References

• Ask, T. A., & Sagatun, S. (2020). Frontline professionals performing collaborative work with low-income families: Challenges across organizational boundaries. Nordic Journal of Social Research, 11(1), 66–85. https://doi.org/10.7577/njsr.2223
   Google Scholar
• Ball, E., Batty, E., & Flint, J. F. (2016). Intensive family intervention and the problem figuration of'troubled families’. Social Policy and Society, 15(2), 263–274. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474746415000469
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Batty, E., & Flint, J. (2012). Conceptualising the contexts, mechanisms and outcomes of intensive family intervention projects. Social Policy and Society, 11(3), 345–358. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474746412000073
   Google Scholar
• Bewley, H., George, A., Rienzo, C., & Porte, J. (2016). National evaluation of the troubled families programme: National impact study report: Findings from the analysis of national administrative data and local data on programme participation. Department for Communities and Local Government.
   Google Scholar
• Casillas, K. L., Fauchier, A., Derkash, B. T., & Garrido, E. F. (2016). Implementation of evidence-based home visiting programs aimed at reducing child maltreatment: A meta-analytic review. Child Abuse & Neglect, 53, 64–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.10.009
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dixon, J., Schneider, V., Lloyd, C., Reeves, A., White, C., Tomaszewski, W., … Ireland, E. (2010). Monitoring and evaluation of family interventions (information on families supported to March 2010). London: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/181676/DFE-RR044.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Euser, S., Alink, L. R. A., Stoltenborgh, M., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., & van Ijzendoorn, M. H. (2015). A gloomy picture: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials reveals disappointing effectiveness of programs aiming at preventing child maltreatment. BMC Public Health, 15(1), 1068. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889–015–2387–9
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Filene, J. H., Kaminski, J. W., Valle, L. A., & Cachat, P. (2013). Components associated with home visiting program outcomes: A meta-analysis. Pediatrics, 132(Supplement 2), S100–S109. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2013-1021H
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Frazer, H., & Marlier, E. (2017). Progress across Europe in the implementation of the 2013 EU Recommendation on “Investing in children: Breaking the cycle of disadvantage”. Brüssel: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/c680a1b0-9171-11e7-b92d-01aa75ed71a1/language-en.
   Google Scholar
• Galinsky, M. J., Fraser, M. W., Day, S. H., & Richman, J. M. (2013). A primer for the design of practice manuals: Four stages of development. Research on Social Work Practice, 23(2), 219–228. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731512468957
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gřundělová, B., & Stanková, Z. (2019). The shadow fathers in social work with families: Barriers to whole-family working. British Journal of Social Work, 49(7), 1913–1931. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcy110
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hayden, C., & Jenkins, C. (2015). Children taken into care and custody and the ‘troubled families’ agenda in england: Troubled families, care, custody. Child & Family Social Work, 20(4), 459–469. https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12095
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hughes, N. (2010). Models and approaches in family-focused policy and practice. Social Policy and Society, 9(4), 545–555. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474746410000266
   Google Scholar
• Ipsos MORI. (2019). Troubled families programme. National evaluation. Family survey – follow-up survey. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/786890/National_evaluation_of_the_Troubled_Families_Programme_2015_to_2020_Follow_up_family_survey.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Laird, S. E., Morris, K., Archard, P., & Clawson, R. (2017). Working with the whole family: What case files tell us about social work practices. Child Family Social Work, 22(3), 1322–1329. https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12349
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malmberg-Heimonen, I., Tøge, A. G., Gyüre, K., Rugkåsa, M., Fossestøl, K., Bergheim, B., & Liodden, T. (2017). Research protocol: A cluster-randomised study evaluating theeffectiveness of a skill-training programme for social workprofessionals for improving the follow-up of low-income familieswithin Norwegian welfare services. International Journal of Educational Research, 86, 59–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2017.08.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malmberg-Heimonen, I., Tøge, A. G., Rugkåsa, M., Fossestøl, K., Liodden, T., Bergheim, B., … Buzungu, H. F. (2019). Helhetlig oppfølging av lavinntektsfamilier : sluttrapport (Vol. 2019 nr. 10). OsloMet.
   Google Scholar
• McKim, C. A. (2017). The value of mixed methods research: A mixed methods study. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 11(2), 202–222. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689815607096
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• O'Cathain, A., Thomas, K. J., Drabble, S. J., Rudolph, A., Goode, J., & Hewison, J. (2014). Maximising the value of combining qualitative research and randomised controlled trials in health research: The qualitative research in trials (QUART) study – a mixed methods study. Health Technol Assess, 18(38), 197. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta18380
   Google Scholar
• Olsen, T. S., & Jentoft, N. (2013). En vanskelig start. Om tidlig innsats og tverretatlig samarbeid for å forebygge ung uførhet. Agderforskning.
   Google Scholar
• Piquero, A. R., Jennings, W. G., Diamond, B., Farrington, D. P., Tremblay, R. E., Welsh, B. C., & Gonzalez, J. M. R. (2016). A meta-analysis update on the effects of early family/parent training programs on antisocial behavior and delinquency. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 12(2), 229–248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-016-9256-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Silver, D., & Crossley, S. (2020). ‘We know it works … ’: The troubled families programme and the pre-determined boundary judgements of decontextualised policy evaluation. Critical Social Policy, 40(4), 566–585. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261018319892443
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tøge, A. G., Malmberg-Heimonen, I., Liodden, T., Rugkåsa, M., Gyüre, B., & Bergheim, B. (2020). Improving follow-up with low-income families in Norway. What is new and what is already regular social work practice? European Journal of Social Work, 23(5), 729–741. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2019.1602513
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vis, S. A., Holtan, A., & Thomas, N. (2012). Obstacles for child participation in care and protection cases—why Norwegian social workers find it difficult. Child Abuse Review, 21(1), 7–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/car.1155
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Visscher, L., Jansen, D. E., Evenboer, K. E., van Yperen, T. A., Reijneveld, S. A., & Scholte, R. H. (2020). Interventions for families with multiple problems: Similar contents but divergent formats. Child & Family Social Work, 25(1), 8–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12646
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams, A. (2019). Family support services delivered using a restorative approach: A framework for relationship and strengths-based whole-family practice. Child & Family Social Work, 24(4), 555–564. https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12636
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar