The arrival of large numbers of asylum seekers in the UK, many of whom subsequently become refugees, has been an important contributor to the emergence of new migration. Integration policy and initiatives have placed a great deal of focus on securing housing for refugees and enhancing their employability. While academics stress that integration should be a two-way process, and highlight the need for institutions to adapt to meet migrant need, the vast majority of policy attention has focused on supporting refugees to adapt to life in the UK. Few initiatives and even less research attention has been paid to encouraging or exploring institutional adaptation. This article looks at the experiences of UK housing providers involved in the HACT Reach In initiative. The project was unusual in that it sought to encourage housing providers to adapt their approaches to service provision by embedding refugees into their everyday work. Using data collected via qualitative longitudinal methods, the article examines the ways in which institutions changed their cultures and approaches to service delivery. It finds that initiatives that enable hosts and migrants to access new social fields create the opportunity for embedded integration that moves beyond the individual to impact upon institutions, and argues that shifting our attention to institutions has much to offer in conceptual, empirical and policy terms.

Under post-welfarist realignments in neoliberal democracies, the provision of welfare is increasingly conditional on claimants fulfilling certain (behavioural) obligations. Under these shifts, an increased focus on the cultural dimensions of conduct and belonging redefines the basis for citizenship and extends the risk of subversion to include incivility or cultural difference. Critically, this recasting of the state-citizen social contract occurs with potentially exclusionary effects by legitimising ethnic and culturalist explanations that attribute blame to individuals/groups based on their perceived failure to follow normative models of social and spatial integration. The significance of these neoliberal welfare shifts for many of those most at risk of exclusion—black and minority ethnics (BME) and indigenous populations—has received little attention. Responding to this gap from within housing studies, this article reports on qualitative research on the fulfillment of government responsibilities for tenancy support provision under reforms to Indigenous housing welfare in Australia. Based on interviews with Indigenous housing stakeholders, it identifies programmatic, organisational and operational issues hampering tenant support provision that challenge how the ideal of ‘fair reciprocity’ was satisfied at the outset of the reforms. Given contemporary policy discourse on community cohesion and integration, the ways in which current programmatic oversights signal this neoliberal programme and its attempts to reinforce perceptions and constructions of cultural difference to politicise and pathologise the behaviours of particular individuals and communities is significant. Key questions arise about how the needs of minority groups might inform the types of ‘opportunities’ required to achieve the conditions for fair reciprocity within the contractual welfare state.

Minimum income protection is gaining new significance in European social policy. In an effort to promote social inclusion, the European Parliament has called on the European Commission and EU Member States to guarantee the minimum right to social safety nets. The Commission has been considering, in the context of the Europe 2020 strategy, the possibility of setting minimum standards for social protection. It is timely then to survey the debates surrounding minimum income standards for Europe and some of the different technologies available for setting reference budgets. A European needs-based (minimum) social protection floor should help guard against poverty and exclusion, but there can be no ‘one size fits all’ in Europe. For it is equally clear that higher social standards of protection may be required by citizens in more affluent parts of Europe. How can such distinctions be made, and what are the challenges arising from doing so?

Single, older women in the State of Victoria, Australia, have emerged as a group experiencing housing insecurity and being highly vulnerable to homelessness in their old age. A sizable demographic cohort, it is a group that could overwhelm the existing homelessness service system. One of the most surprising aspects of this trend is their propensity to be tertiary educated. Focus groups revealed ‘critical life events’ as significant, and a shared ‘control belief’ in the value of education. Given that education is a key means by which Australian governments seek to remedy homelessness, the entry of educated women into the homelessness population suggests policy needs to re-examine homelessness causation and explicitly apply a gender-lens.

There has been much concern about people not saving enough for retirement in the UK and how to encourage further saving. This has led to pension policy developments, including the introduction of auto-enrolment, a form of ‘soft’ compulsion, to ‘nudge’ people to save. Given that young working age cohorts have longest to contribute to pensions and have traditionally been least likely to save for retirement, it is important to investigate their attitudes and expectations in relation to pensions and the potential effects of auto-enrolment on their future retirement income. This study utilises the findings of thirty interviews with young people aged eighteen to thirty about their opportunities and attitudes towards pensions, and identifies a variety of factors which affect pension contributions, including knowledge and advice, trust and myopia. It then focuses explicitly on auto-enrolment before concluding that if auto-enrolment is to succeed, people need to be reassured beyond doubt that it ‘pays to save’.

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’.

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).

