The Troubled Families Programme and the Problems of Success

Abstract

The Troubled Families Programme (TFP) is the latest example of a tradition of family intervention projects (FIPs) for which the evidence basis for success is ambiguous.However, research does suggest that features of such projects, for example, time and flexibility of FIP workers afforded by relatively small caseloads offer some benefits for service users. This article draws on an evaluation of a family intervention project delivered by a Unitary Authority as part of the wider TFP to consider such features and found similar benefits. The article frames the research in terms of the expansion of the TFP and the implications this may have for its practical successes. It concludes by underscoring that by extending the programme whilst reducing its funding the most recent round of the TFP threatens precisely the features previously identified as most advantageous.

The Troubled Families Programme: Learning about policy impact through realist case study research

“…This includes: low case-loads; whole-family approaches; relationship-based practice; generous time and flexibility; the recruitment and retention of high quality staff; and long-term commitment to families. These working practices might usefully be thought of as 'generative mechanisms' (Hoggart et al, 2014;Batty, 2013;Batty and Flint 2012;Boddy et al, 2016;Bond-Taylor 2017;Flint et al, 2011;Hayden and Jenkins 2014;Hoggett and Frost 2017;Sen, 2016), yet often these are not backed by good theory about how they work. There is a growing body of work that has begun to address the complexity of the TFP and theorise in more depth the ways in which these key mechanisms of change operate.…”

“…In several ways in-depth qualitative evidence and service user perspectives have been marginalised in these debates. However, several smaller scale studies have generated and examined the positive sentiments expressed by service users engaged with FIS, including those funded by the TFP (Hoggart, et al, 2014;Davies, 2012;Hargreaves et al, 2013;Hayden and Jenkins, 2014;Hoggett and Frost 2017).…”

The Problems with Troubled Families: Rethinking the Analysis Behind the 120,000 Troubled Families Statistic

“…Linking multiple social and economic disadvantage to problematic behaviour, such as crime and anti-social behaviour, risks distorting and stigmatising the actions of the poor Behind the 120,000 Troubled Families Statistic (Levitas, 2012;Hoggett and Frost, 2018). Welshman (2013) has raised the issue of the Troubled Families Programme problematising certain family conditions, such as mental health and worklessness, in particular.…”

Between “Families in Trouble” and “Children at Risk”: Historicising “Troubled Family” Policy in England since 1945

“…In standardising the process, the limited autonomy of FIPs which were transformed into TFPs was lost (Bond‐Taylor and Somerville, ; Hoggett and Frost, ). Unlike ‘problem families’ which were an agglomeration of local services, organisation and agencies pooling staff and resources through local committees, the TFP became an additional service branch, although often under the rubric of existing provision (Hayden and Jenkins, ; Ipsos Mori Public Affairs, ) sometimes disguised under redirected funding or redeployed services through conditions of austerity (Cooper and Whyte, ; Webb and Bywaters, ).…”