Explaining and Understanding State Intervention into the Lives of ‘Troubled’ Families

Abstract

This article focuses attention on explaining and understanding state intervention into the lives of families deemed ‘troublesome’ with specific attention on the Troubled Families Programme. Launched in 2011, in part as a response to the London riots, the Troubled Families Programme represented an escalation and intensification of state intervention into the lives of families. Policy analyses have provided important perspectives on how we should explain and understand this government agenda as part of a process of neoliberal state crafting. This article offers a critical yet productive examination of these perspectives, arguing that their utility lies in how they can be employed, and therefore modified and adapted, in conjunction with studies of local practice which emphasise the messy realities of policy enactment and, with that, the possibility for contestation and challenge. Such an approach, based broadly on the tenets of critical realism, is founded on an alternative conception of state power, one that sees state power as having a more complex quality that is dependent on the agency of local actors.

Shifting sands: The reconfiguration of neoliberal youth penality

“…Walters (2012: 47) argues that that there are variations in Foucault's interpretation of governmentality in different areas of his work which have allowed governmentality scholars to engage in 'a certain degree of conceptual development and refinement' and use his ideas 'across academic borders….in very diverse settings and contexts'. Building on critical realist concepts, critical criminologists (Edwards and Hughes, 2012;Garland, 1997;Phoenix, 2016;Stenson, 2005)) and social policy analysts (McKee, 2009;Parr, 2009Parr, , 2017Prior and Barnes, 2011) would between them argue, albeit from rather different viewpoints, that the governmentality perspective has four fundamental flaws which reduce its critical edge. First, some critics (Crawford, 2006;Hallsworth and Lea, 2011;Stenson, 2005) argue that the governmentality position underplays the role of the state as a determining social force.…”

“…We believe that the first step in opening this space and addressing wider criticisms is to merge governmentality and critical realist positions. A cogent case for such a combination has been argued by several distinguished theorists who contend that there is a high degree of congruence between the two ontologies (see Frauley, 2007;Garland, 1997;Jessop, 2015;McKee, 2009;Parr, 2009Parr, , 2017Stenson, 2005) 11 . The significance of this connection is that it provides the tools to complement governmentality insights into the microphysics of power with a critical analysis of the realities of struggle, resistance and negotiation as human agency and material constraints are played out.…”

Between “Families in Trouble” and “Children at Risk”: Historicising “Troubled Family” Policy in England since 1945

“…The importance of helping families through ‘donning the marigolds’ and providing hands‐on practical assistance and advice in contrast with the professional discourses of risk factors and capability assessments was central in providing both a narrative and practice of deprofessionalisation in working with ‘troubled families’ (Crossley, 2016b). Intensive intervention in home life modelled on FIPs has been expanded, enlarged and made more extensive — diluting the ‘intensive’ basis of intervention — to focus on changing the behaviour of children through the mother and buttressing parental skills and authority (Parr, ). Children are increasingly no longer seen to be just ‘at risk’ from their family, but presenting similar costly social and financial ‘risks’ to society, which can be reformed through parenting interventions, the earlier the better (Gillies and others, ).…”

Efficiency problems of Child Protection in Lithuania

“…Apibendrinat vaiko apsaugą galima traktuoti kaip į šeimą (suaugusiuosius) nukreiptą, kurios procese "pametami" patys vaikai, dėl kurių ši apsauga ir buvo pradėta vykdyti. Darbui su šeima labiau būdingi baudžiamieji ir socialinės rizikos šeimas stigmatizuojantys principai (Parr, 2016). Reikia pažymėti, kad Lietuvoje galima rasti tik fragmentuotus socialinio darbo su vaikais elementus vaikų dienos centruose ir mokyklose (socialinių pedagogų).…”

“…2010), kliūčių, su kuriomis susiduria vadinamieji artimieji biurokratai arba praktikai, nustatymu iki efektyvių apsaugos būdų paieškų (Ferguson, 2017;Thompson, 2015;Hershkowitz, 2006;Munro, 2010;Parr, 2016;Rossi, 2016). Šio pobūdžio tyrimų Lietuvoje labai mažai (Gvaldaitė, Šimkonytė, 2016;Kabašinskaitė, Bak, 2006;Pūras, 2012).…”