Introduction

As part of New Labour's drive to tackle anti-social behaviour, in January 2006 the government launched a ‘new approach to the most challenging families’ involving a national roll-out of 53 ‘Family Intervention Projects’ (FIPs) (Respect Task Force, 2006a). This latest anti-social behaviour policy initiative, more commonly (and rather unhelpfully) referred to by the media as ‘sin bins’, provides families who are homeless or at risk of eviction (usually from social housing) as a result of anti-social behaviour with intensive support to address their often multiple and complex needs (Dillane et al, 2001; Jones et al, 2005, 2006; Nixon et al, 2006a, 2006b). Compared with alternative anti-social behaviour measures such as ASBOs or possession orders, FIPs are framed as representing a more ‘sustainable’ solution to anti-social behaviour, fostering the development of ‘acceptable’ and ‘appropriate’ conduct such that the landlord does not pursue legal action that may culminate in eviction and subsequent homelessness.

The particular form of support employed by FIPs varies from family to family, but commonly encompasses practical assistance in the home, provision of advice, liaison and advocacy support, signposting to other services, help in managing finances and claiming benefits, personal skills development, parenting skills training and behaviour management. Most of the projects operate an outreach-only support service to families living in their own homes, with a small number also providing an additional ‘core’ residential service comprising flats managed by the project. Families living in FIP core accommodation are required to adhere to a set of rules and regulations that usually includes a requirement for children and adults to be in the accommodation at a set time in the evening; restricted access in and out of the project building where the flats are located; visitors by permission only; together with specific rules deemed appropriate for particular families. Referrals to FIPs are made by a wide range of local agencies, with families’ choice as to whether or not to work with the FIP highly constrained by the threat of homelessness or anxieties about the prospect of children being taken into care (Nixon et al, 2006a).

In this chapter, we draw on policy texts, newspaper reporting and rich data from a three-year qualitative study of six FIPs to explore the discursive field in which the projects are conceptualised.