Connecting the past, present and future

Contemporary configurations of family troubles foreground the individual, with ‘poor’ outcomes presented as a product of distinct cultural norms that underpin the intergenerational transmission of poor parenting and deprivation. A biographical approach that considers the relationship between history and biography is particularly significant when exploring the intergenerational features of ‘problem families’.

When placed within the context of the TFP, Mills's (1959) analysis of the relationship between public issues and private troubles is particularly pertinent. Understanding the past in order to make sense of present-day public issues and personal troubles are a means through which we can connect the macro and micro, explore the relationship between structure and agency in the causation of family troubles and illuminate the intricate details of individual biographies and societies over time. The discourses surrounding family troubles are inherently political and historical situated. Exploring how socially constructed problems are aligned to particular periods of time allows a more nuanced understanding and connection between the ‘private troubles of families that are to be the public troubles of governmental intervention’ (Ball et al., Reference Ball, Batty and Flint2016: 266).

More recent empirical evidence on family intervention illustrates the importance of moving beyond the private troubles of families (Bond-Taylor, Reference Bond-Taylor2015a; Morris and Featherstone, Reference Morris and Featherstone2010; Morris, Reference Morris2013; Ribbens McCarthy et al., Reference Ribbens McCarthy, Hooper and Gillies2013) by paying greater attention to wider contextual and macro-economic factors that contribute to the formation of ‘family problems’. Bond-Taylor (Reference Bond-Taylor2015b) traces an ‘ethic of care’ (Williams, Reference Williams2004) in policy documents on the TFP illustrating significant tensions in their representation of ‘family troubles’. As part of this analysis, she contrasts policy documents on the TFP that present troubled families ‘as a homogenous group with a fixed set of problems . . . evasive and/or passive in the face of engagement with services, and blames mothers in particular for their predicament’ with those that ‘draw on care ethic principles of trust and empathy, holistic approaches to identifying need and determining how to meet such needs, alongside a collaborate and relational focus on delivering interventions’ (Bond-Taylor, Reference Bond-Taylor2015b: 16). Further critiques on the political construction of troubled families are provided by Ball et al. (Reference Ball, Batty and Flint2016) and Churchill (Reference Churchill2013) who demonstrate the limitations of current policy initiatives within the wider context of retrenchment and restructuring of public services. There has also been heavy criticism levelled towards the data used to provide supporting statistics and evidence for the roll-out of the TFP (Levitas, Reference Levitas2012, Reference Levitas2014).

The significance of history becomes increasingly apparent through examining the policy cycle of problem families. There are clear parallels between the past and present such as the stigmatisation of families, the position of mothers, the stress placed on the ‘culture of dependency’, and the centrality placed on paid employment as a means to break the ‘cycle of deprivation’ (see Welshman, this issue). We can also capture what might be significant junctures from the past such as the payment by results (PBR) financial framework and increasing conditionality within a mixed economy of welfare. Whilst tracing such shifts, and their impact on the policy making process is important, it is vital this runs parallel to a thorough consideration of exactly who is doing the defining. Social policy needs to strengthen its connection to the accounts provided by the subjects and objects of policy intervention. Biographical accounts of state intervention illustrate how perceptions of family intervention shift across time and place and illuminate the role that institutions play in either facilitating or hindering ‘positive outcomes’ and the factors that exacerbate forms of social division. The accounts of those subject to policy intervention are intrinsic to the very definition of what is regarded as ‘troublesome’ as well as the proposed policy solutions to such personal and public ‘troubles’.

Family intervention – the perspectives of young people

Whilst increasing emphasis is placed upon adopting a ‘whole family approach’, the experiences of parents (predominantly mothers) persist to be the focus of research, policy and practice. Within the context of family intervention, little is known about the distinct experiences of children and young people who are integral to the TFP. This is problematic for a number of reasons.

Firstly, within the framework of the TFP the constitution of a ‘troubled family’ relies heavily upon the behaviour and characteristics of young people. As outlined earlier, these are primarily deficit focused, relying upon indicators such as youth crime, anti-social behaviour, truancy and school exclusion. It is interesting to note that when the youngest child within the programme turns sixteen, such families are no longer defined or indeed eligible to be part of the programme. We also witnessed how under phase two of the TFP the remit was broadened considerably to include ‘children who need help’ (i.e. those on a child protection plan), young people at risk of worklessness (Not in Education, Employment, or Training – NEET) and parents and children with a range of health problems (DCLG, 2014).

