear, particularly in the early stages of support.
The key is distinguishing between a short term setback and a sustained deterioration that increases harm. Planned review points allow partners to reassess risk, tighten expectations and adapt support without allowing cases to drift. This structure gives officers confidence in their decision making and reduces the emotional load of repeatedly revisiting the same issues without progress.
Partnership Working: Sharing Responsibility, Not Passing It On
The Carol Black Review identified fragmented service pathways as a major barrier to progress for people affected by addiction. This reflects what housing and community safety teams experience daily: no single service can resolve these cases alone.
Effective partnership work usually includes:
- clear ownership of different responsibilities
- regular communication and shared decision making
- agreed escalation routes
- consistent review points
- transparency around what progress should look like
The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs also highlights the increased risk of exploitation among people with substance dependence. This means safeguarding, enforcement and support need to sit alongside each other, not in sequence.
When responsibility is shared rather than handed off, cases tend to progress more consistently and officer confidence increases.
When Escalation Becomes Necessary
For most practitioners, the challenge in addiction related cases is not whether enforcement is available, but when it becomes the right next step. These cases often involve long periods of engagement, fluctuating progress and pressure from neighbours who are experiencing ongoing harm.
Teams say the tipping point is usually clearer when harm, risk and engagement are reviewed collectively rather than in isolation. Multi agency discussions help determine whether the behaviour is part of a temporary setback, a persistent pattern, or a deterioration that now requires a firmer response.
Escalation is most effective when:
- expectations have been clear and consistently reinforced
- the harm to neighbours is well evidenced
- the individual has had realistic opportunities to engage
- partners hold a shared view on risk and the next steps
Enforcement does not replace support. It sits alongside it, providing structure and boundaries where behaviour continues and the impact on others cannot be reduced through support alone. Practitioners consistently note that organisational backing and clear internal guidance help them make escalation decisions with confidence.
Building Confidence Within Teams
Officers often describe addiction-related ASB cases as some of the most emotionally demanding parts of their workload. Slow progress, complex needs and community pressure all contribute to that strain.
Supportive internal structures help. Regular reflective discussions, clear organisational expectations and consistent multi agency reviews give officers confidence and ensure decisions are made within clear, defensible parameters.
Understanding the Overlap Between ASB and Addiction
Cases involving addiction and ASB are challenging for individuals, neighbours and the officers managing them. With structured support, clear expectations and coordinated partnership working, organisations can respond more confidently and reduce harm within communities. Escalation still has a place where behaviour continues, but it is most effective when used alongside support and clear communication.
We would like to thank Mark Gilman for contributing his insight to this discussion. His experience within harm reduction and treatment pathways provides valuable context for the realities practitioners face and strengthens the shared understanding of what effective practice looks like.
Green and Burton continue to support organisations to strengthen their responses to complex ASB cases, including those where addiction is a contributing factor. If your organisation needs support then please do reach out and set up a discussion.