To think that the council shouldn't put problem families together

[dimondjedi9]

Either side of me I have lovely neighbours, they care about their children and just generally want a nice peaceful life.
Going further down and there are many problem families, police attending regularly and kids left to run riot.
I live in a new estate and to begin with it was lovely, now it has an awful reputation.
I don’t like my son playing out because of bullying and when you try to discuss it with the parents you get a lot of abuse.
I don’t understand why the council put all these families in the same place, it creates such an awful environment.

Clandestino - Large clusters of council housing is a prime way to creating ghettos. The problem is the attitude of the establishment. You put those families together and you are essentially telling them, they are fucked. They got moved somewhere where they are expected to live and create havoc together and them and their offspring have no future. If the families were distributed and more effort was put into education and working closely together with those families, especially their children, it would look different

No. The problem is the attitudes of the families. It is not the Government's responsibility to nanny them, they are grown adults. I think it is better to put problem families all together in a "ghetto", out of the way of law abiding, decent families so they can make each others lives a misery instead of destroying otherwise stable communities. Why should people who keep their council estates clean and tidy have to suffer because a few problem families get brought in? These families don't tend to suddenly become law abiding because of the majority influence, they just bring the area down and make everyone else suffer. They should just have isolated communities of problem families living together and they can deal with each other and if they want to become law abiding members of society they can do so by paying their own way and being responsible, otherwise they can live in their own mess. That should be the choice. Sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind.

If the families were distributed and more effort was put into education and working closely together with those families, especially their children, it would look different.

Yeah, they just spread their misery and trash the whole borough

My council evicts families like this. They all end up in private rented housing causing misery to their neighbours. They live in houses where the Landlords do not give a damn, and the council has no idea how to tackle the issues they cause.

And large clusters of council housing is not an issue. I am in my mid 50s. When I was young there were very large council estates that people fought to get into. One near me was one of the largest in Europe and most people living there have now bought their house. It never had any real issues.

How would the council ‘know’?

6/7 year olds were likely cutesy little 3/4 year olds when parents obtained the tenancy!
I'm working with a family that is highly challenging for want of a better word.
The family were moved to our authority from the NE and they came with a bag load of anti social problems such as drug abus, criminal behaviour and afew other issues that I won't go into. As there are 6 children involved the counci was obliged to house them. They moved them into a house where there is an elderly couple who have bought their house and its obviously their pride and joy. I feel bad for them when I do home visits and the kids are f'in and blinding in the garden, mum is screaming at the kids none stop, the garden has already becoming a dumping ground etc. No amount of family support and interventions are making this family calmer and I worry about the neighbours.

Distributing problematic households across a borough only creates more sites of disruption.

Our area had this problem when heroin abusers were relocated from another area of Britain, ostensibly to "break" the heroin culture of that city. All the scheme did was import a heroin culture to our area (where none had existed before) along with the problematic household a day we didn't have the resources to deal with it.

I hate to say it, but you are better off housing all the problem households on one specialist estate with the all resources available to deal with them in one place.

Put the kids in care. Parents can sleep rough.

I can't believe I'm reading this. It costs hundreds a week to keep a child in care. Are you prepared for your council tax to go through the roof to cover the costs?

And children who grow up in care often go up to be very damaged and dysfunctional adults. They are more likely to end up homeless, addicted, with mental health problems and get into trouble with the law. Are you prepared for your income tax to go up to pay for the costs of this?

And I bet if all the evicted parents were sleeping rough you'd be among the first to complain about beggars in shop doorways.

Foster care may not be the answer but more adoptions from birth might be. Cycle needs to be broken.

Jesus wept, now you want people's kids taken away from them before the kids even do anything!

Is the Daily Express website down this morning or something?

There are simply not enough decent adoptive parents to take away all these kids at birth, because their parents seem like they might become problem families later on.

There have actually been residential projects that manage to break the cycle. But because they are expensive, they always struggle for funding.

My first serious bf grew up in a challenging family. Dad had buggered off, mum was semi alcoholic. The council had put all the worst families onto a small isolated estate. It was impossible for my ex to get a job while he lived there, no employer would take on anyone who lived there. He had to join the army to get away.

We need to stop people/discourage them from having lots of kids, but don't take away the existing ones.

Thing is, some people know no different, but things do need to change, and that is why I think not paying people more money anymore - (for having more kids) - is the answer.

Yeah, they just spread their misery and trash the whole borough

And we wonder why entire communities feel like nobody gives a fuck? It’s attitudes like this which belong in the DM that keep a boot on the neck of people who could benefit from widespread investment both in terms of time and financial investment and make positive changes given half a bloody chance!

Some kids that grow up in families like this get away and live decent lives. But for a lot of the girls, they have babies so they have someone to love them, status and a sense of purpose.
Boys used to go into the army. Less common now though.

Also lots of these areas are a state because some of the kids trash them. An area I worked in that had lots of challenging families had problems with litter and dog shit. But the council actually spent more money on cleaning there per person, than in leafy suburbia.

I honestly don’t know the answer but it so depressing living around here now.
We nearly didn’t get the house at all because my partner worked, what a joke! The lady at the HA said that they wanted a mix of people (obviously meaning those on benefits) we only got this place because our private rental got repossessed. It’s so wrong when your child cannot go out to play because of feral children, you worry constantly about your car because being brand new it is a target for vandalism. When did sitting on your arse doing nothing churning out kids (I kid you not, one family have 9 children with neither parent working) trump a hard working family who are making something of themselves. I would give anything to be able to move and buy a property of our own, somewhere my little boy would be safe, but something needs to be done about the problems around here!

Also lots of these areas are a state because some of the kids trash them

If they had something to do then they might not trash the place! Closing all the youth clubs and community centres was utterly disastrous in our local area. Ironically it’s probably cost more money dealing with the fallout!

Yes youth services have been decimated, which is very short sighted.

The well-meaning Every Child Matters campaign backfired in that the more children someone had, the more they rose up the housing list ranks. Unfortunately a lot of families with many dcs usually have unstable or even chaotic parenting - no constant father figure, various boyfriends and consequently those dcs are more likely to get into trouble as they get older.

Unfortunately it only takes one problem family to spoil an area, but what can you do? Should the dcs lose their school places by being moved? The parent is usually out of their depth/doesn't care and the problem will just repeat wherever they go.

Some new social housing has been built locally. I couldn't believe that after a few months rubbish was being thrown into the front gardens - including nappies. The council's response? They've given them a skip [sceptical]

Giving them a skip might actually be the most cost effective way to tackle that.

And yes, kids that routinely misbehave do end up getting rewarded. I used to work in this field, and I always worried about the kids from challenging families who were more withdrawn, usually girls, and so rarely got any help as they were not causing problems. Instead the focus was always on the kids causing problems for everyone else.

My council has a 6 month probationary period that can be extended.

It applies to not just families but their guests as well.

It's amazing to see the change in a visitor from 'f'ing and shouting when the house holder finds out their daughter's boyfriend can cost them their tenancy and they will be considered, 'voluntarily homeless'.

It seems fair to me, families get a chance to make a new start.

It doesn't solve everything of course, but it helps.

people who could benefit from widespread investment both in terms of time and financial investment and make positive changes given half a bloody chance!

These people have free education and healthcare, a functioning legal and policing system to protect them, and housing benefit to put a roof over their heads. They may nonetheless struggle with poverty but their behaviour is their responsibility!