Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T12:02:16.765Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Conceptualising the Contexts, Mechanisms and Outcomes of Intensive Family Intervention Projects

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 March 2012

Elaine Batty
Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research, Sheffield Hallam University E-mail:
John Flint
Department of Town and Regional Planning, University of Sheffield E-mail:


Intensive family intervention projects have become an increasingly prominent mechanism within anti-social behaviour and social policy programmes in the UK and are supported, in principle, by the new coalition government. They have also been the subject of considerable academic controversy within the evaluative and critical literature. This article attempts to inform continuing debates about the purpose and effects of these projects by conceptualising the contexts within which interactions between projects and families occur; classifying the component aspects of roles and support provided; and presenting a three-part typology of potential outcomes from project interventions.

Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)


Aldridge, J., Shute, J., Ralphs, R. and Medina, M. (2009) ‘Blame the parents? Challenges for parent-focused programmes for families of gang-involved young people’, Children and Society, 25, 5, 371–81, doi: 10.1111/j.1099-0860.2009.00282.x [accessed 02.01.2011].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aperia Limited (2010) Final Improvement Report: AGMA Low Income Family Project, London: Aperia Limited.Google Scholar
Assay, T. and Lambert, M. (1999) ‘The empirical case for the common factors in therapy: qualitative findings’, in Hubble, M., Duncan, B. and Miller, S. (eds.), The Heart and Soul of Change: What Works in Therapy, Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, pp. 3356.Google Scholar
Blamey, A. and MacKenzie, M. (2007) ‘Theories of change and realistic evaluation: peas in a pod or apples and oranges?’, Evaluation, 13, 4, 439–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, G. (2009) Speech to Labour Party Conference, Brighton, 29 September 2009’, The Guardian, [accessed 02.01.2011].Google Scholar
Department for Children, Schools and Families (2008) Youth Task Force Action Plan: Give Respect, Get Respect, Youth Matters, London: Department for Children, Schools and Families.Google Scholar
Department for Children, Schools and Families (2010) Disadvantaged Communities to Get more Support, London: Department for Children, Schools and Families [accessed 04.01.2011].Google Scholar
Dillane, J., Hill, M., Bannister, J. and Scott, S. (2001) Evaluation of the Dundee Families Project, Edinburgh: Scottish Executive, Dundee City Council and NCH Action for Children.Google Scholar
Dixon, J., Schneider, V., Lloyd, C., Reeves, A., White, C., Tomaszewski, W., Green, R. and Ireland, E. (2010) Monitoring and Evaluation of Family Interventions (information on families supported to March 2010), London: Department for Education.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duffy, S. (2010) ‘Personalisation and adult social care: future options for the reform of public services’, Policy and Politics, 38, 4, 493508.Google Scholar
Flint, J. (2011) ‘The Role of Sanctions in Intensive Support and Rehabilitation: Rhetoric, Rationalities and Realities’, British Journal of Criminal Justice, 9, 1/2, 5567.Google Scholar
Flint, J. (2012, forthcoming) ‘The Inspection House and Neglected Dynamics of Governance: The Case of Domestic Visits in Family Intervention Projects’, Housing Studies, 27, 7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flint, J., Batty, E., Parr, S., Platts-Fowler, D., Nixon, J. and Sanderson, D. (2011a) Evaluation of Intensive Intervention Projects, London: Department for Education.Google Scholar
Flint, J., Batty, E., Parr, S., Casey, R. and Nixon, J. (2011b) Evaluation of Rochdale Family Project, Sheffield: CRESR, Scholar
Forrester, D., Kershaw, S., Moss, H. and Hughes, L. (2008) ‘Communication skills in child protection: how do social workers talk to parents?’, Child and Family Social Work, 13, 4151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foucault, M. (1978) History of Sexuality, Volume 1: The Will to Knowledge, New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
Frauley, J. (2007) ‘Towards an archaeological-realist Foucauldian analytics of government’, British Journal of Criminology, 47, 4, 617–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garrett, P.M. (2007) ‘“Sinbin” solutions: the “pioneer” projects for “problem families” and the forgetfulness of social policy research’, Critical Social Policy, 27, 2, 203–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerdes, K. E. (2011) ‘Importance of empathy for social work practice: integrating new science’, Social Work, 56, 2, 141–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gregg, D. (2010) Family Intervention Projects: A Classic Case of Policy-Based Evidence, London: Centre for Crime and Justice Studies.Google Scholar
HM Government (2010) Drug Strategy 2010 – Reducing Demand, Restricting Supply, Building Recovery: Supporting People to Live a Drug Free Life, London: HMSO.Google Scholar
