Reflecting on the Value(s) of Family Interventions for People Subject to Punishment in the Community

  • Becky ClarkeEmail author
  • Rachel Kinsella
  • Craig Fletcher
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Prisons and Penology book series (PSIPP)


Punishment is often defined as an individual sanction. It must be in response to the committing of an offence, and Flew argues that a key feature of punishment be that it ‘only be directed only at the person who undertook the offence, i.e. the offender’ (Flew 1954, cited in Scott and Flynn, Prisons and Punishment: The Essentials, Sage, London, 2014, 41). In reality, punishment, and the criminal justice process more widely, impacts beyond the individual to the family and community to which the individual belongs. We also know that such processes of criminalisation and imprisonment are not experienced equally across all families or communities. The prison acts ‘as a structuring institution that increases racial and social inequality on a large, aggregate scale’ (Jardine 2017, 115). It is with these issues in the foreground that we consider the evidence and examples discussed here. The chapter reports the findings of a small scale research project, prior to reporting and reflecting on the research findings, we provide an overview of the wider policy context of the initiatives reviewed in this chapter.


  1. Alexander, Michelle. 2012. The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. New York: The New Press.Google Scholar
  2. Arditti, Joyce. 2012. Parental Incarceration and the Family: Psychological and Social Effects of Imprisonment on Children, Parents and Caregivers. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Boyle, Davidand, and Michael Harris. 2009. The Challenge of Coproduction. London: New Economics Foundation.Google Scholar
  4. Burnett, Ros. 2000. “Understanding Criminal Careers Through a Series of In-Depth Interviews.” Offender Programs Report 4(1): 14–16.Google Scholar
  5. Cabinet Office. 2012. Families at Risk: Background on Families with Multiple Disadvantages. London: CO—Local Exclusion Task Force. Google Scholar
  6. Clarke, Becky, and Kathryn Chadwick. 2017. “From ‘Troubled’ Women, to Failing Institutions: The Necessary Narrative Shift for the Decarceration of Women Post-Corston.” In Women’s Imprisonment and the Case for Abolition: Critical Reflections Beyond Corston, edited by Linda Moore, Phil Scraton, and Azrini Wahidin, 51–70. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Clarke, Becky, and Karen Kent. 2017. “Battling with a Care-Less Process: Adult Care Leaver Experiences of Accessing Records of Time in Care.” A Report for the Care Leavers’ Association.Google Scholar
  8. Clarke, Becky, Rebecca Kinsella, and Craig Fletcher. 2014. Reflections of Practitioners Doing ‘Family Work’ in the Criminal Justice System. Manchester: Manchester Metropolitan University. Google Scholar
  9. Clarke, Becky, Kathryn Chadwick, and Patrick Williams. 2017. “Critical Social Research as a ‘Site of Resistance’: Reflections on Relationships, Power and Positionality.” Justice, Power and Resistance 1(2): 261–282.Google Scholar
  10. Condry, Rachel. 2007. Families Shamed: The Consequences of Crime for Relatives of Serious Offenders. Collumpton: Willan.Google Scholar
  11. Cooper, Vicky, and Dave Whyte, eds. 2017. The Violence of Austerity. London: Pluto Press. Google Scholar
  12. Coyne, Darren. 2015. Effectively Abandoned: Care Leavers in the Criminal Justice System. Manchester: The Care Leavers’ Association. Google Scholar
  13. Crossley, Stephen. 2015. The Troubled Families Programme: The Perfect Social Policy? London: Centre for Crime and Justice Studies.
  14. Danil, Linda Roland. 2013. Families First: A study into the Coalition Government’s Troubled Families Programme in Leeds. West Yorkshire, UK.Google Scholar
  15. Day, Laurie, Caroline Bryson, Clarissa White, Susan Purdon, Helen Bewley, Laura Kirchner Sala, and Jonathan Portes. 2016. National Evaluation of the Troubled Families Programme: Final Synthesis Report. London: Department for Communities and Local Government.Google Scholar
  16. Department for Communities and Local Government. 2012. Working with Troubled Families: A Guide to the Evidence and Good Practice. London: Department for Communities and Local Government.Google Scholar
  17. Dore, Emma. 2015. Prison Leavers and Homelessness: Insight 29. Scotland: Institute for Research and Innovation in Social Services.
  18. Farrall, Stephen, and Adam Calverley. 2006. Understanding Desistance from Crime, Crime and Justice Series. London: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Fletcher, Craig. 2016. “The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002: The Impact on Desistance and the Legitimacy of Punishment.” CCSE North West Postgraduate Conference, Voices of Resistance: Subjugated Knowledge and the Challenge to the Criminal Justice System (Wednesday, 9th November). Liverpool John Moores University.Google Scholar
  20. Garside, Richard. 2013. The Trouble with the Troubled Families Programme. London: Centre for Crime and Justice Studies.
