Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T02:17:16.343Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Family Policy and the Governance of Anti-Social Behaviour in the UK: Women's Experiences of Intensive Family Support

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 November 2010

SADIE PARR
SADIE PARR*
Affiliation:
Research Fellow, Centre for Regional, Economic and Social Research (CRESR), Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield S1 1WB email: S.Parr@shu.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In seeking to make sense of the role of intensive family support in the governance of anti-social behaviour, this paper focuses analytical attention on one case study project, the Family Support Service. It draws on interview material from five women whose experiences were tracked in repeat interviews over an 18-month period. The Family Support Service entailed intense surveillance and supervision of marginalised populations in domestic private spaces and did, therefore, have controlling and disciplinary qualities, particularly with regard to the families living in ‘core’ residential accommodation. Yet, in spite of this, the Family Support Service also contained a significant social welfare ethos based on finding long-term sustainable solutions to individuals’ problems, not least security of housing and income. This paper argues that while we must confront the worrying and disconcerting aspects of intensive family support, the intervention might be conducive to helping disadvantaged and troubled families access better lives. There is a need for further research, however, about how to achieve less punitive types of family intervention and, therefore, how progressive change for vulnerable families might be generated.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 40 , Issue 4 , October 2011 , pp. 717 - 737
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Arthur, R. (2005), ‘Punishing parents for the crimes of their children’, The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 44: 3, 233–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blears, H. (2005), ‘Rehabilitation for neighbours from hell’, Home Office press release, 14 February.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. (1990), The Logic of Practice, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, G. (2009), Speech to the Labour Party Conference, 29 September, Brighton.Google Scholar
Burney, E. and Gelsthorpe, L. (2008), ‘Do we need a naughty step? Rethinking the Parenting Order after ten years’, The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 47: 5, 470–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cameron, D. (2010), ‘Mending our broken society’, Speech, 22 January, available at: http://www.conservatives.com/News/Speeches/2010/01/David_Cameron_Mending_our_Broken_Society.aspx (last accessed 14/07/2010).Google Scholar
Clarke, J. (2004a), Changing Welfare, Changing States, London: Sage.Google Scholar
Clarke, K. (2006), ‘Childhood, parenting and early intervention: a critical examination of the Sure Start national programme’, Critical Social Policy, 26: 4, 699–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conservative Party (2010), ‘Mending our broken society’, Conservatives Draft Manifesto 2010, The Conservative Party, London, Chapter 2.Google Scholar
Dillane, J., Hill, M., Bannister, J. and Scott, S. (2001), Evaluation of the Dundee Families Project, Final Report, Edinburgh: Scottish Government.Google Scholar
Drakeford, M. and McCarthy, K. (2000), ‘Parents, responsibility and the new youth justice’, in Goldson, B. (ed.), The New Youth Justice, Lyme Regis: Russell House, pp. 96–114.Google Scholar
Featherstone, B. (2006), ‘Re-thinking family support in the current policy context’, British Journal of Social Work, 36: 1, 5–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Featherstone, B. (2004), Family Life and Family Support: A Feminist Analysis, London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Flint, J. (2009), ‘Governing marginalised populations: coercion, support and agency’, European Journal of Homelessness, 3: 247–60.Google Scholar
Garrett, P. M. (2006), ‘Making “anti-social behaviour”: a fragment on the evolution of “ASBO politics” in Britain’, British Journal of Social Work, 37: 5, 839–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garrett, P. M. (2007), ‘Sinbin solutions: the “pioneer” projects for “problem families” and the forgetfulness of social policy research’, Critical Social Policy, 27: 2, 203–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelsthorpe, L. and Morris, A. (1994), ‘Juvenile justice 1945–1992’, in Maguire, M., Morgan, R. and Reiner, R. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Criminology, Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Giddens, A. (1998), The Third Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy, Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Gillies, V. (2005), ‘Meeting parents’ needs? Discourses of “support” and “inclusion” in family policy’, Critical Social Policy, 25: 1, 70–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilling, D. (2007), Crime Reduction and Community Safety: Labour and Politics of Local Crime Control, Cullompton: Willan Publishing.Google Scholar
