Advertisement

Exploring Family-Based Intervention Mechanisms as a Form of Statecraft

  • Emily Ball
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter is based on PhD research that explores the use of family intensive interventions that aim to change the behaviour of ‘problematic’ families. The findings indicate that the relationship dynamics between service users and agencies is more complex and nuanced than common academic critiques of governance and social control. By applying the findings to Wacquant’s extensive work on the marrying of social and penal policy, the chapter argues these nuances are not always acknowledged by Wacquant. Although, the findings are in harmony with Wacquant’s argument that punitive tools (rather than supportive mechanisms) used to influence behaviour can have profound effects on the lives of society’s most marginalised families and raises ethical implications about the onwards direction of welfare policy.

References

  1. Ball, E., Batty, E., & Flint, J. (2016). Intensive family intervention and the problem figuration of “Troubled Families”. Social Policy and Society, 15(2), 263–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bate, A. (2016). The Troubled Families programme (England). London: House of Commons Library.Google Scholar
  3. Batty, E., & Flint, J. (2012). Conceptualising the contexts, mechanisms and outcomes of intensive family intervention projects. Social Policy and Society, 11(3), 345–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bond-Taylor, S. (2015). Dimensions of family empowerment in work with so-called ‘Troubled’ Families. Social Policy and Society, 14(3), 371–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cameron, D. (2011). PM’s speech on the fightback after the riots. Retrieved July 12, 2017, from https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pms-speech-on-the-fightback-after-the-riots
  6. Communities and Local Government. (2012). The Troubled Families programme: Financial framework for the Troubled Families programme’s payment-by-results scheme for local authorities. London: Communities and Local Government.Google Scholar
  7. Crossley, S. (2015). The Troubled Families programme: The perfect social policy? Crime and Justice. Retrieved from https://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/sites/crimeandjustice.org.uk/files/The%20Troubled%20Families%20Programme,%20Nov%202015.pdf.
  8. Crossley, S. (2016a). Realising the (troubled) family, crafting the neoliberal state. Families, Relationships and Societies, 5(2), 263–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crossley, S. (2016b). The Troubled Families programme: In, for and against the state? Social Policy Review: Analysis and Debate in Social Policy, 28, 127.Google Scholar
  10. Department for Work and Pensions. (2017). Improving lives: Helping workless families. London: Department for Work and Pensions.Google Scholar
  11. Department of Communities and Local Government. (2012). Working with Troubled Families: A guide to the evidence and good practice. London: Department for Communities and Local Government.Google Scholar
  12. DeVerteuil, G. (2012). Does the punitive need the supportive? A sympathetic critique of current grammars of urban injustice. Antipode, 46(4), 874–893.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dillane, J., Hill, M., Bannister, J., & Scott, S. (2001). Evaluation of the Dundee families project. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive/Dundee City Council/NCH Action for Children.Google Scholar
  14. Fletcher, D. R. (2011). Welfare reform, Jobcentre Plus and the street-level bureaucracy: Towards inconsistent and discriminatory welfare for severely disadvantaged groups? Social Policy and Society, 10(04), 445–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fletcher, D. R., Flint, J., Batty, E., & McNeill, J. (2016). Gamers or victims of the system? Welfare reform, cynical manipulation and vulnerability. Journal of Poverty and Social Justice, 24(2), 171–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fletcher, D. R., & Wright, S. (2017). A hand up or a slap down? Criminalising benefit claimants in Britain via strategies of surveillance, sanctions and deterrence. Critical Social Policy, 38, 323–344. Retrieved from http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0261018317726622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Flint, J. (2011). Housing studies, social class and being towards dwelling. Housing, Theory and Society, 28(1), 75–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Flint, J. (2012). The inspection house and neglected dynamics of governance: The case of domestic visits in family intervention projects. Housing Studies, 27(6), 822–838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Flint, J. (2018). Encounters with the centaur state: Advanced urban marginality and the practices and ethics of welfare sanctions regimes. Urban Studies, 56, 249. Retrieved from http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0042098017750070.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Flint, J., & Powell, R. (2012). The English city riots of 2011, ‘Broken Britain’ and the retreat into the present. Sociological Research Online, 17(3), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Garrett, P. M. (2007). ‘Sinbin’ solutions: The ‘pioneer’ projects for ‘problem families’ and the forgetfulness of social policy research. Critical Social Policy, 27(2), 203–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gillies, V. (2005). ‘Meeting parents’ needs? Discourses of ‘support’ and ‘inclusion’ in family policy. Critical Social Policy, 25(1), 70–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gillies, V. (2008). Perspectives on parenting responsibility: Contextualizing values and practices. Journal of Law and Society, 35(1), 95–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hancock, L., & Mooney, G. (2012). Beyond the penal state: Advanced marginality, social policy and anti-welfarism. In P. Squires & L. Lea (Eds.), Criminalisation and advanced marginality: Critically exploring the work of Loïc Wacquant (pp. 107–128). Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
