This cluster-randomised study analyses the implementation of a family intervention model (the HOLF model) on four target areas: parental employment, the financial and housing situations, and the social inclusion of children. The study compares family coordinators implementing the HOLF model including tools, schemes and supervision structures, with those implementing local family intervention practices. All twenty-nine participating Labour and Welfare offices received two family coordinators per office, with a caseload of twenty-one families. Of the offices, fifteen were randomised to implement the HOLF model, while fourteen implemented local family intervention practices. In a twelve-month follow-up of 862 parents, baseline and T2 questionnaires and administrative data show a significant improvement on financial situation and children’s social inclusion; however, with no differences between offices implementing the HOLF model and those implementing local family intervention practices. The results show the need for further analyses of key elements and implementation practices within family intervention projects.

This study evaluated the efficacy of a family-centered preventive intervention, the Family Check-Up (FCU), delivered as an online, eHealth model to middle school families. To increase accessibility of family-centered prevention in schools, we adapted the evidence-based FCU to an online format, with the goal of providing a model of service delivery that is feasible, given limited staffing and resources in many schools. Building on prior research, we randomly assigned participants to waitlist control (n = 105), FCU Online as a web-based intervention (n = 109), and FCU Online with coaching support (n = 108). We tested the effects of the intervention on multiple outcomes, including parental self-efficacy, child self-regulation, and child behavior, in this registered clinical trial (NCT03060291). Families engaged in the intervention at a high rate (72% completed the FCU assessment) and completed 3-month posttest assessments with good retention (94% retained). Random assignment to the FCU Online with coaching support was associated with reduced emotional problems for children (p = .003, d = −0.32) and improved parental confidence and self-efficacy (p = .018, d = 0.25) when compared with waitlist controls. Risk moderated effects: at-risk youth showed stronger effects than did those with minimal risk. The results have implications for online delivery of family-centered interventions in schools.

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.

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.

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.

The present study aimed to examine the levels and interactions of family burden (FB) and expressed emotion (EE) in first episode psychosis (FEP) patients and, secondly, to observe the potential change after a brief psychoeducational group intervention implemented in a real world clinical setting. Twenty-three key relatives of FEP patients received a brief psychoeducational group intervention. FB and EE were assessed before and after the intervention. EE-change and correlations between variables were examined. Half of the sample of key-relatives showed high levels of EE. No severe family burden was observed. FB and EE did not change after the intervention. Family subjective and objective burden were correlated with emotional overinvolvement, but not with criticism. Brief psychoeducational groups may not be sufficient to reduce FB and EE associated to the experience of caregiving for a family member with a first-episode psychotic disorder.

There is a pressing need for the development of effective early family intervention programs for children showing Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) behaviours with Conduct Disorder (CD) or Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD) behaviours. Previous research has indicated that children with ADHD are at high risk of developing comorbid CD or ODD behaviours. In addition, it has been shown that ODD or CD behaviours in childhood tend to persist and to have adverse effects on later social adjustment. However, ODD or CD behaviours are not necessary concomitants of ADHD, and it has been demonstrated that behavioural intervention can have both short- and long-term beneficial effects for children showing early signs of ODD or CD behaviours. In the short term, behavioural family interventions may be able to reduce oppositional behaviour, particularly in the preschool years. In the long term, early intervention has been shown to reduce the incidence of later antisocial behaviour in children at risk for this developmental trajectory. In this paper, it will be argued that behavioural family interventions have not been effectively utilised or promulgated in the community for children with ADHD despite the demonstrated efficacy of these types of interventons. A model of a multilevel system of intervention that can be tailored to the individual family's needs is presented.