From the desk to the front-room? The changing spaces of street-level encounters with the state under austerity

The impact of recent welfare reforms and austerity measures have fallen unevenly on different regions and different household types in the UK. These changes are generally referred to as a ‘withdrawal’ or ‘retrenchment’ of the state. It is also possible, however, to argue that the state is actually extending its reach into the lives of disadvantaged or ‘troubled’ families. This article highlights how, in recent years, the site of government interventions into the lives of marginalised populations has progressively shifted from the public spaces of offices, and neighbourhood and community buildings, to the private, domestic spaces of the ‘family’. The changing spaces of street-level encounters with the state are characterised as a shift from ‘the desk’ or ‘the counter’ to the ‘front door’ of the family home. The rhetoric surrounding the Troubled Families Programme is examined and some of the political and symbolic functions of the ‘front-door’ discourse are expounded

The trouble with the Troubled Families Programme – repeating the failed attempts of the past

The Troubled Families Programme is once again in trouble in the news. A previous blog post showed how the policy was rolled out without proper evaluation. Here, Stephen Crossley and Michael Lambert outline the historical precedents for this type of family intervention policy, and argue that by not learning from past mistakes, the current programme is doomed to repeat them

‘Making trouble’: a Bourdieusian analysis of the UK Government’s Troubled Families Programme

In the wake of riots in towns and cities across England in 2011, the UK coalition government launched the Troubled Families Programme, which aimed to ‘turn around’ the lives of the most troublesome and anti-social families in England by the end of their term of office. In a new iteration of the ‘underclass’ thesis, ‘troubled families’ were held responsible for a wide range of societal ills, with intensive work with families identified as the solution to the problems they allegedly caused. This thesis examines the construction of ‘troubled families’ as an official social problem, drawing on the work of Pierre Bourdieu and scholars who have extended and developed his work. Despite being arguably the most influential sociologist of the last fifty years, and with a critical interest in issues of power and the reproduction of inequalities, Bourdieu’s extensive body of work has not been well utilised by social work and social policy academics outside of France. This study, then, represents an original contribution to both the development of Bourdieu’s work since his death, and to social policy and social work research in the UK. The Troubled Families Programme is conceptualised as a policy field and a three-stage approach to operationalizing Bourdieu’s theory of practice is utilised in the study. The history and emergence of the ‘troubled families’ label is examined, using previous academic work, government documents, speeches and media reports. Interviews with thirty-nine workers, managers and directors involved with the delivery and implementation of the Troubled Families Programme have been carried out, providing a ‘street-level’ perspective of the ‘troubled families’ field. Finally, the tools used in carrying out the research and constructing the research object are turned on the research itself, in a process of participant objectivation, highlighting the structural constraints and forces that influence the production of the study and, ultimately, the thesis

Exporting the Troubled Families Programme to America - on flawed evidence

The Troubled Families Programme, launched by the coalition in the aftermath of the 2011 riots, was tasked with 'turning around' the lives of the 120,000 most 'troubled families' in England through intensive family intervention work. Despite the consensus being that it failed to do so, a recent policy brief suggested otherwise. Stephen Crossley and Roger Smith critique the research behind the brief

‘Fog on the tyne’? The ‘common-sense’ focus on ‘sportswashing’ and the 2021 takeover of Newcastle United

On 7 October 2021, a controversial takeover of the English Premier League team Newcastle United Football Club saw an 80% stake acquired by the Saudi Arabian Public Investment Fund (PIF), the country’s sovereign wealth fund. Public discussion and media coverage of the takeover has revolved almost entirely around the concept of ‘sportswashing’ – the practice of (usually) undemocratic regimes using sporting investments to ‘cleanse’ or enhance their reputation and deflect attention away from human rights abuses. This article examines the Newcastle takeover, interrogating the widespread portrayal of it as a clear-cut case of sportswashing, and explores alternative explanations for the purchase, and potentially other sports-related investments. Drawing broadly on scholarship by Bourdieu and scholars of the Arabian Peninsula, it argues that the concept of sportswashing as it is currently used limits discussion of wider, more complex social, political and economic entanglements

