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 FIP 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.

Beneficiary advocacy organisations, which provide advice to individual claimants about how best to navigate the welfare system, exist in the context of complex and opaque benefit-claiming processes that have resulted from workfare policies. Drawing on a case study of Auckland Action Against Poverty, an organisation specialising in poverty activism and services for welfare beneficiaries, this article examines the provision of beneficiary advocacy services as a form of everyday resistance to workfare policies. Everyday resistance is less overtly political, less confrontational, and more ordinary than spectacular acts of resistance such as protests, but one that should not be seen as accommodating workfare policies and the market-based reform projects to which they are connected. By supporting individuals to defiantly persevere with their benefit claims, beneficiary advocates help to actively resist the operational logic of dissuasion that defines contemporary workfare.

This article contributes to the search for suitable approaches to combat social exclusion faced by disabled people in capitalist wage labour markets. Referring to policy and service examples in Hong Kong, it reviews four social exclusion approaches – the Moral Underclass (MUD), Social Integrationist (SID), Redistributive (RED) and Collective Production (COP) approaches. These approaches are explored in relation to three key issues: (1) the diverse preferences of disabled people; (2) the myth of infeasibility regarding unconventional approaches and (3) the defects of the medical model of disability. The article argues that the MUD and SID approaches are more associated with the medical model of disability and emphasise individual changes. The RED and COP approaches contain more features of the social model of disability and are in favour of social and structural changes. The COP approach stresses the diverse preferences of disabled people and supports innovative services to combat social exclusion.

Knowledge of ‘what works’ in early-intervention family services has prompted moves away from approaches which see varied services working autonomously with individual family members, towards provision of multi-agency cross-sector programmes working at a family level. Latterly, some such programmes have adopted Restorative Approach in the belief that delivering services using a more participatory relationship-based framework will support families more effectively. To consider this shift towards use of a Restorative Approach this article explores the concepts and theory that underpin the approach, reflects on how these relate to recommended UK early-intervention family service practice, and constructs a model of family service provision based on the approach. The aim of this article is to consider whether adoption of Restorative Approach has the potential to improve early-intervention family service effectiveness and ultimately have a positive outcome on families.

Community participation has become an essential element of government policy around the globe in recent decades. This move towards ‘government through community’ has been presented as an opportunity for citizens to gain power and as a necessary part of the shift from government to governance, enabling states and communities to tackle complex problems in tandem. However, it has also been critiqued as an attempt to shift responsibility from the state onto communities. Using evidence from detailed case studies, this article examines the implementation of Localism in England and Community Empowerment in Scotland. The findings suggest a need for a more nuanced analysis of community participation policy, incorporating risk alongside responsibility and power, as well as considering the agency of communities and the local state. Furthermore, understanding the constraints on community participation is key, particularly in terms of the enveloping impacts of austerity and state retrenchment.

This themed section brings together the disciplines of sociology, social work and social policy in order to examine the ways in which contemporary familial diversity is recognised in comparative welfare state regimes. Contributors interrogate the ways in which such diversity is supported in national legislation, policy developments and acknowledged in everyday social work practice. In doing so, the section examines if and how these demographic trends and sociological conceptualisations are reflected in comparative welfare state systems and/or policy related to family. Selected articles will also consider if and how social workers, as ‘street level bureaucrats’ (Lipsky, 1980), incorporate these changes in familial structures, and related policy, into their decision making processes and everyday practice.

Although contemporary sociological thought reports a diversification of family forms in society, ‘the family’ continues to influence national and international political agendas. Social workers, as ‘street level bureaucrats’, are social agents that both work with citizens and implement policies made by senior officials. Despite this, the extent to which conceptual and policy developments in family diversity manifest in family-based social work practice remains under explored. This article brings together the findings of two comparative studies, and explores the transfer of conceptual understandings of family, and policy, in England, through two examples: gendered caring expectations and culturally located familial norms. Significantly, we show that, when prompted, social workers recognise family complexity and diversity, but myriad constraints complicate the application of these understandings, and related policies. Bringing together literature from sociology, social policy and social work, this article, thereby, offers a unique lens and highlights a lag between conceptual developments, policy and implementation.

The practice of extended family and friends helping to care for children when their parents are unable to is an enduring tradition in many cultures. Kinship care provides the largest proportion of out of home care in Western society but many of these carers experience poverty and deprivation, and do not receive comparable levels of support, financial or professional, to other placement types. This study provides UK evidence for the relationship between kinship care and deprivation and examines how the welfare state frames kinship care in policy and practice.

Social workers all around the world work with families and family complexity in their everyday practice. In this article, we present findings from a cross-national study exploring how social workers in child welfare conceptualise ‘family’, and how they relate to ‘family’ in their practice. Data presented is taken from focus groups with twenty-eight social workers from Chile, Mexico and Norway. The findings reveal that in Chilean, Mexican, and Norwegian social work, the conceptualisation of family has expanded over time, acknowledging various family forms and displays, and an increased orientation towards networks regardless of biological ties. However, differences were found, particularly in the way professionals view extended family, perspectives on family intervention, and the position of children in the family. Practical implications will be discussed.

This study examines the conceptualisation of family in key social legislative documents guiding social workers in two European countries, whose welfare systems have previously been labelled as re-familialised (Lithuania) or de-familialised (Sweden). The focus is on the concept of family as delineated on three legislative levels: the constitutional level, the general family policy level, and the child welfare policy level. ‘Family’ is explicit in Lithuanian law, and the regulation of family formation and responsibility is imperative, while this is much less so in Swedish law. The analysis reveals how general welfare systems (regime-types) are linked to legislative frameworks, which, in turn, provide fundamentally different conditions for social work in different contexts.

The article reviews the relevance and methodological utility of welfare regime typologies for the study of professional sense-making in social work with families. Focus groups were carried out with social workers in European and Latin American countries representing four different policy regimes. A case vignette was used to elicit social workers’ descriptions of how welfare policy may influence how they understand their work task and the notion of family. The research team identified methodological challenges of general relevance in similar policy-practice studies. There were paradoxes in terms of homogeneity on the regime level vs. heterogeneity within and between national services. Pitfalls appeared in the selection of regime-typical cases, language/cultural barriers, and in deciding organisational level. The article shows that welfare typologies have potentialities in that they may provide a helpful analytical basis for theoretical and practical reasoning in which syntheses between policy and practice can be explored, discussed and challenged.