Family intervention projects cut antisocial behaviour

Calum Strathie - 23 November 2009

I read the evaluation report on FIPs with interest and can see that the figures depicting improvements in various areas are very impressive.  I can also see that the research was based on the 699 families who completed the programme out of the original 3099 who were referred (and the 2295 who were offered intervention).  Presumably then these 699 familes who completed the programme would be regarded as the 'successes' and were maybe more highly motivated to change than the remaining 2400 who were referred?    

This would certainly explain the dramatic improvements highlighted in the evaluation.  But what of 2400 families?  What's going on there, and what has been their experience of the intervention?  I would really like to have heard the voices of families in the evaluation as this would have given the reader an understanding and an explanation for the improvements.  I would suspect that the verbal evaluations from the 699 would be more positive than the remainder and this could be for different reasons, but families in powerless and vulnerable situations such as these are more than liable to rate highly out of shear fear that if they say the 'wrong' thing then this will count against them.  Therefore I feel that it would be just as valid to ask those families  not included in the research why the intervention is not right for them or not working for them.

I'm also curious about the intervention itself which is described by Ed Balls as "very tough".  The report describes the intervention as 'challenging anti social behaviour' and providing 'one-to-one parenting support'.  But what does that mean?  How are families being challenged and how are they being supported at the same time?  And more importantly, who are the staff undertaking what should be very skilled and therapeutic work with very vulnerable families.  What are their qualifications and what training and development are they required to undertake?

I feel that what appears to be a very positive evaluation report could have been given a lot more depth and breadth had some of these issues been addressed.  As it stands it appears to provide justification for government expenditure and policy. I'm sure that Clare Tickell (Action for Children)is delighted at government investment, but is it really in recognition that this model works or is it more about meeting the political need to be seen to be 'tough' and doing something about 'the problem'?  The evaluation makes it appear that the intervention is working spectacularly well, but I'm not so sure.