  25. Hayden, C., & Jenkins, C. (2014). Troubled Families’ programme in England: ‘Wicked problems’ and policy-based evidence. Policy Studies, 35(6), 631–649. Retrieved from https://rsa.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01442872.2014.971732#.XMbfY02ouAg.
  26. Jensen, T., & Tyler, I. (2015). Benefits broods’: The cultural and political crafting of anti-welfare commonsense. Critical Social Policy, 35(4), 470–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jones, R., Matczak, A., Davis, K., & Byford, I. (2015). ‘Troubled Families’: A team around the family. In J. Davies (Ed.), Social work with Troubled Families: A critical introduction (pp. 124–158). London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.Google Scholar
  28. Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  29. Marwell, N. P. (2016). Rethinking the state in urban outcasts. Urban Studies, 53(6), 1095–1098.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mead, L. (1991). The new politics and the new poverty. Public Interest, 103, 3–20.Google Scholar
  31. Millie, A. (2009). Anti-social behaviour. Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Murray, C. A., & Field, F. (1990). The emerging British underclass. London: IEA Health and Welfare Unit.Google Scholar
  33. Nixon, J. (2007). Deconstructing ‘problem’ researchers and ‘problem’ families: A rejoinder to Garrett. Critical Social Policy, 27(4), 546–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nixon, J., Parr, S., Hunter, C., Myers, S., Sanderson, D., & Whittle, S. (2006). Anti-social behaviour intensive family support projects: An evaluation of six pioneering projects. London: Communities and Local Government.Google Scholar
  35. Nixon, J., Pawson, H., & Sosenko, F. (2010). Rolling out anti-social behaviour families projects in England and Scotland: Analysing the rhetoric and practice of policy transfer. Social Policy & Administration, 44(3), 305–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Parr, S. (2009). Family intervention projects: A site of social work practice. British Journal of Social Work, 39(7), 1256–1273. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pawson, H., Davidson, E., Sosenko, F., Flint, J., Nixon, J., Casey, R., & Sanderson, D. (2009). Evaluation of intensive family support projects in Scotland. Edinburgh: Scottish Government.Google Scholar
  38. Peters, E. (2012). Social work and social control in the third sector: Re-educating parents in the voluntary sector. Practice, 24(4), 251–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Piven, F. F. (2010). A response to Wacquant. Theoretical Criminology, 14(1), 111–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Povey, L. (2017). Where welfare and criminal justice meet: Applying Wacquant to the experiences of marginalised women in Austerity Britain. Social Policy and Society, 16(2), 271–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Reeve, K. (2017). Welfare conditionality, benefit sanctions and homelessness in the UK: Ending the ‘something for nothing culture’ or punishing the poor? Journal of Poverty and Social Justice, 25(1), 65–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sayer, R. A. (2017). Responding to the Troubled Families programme: Framing the injuries of inequality. Social Policy and Society, 16(1), 155–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Squires, P., & Lea, J. (Eds.). (2012). Criminalisation and advanced marginality: Critically exploring the work of Loïc Wacquant. Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
  44. Tepe-Belfrage, D., & Montgomerie, J. (2016). Broken Britain: Post-crisis austerity and the trouble with the Troubled Families programme. In J. True & A. Hozic (Eds.), Scandalous economics: Gender and the politics of financial crises (pp. 79–91). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Van Ginkel, R. (2015). Containing the urban poor–coercion or consent? Disciplining missions and civilising offensives in the Netherlands. Human Figurations, 4(1). Retrieved from https://quod.lib.umich.edu/h/humfig/11217607.0004.107/%2D%2Dcontaining-the-urban-poor-coercion-or-consent-disciplining?rgn=main;view=fulltext.
  46. Van Wel, F. (1992). A century of families under supervision in the Netherlands. The British Journal of Social Work, 22(2), 147–166.Google Scholar
  47. Wacquant, L. (2004). Body & soul: Notebooks of an apprentice boxer. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Wacquant, L. (2008a). Urban outcasts: A comparative sociology of advanced marginality. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  49. Wacquant, L. (2008b). Ordering insecurity: Social polarization and the punitive upsurge. Radical Philosophy Review, 11(1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wacquant, L. (2009a). Prisons of poverty. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  51. Wacquant, L. (2009b). Punishing the poor: The neoliberal government of social insecurity. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wacquant, L. (2010). Crafting the neoliberal state: Workfare, prisonfare, and social insecurity. Sociological Forum, 25(2), 197–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wacquant, L. (2012). The wedding of workfare and prisonfare in the 21st century: Responses to critics and commentators. In P. Squires & J. Lea (Eds.), Criminalisation and advanced marginality: Critically exploring the work of Loïc Wacquant (pp. 243–257). Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
  54. Wacquant, L., Eick, V., & Winkler, K. J. (2011). The wedding of workfare and prisonfare revisited. Social Justice, 38(1/2), 203–222.Google Scholar
  55. White, C., & Day, L. (2016). National evaluation of the Troubled Families programme: Process evaluation final report. London: Department for Communities and Local Government.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Emily Ball
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Sociology, Social Policy and CriminologyUniversity of BirminghamBirminghamUK

Personalised recommendations