Select Committee on Home Affairs Written Evidence


13. Memorandum submitted by the Family Welfare Association

FAMILY WELFARE ASSOCIATION'S HISTORY

  FWA remains unique, being both a grant maker, distributing nearly £1 million in small grants to individuals and families for the purchase of essential items, and a provider of innovative services that span the whole family life cycle. FWA works with vulnerable young families with a newborn baby, supporting parents to love the baby, to tolerate and put first its infant demands and the huge upset to the lives they lived before the baby's arrival. FWA works with families with children of all ages, with grandparents who look after grandchildren because a parent cannot, with elderly parents anxious about a future for a grown child with learning difficulties.

  FWA has a range of adult mental health services that offer care, homes for those who need them, day resources for people who can live alone or with their families, employment support schemes, volunteering opportunities and friendships.

  It is this breadth of services with the knowledge and experience it brings that allows the organisation to offer new, more experimental work, grounded in research and seeking to find answers to questions just as FWA's founders did in 1869.

ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR WORK

  FWA has always worked with the hardest to reach, families with the hardest behaviours to change, those who are outside the mainstream of society, for whatever reason. FWA is working in areas of huge poverty, amongst communities who see themselves as insular and where winning trust is hard. Within these complicated groups we are working particularly hard with a few families and individuals whose behaviour, attitudes and life style offend and upset their own communities and the outside world in equal measure. These families and individuals have behaviours that are properly called anti-social, characterised by a scant or absent regard for the wellbeing of those who live near them or society at large.

  This behaviour ranges from the thoughtless (fires, loud noise at times when others might want peace, poor control over children's behaviour and pet) to the positively persecutory (attacking others' person and property, deliberately targeting those whom the family think are getting them into trouble) and the criminal (thefts, assaults and using their home/neighbourhood for a wide range of criminal activity).

  These are the families whom we work with, amongst others.

WORKING WITH DIFFERENT FAMILIES WHOSE BEHAVIOUR IS ANTI-SOCIAL

  FWA workers will always try to seek out the issues that may cause or support the continuance of anti-social behaviour.

  The list is familiar, families show histories, sometimes over several generations of poor or absent parenting, periods of time in local authority care, tremendous upheavals and dislocations, and fathers engaging in criminal behaviours copied by their sons. As a matter of course families relate poor educational histories. Most of the families we work with are functionally illiterate and place little or no premium on their children's education, despise teachers and all other functionaries of the state.

  These are features of families where the problem of the anti-social behaviour has been evident in the parents', even grand parents, generation, families where anti-social behaviour is the pattern and the norm.

  We also work with families where, for other reasons, their behaviour is deemed to be anti-social, the behaviour is "new" and occurs where parents, often single parents are trying to raise children in adverse circumstances, perhaps living with severe clinical depression that depletes energy to contain children's behaviour and engage with the outside world, or trying to bring up children, one of the hardest jobs in the world with a learning difficult that makes most planning, budgeting, household management, hygiene, immensely difficult and downright impossible at times.

  Engagement of statutory agencies is sporadic, often absent unless the risks posed to the children's wellbeing are so severe as to warrant permanent removal.

  Families with anti-social behaviour live all over the country but we find that those who live in more rural regions have significantly less help available, they will not travel to keep appointments at family centres in a market town a bus ride away, they tend to evade their "regulators" by being out when an intended visit is made. Professionals can easily get discouraged and disheartened and turn their attentions to more rewarding families elsewhere.

ENGAGING FAMILIES WITH ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR

  Plainly, it helps enormously that FWA is a voluntary organisation, once this is made clear families who have rejected and repelled Health Visitors, Home—School Liaison officers are often ready, grudgingly, to work with FWA's home based support workers, offering as they do both very practical help coupled with technical expertise on behaviour change techniques.

  We work in families own homes as this is where the problems lie, we work intensively, sometimes visiting every day until we are sure we understand enough of the problem to make a difference, we are reliable, keep our promises and maintain a system of rewarding the behaviours we have agreed with family as positive and pro-social. We use targets and charts with stars. We take photographs for an album that records before and after "clean ups", we hire skips to get rid of unwanted furniture that makes its way into gardens, we clean WITH families not for them, we show people what cleaning materials to buy and how to use them.

  We do the same with cooking, helping families learn how to buy cheaper foods requiring preparation, helping them with a grant for a cooker and beds. We instil order from chaos as we believe that chaotic surroundings distract from the key task to hand for parents—that of parenting consistently and lovingly.

EFFECTIVENESS

  Where we can engage families we stand a very good chance of enabling them to make a number of changes to their lives that improve their children's odds of being less anti-social than their parents.

  We measure what we do against our agreed plan with the family and shift our targets and expectations as we can in order to get them to achieve more, but only if we assess that it can be sustained.

PRACTICE ISSUES

  A number of crucial practice issues have emerged as we have carried out more work in their field, it is crucial we have discovered that workers are given very large amounts of support, supervision and training. Working with chaotic families where violence and aggression are never far from the surface is a huge drain on workers, we will work in pairs, less for physical safety reasons but to stop workers from being completely overwhelmed by competing demands and to stop us missing vital opportunities to effect change.

  One issue that we find ourselves circumscribed by is the lack of opportunity to work longer term, very few local authority funders who finance this work, have the capacity to allow us to work for the period of several years that it takes to shift patterns that have been handed down over generations or are rooted in a profound and enduring mental health problem. Many can only fund work that allows us to work for six months, only one authority has encouraged work to continue for 18 months.

  Inter-agency working is of immense importance too as we are most effective when we work as part of a team, where there is an inter-agency plan, whether that be for child protection or as part of an adult mental health approach or, again, as part of a community safety strategy.

  We rarely recommend that these families are moved, much to the anxiety of the neighbourhood, as these families seem to respond best to change in the locality, their lives have often been characterised by being moved on and moving can be seen and experienced by them as a positive reward for anti-social behaviour.

  Of course there is much more to say, FWA would be delighted to give evidence should the committee wish it.

  I enclose a case study, fairly long, but demonstrating the complexity of the issues and effect that a family with serious anti-social behaviour has on a community and the agencies who work with them.

23 November 2004

Annex

FWA CASE STUDY: THE ANNISTER-BELGRAVE FAMILY

Family composition

  Mr Edward Annister, (55) co-habiting with Lyn Belgrave (23) (birth and step parent)
Fred, 17Ged 14 and Harry 14 "the twins"India, female child (16) All Mr Annister's children by his first wife, Edie, who died in a house fire four years' ago


  Mr Annister and Ms Belgrave's children are Jeanie, 3 and Keithie, 6 months.

  There are regular visitors who sometimes stay for a week or so at a time including Lloyd Belgrave, Lyn's brother

  It is highly likely that Lyn and India are both pregnant.

Property

  Living in an Inner London authority in property privately rented from another member of the extended family. The family live in a three storey terraced house in a short street that links two main roads, the family occupy the middle of terrace house. They have a very small front garden area that has no hedge, fence or wall but gives out directly on to the pavement.

  They have a small back garden with a garage/lock up at the back, there are alleyway access points to the back garages, a feature of every house, between every four houses, the Annister's have an alleyway to the left of their house.

Local authority Social Services involvement

  Fred and India have had several episodes of being looked after by local authorities (by at least two London, one Scottish and one Shire county authority). At present none of the children are candidates for accommodation or care proceedings despite significant anxieties about their wellbeing, especially the younger children, as the mother has very poor care skills, finding it hard to dress and undress the baby, set routines or think about safety issues. The family has been known to Social Services departments for over 20 years, Edward Annister talks about growing up in care, he remembers his social aunt and uncle with great and, for him, unusual warmth.

Criminal activity

  Fred, 17 and his twin brothers are all known to the YOT. None have engaged with any programme for any length of time and when they do attend they come together and create an air of anarchy, other service users are pleased when they leave. One of the twins, Harry is a ringleader; female members of the YOT have expressed serious anxiety about his overtly sexualised behaviour towards them. The oldest brother Fred has driving related convictions (accomplice in car theft, driving without a licence, driving without insurance); he was cleared in March 2003 of several counts of burglary and going equipped.

  The twins have received many cautions and have been bound over after breaches of the peace (football damage, threatening other young people, demanding money with menaces, school related offensive behaviours). Edward Annister and his very wide extended family are presumed to be engaged in criminal activity, or living on its proceeds. Edward has spent over 10 years in prison, short and medium sentences for robbery, burglary, fraud, deception and more recently for a violent assault to which he pleaded guilty. Lloyd, a regular visitor to the house, Lyn's half brother, is credited with a history of violence although he does not appear to have a criminal record, Lloyd suggests that his current business is "legit" although his sister believes it involves drug importation from Pakistan.

Educational history and involvement

  Edward speaks of a history of school moves, being looked out for by his older brothers, hating teachers apart from one form teacher who seems to have encouraged and supported him in becoming interested in angling. None of his older children/young people have a good educational history, Fred left school at 15 as did India, both had lengthy periods of suspension and exclusion, India spent two terms in a Pupil Referral Unit which she enjoyed and, interestingly, made use of. Both twins are currently without school places as their names were removed from the roll when they failed to return to school after a lengthy holiday in the summer term. Jeanie, the three year old has not yet been offered an allocated place at nursery school, it seems that Lyn has not registered her with any local schools or nurseries and does not intend to yet as she thinks that Jeanie is "too little".

The effect of the Annister family on other people

  There has been a lengthy list of complaints, ranging from noise nuisance, hostility and threats of violence to burglary and extortion from neighbours, local newsagents, off-licences and pubs. These started when the family first moved into these premises about 10 years ago and have continued unabated ever since, one school teacher suggested that the family "owned" the council, otherwise no one would allow them to continue with their threatening and disruptive behaviour. The neighbours, near and far are very intimidated by the family and rarely speak to them, all are agreed that the family should be "made to move away"; this is longed for by everyone who cannot believe the family will every change.

  Periods of peace and quiet descend when the family goes away on holiday. Police know the family well and are called to the house regularly, often once a week by neighbours who hear fighting or suspect a family member has committed a criminal act. Neighbours from up and down the street, and from further away, have complained about noise, violent behaviours and dumping of rubbish. A recurring complaint is the noise of cars coming and going from property, car doors slamming late at night and loud, violent arguments in the street. Neighbours have learned to keep away from any members of the family some walking some distance to avoid their front door and using any other alley way rather than the one next to the Annister's house to cut through to get to the garages. The front garden area gets cluttered with rubbish, including large items of unwanted furniture that Lyn says are fly tipped by others. The rubbish is cleared away when enforcement measures are instigated.

  The behaviour of the twins is a major concern to neighbours in that they seem to lead a gang supposedly responsible for petty and serious vandalism and thefts/burglaries in the neighbourhood. There are several large dogs on the premises that are also perceived as aggressive and liable to bite, one is kept in the small back garden as a guard dog. The family's "pole" position on the street means that they seem to know everyone else's comings and goings.

Statutory Change and Enforcement measures tried to date

  Education Social work interventions have stopped short of legal intervention although this has been threatened. Social services have had to use child protection procedures after serious allegations about Lyn's care and all three oldest children have spent time "looked after" by local authorities although it is not clear to anyone what necessitated this and no records have followed the family.

  Probation Services have been involved with Edward for many years. Housing officers have visited to assess the safety of the property. They are repelled, as is anybody that comes from "the council". Noise abatement notices to remove cars and other large broken items from the roadside has also been thwarted. YOT members are working hard to keep the twins involved in programmes of behavioural change and anger management, as this is not supported by the wider family any gains here are unlikely to be permanent.

Other agencies involvement in attempting change in behaviours

  A number of "acceptable" agencies have offered support to the family and continue to do so, health visitors are generally seen by the parents as "all right" provided they don't challenge their parenting in a way that makes them feel uncomfortable. If they do so they are "sacked" and never allowed to enter the house again. Teachers and schools are usually ignored, as are letters. Both parents are illiterate.

  A Homestart befriender was working with mother for a while last year but left and no one else wanted to visit the family due to low levels of cleanliness and high levels of emotion. No services that require attendance at a centre or service seem to work. The family are regular "do not attends" at dentists, doctors and hospitals.