  21. Gill, Owen, and May Jacobson Deegan. 2016. Children of Prisoners: A Guide for Community Health Professionals. London: Barnardo’s.Google Scholar
  22. House of Commons. 2016. “Troubled Families: Progress Review.” In Thirty-Third Report of Session 2016–17 House of Commons Committee of Public Account. London: House of Commons.
  23. Hunter, Gillian, Oonagh Skrine, Paul Turnbull, Anne Kazimirski, and David Pritchard. 2013. Intermediate Outcomes of Family and Intimate Relationship Interventions: A Rapid Evidence Assessment. Analytical Summary. London: National Offender Management Service.Google Scholar
  24. Independent Advisory Panel (IAP) on Deaths in Custody. 2017. “Preventing the Deaths of Women in Prison: Initial Results of a Rapid Information Gathering Exercise.”
  25. Jardine, Cara. 2013. “Putting the Pieces Together: Prisoners, Family and Desistance.” Scottish Justice Matters 1(2): 15–17.Google Scholar
  26. Jardine, Cara. 2017. “Constructing and Maintaining Family in the Context of Imprisonment.” British Journal of Criminology 58(1): 114–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kotova, Anna. 2014. “Justice and Prisoners’ Families’ Howard League What Is Justice?” (Working Papers 5/2014).Google Scholar
  28. Maruna, Shadd. 2001. Making Good: How Ex-convicts Reform and Rebuild Their Lives. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Maruna, Shadd. 2004. “Pygmalion in the Reintegration Process: Desistance from Crime Through the Looking Glass.” Psychology, Crime and Law 10(4): 271–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mills, Alice. 2004. “‘Great Expectations?’: A Review of the Role of Prisoners’ Families.” Paper Presented to British Criminology Conference (July 30, 2004). Portsmouth.Google Scholar
  31. Mills, Alice, and Helen Codd. 2008. “‘Prisoners’ Families and Offender Management: Mobilising Social Capital.” Probation Journal 55(1): 9–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ministry of Justice. 2010. Compendium of Reoffending Statistics and Analysis. London: Ministry of Justice.Google Scholar
  33. Mischkowitz, Robert. 1994. “‘Desistance from a Delinquent Way of Life?” In Cross-National Longitudinal Research on Human Development and Criminal Behaviour, edited by Elmar Weitekamp and Hans Jurgen Kerner, 303–327. London: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  34. McNally, Right Honourable Lord Tom. 2012. “Speech at the ‘Transforming Youth Justice’ Event.” December 2015.
  35. Morris, Kate. 2013. “Troubled Families: Vulnerable Families’ Experiences of Multiple Service Use.” Child and Family Social Work 18(2): 198–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mullen, Jessica. 2015. Offender Rehabilitation Act: April 2015. Clinks Briefing. London: CLINKS.Google Scholar
  37. National Audit Office. 2013. Programmes to Help Troubled Families Facing Multiple Challenges. London: National Audit Office.Google Scholar
  38. National Audit Office. 2016. The Troubled Families Programme: Update: Memorandum for the House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts. London: National Audit Office.
  39. National Offender Management Service. 2014. National Offender Management Service Evidence and Segmentation Companion Document to National Offender Management Service Commissioning Intentions from 2014. London: National Offender Management Service.Google Scholar
  40. Pickles, Eric. 2015. Press Release: More Than 105,000 Troubled Families Turned Around Saving Taxpayers an Estimated £1.2 Billion. London: Department for Communities and Local Government.
  41. Powis, Beverly. 2002. Home Office Research, cited in POPS (2013), “Ending Gang and Youth Violence: The Family Voice.” Partners of Prisoners.Google Scholar
  42. Prison Reform Trust. 2016a. The Bromley Briefings. London: Prison Reform Trust.
  43. Prison Reform Trust. 2016b. Home Truths: Housing for Women in the Criminal Justice System. London: Prison Reform Trust.
  44. Sampson, Robert, and John Laub. 1993. Crime in the Making: Pathways and Turning Points Through Life. London: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Scott, D., and N. Flynn. 2014. Prisons and Punishment: The Essentials. London: Sage. Google Scholar
  46. Sim, J. 2009. Punishment and Prisons: Power and the Carceral State. London: Sage. Google Scholar
  47. User Voice. 2011. Involving Service Users in Probation: Developing a Continuum of Staff and User Support in Leicestershire and Rutland Probation Service. User Voice and UCLAN.
  48. Waugh, Paul. 2017. “Housing Benefit for 18–21 Year-Olds Axed Under New Rule Slipped Out by Department for Work and Pensions.”
  49. Weaver, Beth. 2013. “The Importance of Social Relations in Personal Change.” Scottish Justice Matters 1(2): 12–14.Google Scholar
  50. Wiggins, Kaye. 2012. “Call for New Troubled Families Sanctions.” Local Government Chronicle.Google Scholar
  51. Young, Baroness Lola, and Jessica Mullen. 2015. The Young Review: Improving Outcomes for Young Black and/or Muslim Men in the Criminal Justice System. London: Barrow Cadbury Trust.

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Manchester Metropolitan UniversityManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations