The promotion of extended working life has created a period of uncertainty between the ending of work and the beginning of retirement. This period of the life course is now ‘open-ended’ in respect of whether older workers decide to remain in employment or leave working. However, the choices available are framed within public policy and organisational contexts as well as personal circumstances. The study reviews the organisation of ‘work-ending’, the construction of age within organisations, and the influences on provision of support in late working life. The article concludes with a discussion on the range of pressures that might limit control over pathways through middle and late working careers.

This article focuses on experiences of welfare recipients summoned to do volunteer work. Proponents of ‘workfare volunteerism’ argue that it leads to empowerment and employability while critics dismiss it as disempowering, stigmatising, and disciplining. Our longitudinal qualitative inquiry into experiences of sixty-six ‘workfare volunteers’ in the Netherlands shows how experiences of disempowerment or empowerment are dependent on caseworker approaches as well as on time. Disempowerment can turn into empowerment when an individual's past is considered, but can revert to disempowerment if changing needs go unrecognised. These findings have broader implications for debates on activating policies. They point to the need for diachronic approaches, which reflect the changing experiences of target groups over time and adaption of policies and caseworker approaches that respond to their clients’ changing needs and self-understanding.

In the context of increasing need for long-term care, the reconciliation of employment and caring is an important social issue. In England, the annual public expenditure costs of unpaid carers leaving employment are approximately £2.9 billion. Previous research shows that provision of paid services to people cared for by working carers, sometimes known as ‘replacement care’, is effective in helping unpaid carers to remain in employment. This study makes an estimate of the public expenditure costs of ‘replacement care’ for working carers in England. Using data from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing and 2015–16 costs data, the study finds that the public expenditure costs of ‘replacement care’ for working carers are approximately £2.5 billion a year, which is considerably lower than the costs of carers leaving employment. The study concludes that greater public investment in ‘replacement care’ to support working carers in England would represent good value for money.

During the Second World War, a German economist, Marie Dessauer, later Marie Meinhardt, worked with the British welfare state scholar and policy analyst Richard Titmuss on pioneering studies of social factors and health. Titmuss is remembered today for his role in establishing social policy as an academic discipline, and for his internationally-renowned works on welfare, health and public policy. Meinhardt's career as an economist has been largely forgotten. This was an unusual alliance with far-reaching consequences, as Meinhardt later bequeathed a large sum of money to the London School of Economics, where Titmuss worked, to help fund social policy students and research. This article documents the story of the Titmuss-Meinhardt collaboration, locating it in the context of Titmuss's last and probably best-known work, The Gift Relationship, which analyses the function of altruistic giving in promoting healthy and democratic social relations.

As public policies are focusing on retaining the ageing workforce, flexible working time arrangements in late career have gained visibility over the past decades. However, given the institutional nature of these arrangements, little is known about the extent to which older workers reduce working hours at a cross-country level. Using data from the 2012 Labour Force Survey ad hoc module, the article aims to provide estimates about the number of workers aged fifty-five to sixty-nine reducing working time in a move towards retirement (before and after the first old-age pension) and assessing, using a multilevel modelling, whether these arrangements play a role in explaining the decision to work beyond the pension age in thirty European countries. Descriptive results show important variations among countries and between genders. The multilevel model shows that the impact of working time reductions in late career varies from one country to another.

There is strong evidence linking adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and poor outcomes in adulthood both in terms of mental and physical health. Gaps in both the evidence base and research priorities still exist. These include understanding how to identify and assess risk in children who have experienced ACEs, and also the development and, importantly, the evaluation of interventions. Outstanding gaps include whether there are sensitive periods during childhood, the role of resilience/protective factors, the causal relationships, biological mechanisms and relative risk of ACEs for particular negative outcomes. ACEs affect individual children differently and chronic exposure appears to increase the risk of poor outcomes in adulthood, meaning interventions should also be tailored to the individual children, families and communities. Generally, there needs to be better evaluation of interventions and dissemination of this information to ensure that their use is evidence based. More input from affected communities, clinicians, funding bodies and Government departments is required to identify research priorities and ensure gaps in the evidence base are addressed.

Too many children face disadvantages that negatively impact their health, happiness and future life chances. Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) represent a particularly traumatic set of circumstances that have been found through research to dramatically increase the likelihood of poor adult physical and mental health outcomes. While we do not view ACEs to represent the only or necessarily the most serious risks to children’s development, we do recognise them to pose a substantial threat. This article identifies twenty-four interventions with causal evidence of preventing or reducing ACE-related trauma and considers how they could be offered through system-wide strategies aimed at improving the lives of children who are at the greatest risk. While we are not suggesting that these interventions – on their own or in combination – represent a magic solution to ACEs, or the wider societal issues that contribute to them, we do propose that knowledge about their effectiveness can improve the quality of services that support the needs of highly vulnerable children.

This article critically reviews the foundational studies carried out by Felitti in the US and Bellis in the UK and their colleagues examining the relationship between Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) and adult health and morbidity. These studies have paved the way for much research on childhood adversity and its impact on child development and brain functioning at a family level. ACEs have gained traction in the UK in terms of policy targeting dysfunctional families through early intervention to stop the intergenerational effects of adverse childhood experiences. This article questions the foundational research that argues for family-level, parent-based intervention, especially in light of substantial evidence about the biological embedding of poverty and the direct links between disadvantage and child development. It also hopes to raise awareness about the contested nature of ACEs and their growing influence on family policy.

Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) have emerged as a major research theme. They make reference to an array of potentially harmful exposures occurring from birth to eighteen years of age and may be involved in the construction of health inequalities over the lifecourse. As with many simplified concepts, ACEs present limitations. They include diverse types of exposures, are often considered cumulatively, can be identified using prospective and retrospective approaches, and their multidimensional nature may lead to greater measurement error. From a public health perspective, ACEs are useful for describing the need to act upon complex social environments to prevent health inequalities at a population level. As the ACEs concept becomes popular in the context of policy interventions, concerns have emerged. As a probabilistic and population-level tool, it is not adapted to diagnose individual-level vulnerabilities, an approach which could ultimately exacerbate inequalities. Here, we present a critique of the ACEs framework, discussing its strengths and limits.

This article will consider Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) as a chaotic concept that prioritises risk and obscures the material and social conditions of the lives of its objects. It will show how the various definitions of ACEs offer no cohesive body of definitive evidence and measurement, and lead to a great deal of over-claiming. It discusses how ACEs have found their time and place, locating a variety of social ills within the child’s home, family and parenting behaviours. It argues that because ACEs are confined to intra-familial circumstances, and largely to narrow parent-child relations, issues outside of parental control are not addressed. It concludes that ACEs form a poor body of evidence for family policy and decision-making about child protection and that different and less stigmatising solutions are hiding in plain sight.

In December 2017, the House of Commons Parliamentary Science and Technology Committee put out a call for submissions to an Inquiry that would consider the evidence-base for early intervention policies, with a particular focus on ‘Adverse Childhood Experiences’ or ACEs. This article analyses those submissions and the transcripts of the Inquiry’s oral sessions in the belief that they constitute a useful window through which to explore the types of claims being made in ACEs discourse. Our aim is to assess whether the ACEs phenomenon represents a continuity with what has been termed the ‘first three years movement’ (Thornton, 2011a, 2011b) – social policy and philanthropic activism which focuses on the earliest years of life in the name of preventing social problems ‘down the line’. In particular, we consider constructions of parents as determinate of these social problems through their influence on their children and the ways in which these are gendered in new ways.

This article examines the growth of resilience-focused youth policy in Scotland, and its association with the proliferation of the ACE (Adverse Childhood Experiences) agenda. To do this, it critically compares policy discourse with qualitative data on young people’s experiences of growing up in two similar, low-income neighbourhoods. This combination leads us to problematise resilience-informed practice, relative to the voices of young people. Our review demonstrates that by emphasising individual protective factors, resilience discourse reframes inequalities embedded within certain neighbourhoods, and the specific impacts on young people who live there. The consequence is not an assets-based youth policy that supports all young people, but rather a form of resilience which promotes the ‘steeling’ of young people; making them stronger and more resistant to adversities. These adversities, we conclude, may be preventable within a more just social order.

The ACEs checklist is not yet widely used as a diagnostic tool within Aotearoa New Zealand child welfare services but its relatively low visibility at this point does not mean that some of the science behind this tool, and comparable tools and evidence, are not being used. This article will consider the ramifications of using this sort of tool within the cultural context of Aotearoa New Zealand, a country with a specific history of colonisation of Māori, and more recently a shifting demographic that has been influenced by successive waves of immigration of large numbers of Pacific Island and Asian families. This article will ask if the use of deceptively ‘common sense’ tools, like the ACEs checklist, can take into consideration structural factors such as racism, colonisation and poverty.