The Troubled Families Programme:

Crossley, Stephen

doi:10.2307/j.ctt1t89drw.12

Cited by 20 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The impact of international interventions, imported to the UK, is also limited, such as the Family Nurse Partnership (FNP) which has so far produced 'no additional short-term benefit' (Robling et al 2015). On that basis, Crossley and Lambert (2016) suggest that ''the weight of evidence surrounding 'family intervention' and similar approaches, over the longue durée, actually suggests that the approach doesn't work''.…”

Section: Discussion: What Can Governments Do With This Evidence?mentioning

confidence: 99%

The UK government’s imaginative use of evidence to make policy

Cairney

2018

Br Polit

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is easy to show that the UK Government rarely conducts 'evidencebased policymaking', but not to describe a politically feasible use of evidence in Westminster politics. Rather, we need to understand developments from a policymaker's perspective before we can offer advice to which they will pay attention. 'Policy-based evidence' (PBE) is a dramatic political slogan, not a way to promote pragmatic discussion. We need to do more than declare PBE if we seek to influence the relationship between evidence and policymaking. To produce more meaningful categories we need clearer criteria which take into account the need to combine evidence, values, and political judgement. To that end, I synthesise policy theories to identify the limits to the use of evidence in policy, and case studies of 'families policies' to show how governments use evidence politically.

show abstract

Section: Discussion: What Can Governments Do With This Evidence?mentioning

confidence: 99%

The UK government’s imaginative use of evidence to make policy

Cairney

2018

Br Polit

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The criticism of the programme is that it is ideologically driven, one the key reports (DWP, 2017), makes clear its aim to have "an even greater emphasis on helping people back into work and tackling the disadvantages associated with worklessness". This approach, it is suggested, individualises structural social inequalities (Crossley, 2015).…”

Section: the Social Survey Of Merseyside Study Lasted 5 Years And Tmentioning

confidence: 99%

Poverty and domestic violence and abuse (DVA) in the UK

Fahmy

Williamson

2018

Journal of Gender-Based Violence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents a narrative review of empirical evidence looking at connections between poverty and DVA. The findings presented includes social survey and qualitative evidence from the UK, and elsewhere where relevant, and is drawn from more than 80 research studies. The material was collated and supplemented by further secondary analysis of data collected as part of the 2012 UK Poverty and Social Exclusion Survey. Our review suggests that women experiencing poverty in the UK are more vulnerable to DVA, and this conclusion is consistent with wider international evidence. However, while associations clearly exist between poverty and DVA vulnerability, potential causal mechanisms are poorly understood and this reflects the limitations of existing data in this area. This paper highlights the need for further research exploring financial abuse within DVA relationships and post-separation financial abuse and poverty. Caution is needed in interpreting this relationship and drawing inferences for policy and practice. DVA is endemic throughout society in rich and poor countries, and interventions targeted at specific populations (including poverty) on their own are likely to be inadequate in the absence of a wider understanding of the social drivers of violence against women associated with patriarchal norms and practices in particular contexts.

show abstract

“…The TFP is based on a standardised template of intensive family intervention which uses targets and quotas based on the population for each local authority, assessing success through a series of behavioural indicators and outcomes which inform a payment‐by‐results rewards system (Department of Communities and Local Government, ). There remains some room for local operationalisation, so long as the targets are achieved (Ipsos Mori Public Affairs, ; Pereira and others, ), although the payment‐by‐results metrics mean that services are discontinued once families are ‘turned around’ (Crossley, ). Financial pressures aggravated by austerity means most local authorities are more accommodating in following central government ‘best practice’ (Lambert and Crossley, ; Hastings and others, ).…”

Section: ‘Troubled Families’ C 1997‐presentmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Lambert

2018

Children & Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

The Troubled Families Programme:

Cited by 20 publications

References 0 publications

The UK government’s imaginative use of evidence to make policy

The UK government’s imaginative use of evidence to make policy

Poverty and domestic violence and abuse (DVA) in the UK

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About