The role of intensive family support in the governance of ASB

The New Labour Government's confidence in the merits of intensive family support as a means of addressing ASB was underpinned by findings from evaluation studies that have provided largely comparable evidence that intensive family support not only ‘works’ to reduce incidents of ASB, but tackles the ‘root causes’ of this behaviour and is welcomed by those families receiving the service. In Nixon et al.'s (Reference Nixon, Hunter, Parr, Myers, Whittle and Sanderson2006, Reference Nixon, Parr, Hunter, Sanderson and Whittle2007) study of six intensive family support projects, complaints about ASB with regard to 80 per cent of families were said to have either ceased or had reduced to a level where the tenancy was no longer deemed to be at riskFootnote ¹ at the point where the family exited the project. Similarly, White et al.'s (Reference White, Warrener, Reeves and LaValle2008) evaluation of the FIP programme found that the level of ASB declined considerably among those who ‘engaged’ with a project's programme of support. Equally positive outcomes were recorded in Pawson et al.'s (Reference Pawson, Davidson, Sosenko, Flint, Nixon, Casey and Sanderson2009) study of intensive family support projects operating in Scotland where 70 per cent of families were reported to have successfully completed their support plan at the point they exited the project. Among this group of families, in 94 per cent of cases ASB complaints had reduced, for 81 per cent there was a reduced risk of homelessness/eviction, and in 63 per cent of families the risk of family breakdown had been reduced. Across the three studies, project staff and partner agencies were reported to overwhelmingly endorse intensive family support as an effective method of addressing ASB. In all studies, too, service users reportedly spoke of the considerable benefits of intensive family support and felt that it had made a significant positive impact on their lives. The overriding message is that, for those who engage with this type of intervention, the model is an effective one: ‘It can, however, be stated with confidence that the Projects have engaged – and in most cases achieved immediate positive impacts – with some of the country's most vulnerable and troubled families’ (Pawson et al., Reference Pawson, Davidson, Sosenko, Flint, Nixon, Casey and Sanderson2009: 132).

Although there is now a general consensus within the policy community that intensive family support is ‘fit for purpose’ (White et al., Reference White, Warrener, Reeves and LaValle2008: 146), critical commentators, from a diversity of perspectives, have questioned whether such interventions are really such an unqualified good thing, considering the why of family support, the rationale behind policy developments in this area and, with that, the goals in support of which family support activities are being mobilised (Featherstone, Reference Featherstone2004, Reference Featherstone2006; Smith, Reference Smith2006). Critics have argued that interventions into family life are representative of a mode of governance grounded in moral responsibility aimed at ensuring families become self-reliant, meet their obligations and take greater accountability for social and economic ills (Goldson and Jamieson, Reference Goldson and Jamieson2002; Gillies, Reference Gillies2005). Lister (Reference Lister2006) and Featherstone (Reference Featherstone2006), for instance, locate family support as part of a broader project to establish a ‘social investment state’ (Giddens, Reference Giddens1998). At the heart of the ‘social investment state’ is a ‘future-orientation’ in which, for state spending to be viewed as worthwhile, it must not simply be consumed in the present, but must have a future pay-off in terms of promoting labour market participation or, more negatively, to prevent disproportionate demand on the future share of service provision. As such, it is argued that family support projects commonly contain an explicit emphasis on encouraging parents to find paid employment. For some critics of New Labour's family support policies (Gillies, Reference Gillies2005; Lister, Reference Lister2006), this amounts to a top-down, authoritarian programme of ‘re-training’ driven by a particular moral agenda aimed at regulating those families who are unable or unwilling to conform to the moral values of the mainstream. The form and content of this ‘training’ is identified as reflecting prevailing (white) middle-class values and ambitions around parenting which do not automatically recognise different cultural attitudes towards child-rearing practices. It is argued that this leads to certain styles of child-rearing being pathologised as inadequate or ineffective and ensures that working-class families are often the target of intervention (Holt, Reference Holt and Squires2008; Gillies, Reference Gillies2005; Clarke, Reference Clarke2006). Furthermore, although discourses about the ‘anti-social family’ remain largely gender-neutral, commentators have also highlighted how it is in fact a site in which gender plays a pivotal role (Nixon and Hunter, Reference Nixon, Hunter and Millie2009; Hunter and Nixon, Reference Hunter and Nixon2001). Women-headed households commonly form the target group for technologies aimed at controlling conduct, including family support projects, not because of the behaviour of the women themselves but rather their inability to control the behaviour of teenage (often male) children and/or male partners.