In late 2011, the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition government announced the launch of a new programme on ‘troubled families’ – a term used to describe the estimated 120,000 most behaviourally anti-social families in England and Wales. To many social scientists, this appeared to be yet another reconstruction of the broad ‘underclass’ concept that has run like a thread of analysis through UK poverty discourses over the last 150 years. The symbolic nature and coded meanings of this particular concept of poverty are very interesting, as is the way it has been reconstructed periodically. This paper summarises these reconstructions, and the analytical issues raised by them: the ‘residuum’ concept of the 1880–1914 period; the ‘social problem group’ of the inter-war years; the ‘problem family’ of the 1940s and 1950s; the ‘cycle of deprivation’ of the 1970s; and the ‘underclass’ of the 1980s and 1990s.

This article explores continuities and changes in relation to the problem and troubled families’ initiatives across three areas: the ways in which families have been defined and described; the nature of the interventions; and the criteria for ‘success’. First, while the criteria for identifying troubled families seem initially more explicit than those for problem families, data on the families indicate important continuities. Second, although both initiatives have been characterised by the claimed novelty and distinctiveness of the approaches, it is the practical, commonsense nature of the interventions that have also been highlighted. Third, whereas voluntary organisations and local authorities made little effort to assess ‘outcomes’ for problem families, or were pessimistic about the chances of success, the troubled families initiative has focused on costs, savings, payment-by-results and families ‘turned around’. Overall, troubled families have been much more visible in political rhetoric than their 1950s counterparts.

This article looks at the promise of the ‘New Middle Class’ (NMC) inherent in the neoliberal ideological ideal of individualising societal responsibility for well-being and success. The article points to how this promise enables a discourse and practice of welfare reform and a disciplining of life styles particularly targeting the very poor in society. Women and some ethnic minorities are particularly prone to poverty and then therefore also discipline. The article then provides a case study of the Troubled Families Programme (TFP) and shows how the programme and the way it is constructed and managed partly undermines the provision of the material needs to alleviate people from poverty and re-produces discourses of poor lifestyle and parenting choices as sources of poverty, thereby undermining the ‘middle-class’ promise.

Drawing upon the Trace method developed by Selma Sevenhuijsen (2004), this paper has traced the discourse constructed in two key Troubled Families Programme (TFP) policy documents through the lens of care ethics, highlighting tensions between ‘care’ and ‘justice’ orientations in the neoliberal family intervention model. It is argued that whilst the family intervention model advocated has the potential to provide families with support underpinned by an ethic of care, the TFP's managerialist tendencies also create challenges to the integration of care ethics within such services. Given that the programme's financial framework generates considerable opportunity for local variation in policy implementation, the ethics of care offer a valuable moral framework by which to evaluate local practice. Moreover, engaging with a distinctly feminist ethic of care renders visible to family support services the inequalities produced through the gendered distribution of ‘caring’ responsibilities, and highlights the need for interventions to address rather than reinforce these inequalities.

Despite ‘troubled lives’ increasingly coming under the gaze of (powerful) others, our understanding of the issues at hand seems somewhat detached from the experiences of those subject to policy intervention. Due to the deficit model that presents ‘problem families’ as pathological, the voices of those that experience multiple disadvantages and severe material hardship are rarely heard, or, at worst, silenced. Within the context of hardening public attitudes that increasingly vilify the poor, understanding the connection between the personal and public is both timely and valuable. Drawing upon qualitative research, this paper seeks to listen to the voices of young people who currently reside within a ‘troubled family’. Through an exploration of how young people perceive their biographies, their status as ‘troubled’ or troublesome’, their relationships with significant others and their thoughts and feelings towards the future, we are able to recapture and reclaim contemporary depictions of ‘troubled lives’. Uncovering such lived experiences can also act as a springboard through which to explore how young lives (are likely to) unfold when interpreted against the background of restricted opportunities and social censure.

Government initiatives such as the Troubled Families Programme present a difficult problem for social scientists: how to discuss the policies without accepting and appearing to legitimise the problematic framing of social problems that they embody. The programme is characteristically neoliberal in its silence on structural inequality and in its targeting of certain families as deficient and wholly responsible for their situation. Like so many such programmes, its primary addressee is arguably not merely those targeted by the policies but the wider electorate. The paper discusses the dilemmas of challenging the policy's framing. First it makes some general points about the different characters of political and academic discourses, before examining some key features of the framing of TFP, its conceptualisation of social causes of problems and individual responsibility, and how social scientists might respond. It then draws upon the work of George Lakoff to comment on how the impact of policy and political discourse depends on the kinds of value systems it invokes, before concluding.

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.