In this ambitious book, Stephen Crossley seeks to explore the inconsistencies and contradictions in the Troubled Families Programme (TFP) in the UK. While he concedes he could have interviewed the families themselves, his focus is the state, and how it has constructed families as an ‘official’ social problem. Crossley takes a public sociology perspective, what he calls ‘a muckraking approach’ to ‘dirty data’ (p. 14). He aims to expose deceit and malpractice in its operation, claiming that it stigmatised the families it claimed to support.

Chapter 2 explores the ‘long and undistinguished’ pedigree of similar concepts, showing how they have always been gendered, focusing on the mother and family; concerned with ideas of care and control; linked to social science; and motivated by political utility. Drawing on distinctions between the deserving and undeserving poor, and on Loїc Wacquant’s idea of relief from the poor as well as relief to the poor, Crossley shows the increasing role of the state. Chapter 3 then traces how a ‘problem’ was recognised; policy proposals were formulated and redefined; and issues and politics came together at a key moment. Crossley argues the riots of 2011 offered a ‘policy window’, enabling a more expansionist, interventionist form of government to tackle the pre-existing ‘problem’ of troubled families (p. 49). Louise Casey, who was to play a central role in the TFP, emerges as a ‘policy entrepreneur’, but David Cameron and Eric Pickles were also central. Subsequently the ‘illusion’ of troubled families was reproduced despite numerous criticisms and concerns.

In Phase 1 of the TFP (2011–15), families were discursively linked to various problems and problematic behaviours, and a 99 per cent success rate was claimed. In Phase 2 (2015-20), there were changes to the criteria and financial framework, with claims of significant or sustained progress; a richer understanding of families; and savings, but also reduced funding. There was local variation, but also inconsistencies in the national rhetoric and figures. Then, in Phase 3 (2017–20), there was a greater focus on ‘worklessness’, and an emphasis on an alleged transformation in services, but the evaluation indicated that the Programme had no impact on employment outcomes. Crossley argues that the marginalisation of poverty, inequality, and material deprivation in the troubled families discourse has prevented discussion of the Government’s own irresponsible behaviour towards disadvantaged families (p. 81).

Was the TFP an outlier or anomaly in social policy and social work, or entirely in keeping with wider developments? Drawing on Wacquant’s work on neoliberalism, Crossley argues the TFP has been an integral part of recent efforts to recraft the state in the UK, along with wider welfare reforms. Increasing numbers of people have been penalised or sanctioned, and while there have been structural changes to health and education, the state is also now more involved in family life. Wacquant has pointed to a ‘remasculinisation’ of the state; the rolling back of Keynesian welfare policies and structures; and the rolling out of more targeted, punitive interventions. Thus Crossley claims the TFP has been central to a programme of neoliberal statecraft; there has been a ‘responsibility deficit’ in those occupying positions of power; and the Government’s explanation and reaction has been inappropriate; misplaced; and inadequate (p. 97). The TFP has encouraged families to be well-behaved, quiet, and inexpensive; they have had to learn to be poor (p. 98).

Chapter 6 looks at the promotion and history of family intervention – Family Service Units in the UK; and antecedents to Family Intervention Projects in the Netherlands, Nazi Germany, and Dundee. Crossley claims advocates have ignored this long history; there has been no agreed definition; and ‘success’ has been based on changing everything except a family’s material circumstances. What was new with the TFP, claims Crossley, was payment by results. Chapter 7 takes ‘street-level perspectives’, looking at the daily conduct of the TFP, and drawing on research with family workers. Inspired by Michael Lipsky’s work on ‘street-level bureaucracy’, Crossley argues that a voluntary programme offered discretion to workers, and local interpretation often differed markedly from national rhetoric. In three (anonymised) local authorities, he found implementation was secondary to aims; staff were sympathetic and respectful; and while workers hinted at inter-generational continuities, they also embraced advocacy work and structural interpretations (p. 139). Chapter 8 looks at research, and figures as diverse as Ruth Levitas and Louise Casey. Crossley argues it is highly questionable that a family intervention approach – that prioritised changes within the family through persistent and assertive challenge, at the expense of any changes to structural conditions – was the most appropriate way to help such families (p. 162).

Finally, Chapter 9 looks at the ‘structural duplicity’ of the TFP, noting ‘deceit, underhandedness, and political chicanery’ (p. 163). Crossley argues that the Government has marginalised and deflected attention away from the important determinants of the lives of disadvantaged families, and has misused and misrepresented research. While there has been much emphasis on the relationship between workers and families, relationships have not been a central element of the work. This then, is a story of ‘dirty data’, ‘deceitful practices’, and ‘dubious claims’ (p. 180). The narrative of the TFP has remained the same – that poor families are troublesome and costly, and the best way to change this is to work with family members to change their behaviour (p. 181). But the Government has also closed off discussion about alternative courses of action, and has been inactive in addressing structural issues. Thus the Programme has helped to produce and reproduce the ‘duplicitous’ concept of troubled families, and it has been the behaviour of the state that has been problematic and troublesome (p. 184).

While the early chapters of the book contain much that will be familiar to those who have followed the TFP, overall this is the most comprehensive study of this particular intervention to date, a detailed, passionate, and persuasive critique. It is highly recommended, and should be widely read.