Secondly, experiences of family intervention need to be placed within the wider context of austerity, and, in particular, the retrenchment of youth services and provision. Research has shown that young people have been hit particularly hard by austerity measures when compared to other groups in society (Hills et al., Reference Hills, Cunliffe, Obolenskaya and Karagiannaki2015). The consequences of this mean that support for young people can be subsumed into initiatives such as the TFP. However, when the foundations of family intervention rely upon the brokerage of services and effective multi-agency working, what are the implications when severe budget cuts create significant gaps in provision for young people? It is also important to note that the wider structural context and issues facing children and young people are distinctly different to those of adults. Contemporary transitions to adulthood are complicated, fragmented, difficult to navigate and fraught with uncertainty (Furlong and Cartmel, Reference Furlong and Cartmel1997).

Overall, despite the ‘success’ of the TFP relying heavily upon supporting, and indeed changing the behaviour of children and young people, we know very little about their experiences. Whilst the gendered power relations within (and between) families have been documented (Parr, Reference Parr2011), very little attention has been paid to the power relations and dynamics between different generations within ‘problem families’ and in particular the marginalised status of children and young people. The experiences of children and young people are worthy of attention in their own right rather than merely used as a crude indicator of ‘success’ or ‘failure’ within the wider context of family intervention.

Care and relationality – ‘helping mum’

The political and moral connotations of ‘trouble’ are embedded within policy discourses surrounding ‘family problems’. However, in contrast to fears surrounding the moral deterioration of ‘problem families’, young people within this study demonstrated how moral values were central to their obligations, commitments and relations of care with significant others. The moral agency of young people was expressed in a variety of ways through their discussions of family ‘togetherness’ as well as their future projections of family life.

The data illustrated how young people do not experience their lives in silos but instead are situated in a variety of social contexts, practices and relationships. It was particularly striking how the aspirations of young people were intrinsically linked to ensuring the ‘happiness’ of other family members, predominantly their mothers, whom they recognised had encountered a great deal of hardship and adversity over the lifecourse. The types of issues discussed involved domestic violence and abuse, family breakdown, depression, bereavement and drug and alcohol misuse. As a result of these painful experiences many participants felt appreciative that their parents (mainly mothers) were finally receiving support through a key worker who they recognised to be ‘helping mum’. Whilst participants were aware of the potential consequences of not complying (such as being evicted) with the TFP, the framework in which the relationship with the key worker was discussed was primarily perceived as positive and supportive:

The following quotes draw attention to the importance placed upon developing trust and respect with a key worker. The young people reflected upon how meaningful relationships could provide support in helping them, and other family members, cope with extremely difficult family circumstances:

When describing difficult circumstances, young people often felt protective of their family. Despite a succession of painful experiences, they never spoke of any bitterness or resentment towards their family and/or the decisions that had direct impacts upon their lives. They recognised that the pressures of parenthood were intensified as a consequence of difficult circumstances. Young people expressed a desire for ‘normal’ family life, but described how they had encountered a succession of adverse experiences, compounded by a lack of resources, and historical mistrust of services and provision:

For young people who had experienced statutory intervention, their passivity within the process of family intervention was further evidenced via a lack of communication and exclusion within the decision-making process. Young people described how they were not ‘listened to’ as difficult family situations unfolded around them:

Representations of ‘trouble’

The data highlighted tensions between how official policy documents and the media negatively portray young people as ‘trouble’ when compared to their own accounts of severe adversity and hardship. For instance, the PBR's framework focuses upon measuring externalising behaviours (such as youth offending and truancy) rather than internalising behaviours (such as depression) that are likely to manifest themselves amongst young people with multiple and complex needs. Like other studies (Boddy et al., Reference Boddy, Statham, Warwick, Hollingworth and Spencer2016), participants described extremely complex biographies encompassing a range of adversities, painful experiences and hardship that impacted upon their social and emotional well-being. The accounts provided by young people included the experience of bereavement, extreme financial hardship, child abuse and domestic violence:

Many participants reported how difficult experiences at home impacted upon their engagement with school:

Quality family time

Young people were heavily invested in the well-being of the family and valued quality family time together. Whilst the picture painted of a ‘troubled family’ is one of chaos and disorder, a family unable to function together, participants described the material hardship that severely limited opportunities for quality family time. Even though young people described family days out and/or holidays, these were often discussed as very distant memories:

Participants provided clear depictions of the poverty and hardship that surrounded their lives. The stigma attached to this was clearly evident:

Despite a number of cases having been closed at the time of interview, young people were still experiencing financial hardship as well as caring, and often worrying, about their parents’ well-being. Whilst young people worried about the future, these concerns did not necessarily involve a focus on their own trajectories, but that of their parents:

Young people described their aspirations for the future that reinforced the importance placed on family and conventional social norms:

For one young person who felt disillusioned with his immediate prospects of breaking the cycle of criminality, his expectations and hopes for the future were to pursue a career that would make his family proud of him:

Trajectories of trouble

When considering the future outcomes for many participants in this study, there were strong indications of ‘trouble’ ahead. Unfortunately for young people whose cases had been closed, not one could name a professional who they were now in contact with to provide them with support despite many going on to become ‘NEET’. This is concerning when we consider how the majority of young people involved in this study had been members of a family regarded as successfully ‘turned around’, triggering payment by results to the council. This illustrates that family lives are far from static, resulting in serious limitations arising from defining success via the TFP financial framework. Despite clear examples of effective interventions with young people, the success of such relationships was judged against a narrow set of indicators. Furthermore, the length of this relationship was judged against these indicators, resulting in concerns from key workers when claiming to have successfully ‘turned lives around’:

Understanding young people's trajectories is especially pertinent since the TFP broadened its remit to include young people who are at risk of worklessness (NEET). It is vital that we track young people's long-term outcomes but carefully scrutinise the ways in which we measure and define ‘success’ and ‘failure’. As the following quotes highlight, this has to take account of the wider structural context:

After the closure of working relationships with key workers, some participants felt they were not ready to ‘go it alone’:

To be successful, family interventions such as the TFP require effective mechanisms of multi-agency working and brokerage of support at a time when services for young people are being dismantled. This is despite research illustrating that there are no quick fixes, and that the return to work of such young people may be a complex and long-term process and therefore require a commitment to complex and long-term interventions. Such interventions are also likely to require partnership arrangements (and alliances between different agencies) to have any significant impact. By providing piece meal, short-term provision, the TFP risks providing an illusion of ‘success’ over a short period of time. Considering the structural context and scale of needs identified, it is likely that such young people will be at the margins of society further down the line. Employment and unemployment are far from static categories; the most common and typical NEET career involves ‘churning’ between unemployment and insecure or precarious employment (Coles et al., Reference Coles, Keung, Godfrey, Parrott and Bradshaw2010). The success of the TFP needs to be placed within the context of austerity and the cut backs to services and support for young people. Phase two of the TFP encompasses broader criteria resulting in a greater number of families being worked with. The resources attached to such developments are unclear meaning that local authorities are effectively doing more with less at a time when services are already severely stretched.

In order to effectively support marginalised young people, we also need to explore the timings and sequence of events or ‘troubles’ that unfold, paying close attention to the significance of ‘critical moments’ (see Thomson et al., Reference Thomson, Bell, Henderson, Holland, McGrellis and Sharpe2002), the structural factors that reproduce social divisions, and the ways in which young people display agency in managing increasingly complex transitions. A biographical approach provides a more nuanced account of change and continuity helping identify the ‘turning points’ that occur in young peoples trajectories that might become ‘troublesome’. More specifically, we can interrogate how policy frameworks have the potential to either hinder or exacerbate ‘troubles’, recognising the role that social institutions play in their production. This means paying close attention to the institutional responses to ‘troubles’ across a broad range of domains, including education, health, housing and welfare, appreciating that these institutions work in complex ways and will be experienced differently depending upon variations such as age. Biographical research allows us to explore the framing of family troubles in a way that illustrates how the personal and the institutional interlink and overlap with one another. When measuring ‘success’, it is therefore vital we track the short, medium and long-term outcomes for young people as lives unfold across the personal and institutional domains of their lives.