Tuesday, 4 August 2009

"Shameless" or shameful - dealing with anti-social families

There have always been problem families – you know the ones that have anti-social children looked after by anti-social parents. These families provide a headache for public services out of all proportion to their numbers – and, as any local politician will know, “something must be done”!

The latest “something must be done” initiative from the increasingly authoritarian Ed Balls is the ‘sin bin’ – an extension of intensive family intervention to include 24-hour surveillance of the family’s activities and described by Balls as '…pretty tough and non-negotiable support for families to get to the root of the problem.' And using CCTV inside the home is a good way to achieve this?

My concern with this isn’t that the worst families are identified and targeted with “intensive support” – this approach has been around for a while having started with NCH projects in Scotland and the North West. No, the problem is the manner in which the aggressive, final option has been brought forward – it is presented by Balls as the primary option not as a last resort. Instead of an intensive ‘carrot & stick’ we just get stick – and lots of it!

If we are to begin reducing the number and impact of problem families – we’ll never get rid of them entirely – we need both a long-term and a short-term policy approach. And developing the right policies must start with understanding what goes on “between the ears” of adults in the target families. These families are:

Poorly educated with low skill levels
Lacking in self-esteem, confidence and personal capacity
Often both victims and perpetrators of anti-social behaviour
Dominated by addictive individuals – drink, drugs, violence


I don’t see how sticking a camera in the faces of these families addresses any of these problems – yes, we get a short term fix by stopping them offending. But at the end of any programme they still have the personal problems and challenges that created the problem in the first place.

A policy platform might look a bit like this:

Short-term:

Intensive support including where needed fostering, respite and high quality childcare

Audit of problems such as drink, drugs and violence and provision of appropriate interventions
Provision of personal development coaching – individually, in groups and as whole families

Remedial skills and education for adults and older children plus early support for pre-school children

Use of jobs and training programmes linked to in-work support for those able to secure employment

Application of ASBOs and other available orders as a control mechanism for the programme by allowing enforcement of attendance

Long-term:

Development of small education units in target areas – breaking away from the vast, intimidating schools that dominate education provision in deprived communities

Re-establishing a permanent, physical, estate-based presence for police, probation, social services and other support services

Creating wrap-around family and youth support with a strong presence within the community

Addressing the barriers to work, stable families and behaviour within the benefits system

None of this requires that we treat these families as unruly zoo animals or ignore the need for tough action to prevent bad behaviour. It does require us to deal with the complicated set of problems – drugs, drink, sexual violence, illiteracy, ignorance and ill-humour – that typify these families. And we should remember that most of the families we’re dealing with aren’t bright enough to be “Shameless”!

2 comments:

Unknown said...

Good post Simon. Thank you.

I am always worried when the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Often we give these families exactly the profile and the attention that they crave. They get an 'identity' and a 'role'. Their life is given meaning by a battle with 'authority'.

I would suggest that instead of focussing on the problems and needs, even though these hit us between the eyes, we should focus on the families perceptions of what progress looks like. Two reasons for this:

Firstly what we perceive as problems they have evolved as coping strategies. Attacking coping strategies is rarely a good idea.

Secondly by engaging individuals and the family unit in discussions about progress and betterment we take the focus off the labels and put it on what they want to do. Now negotiating this effectively is a difficult task and requires a strong (person centred not authoritarian) relationship and a lot of skills and persistence - but it can be done and there will always be a better nature to appeal to and nurture.

The question is whether we want to help or punish?

Mike Chitty
Http://localenterprise.wordpress.com

BME CDW Blog said...

Nice one Simon.

My mate has recently been fingered as tyhe matriarch of a Problem family and is currently receiving "intensive family support".

I asked her about this recently. She sees the IFS worker once a fortnight for about an hour. Although they are supposed to be there 24 hours a day, their mobile phone is only on "sometimes"

What ails me is that if this goes to court, IFS suggests something very other than the kind of support my mate is receiving.