Critics also point out that micro-level interventions that focus on the individual behaviour of parents do so at the expense of the material context and social structures as the principal problem to be addressed (Goldson and Jamieson, Reference Goldson and Jamieson2002; Gelsthorpe and Morris, Reference Gelsthorpe, Morris, Maguire, Morgan and Reiner1994). While it is acknowledged that poor parenting skills are associated with ‘offending’ behaviour, it is argued that such a contention should not automatically lead to blaming parents in a reductionist and oversimplified manner (Arthur, Reference Arthur2005; Squires and Stephen, Reference Squires and Stephen2005). It is widely acknowledged, for instance, that the stress caused by economic hardship has a devastating effect on families, and diminishes parents’ capacity to provide supportive and consistent parenting (Burney and Gelsthorpe, Reference Burney and Gelsthorpe2008). Yet, an emphasis on parental and individualised responsibility, it is argued, masks these wider structural causes of ASB (Gelsthorpe and Morris, Reference Gelsthorpe, Morris, Maguire, Morgan and Reiner1994).

Other commentators have suggested that the current preoccupation with ‘the family’ and parenting within contemporary ASB policy has assumed a distinctively punitive edge such that the tone of legislation is now dominated by the state's willingness to ‘insist and punish, rather than advise and ameliorate’ (Drakeford and McCarthy, Reference Drakeford, McCarthy and Goldson2000: 96). The critical literature maintains that the delivery of ‘supportive’ interventions within a crime and disorder framework founded on stigmatising and pathologising notions of ‘problem’ families is likely to be counterproductive for those on the receiving end and evoke feelings of stress, alienation and penalisation (Drakeford and McCarthy, Reference Drakeford, McCarthy and Goldson2000; Goldson and Jamieson, Reference Goldson and Jamieson2002; Arthur, Reference Arthur2005; Gillies, Reference Gillies2005). For Garrett (Reference Garrett2006: 7), FIPs: ‘hark back to the “remoralisation” of the working classes, urban poor and “industrial residuum” in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries’ and, particularly those with residential units, are said to provide ‘a new disciplinary mechanism beyond due process and law’ (Garrett, Reference Garrett2007: 221). In a scathing critique of two of the studies that have been undertaken evaluating the intensive family support projects, Garrett draws particular attention to an absence of discussion on how such projects ‘confuse, coerce and infantilize residents’ (Garrett, Reference Garrett2007: 223), particularly those living within residential settings, where, he suggests, much of the emphasis is on the surveillance and containment of families.

The somewhat polarised positions regarding the role of intensive family support referred to above seem to suggest that the model of intervention is either a positive and progressive or negative and coercive intervention. In what follows, the paper reflects on these different perspectives through case study research in one intensive family support project, the Family Support Service (FSS).

Surveillance, scrutiny and punishment

The FSS intervention brings with it the use of disciplinary technologies of intervention. This is because, firstly, the project retains housing management responsibilities with regard to many families and so possesses the power to evict households from dispersed properties and the core residential unit. Second, through their close working relations with partner agencies, the FSS also has the capacity to influence/support the imposition of tenure-neutral legal sanctions such as ASBOs. Moreover, underpinning the strategy of intervention is a ‘twin track’ (a combination of ‘support’ and ‘enforcement’) approach whereby staff support enforcement action where it is deemed to be necessary. The use of punitive measures on the grounds of non-compliance was stated as being a defining feature of the project. Indeed, project workers spell out to families the consequences that may befall them should they fail to meet their side of the support plan agreement as a key part of what was described as a ‘challenging’ and ‘assertive’ approach. All of the women interviewed were well aware of this, which led some to worry that project workers were primarily concerned with monitoring their conduct.

