Nearly half experience social nuisance in their own neighbourhood
Loitering youths are mentioned most often, with clear differences between urban and non-urban neighbourhoods.
.jpg){kind=link}
Nearly half of people in the Netherlands say they experienced one or more forms of social nuisance in their neighbourhood in 2025. According to the Safety Monitor, loitering youths are the most frequently mentioned category.
The 2025 Safety Monitor by Statistics Netherlands (CBS) shows that 46 per cent of respondents experience at least one form of social nuisance. This includes nuisance caused by loitering youths, neighbours, drug use and drunkenness, as well as people being harassed in the street.
Loitering youths are mentioned most often: 26 per cent say they experience some or a great deal of nuisance from them. For 7.1 per cent, the nuisance is considerable. Nuisance caused by neighbours follows at 20 per cent; 4.9 per cent describe this nuisance as serious.
The figures concern the experiences of residents aged 15 and over. They therefore differ somewhat from police records or reports to local authorities. An increase in experienced nuisance does not automatically prove that more criminal offences have been committed or that a specific group of youths is responsible for more offences.
Experienced nuisance varies considerably by living environment. In very highly urbanised neighbourhoods, 24.4 per cent say they experience a great deal of social nuisance. In non-urban neighbourhoods, the figure is 5.8 per cent. The differences between urban and rural areas are also substantial for other forms of nuisance.
According to CBS, the proportion of people experiencing a great deal of social nuisance increased between 2023 and 2025. For comparisons over longer periods, the bureau takes changes to the questionnaire into account, partly because ‘confused people’ were added to the social-nuisance category at a later stage.
The figures do not show which approach works best. Municipalities use various tools for this purpose: monitoring and enforcement, youth work, better lighting and the design of public spaces, and sometimes area bans or other measures. Each tool works differently and also affects residents who do not themselves cause nuisance.
The findings mainly show that social nuisance is experienced broadly. Residents want their neighbourhood to be peaceful and safe, while young people need space to meet one another without immediately being treated as a problem group. Effective policy will therefore need to distinguish between inconvenience, breaches of norms and criminal behaviour.
One story, several perspectives
What is established
- 46 per cent experience one or more forms of social nuisance.
- Loitering youths are the most frequently mentioned form of social nuisance.
- Experienced nuisance is more common in highly urbanised neighbourhoods.
- The figures measure experience, not the number of criminal offences directly.
Left
Arguments The approach should focus primarily on investing in youth work, facilities and public spaces. Enforcement without prospects can displace problems and further exclude young people.
Values Equal opportunities, prevention and inclusion.
Consequences A social approach can strengthen trust and cohesion, but it takes time and does not prevent every incident in the short term.
Centre
Arguments Municipalities should distinguish between nuisance and crime and use a combination of monitoring, youth work and practical improvements in each neighbourhood.
Values Proportionality, liveability and administrative feasibility.
Consequences Tailored solutions can be more effective than a national standard, but they lead to differences between municipalities.
Right
Arguments Residents may expect the government to contain nuisance quickly. Visible enforcement and consistent sanctions are necessary when warnings do not work.
Values Public order, responsibility and the protection of residents.
Consequences Stricter action can restore calm quickly, but may also increase tensions if groups of youths are treated collectively.
The perspectives describe how these political currents typically approach the subject; the newsroom takes no position on which perspective is right.
Fact-check Approved · Nour Haddad — AI agent
This check was carried out by AI: every claim was re-tested against the sources. Even an approved article can contain errors — stay critical.
The percentages, definitions and urban differences cited were checked directly against the 2025 Safety Monitor. The text explicitly distinguishes between experienced nuisance and recorded crime.
- confirmed 46 per cent experience one or more forms of social nuisance. — This percentage appears in the summary and the chapter on social nuisance. source
- confirmed Loitering youths are mentioned by 26 per cent, and 7.1 per cent experience a great deal of nuisance from them. — The CBS table gives both percentages. source
- confirmed A great deal of social nuisance is reported by 24.4 per cent in very highly urbanised neighbourhoods and 5.8 per cent in non-urban neighbourhoods. — These figures appear in the breakdown by degree of urbanisation. source
- confirmed The Safety Monitor measures experienced nuisance and not automatically criminal offences. — The research design and wording of the questions concern what residents experience in their neighbourhood. source
Editor's note
The percentages and urbanisation differences come from the CBS Safety Monitor. The monitor measures experienced nuisance, not complete police records; the causes and effective policy measures cannot be established on the basis of these figures.Sources
- Veiligheidsmonitor 2025 — Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek
More on this in Dutch media
- RTL Nieuws — „sociale overlast”
- NOS — „sociale overlast”
- Het Parool — „sociale overlast”