The commitment of the appointed Director General of the Troubled Families Unit, Louise Casey, that the Troubled Families Programme (TFP) was ‘an opportunity not to repeat the failed attempts of the past’ masks several enduring continuities (Casey, 2012: 3). This review article argues that the TFP should be seen as part of a wider spectrum of policies which locates ‘troubles’ or ‘problems’ in the family itself and emphasises behaviour as the target of action without regard to wider social or economic considerations. This policy process must be understood within a wider context of not only historical efforts ‘to constrain the redistributive potential of state welfare’ (Macnicol, 1987: 316) but also of contemporary forms of neoliberal governance of ‘the family’ (Butler, 2014; Crossley, 2016a; Gillies, 2014).

The launch of the Troubled Families Programme in 2011 has thrown into sharp relief how governments develop policies and practices to intervene in the lives of so‐called ‘troubled families’. Commentators were quick to make comparisons with historic efforts to rehabilitate ‘problem families’ in the post‐war period. However, beyond discursive similarities, there are also marked continuities in how family policies have been developed and implemented. This review narrates the rise, fall and rise of concern about ‘problem’ and ‘troubled’ families in England in the context of anxieties about child and family welfare, and the appropriate response of the state.

The Troubled Families Programme (TFP) was launched by the UK Coalition Government in December 2011. Following the riots that took place in towns and cities across England during that summer, the then Prime Minister David Cameron promised to put 'rocket boosters' under plans to 'turn around' the lives of the country's 'most troubled families' by the end of the Coalition's term of office in May 2015. In his 'fightback' speech, delivered just a week after the riots had ended, Cameron (2011a) stated that the riots were not about poverty or race or government cuts. Instead, he argued that that the riots were 'about behaviour: people showing indifference to right and wrong; people with a twisted moral code; people with a complete absence of self-restraint'.Lone parent families and a dysfunctional system of social security were, in the government's eyes at least, equally culpable for the rioting (Cameron (2011a):

Adam Perkins' The Welfare Trait outlines the most recent attempt to provide substance to the existence of an underclass, based on the idea of a shared 'welfare-induced', 'employment-resistant' personality amongst benefit claimants. Following in the footsteps of historian John Macnicol who went 'in pursuit' of the underclass, this article travels 'in pursuit' of the welfare trait by situating its claims in historical context through a comparison of the post-war study by William Tonge, Families without Hope, which sought to identify a common psychological maladjustment in 'problem families.' The common intention, methods and recommendations of the two studies underline their shared purpose: to transfer the social and policy problems associated with poverty from their socio-economic context and the culpabilities of the state to finding the problem in individual families, identifying their behaviour as problematic and proscribing solutions rooted around cultivating personal responsibility.

Doctors are typically portrayed as active agents in their work lives. However, this paper argues that this construction of agency ignores the effects of the healthcare structures that constrain choice, which in turn affects population health outcomes. Medical training pathways, regional boundaries, and rationalisation all have a long-lasting impact on the provision of healthcare. Using a mobilities lens to examine the movement of doctors, this paper examines how the expectation of movement built into training programmes perpetuates unequal access to healthcare. Long waiting times, poor care quality and lack of preventative care all perpetuate health inequalities; as one of the socio-economic determinants, access to healthcare affects health outcomes.