It appeared to be the case that those women who were themselves or who had children who were subject to legal tools (e.g., ASBOs) to address criminal offending or ASB and/or had multiple agency involvement were particularly sceptical of the extent to which the project was there solely to ‘support’ them, and expressed acute anxiety about getting involved with the FSS. Fran, for instance, described feeling that she had to ‘prove’ to project workers that she was ‘coping’ and in control in order to prevent them from informing social services that her children were ‘at risk’. This was a constant worry for Fran, particularly as she described sometimes feeling incapable of ‘performing’ in the way project workers demanded, in part due to a long-term health condition. For Fran, project workers represented part of a larger governing framework concerned with checking up on her and scrutinising her performance as a mother:

In this case, the FSS intervention did in fact play a significant part in the governance of ASB as enacted through enforcement measures. A key part of the project's intervention was ensuring that Fran's sons adhered to the terms and conditions of their ASBOs. Project staff applied pressure on Fran to control the behaviour of her sons and take active responsibility in ensuring that they met the terms of their ASBOs. Although reflecting the project's stated ‘twin track’ approach, the dual role of ‘support’ and enforcement was clearly in conflict for Fran and it was difficult for her to develop a trusting relationship with project workers who were also threatening her with enforcement action and homelessness. As such, Fran worried about the rationale for project workers’ visits, who sometimes arrived in pairs, something she found particularly oppressive: ‘I'm a bit worried thinking what they're actually coming for today actually, two of 'em!’.

Beyond the distinctly punitive and disciplinary, the intrusive and scrutinising nature of the project was acute, particularly for those families living in the core residential accommodation whose liberty is subject to extreme restrictions. When living in the core unit, families are provided with a much more intensive level of intervention, involving daily contact with project workers who become involved with family members’ day-to-day lives. The somewhat authoritarian nature of the core unit was revealed during interviews with Cathy and Charlotte. Not surprisingly, the women expressed irritation with regard to the restrictions that living in the residential accommodation placed on their freedom: in particular, having to be home by 10.00 p.m. Both also described how their teenage children found the rules particularly hard to live by and had also been unsettled by the family's relocation to an area where they had no friends or family:

Over the course of three interviews, the women living in the core unit became increasingly frustrated that they did not have the choice to move out – to do so would have effectively rendered them ‘intentionally homeless’.Footnote ³ During her third interview, Cathy talked about how living within the confines of the unit had become increasingly stifling. She struggled to reconcile her belief that the project workers were there to help her with the frustrations she felt about the inherent lack of privacy living in the core unit afforded her:

The women supported on an outreach and dispersed basis also found the project worker's attempts to micromanage domestic life, together with their insistence that they completed certain tasks (such as attendance on a parenting course), wearisome.

Fran explained how her project worker's interventions in her private life had been particularly stressful for her and she drew attention to how she found it difficult to demonstrate the way she disciplines her children under the gaze of the project workers. This was something that for her was clearly a private matter that should not be publically scrutinised:

Notwithstanding this, there seemed to be a reluctant acceptance of, rather than explicit resistance to, the project's regular and often uninvited involvement in the women's lives, despite a suggestion that such involvement was not always helpful. Even in interviews with the women living in the core unit, an acceptance of the strict regulations defined the tone of the interviews and neither Cathy nor Charlotte complained explicitly about the significant constraints on their liberty:

The views of Cathy and Charlotte are perhaps indicative of, firstly, the fact that they were both homeless and vulnerable when referred and were both grateful and relieved to have shelter and a sense of safety that had been missing in their lives. Secondly, the relationships of trust built between the women and their project worker seemed to work to mitigate the stringent rules and regulations associated with living in this accommodation and meant that they did not view the core unit as being overtly punitive (see below). Thirdly, due to the contractual terms of their tenure, all of the women had little agency to resist these constraints on their liberty, fearful of what the consequences of non-compliance might be. Fourthly, many of the families seemed accustomed to the presence of professional agencies in their lives and being placed under the gaze of authorities.

Given the ongoing complaints about her sons’ behaviour, it was only Fran who felt the full force of the punitive potential of the FSS. At the point when the third interview was carried out, the family had been evicted from their dispersed property due to the behaviour of the three boys outside the family home, but also due to damage they had caused to the property. Fran described how she felt her eviction was unwarranted and that she and her daughters, who had settled into the local community and a nearby school, were being punished for the behaviour of her three sons, who, despite her best efforts, she had little control over:

This perhaps belies the limitations of the contractual nature of the intervention. Despite Fran's motivation to subscribe to the terms of her ‘contract’ with the project, this did little to avoid her becoming homeless.

Emotional support, access to resources and meeting needs

Although, to an extent, the women experienced the FSS in punitive and disciplinary terms, all also identified aspects of the FSS that had a constructive or positive impact on their lives. Indeed, while it cannot be denied that the project entailed the surveillance and supervision of vulnerable and marginalised families in their domestic private spaces, the project also appeared to contain a significant social welfare ethos based on finding long-term sustainable solutions to individuals’ problems, not least security of housing and income. Project workers were reported as being instrumental in helping secure school places for children/reintegrating children back into school after long periods of non-attendance; they ensured family members accessed health care (including counselling, GPs, child psychologists) to meet their mental and physical health needs; encouraged the women to pay off any debts they had; liaised with agencies and advocated on their behalf; accompanied women to appointments; and referred them to personal development courses that the women said they had benefited from. Significantly, the goals of the FSS did not appear to be about getting the women back into work (this was also reflected in interviews with project staff). In terms of economic wellbeing, rather than encouraging the women to seek work or become ‘work-ready’, a greater emphasis was placed on ensuring that they were paying off any debts they had and were receiving all the benefits and financial grants (e.g., for clothing, furniture, household goods) to which they were entitled:

The key benefit of working with the project for four of the women was the fact that the FSS had prevented them remaining or becoming homeless. These women also valued highly the trusting relationships they had built with project workers:

Particularly important to the women interviewed was a feeling that the project workers did not judge them despite them being labelled as ‘anti-social’ by other agencies:

Significant value was also placed on the project workers’ role in providing ‘emotional’ (therapeutic) support, which was defined as: being a good listener; someone to talk to; a shoulder to cry on. Together with their availability and accessibility, this ‘befriending’ role was valued highly and accrued advantages to the women who were susceptible to social isolation and depression:

The project workers were variously described as friends or ‘like part of the family’ and viewed as acting in the families’ best interests. For some, it was this support that had been crucial in raising their levels of self-esteem and confidence; project workers allowed them to feel competent and successful:

Of all the women interviewed, and despite their reservations about the core unit, it was Charlotte and Cathy who praised the project most highly. Both suggested that the intervention of the project had been instrumental in improving their quality of life and they were glad that they had been referred.

Cathy was adamant that moving into the core unit had been the right thing for her and that many of the positive changes she and her family had made would not have happened otherwise. For her, the very intensive level of the intervention provided had been valuable and was what she felt she needed at the time of the referral and in the early days of her involvement with the project:

Even despite the apparent ‘failure’ of the project's intervention in Louise's case (see the table in the Appendix), she also professed to having benefited from the support provided by the project worker. The emotional support project workers offered her was described as having been vital in helping her cope with the stress of her circumstances, in particular her son's frequent police arrests and court appearances:

With the exception of Fran, the women also felt that project workers did not impose interventions on them but that targets were negotiated, that they were listened to and their opinions valued. The FSS project workers therefore managed to deliver the intervention in a way that did not feel to most of the women on the receiving end as stigmatising or akin to a form of surveillance and discipline whereby they were simply ‘told what to do’ with little negotiation and meaningful communication.

It is also important to note that the women interviewed had often sought help with their children's increasingly problematic conduct, help that had not been forthcoming. Social services were singled out as being particularly blameworthy due to their restrictive eligibility criteria, which prohibited them from providing the women with support:

It was in this context that that the women and project workers often agreed on the assessment of ‘the problem’ and ‘the solution’ such that the women sometimes viewed themselves as in need of professional guidance and assistance to develop certain parenting competencies and capabilities in order to influence positively the way their family functioned:

The FSS did seem, therefore, to provide families with the support and access to resources that they both needed and wanted.