Some Useful Sources

This useful sources section focuses on four key areas related to the Troubled Families Programme: official government documents and sources of information relating to the programme; emerging academic research relating specifically to the implementation of the programme; sources which help to locate the programme in its wider historical context; and international perspectives which provide information on how ‘troubled families’ are viewed in different countries. The sources listed here hopefully add to and complement the bibliographies of the individual articles in this section

Assessment of the eff ectiveness of a phase IV cardiac rehabilitation programme

Abstract Background Cardiovascular rehabilitation is a low-cost, effective mechanism for the enhanced health and wellness of sufferers of cardiac diseases. There is little information on the effectiveness of such programmes. The purpose of this study was to assess the effectiveness of a phase IV cardiac rehabilitation programme on selected health, fitness, and psychological variables. Methods We used existing data generated over 10 years by the Heartbeat Northwest Cardiac Centre, UK, from patients engaged on a phase IV cardiac rehabilitation programme. Key variables were cardiovascular risk score quantified by the Framingham Risk Score, cardiorespiratory fitness levels, body-mass index, and measures of anxiety and depression measured by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Measurements were taken before and after the programme (mean duration 48 weeks). Changes in target dependent variables were assessed with mixed ANOVA. Findings Data from 1129 patients were analysed. Mean risk score was significantly higher before than after the programme (19·10 [SD 10·91], 95% CI 18·12–20·07 vs 10·12 [7·06], 9·49–10·75; p<0·01) and mean aerobic fitness was lower (20·60 mL/min per kg [17·20], 19·59–21·60 vs 27·14 [16·19], 22·11–33·18; p<0·01), though no main effect was identified between the sexes. Similar changes before and after the programme were found for mean scores of both depression (4·57 [SD 3·17], 4·29–4·85 vs 3·48 [2·64], 3·25–3·72; p<0·01) and anxiety (6·65 [3·75], 6·31–6·99 vs 5·50 [3·38], 5·20–5·80; p<0·01), again with no differences by sex. No significant effects were identified for body-mass index. Interpretation This study confirms the benefit of engagement in cardiac rehabilitation programmes for moderating adverse risk profiles. We suggest that further investigation of continuing improvements in health, via structured follow-up after the programme has finished, should be done to identify whether phase IV cardiac rehabilitation can truly effect positive behavioural change. Follow-up assessment of the fairly small changes in body-mass index and body size is also recommended. Funding None

Reducing the need for foodbanks in County Durham

In recent years, foodbanks have become an increasingly common part of the voluntary sector landscape throughout the UK. It is estimated that there are over 2800 foodbanks in the UK at the current time, with the number of people using them steadily and, in some cases rapidly, increasing. The recent ‘cost-of-living crisis’ has seen more and more people needing to access emergency food support. It is estimated that 3% of all people in the UK have accessed a foodbank in the last 12 months (Frances-Devine, 2024).As a result of the increase in foodbanks and foodbank usage, there has been more and more interest in them from politicians, policymakers, and researchers. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) began publishing data on foodbank usage in 2023 because of the increasing numbers. There is an All-Party Parliamentary Group on Ending the Need for Food Banks, established in 2020. The Trussell Trust, the largest provider of foodbanks in theUK, opened its first foodbank in 2000, and distributed emergency food parcels from 1699 locations across the UK in 2023/24 (Frances-Devine, 2024). A quick search of an academic database suggests that there have been over 150 publications on foodbanks in the UK over the last 12 years.Durham Christian Partnership (DCP) work with the Trussell Trust to provide support for people experiencing food insecurity in the county. Following discussions with researchers in the Centre for Social Justice and Community Action (CSJCA) at Durham University, it was agreed to try and look at specific actions that could be taken locally to reduce the demand for foodbanks in County Durham. Members of the DCP Wellbeing Hub at Chester-le-Street got involved with the project, and worked together with DCP and the CSJCA, to develop and design a research project to seek the views of key professionals in County Durham. Three focus groups were held with workers involved in a range of policy areas to explore work that they were currently involved with, and barriers and challenges to extending or improving that work.This short report is the outcome of that project. We would like to thank everyone who participated in the focus groups and who has contributed to the research in other ways. We have chosen not to include the names of people who attended the focus groups to ensure confidentiality and anonymity, and because we did not want to run the risk of missing somebody