Goldson, B. and Jamieson, J. (2002), ‘Youth crime, the “parenting deficit” and state intervention: a contextual critique’, Youth Justice, 2: 2, 82–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holt, A. (2008), ‘Room for resistance? Parenting orders, disciplinary power and the production of “the bad parent”’, in Squires, P. (ed.), ASBO Nation: The Criminalisation of Nuisance, Bristol: Policy Press, pp. 103–22.Google Scholar
Home Office (1997), No More Excuses – A New Approach to Tackling Youth Crime in England and Wales, London: Home OfficeGoogle Scholar
Home Office (2003), Respect and Responsibility – Taking a Stand Against Anti-Social Behaviour, London: Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Home Office (2005), Rehabilitation for Neighbours from Hell, press release, 14 February.Google Scholar
Hughes, G. (2007), The Politics of Crime and Community, London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunter, C. and Nixon, J. (2001), ‘Taking the blame and losing the home: women and anti-social behaviour’, Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 23: 4, 395–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jamieson, J. (2005), ‘New Labour, youth justice and the question of “respect”’, Youth Justice, 5: 3, 180–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Layder, D. (1998), Sociological Practice: Linking Theory and Social Research, London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liamputtong, P. (2006), Researching the Vulnerable: A Guide to Sensitive Research Methods, new edition, London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Lister, R. (2006), ‘Children (but not women) first: New Labour, child welfare and gender’, Critical Social Policy, 26: 2, 315–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, R. (2009), ‘Beyond “so what?” criminology’, Theoretical Criminology, 13: 3, 341–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moran, P., Ghate, D. and Van Der Merwe, A. (2004), What Works in Parenting Support? A Review of the International Evidence, Research Report 574, London: Department for Education and Skills.Google Scholar
Nixon, J. and Hunter, C. (2009), ‘Disciplining women and the governance of conduct’, in Millie, A. (ed.), Securing Respect: Behavioural Expectations and Anti-social Behaviour in the UK, Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Nixon, J., Parr, S., Hunter, C., Sanderson, D. and Whittle, S. (2007), The Longer-Term Outcomes Associated with Families who have Worked with Intensive Family Support Projects, London, ODPM.Google Scholar
Nixon, J., Hunter, C., Parr, S., Myers, S., Whittle, S. and Sanderson, D. (2006), Anti-Social Behaviour Intensive Family Support Projects: An Evaluation of Six Pioneering Projects, London: ODPM.Google Scholar
Oakley, A. (1981), ‘Interviewing women: a contradiction in terms’, in Roberts, H. (ed.), Doing Feminist Research, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, pp. 30–61.Google Scholar
Parr, S. (2008), ‘Family intervention projects: a site of social work practice’, British Journal of Social Work, 39: 7, 111–22.Google Scholar
Parr, S. and Nixon, J. (2009), ‘Family Intervention Projects: sites of subversion and resilience’, in Barnes, M. and Prior, D. (eds.), Subversive Citizens Power, Agency and Resistance in Public Services, Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Pawson, H., Davidson, E., Sosenko, F., Flint, J., Nixon, J., Casey, R. and Sanderson, D. (2009), Evaluation of Intensive Family Support Projects in Scotland, Edinburgh: Scottish Executive.Google Scholar
Prior, D. (2007), Continuities and Discontinuities in Governing Anti-Social Behaviour, University of Birmingham.Google Scholar
Prior, D. (2009), ‘The “problem” of anti-social behaviour and the policy knowledge base: analysing the power/knowledge relationship’, Critical Social Policy, 29: 1, 5–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Respect Taskforce (2006), Respect Action Plan, London: Home Office.Google Scholar
Respect Taskforce (2007), ‘Innovative new help to tackle “neighbours from hell”’, press release, 11 April.Google Scholar
Rodger, J. (2008), Criminalising Social Policy: Anti-social Behaviour and Welfare in a De-civilised Society, Cullompton: Willan Publishing.Google Scholar
Smith, R. (2006), ‘Parent education: empowerment or control?’, Children and Society, 11: 2, 108–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Squires, P. and Stephen, D. E. (2005), Rougher Justice: Anti-social Behaviour and Young People, Cullompton: Willan Publishing.Google Scholar
Straw, J. and Anderson, J. (1996), Parenting, London: Labour Party.Google Scholar
Straw, J. and Michael, A. (1996), Tackling the Causes of Crime: Labour's Proposal to Prevent Crime and Criminality, London: Labour Party.Google Scholar
White, C., Warrener, M., Reeves, A. and LaValle, I. (2008), Family Intervention Projects: An Evaluation of Their Design, Set-Up and Early Outcomes, London: Department for Children, Schools and Families.Google Scholar