  A mental health outreach worker from local MIND has occasional contact with Edward who recognises his mood swings cause concern but Edward does not accept any traditional psychiatric response to his mental health problems and has been removed to psychiatric hospital by force under compulsion on occasion in the past.

  India, the 16 year old, has had support from a young Women's Services Development worker who she met at Pupil Referral Unit and found her sympathetic/engaging, the worker has acted as an unofficial supported to India but is anxious about her role and is seeking to withdraw.

FWA's work with the Annister family

  FWA Family Support workers have been visiting the family for six months, acceptable to Edward as they seem like "local girls" (East End women who are not afraid to speak out) as a part of the multi-agency Child Protection planning process. This allowed them access to the information and resources of co-working agencies. With Edward and Lyn's explicit agreement they have got the whole family resident in the property to agree in the first instance:

    1.  That there needs to be an urgent review of the living arrangements, the twins were the most vocal about that fact that there were too many people living together, many of whom had difficult relationships.

    2.  The dogs did not have anyone who could regularly walk them leading to soiling in the house, they needed to be reduced in number and those that remained should be walked and cared for properly.

    3.  Appointments for dentists and doctors needed to be kept, if only for people under 18, everyone has now been to the dentist.

    4.  India could live independently as she wished to.

    5.  There had to be significant improvements in standards of cleanliness and levels of noise.

  The workers developed a simple contract based on pictures that all the children drew, a schedule about cleaning, parenting routines for Lyn, with timings and rewards for Jeanie as she complied with her mother's requests. This work was actively supported by the workers over the first three months who visited at least three times a week and sometimes once a day, twice over the period of the anniversary of Edie's death they visited twice as Edward was very depressed and the children worried about him.

  Over the next few months the workers tried to incorporate a sense of change in relation to the outside world; this not surprisingly, was much harder. Neighbours were denigrated as interfering scum, ready to call the police but not to speak face to face. Edward and the boys understood that they intimidated people, they relished this, they would not accept that their behaviour needed to change as a much needed part of respite for the community.

  The workers said that this was unacceptable—and were threatened with sacking—that the family had to make a series of changes for which reward would be a lessening of the interest of the agencies that were increasingly "turning up the heat" on Edward and his wider extended family, for example, Inland Revenue, Customs and Excise, TV and car licensing and a range of other organisations all of which were invited to look at what was going in the house by its occupants and their associates.

  The change is slow to come, but there are some real tangible improvements—more environmental rather than behavioural—cars are parked more considerately (the workers drew a map of where and how to park), the front garden is rubbish free, Lyn is seen as the crucial bridge to the outside world and workers are working hard on her social skills, to enable her to know how to behave at the local Parent and Toddler group and to improve her own hygiene so that people respond to her overtures with more warmth and reciprocity.

  The Annisters are never going to be ideal neighbours but have shown some capacity to change.

Some tools and techniques

  Workers got the whole family on the floor "writing out" their family tree so that everyone could who was related to whom, where names and behaviours were seen from and where the family might go in future, it also allowed them all to talk about Edie's death.

  Digital camera techniques and video camcorders were used to show "before and after" cleaning sessions, what a happy bath time entailed and how both little children enjoyed it. Increasingly FWA use video to show parents how they are parenting, this proved very effective with Lyn who had previously failed to see what she did that provoked her children's undesirable behaviours.

The threat of violence and other issues that affect interventions

  The father says "violence is a language to me" and professionals believe it. The family is a byword for unprovoked, violent responses to reasonable approaches. Edward's psychiatric history gives staff from agencies cause for concern (most visit in twos), his diagnosis has changed over the years but people understand him to be volatile, aggressive, unreasonable and physically intimidating.

  The quality is evident in Fred and the twins. The family has never really got over (and indeed doesn't talk about) the fire, in which their mother died, possibly caused by a smouldering cigarette. It is the extended nature of the family that seems to intimidate professionals, one never deals with a single-family member, and all of them get involved immediately, called from all over the borough to "help out". The extended family are equally and often more intimidating than that of the family under review.


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2005
Prepared 5 April 2005