The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

There are not 120,000 "troubled families"

This zombie statistic refuses to die.

By Alex Hern Published 18 July 2012 11:45

Syringes lie on the floor. But are they from a "troubled family"? Photograph: Getty Images

The Department for Communities and Local Government has released a report focusing on so-called "troubled families", which presents a compelling case that the worst of these families have problems which need urgent intervention. But it also takes the opportunity to revive one of the department's favourite zombie statistics. A report which is based on formal interviews with 16 families ("although she met and talked with many more") is generalised out to cover 120,000.

This six-figure number is one of the DCLG's favourites. It has been pushing it since at least February, when NIESR's Jonathan Portes first drew attention to the problems with the definition of "troubled". When the Prime Minister quoted the figure, he called these families:

The source of a large proportion of the problems in society. Drug addiction. Alcohol abuse. Crime. A culture of disruption and irresponsibility that cascades through generations.

As Portes pointed out, the actual definition of troubled families focuses far more on them being families with troubles, rather than families causing trouble. The DCLG has an explanatory note on the topic, which defines the families as any holding five or more of the following characteristics:

a) no parent in work
b) poor quality housing,
c) no parent with qualifications,
d) mother with mental health problems
e) one parent with longstanding disability/illness
f) family has low income,
g) Family cannot afford some food/clothing items

So back in February, the overarching problem with the statistic was how it was used, rather than the number itself. Whether or not there were 120,000 of them, these troubled families are in no way "irresponsible".

But last month, the dishonesty became clearer. Perhaps realising that the rhetoric didn't match up with the definition, the department published a new explanatory note, which claimed that troubled families were:

Characterised by there being no adult in the family working, children not being in school and family members being involved in crime and anti-social behaviour.

That definition does sound much more like one of a family suffering "a culture of disruption and irresponsibility", certainly. But normally, when one changes a definition of something, the number of cases falling under that definition also changes. Not so with the troubled families. The department continued – and continues – to refer to "120,000" of them.

Even worse, when the Prime Minister first referred to the families (using the kinder definition), he did so with an extraordinary level of granularity, saying:

There are an estimated 4,500 of these families in Birmingham, 2,500 in Manchester, and 1,115 here in Sandwell.

Once the definition changed, had the location? Like hell.

As Jonathan Portes concluded his post:

It is difficult to conclude anything except that the Department, and the governnment, have become hung up on the 120,000 number despite the fact that they are well aware that it is now completely discredited, either as a national estimate of the number of "troubled families" or as a sensible guide to local policy.

The release of today's report just confirms that feeling. The figure of 120,000 is mentioned exactly twice in the 30,000 word report (pdf), once in author Louise Casey's foreword and once in the introduction. It is also mentioned twice in the 600 word press release, and twice in each of the Guardian and Mail's reports on the topic. It seems like something which has little to do with the content of the report (an admirable qualititative study of what it's like to live in an incredibly disfunctional household, but one which offers little guidance as to how widespread the problems are) and everything to do with a need to push a continuing narrative.

People like to put numbers on things, so here's one: with the actual information the DCLG has put out, we know of just 16 troubled families, the ones interviewed by Casey. Pick a number any higher than that and you're getting into the same voodoo mathematics the government has been performing for the last six months.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

More from Alex Hern

View the discussion thread.

13 comments

Thu, 2012-09-20 10:44 — Jonathan Swift (not verified)

There remains one hundred and twenty thousand children of poor parents annually born. The question therefore is, how this number shall be reared and provided for, which, as I have already said, under the present situation of affairs, is utterly impossible by all the methods hitherto proposed. For we can neither employ them in handicraft or agriculture; we neither build houses (I mean in the country) nor cultivate land: they can very seldom pick up a livelihood by stealing, till they arrive at six years old, except where they are of towardly parts, although I confess they learn the rudiments much earlier, during which time, they can however be properly looked upon only as probationers, as I have been informed by a principal gentleman in the county of Cavan, who protested to me that he never knew above one or two instances under the age of six, even in a part of the kingdom so renowned for the quickest proficiency in that art.

I am assured by our merchants, that a boy or a girl before twelve years old is no salable commodity; and even when they come to this age they will not yield above three pounds, or three pounds and half-a-crown at most on the exchange; which cannot turn to account either to the parents or kingdom, the charge of nutriment and rags having been at least four times that value.

I shall now therefore humbly propose my own thoughts, which I hope will not be liable to the least objection.

I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee or a ragout.

Fri, 2012-07-20 12:33 — Great criteria (not verified)

4. cause high costs to the public purse.

This would mean all families who qualify for an additional student grant (3,000 pounds?) for those going to University would qualify. Well they cost around 6k per year plus for three years for each child to the taxpayer (not including university subsidy) vs families whos children go into work rather than higher education.

Given that BIS analysis states 1/3 of student loans are a cost to the taxpayer (written off and gilt interest) so around 3,000 pounds per year for 3 years and current ONS data shows lower employment lasting for three years after graduation than non university cohort who looked for work instead of studying.

So will the parents of univestiy students who do not earn enough to be above the additional grant threshold now be targeted? They need to calibrate how much is a high cost.

Wed, 2012-07-18 22:06 — Posh Tosh (not verified)

I did post the above once!

Wed, 2012-07-18 22:05 — Posh Tosh (not verified)

I have an extended poor family over the road from me, all former victorian houses converted to administer theives drug runners, beer soaked underpants,, often two for one patient ambulance calls more than twenty times a weekafter an overdose, the poor souls have never wanted to work indeed they encourage children to follow their paths, indeed they are good at recruiting, and many are skeg gangsters that mug the old and disabled, so they can feed their recurrent alcohol and drug regime, they are seen waiting the postman three times a week and the social security are good for them,, as never have paid a penny in contributions and get far more than 'ordinary' disabled,pensioners and many working people with their added bonus to help them stay on their chosen lifestyle. Then at nightime car and white van horns blazing as they offload their night captures to market dealers, do many drug runs,and if they see you just slightly looking in their direction,threaten with a gun. Mind you they have video camera's at strategic places so they can see the police coming once every blue moon, so they can go between lofts to disperse to an outside exit away from where the police arrive - works every time!,then the disabled that ride disability scooters to deliver their drugs, and use it for extra income support, indeed since their was a talk of drug users being rehabilitated and sent to work, more are using crutches to pretend they are disabled - then you see their internal fights and no-one there is disabled. Mind you Eric pickles said there would be twice weekly bin collections again, yet we have ours every fortnight in Manchester, just talk and waffle as they love junkiees and bedsitters to show where you can go if you lose your incoome and home after being made jobless, it's a good incentive to lower wages for the employee to the lowest in Europe after taxes are taken into cconsideration.

Wed, 2012-07-18 22:04 — Posh Tosh (not verified)

Wed, 2012-07-18 22:03 — Posh Tosh (not verified)

Wed, 2012-07-18 14:49 — wtloild (not verified)

As a long-time employee in a Social Services department, I strongly suspect that another unmentioned criteria they're looking for is that the families in question have a long and consistent history neglect and abuse (physical, emotional, and sexual). To openly state this however would be taking stigmatism a step too far even for the hawks in the coaltion.

Sun, 2012-07-22 13:22 — Itsmotherswork (not verified)

Louise Casey very explicitly references child sexual and physical abuse and incest in her recent remarks (see Guardian article, for example) conflating those behaviours with the spuriously derived 120,000 figure.
The payment by results arrangements for the programme do not address these issues at all, only worklessness, crime and ASB and unauthorised absence or exclusion from school.
Of course, the statutory child protection arrangements can and should be deployed in situations of abuse (sexual or physical) or neglect.

Sun, 2012-07-22 13:20 — Itsmotherswork (not verified)

Louise Casey very explicitly references child sexual and physical abuse and incest in her recent remarks (see Guardian, for example) conflating those behaviours with the 120,000 figure.
The payment by results arrangements for the programme do not address these issues at all, only worklessness, crime and ASB and unauthorised absence or exclusion from school. Of course, the statutory child protection legislation can and should be deployed in situations of abuse (sexual or physical) or neglect.

Wed, 2012-07-18 13:45 — Martyn Evetit-Bronze (not verified)

I know at least 2 families that fit these descriptions. Given the size of the total population, I think the true number could be 4 times greater.

BTW I live in Jaywick.

Wed, 2012-07-18 13:22 — Goji (not verified)

Nice article..... interesting.
Goji Goji fructe goji

Wed, 2012-07-18 12:09 — AJH (not verified)

Oliver Standing-but they still use the figure gleaned by the above stated method/definitions,hence zombie statistic.

Wed, 2012-07-18 11:57 — oliver standing (not verified)

In March 2012 the DCLG’s The Troubled Families programme: Financial framework for the payment-by-results scheme for local authorities updated the description by defining troubled families as those households which:

1. are involved with crime and anti-social
behaviour (ASB)
2. have children not in school
3. have an adult on out of work benefits
4. cause high costs to the public purse.

Adfam support families affected by drug and alcohol use and has produced a detailed briefing on Troubled Families. It's available at - www.adfam.org.uk/docs/adfam_drugscope_troubledfamilies.pdf.