As political rhetoric on ‘anti-social behaviour' intensifies, a new take on an old concern is being articulated: the problem of what to do with the ‘most difficult' families. These are people who are deemed vulnerable, chaotic, challenging, out of control, ‘neighbours from hell' ... depending on the perspective of the person who is describing them.

In the last few years the impetus for thinking about this has come from the anti-social behaviour and civility agenda: the problems that a small minority can cause for the majority. But now the focus is sharper, and some of the solutions being discussed more radical. Concern about the disproportionate amount of resources and energy consumed by a small percentage of families is being driven by financial imperatives. It's having a freeing effect - as one local government professional said "now we can say things that couldn't be said in times of plenty".

All the research and evidence about these families makes grim reading. About being alienated from the mainstream labour market for generations, having children very young, having little experience of the world of work and feeling deeply estranged from the values and norms that most of us take for granted. But there is also evidence that services, far from ignoring the families who struggle most, can be in overkill mode. Many families whose lives are most difficult experience multiple visits from a bewildering array of professionals. One London borough has estimated that for every 20 visits their most difficult families receive (from a variety of professionals) only four give service users new information.

Some agencies are talking about differentiating between those who are ‘beyond redemption' - who (it is believed) will never work or fit in with community norms - versus the ‘redeemable' who, with support, may find better ways of dealing with their multiple problems and disadvantage. It makes for uncomfortable reading but if you take this distinction as valid, then there are different options for how to deal with the most entrenched. Whether to be punitive, and remove entitlements to benefits or even housing, or whether to support families to live lives which inflict minimal harm and disruption on themselves or others, and focus on helping their children escape the generational trap their parents have fallen into.

Better ways of supporting people that are more intensive may not necessarily be more expensive. The key to unlocking this, against the backdrop of cost pressures, could be to look at the jumble of services that the most chaotic families deal with, and count the cost and value of different interventions.

There are positive experiences from some of the more radical anti-social behaviour experiments, including the residential family intervention projects (FIPs ) modeled on the Dundee Families Project. Other local authorities have also experimented with intensive support and containment. Our work through the Innovation Catalyst with Essex County Council explored the skills that practitioners need to work with challenging families: a greater emphasis on building capacities and capabilities for front line staff may be a useful new approch We hope to be exploring these issues more with our local authority partners in the next few months.