Home Office (2011) More Effective Responses to Anti-social Behaviour, London: Home Office.Google Scholar
Jones, A., Pleace, N., Quilgars, D. and Sanderson, D. (2006a) Addressing Anti-social Behaviour: An Independent Evaluation of Shelter Inclusion Project, London: Shelter.Google Scholar
Jones, A., Pleace, N. and Quilgars, D. (2006b) ‘Evaluating the Shelter Inclusion Project: a floating support service for households accused of anti-social behaviour’, in Flint, J. (ed.), Housing, Urban Governance and Anti-social Behaviour: Perspectives, Policy and Practice, Bristol: The Policy Press, pp. 179–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerr, D. (1999) ‘Beheading the king and enthroning the market: a critique of Foucauldian governmentality’, Science and Society, 63, 2, 173202.Google Scholar
Local Government Leadership and Westminster City Council (2010) Repairing Broken Families and Rescuing Fractured Communities: Lessons from the Front Line, London: Local Government Leadership and Westminster City Council.Google Scholar
Maruna, S. (2004) ‘Desistence from crime and explanatory style: new direction in the psychology of reform’, Journal of Contemporary Justice, 20, 4, 184200.Google Scholar
Mayer, J. and Timm, N. (1970) The Client Speaks: Working Class Impressions of Casework, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ministry of Justice (2010) Breaking the Cycle: Effective Punishment, Rehabilitation and Sentencing of Offenders, London: Ministry of Justice.Google Scholar
Morris, K. and Featherstone, B. (2010) ‘Investing in children, regulating parents, thinking family: a decade of tensions and contradictions’, Social Policy and Society, 9, 4, 557–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murray, L. and Barnes, M. (2010) ‘Have families been rethought? Ethic of care, family and “whole family” approaches’, Social Policy and Society, 9, 4, 533–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nixon, J., Parr, S., Hunter, C., Myers, S., Sanderson, D. and Whittle, S. (2006) Anti-Social Behaviour Intensive Family Support Projects: An Evaluation of Six Pioneering Projects, London: Communities and Local Government.Google Scholar
Nixon, J., Parr, S., Hunter, C., Myers, S., Sanderson, D. and Whittle, S. (2008) The Longer Term Outcomes for Families Who Had Worked with Intensive Family Support Projects, London: Communities and Local Government.Google Scholar
Nixon, J., Pawson, H. and Sosenko, F. (2010) ‘Rolling out anti-social behaviour families projects in England and Scotland: analysing the rhetoric and practice of policy transfer’, Social Policy and Administration, 44, 3, 305–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parr, S. (2008) ‘Family Intervention Projects: a site of social work practice’, British Journal of Social Work, 39, 7, 1256–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parr, S. and Nixon, J. (2009) ‘Family Intervention Projects: sites of subversion and resilience’, in Barnes, M. and Prior, D. (eds.), Subversive Citizens: Power, Agency and Resistance in Public Services, Bristol: The Policy Press, pp. 101–18.Google Scholar
Pawson, H., Davidson, E., Sosenko, F., Flint, J., Nixon, J., Casey, R. and Sanderson, D. (2009) Evaluation of Intensive Family Support Projects in Scotland, Edinburgh: Scottish Government.Google Scholar
Renshaw, J. and Wellings, S. (2010) Catch22 Intensive Intervention Projects: Interim Report, Catch 22.Google Scholar
Respect Task Force (2006) Respect Action Plan, London: Respect Task Force.Google Scholar
Reynolds, W. J. and Scott, B. (2000) ‘Do nurses and other professional helpers normally display much empathy?’, Journal of Advanced Nursing, 31, 1, 226–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scott, S. (2006) ‘Tackling anti-social behaviour: an evaluation of the Dundee Families Project’, in Flint, J. (ed.), Housing, Urban Governance and Anti-social Behaviour: Perspectives, Policy and Practice, Bristol: The Policy Press, pp. 199217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Skeggs, B. and Wood, H. (2008) ‘The labour of transformation and the circuits of value “around” reality TV’, Continuum: Journal of Media and Cultural Studies, 22, 4, 559–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Starkey, P. (2002) ‘Can the piper call the tune? Innovation and experiment with deprived families in Britain, 1940–1980s: the work of Family Service Units’, British Journal of Social Work, 32, 5, 573–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valentine, K. (2007) ‘Methadone maintenance treatment and making up people’, Sociology, 41, 3, 497514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, C., Warrener, M., Reeves, A. and La Valle, I. (2008) Family Intervention Projects: An Evaluation of Their Design, Set-up and Early Outcomes, London: Department for Children, Schools and Families/Communities and Local Government.Google Scholar
Wright, S., Gray, P., Watts, E., McAteer, L., Hazel, N., Liddle, M. and Haines, K. (2010) Evaluation of Early Intervention Pilot Projects, Swansea: University of Swansea.Google Scholar
Zadoroznyi, M. (2009) ‘“Professionals, carers or strangers?” Liminality and the typification of postnatal home care workers’, Sociology, 43, 2, 268–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar