For researchers to maximise the potential impact of their work, they must ensure that politicians and civil servants are aware of their findings. This means learning how to communicate effectively with government and discovering the entry points into the policy-making process. (former British politician, David Blunkett, 2000 in a speech to the Economic and Social Research Council)

Justice Henry Bournes Higgins, President of the Commonwealth Conciliation and Arbitration Court, in handing down his famous Harvester judgement in 1907 establishing the ‘Living Wage’ researched and referred directly to the study of adequate wages conducted by Seebohm Rowntree (1901) in York, England in the late nineteenth century. This seminal labour law decision was perhaps one of the earliest examples in Australia of research informing directly public policy, and especially for families. The framework established by the Harvester judgement had clearly defined policy goals: a living wage to support a family with two children which continued as the foundation of wages (and family) policy in Australia until the early 1970s when it was replaced by a system of equal pay for equal work (McDonald, 2014, p. 130).

Research and evidence takes many and varied forms, often not integrated and strategic but driven by ad hoc opportunities in both public policy and research communities. Despite significant investment from the government in research it is often not released or acted upon—why? For example, the commissioning approach by the government for the research can be critical to determining release and/or non-release, or the form and content of the final research product is too complex and not conducive to public engagement or policy translation. This chapter explores both these broader systemic issues about the role of research in public policy and more specifically key social policy episodes where research has influenced social policies for families in Australia.

In this chapter we focus on how research can best be translated to real world outcomes in social policy that affect families. We discuss issues related to the measurement of disadvantage and how policymakers deal with this and develop policy to reduce family disadvantage and their impacts on different social groups. We present the research-policy relationship and discuss how research has influenced social policy to solve family disadvantage issues. We conclude by suggesting that research should be directed towards the most pressing social problems to find social solutions.

The chapter builds on earlier chapters and other research by examining selected social policy episodes where research from academia, public sector, civil society groups and beyond have had an impact on the key national and state based policy systems central to this book’s themes about the transmission of social and economic inequalities within families over the life course and across generations. We endeavour to draw out the implications of this research for social policies designed to support families and address the many manifestations of disadvantage in Australia.

History and Context—Social Policy Research on Families and Disadvantage

The preceding chapters of this book have illustrated that the experiences of families are at the heart of our lived experience. Whether these experiences of disadvantage are positive or negative, our current and past experiences of family have the potential to shape our futures. As highlighted in these writings there is a strong research evidence base historically around the importance of family in shaping outcomes for children, but also how families can provide both support and safety or be places of fear and danger (Perales et al., 2016).

As Chap. 2 of this book highlighted, cycles of disadvantage are numerous and complex, including defining cycles of disadvantage using a systems approach that incorporates life course theory and ecological systems theory, supplemented with substantive theories from disciplines such as sociology, developmental psychology, welfare economics, social policy and political theory. Ecological systems theory draws attention to individuals’ interactions with their environments and recognises that these environments are embedded in social institutions, times and places. In addition, life course theory recognises that human development occurs across people’s lives and that their lives are organised according to socially and historically specific categories such as infancy, childhood, adolescence, young adulthood, middle age and later life. Some common events and transitions signal movement over the life course, and early events matter for later life events and outcomes. The life course perspective also emphasises the importance of ‘linked lives’, where individuals’ lives influence and are influenced by others.

A life course and systems approach reflect an increasing recognition in academic and public policy thinking that disadvantage is a multi-dimensional concept. As the Productivity Commission’s 2013 working paper stated ‘it (disadvantage) is about ‘impoverished lives’ (including a lack of opportunities), not just low income. Poverty, deprivation, capabilities and social exclusion are different lenses to view and measure disadvantage’ (McLachlan et al., 2013). This definition reflects many historical and contemporary discourses about disadvantage in which the so-called standard approach to disadvantage—an income measurement approach to poverty—has been challenged and adapted. The importance of addressing the non-monetary and relational aspects of advantage and disadvantage such as human capability and opportunity, the strength of community networks and civic engagement, and the impact of linked problems such as unemployment, poor housing, crime, bad health and family dysfunction on individuals and places have been highlighted (see Saunders et al., 2007).

A multi-dimensional approach to disadvantage is conceptually sound. There are, however, a number of practical challenges impacting on political, policy and community discourses in Australia (and more broadly). Measuring disadvantage is not a simple task. Research by the Productivity Commission (2018) has highlighted that no single metric is sufficient to give a definitive answer to the seemingly straightforward question: have inequality, economic mobility and disadvantage in Australia risen, fallen or remained steady in recent years? This is the case because these concepts are multidimensional, and they link to each other—and to broader notions of wellbeing—in complex ways. To address this problem, the Commission focussed on measuring three elements of disadvantage: poverty, material deprivation, and social exclusion. While there are numerous data sources available to support the measurement (or at least estimate) the prevalence of these three elements, integrating them into a coherent disadvantage framework remains a challenge. These measurement limitations also influence community understanding, public debate and public policy impact. Notwithstanding numerous inquiries, research and reports by a Royal Commission, parliamentary committees, non-government organisations and research bodies, policy making and community debate regarding the causes of and solutions to disadvantage have been narrow, cautious and limited in impact (see Smyth, 2014). A case in point is the annual release of the statistical report of the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey. The 15th iteration of the survey report was released in 2020 and measures many dimensions of disadvantage including the intergenerational transmission of income poverty and economic and subjective wellbeing. The survey has been funded and supported by the Australian government since 2001 and is highly regarded for its scope and rigour. A challenge remains, however, to convert this empirical research into an impactful narrative that can influence community views and policy making in a measurable way.

Given this research and historical legacy it is not surprising that ‘the family’ is a key point of public policy intervention for addressing a multitude of social and economic problems confronting population groups and communities. Social policy should ameliorate disadvantage for people and places and also be good economic investment promoting economic participation and productivity (see McClelland & Smyth, 2014, p. 113). From the 1960s, social policy research has traditionally not been well integrated with the economy and often seen as unproductive—‘let markets grow and welfare provision address equity later’—(Smyth & Buchanan, 2013).

Constructs such as family functioning and wellbeing are seen as key points of social policy analysis and intervention to address disadvantages including increased unemployment, anti-social behaviours, poor physical/mental health and intergenerational impacts and building individual capability and improving life choices (Sen, 1999). Improving family functioning, generating protective factors and mitigating risk factors are key policy levers in mediating the impacts of disadvantage and improving individual wellbeing (Department of Family and Community Services, 2001; Heady, 2006; Gorecki & Kelly, 2012). This approach, particularly Sen’s theory of capability i.e., ‘a persons’ capacity to be whom they want to be’ point to a more integrated view of wellbeing and a joining up of economic and social policy. Heady (2006) talks about capabilities and functioning in four domains of life: the financial domain, the employment or labour market domain, the health domain, and the family and social domain leading to improved individual and family wellbeing. In the Australian context this capabilities approach has been influential in key public policy initiatives such as Commonwealth Treasury’s wellbeing framework of the early 2000s and non-government social policy development by major players (and from different ideological perspectives) such as the Brotherhood of St Laurence and the Cape York Institute (see McClelland & Smyth, 2014, p. 117).

In Australia family policy is seen as the preserve of both Commonwealth and State and Territory governments, but not in any coordinated way. Policy makers seek to impact family wellbeing and the ways that families engage with the economy, labour markets, education and other systems through a variety of policy levers—such as income support payments and subsidies, the tax system and statutory mechanisms that seek to promote child safety and engagement with education. While many policies have universal aspects, many are largely focused on strengthening the individual capabilities of, and promoting positive outcomes for, families experiencing disadvantage. To date, there have been limited attempts by governments to develop national strategies to promote the wellbeing of Australian families. For example, The Howard government established the Stronger Families and Communities Strategy in 2000 with the aim to create new partnerships to strengthen families and communities by investing in prevention and early intervention responses and community capacity to solve local problems.Footnote 1 More recently, the National Framework for Protecting Australia’s Children (2009–2020) and the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children (2010–2022) are respectively partnerships between the Commonwealth and State/Territory governments to reduce child abuse and neglect, and coordinate prevention and other actions to reduce violence.

Recent research exploring the patterns and predictors of disadvantage in Australia consistently place families at the centre of this research and tell a story of the experience of disadvantage earlier in life being a strong predictor for experiencing disadvantage later in life. Further the importance of community and place in predicting and addressing disadvantage remains a consistent theme. However, the stories presented within the data about families and the recommendations made are often at odds with dominant policy discourses that promote behavioural change to improve family functioning and instead suggest more complex structural and community level solutions are required to work in tandem with building the capabilities of individuals and families.

This is particularly the case when looking to understand and address the issue of entrenched or persistent disadvantage. In these circumstances families are framed as the key site of both the transmission of disadvantage as well as the key point of intervention. Understanding the role families play in this transmission is critical. Factors such as employment, education and family type are strong predictors of disadvantage and changes in these statuses can impact on pathways in or out of poverty (Ananyev et al., 2020). However, using a life course approach, Vera-Toscano and Wilkins (2020) argue that ‘the intergenerational transmission of poverty is not the sole responsibility of families’ and that instead a lens that takes into account public policy levers and both national and global contexts need to be used to understand the causes of, and levers to address entrenched disadvantage within families. Factors such as low family income, for example, intersect with other factors such as housing affordability and unemployment rates to impact life opportunities (Vinson & Rawsthorne, 2015). Solutions to address the complex nature of entrenched disadvantage therefore need to also need to be multifaceted and target both individuals and families as well as the systems and contexts in which they live (CEDA, 2015).

Community, Place and Family

A common theme in research on disadvantage for families is the role of community or place in both understanding disadvantage and in addressing it (Vinson & Rawsthorne, 2015; Payne & Samarage, 2020; Ananyev et al., 2020). Living in a community where there are high rates of poverty or other indicators of disadvantage is a strong predictor of experiencing persistent disadvantage and addressing disadvantage at the community or place based level is seen as an important pathway in moving people out of entrenched disadvantage. It can be argued that research related to place has influenced government policy approaches. Both at the Commonwealth and State and Territory levels, place-based policies and programs are seen as effective ways of addressing the complex nature of disadvantage experienced by families through looking at their physical and social environment and the service systems they engage with rather than looking solely at the issues they face as individuals (Centre for Community Child Health, 2011; Dart, 2018; Victorian Government, 2020). Over the past decade, place-based approaches have been increasingly rolled out as policy responses to complex social problems across Australia. These approaches are driven by the notion of local answers to local solutions and have consultation and shared decision making as core components of these models. However, place-based approaches in the Australian context have been characterised by trials, pilots, time limited programs and a narrow focus on human service delivery rather than broader policy design (Reddel, 2002).

Australian Social Policy and ‘the Family’

This scan of key social policy research reports (and of course many others) highlights that poverty and disadvantage are contested terms, impact differently on individuals, families, households and communities and have had varied levels of policy influence and impact. In order to provide some form of social and income protection to Australian families, the Australian government began a national system of (limited) care for its citizens in 1901 (Stanton, 2001). The first social security program was passed in June 1908 that “provided for the introduction of means-tested flat-rate age and invalid pensions, financed from the government’s general revenue” (Stanton, 2001, p. 3). Following this, a number of social policy reforms have been introduced to provide social and economic support to Australian families (see Table 14.1).

Table 14.1 Selected Australian social policy reforms impacting on families (from 1900s to present)
Full size table

This historical scan, while long, is by no means complete, but does highlight that the Australian social welfare system reformed significantly during and after the Second World War and this reform is related to the 1941 review of Australia’s social policies by the House of Representatives Joint Standing Committee on Social Security (Shaver, 1987). To improve post-war life, especially for families, the committee recommended several additional measures including widow’s pension in 1942, unemployment benefit in 1945, and established the Commonwealth Employment Service (Marston & Staines, 2020). Australian families have benefited from the introduction of a series of social policies and programs since the early 1900s (see Table 14.1) that have been aimed (with varying degrees of impact) at contributing to the “cost of bearing and raising children, redistributing resources over the life cycles, alleviating child poverty and boosting family earnings, promoting equity within the tax system, redistributing within families and relieving unemployment and low income traps” (Whiteford et al., 2001).

These events and reforms have, however, not benefited all citizens equally. First Nations families were not even entitled to receive most of these benefits until 1959. For example, First Nations peoples were not eligible for unemployment benefits until 1959 although unemployment benefits were introduced in 1945. Even after 1959, First Nations peoples had to address several personal related criteria such as “having a fixed address, completing forms written in English (which was often a second or third language), and providing documentation like birth certificates” (Marston & Staines, 2020, p. 219). In addition, their unemployment benefits were placed into their protectors’ bank accounts (Marston & Staines, 2020).

First Nations peoples also received less wages in comparison to non-Indigenous Australians until 1965. The 1965 Equal Pay reform played a key role in declining the Indigenous Australians’ employment opportunities as their labour was not cheaper any more. Consequently, nearly half of the First Nations workforce was unemployed by 1976 (Sanders, 2012). Within these circumstances, social security benefits played an important role in providing incomes for Indigenous families in areas where labour markets were particularly weak and seasonal (Altman, 2011). Yet, to this date, Indigenous Australians have lower incomes on an average in comparison to their non-indigenous counterparts (Staines, 2017; Marston & Staines, 2020). Similarly, First Nations peoples still must meet several behavioural conditionality requirements to access social security benefits (Marston & Staines, 2020).

This book’s contributions have highlighted a range of recent debates and controversies impacting directly on family dynamics over the life course where research and broader social policy have been critical factors. In broad terms these include population ageing and families; family formation and functioning; poverty and disadvantage—individuals, households, place and mobility; and work and family. The current COVID-19 pandemic is and will of course continue to have significant implications for families and social policy research. Agility and flexibility for researchers and policy makers will need to be the standard operational model for their relationship.

How Has/Should Research Influence/d Social Policy on Families and Disadvantage?

This current challenging context has highlighted many longstanding tensions and opportunities for the research-policy relationship. It should be self-evident that not all research activities are influential or impactful in contemporary social policy development for families, other cohorts and places. The Australian Research Council’s (ARC) Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) and Engagement and Impact (EI) Final Report (2021) canvasses at a high level some of the complex relationships, incentives and barriers to research impact and engagement between researchers and end users. Importantly, the ARC recognises that engagement and research impact are related but not the same. There is, however, a need for a more granular understanding and analysis of the researcher’s and end user’s experience of the research-policy impact process. There continues to be a danger that greater attention to research impact (and engagement) by academics and other researchers will ‘simply result in strategic manoeuvring to present good impact stories’ rather than produce better community outcomes (Hughes, 2016).

‘The vectors in the ‘golden triangle’ of research, policy, and practice are rarely intuitive.Footnote 2 Those who do research do not necessarily understand policy or practice; those who work as practitioners, judicial decision makers, or clinicians do not necessarily understand policy or research; and those who develop and refine policy do not necessarily understand research or practice’ (Smyth, 2011). The challenge of translating research into policy and practice is a long standing one. While it has been seen to gain greater importance in recent years, with significant interest in the development of knowledge translation and impact as a discipline in its own right, there is little evidence that an emerging ‘knowledge translation’ movement has managed to shift the use of research in policy making. Barriers include the confidence of researchers to develop translational materials as well as a lack of resourcing to undertake such work (Newson et al., 2015). Tsey et al. (2019) and his collaborators sum up the need for pragmatism. Flexibility and a ‘learning by doing’ approach to research-policy impact:

Assessing research impact is best approached as a ‘wicked problem’ for which there are no perfect templates. It requires flexible, transparent, collaborative learning-by-doing approaches in order to build the evidence base over time. At these formative stages of the evolving impact agenda, government assessment criteria must allow researchers the maximum flexibility to demonstrate the true impact of their research. (Tsey et al., 2019, p. 182)

How Can Effective Research-Policy-Practice Translation Work?

While knowledge translation and research impact on policy and practice is now popular, it is not necessarily a new idea. Looking back historically, Charles Lindblom specifically challenged social scientists to think more creatively and practically about ‘usable knowledge’ sources to better define and solve policy problems (Lindblom & Cohen, 1979). They emphasised the benefits of engaging with the ‘common’ knowledge and expertise of service delivery practitioners, administrators, community groups and public commentators. Harvard academic Carol Weiss (1986) argued that research can be utilised in many different ways: as a process of enlightenment that fills the ‘well of knowledge’ from which all may draw; as a way of lubricating the machinery of policy development by solving problems; and as a way of raising awareness and exerting pressure for action. She has emphasised the importance of ideas, arguing that:

More often, it is the ideas and general notions coming from research which have had an impact … [they] are picked up in diverse ways and percolate through to office-holders in many offices who deal with the issues.… Because research provides powerful labels for previously inchoate and unorganised experience, it helps to mould officials’ thinking into categories derived from social science. (Weiss, 1986, p. 218)

Leading Australian social policy researcher, Barbara Pocock (2005) has argued that ‘many researchers take the JD Salinger approach to publication, that is they pack their academic article, put it on the bus, and send it out into the world to find its own readership and effect. Unfortunately, not all research products are the social science equivalent of Catcher in the Rye and many sink without trace’ (Pocock, 2005, p. 136). Powerful tensions exist between these two approaches—between doing research and talking about it (and we would add acting on research to inform policy and practice). Pocock proposes a research-policy impact and translation framework based on what she calls the ‘Technologies of Influence: Transmission mechanism for research’ addressing a variety of audiences, communication and engagement processes and mechanisms that are tailored to various policy actors including politicians, bureaucrats, media, scholars and the ‘public’ (2005, p. 137).

Another distinguished social policy researcher, Peter Saunders (2011) reflects on his long research career and offers two reflections on the relationship between research and policy. The first is the ‘importance of the conventional hallmarks of research quality—independence of thought, conceptual sophistication and methodological rigour’ as a foundation for determining what research gets used by policy makers. The second is the need for researchers to both understand the context and substance of a particular policy activity but also how to disseminate their findings effectively by identifying better ways of connecting with policy makers and practitioners (Saunders, 2011, pp. 250–251). Morton (2015, p. 407) drills into research-policy impact and translation conundrum by highlighting the key challenges as timing, attribution and difficulties in addressing context. She proposes a more interactive model of research-policy impact that understands both processes and outcomes through the dimensions of interaction, dissemination, policy making and adoption.

It is also important to acknowledge that these very worthwhile reflections are mostly part of the concluding comments of the author’s writings and could be seen (perhaps harshly) as an ‘afterthought’. This is of course mostly not intentional, but it might be a metaphor for the broader problem we are wanting to address. It is a confusing landscape and academics, policy makers, and broader public policy stakeholders need to reflect and where necessary reframe our traditional approaches to research, analysis, policy impact and engagement. The ARC’ 2018 Engagement and Impact Assessment exercise reflected a broader institutional desire by researchers and the university sector to improve the social, economic and environmental impacts of research across all academic disciplines.Footnote 3

Social science researchers and their academic institutions have argued for many years that their disciplines need to do more to solve real world practical problems (Western, 2019). ‘End users’ of research including governments, industry, philanthropy and civil society are increasingly concerned with policy outcomes, greater use of data, evidence, multiple forms of expertise, co-design with stakeholders and better policy translation of research from their engagement with academics. Co-production rather than one-off consultations and siloed conversations are necessary ingredients to more effective research translation and impact (Blomkamp, 2018).

A central argument is that the public value and utility of academic and commissioned research should give (but not necessarily be captured by) greater attention to understanding individual and population level needs, identifying, defining and measuring outcomes as the basis for improved policy design, implementation and evaluation. As Western (2019, p. 21) argues the ‘fundamental goal (for university research), however, is to design elements of the research ecosystem to produce outcomes that all participants (policy makers, service deliverers, researchers, civil society organisations and other stakeholders) value’. Consequently, researchers need to listen and build partnerships rather than expecting to talk and be heard by stakeholders, especially government.

To inform discussion and thinking, an initial set of criteria building on this literature, to support solution based research-social policy-practice impact is proposed:

  1. 1.

    The social policy or practice problem to be solved is not easily definable at the outset, and more information and research may lead to a new problem definition.

  2. 2.

    There are multiple stakeholders with different perspectives and these perspectives are relevant for solving and defining the problem.

  3. 3.

    There is not a simple single solution to the problem, because the problem is multi-causal and the causal factors interact in complex ways for places and/or population groups.

  4. 4.

    Solutions have to be institutionally and contextually implemented and embedded.

  5. 5.

    Solutions do not scale or translate without understanding the broader context and histories in which they are situated including prior policy success and failure.

  6. 6.

    Both participatory policy processes and co-design research are necessary for more democratic, imaginary and innovative problem definition, solution design and implementation.

  7. 7.

    Multi-disciplinary and multi-method research is required to solve the policy problem.

  8. 8.

    Policy problems and their possible solutions are likely to be politically contested.

  9. 9.

    Solutions will likely combine technical and social scientific responses.

  10. 10.

    A policy problem is not ‘solved’ until it is implemented accountably and effectively.

Importantly, this indicative and challenging criterion argues that solution based policy research impact is not necessarily the same as good engagement or even effective research to policy translation and communication. These dimensions are important but not always sufficient to solve complex and ‘wicked’ policy problems. As this book’s contributions including this chapter’s historical scan have highlighted, developing policy responses to the multiple dimensions of family dynamics and the transmission of (dis)advantage over the life course has been and is complex and iterative.

How Has Research Influenced Social Policy and Life Course Approach to Understanding Families and Disadvantage?

Given this complexity, applying the preceding criteria to an assessment of how research has influenced social policy and a life course approach to family dynamics and disadvantage will necessarily be incomplete. This book’s contributions cover a wide range of related themes and issues—early childhood, Indigenous families, refugees/migrant families, adolescence, schooling/higher education, emerging adulthood, labour market participation, marriage and partnering, parenthood, LGBTIQ+ families, ageing and loneliness. All of these contributions have referred directly to the authors’ own research together with other scholarship utilising a variety of methodologies with key findings directed at improving policy development, program design and the broader reform of social structures.

This scholarship should be considered alongside other more applied research. For example, government funded and authorised research bodies such as the Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS) aim to balance quality research into the wellbeing of families with communicating findings to policy makers, service providers and the broader community.Footnote 4 AIFS’s research portfolio traverses ‘pure’ research with more applied policy research and commissioned program evaluations including family law reform, family relationships, marriage formation and breakdown, child protection and social security system (Saccotelli & Muldoon, 2018). Statutory research bodies such as AIFS value their independence but also proximity to government. AIFS has undertaken a number of significant evaluations during its history including the evaluation of the 2006 Family Law Reforms—this evaluation contributed to further changes to the 2012 Family Violence Amendments to the Family Law Act 1975. Growing Up in Australia: the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children (LSAC) is also a flagship study for the Institute. Undertaken in partnership with the Department of Social Services, LSAC has followed 10,000 children and their families since 2003 to examine children’s developmental pathways in the contexts of their family and the communities in which they live. AIFS also plays an important role in the translation of research evidence for the child and family welfare sector, as well as building this sector’s capability to evaluate the efficacy of their own practice. Statutory based research institutes such as AIFS are a rarity in Australia, especially those focused on social research. Policy and program related research and evaluations are more often directly commissioned by government agencies to third parties such as universities or consultancies. High profile evaluations over a number of years of national programs such as the Communities for Children initiative and the Cashless Debit Card trial were carried by a mix of university-based researchers and consultancy bodies. All were intended to develop an evidence base for the further development of the respective program and to varying degrees were used by both critics and advocates to argue a particular view. The various evaluations of the Cashless Debit Card, for instance, have been the most politically contentious and debated. The Commonwealth government insists on the program’s merit while many community advocates, researchers and political opponents argue that the evaluations have been methodologically flawed and the Card’s income management framework is inherently unjust (Klein, 2020).

As the indicative solution focussed criteria in the previous section highlighted, policy related research and evaluation are often politically contested with inherent tensions between rigorous research processes and short term political and policy ‘success’ variously defined. However, this tension and at times disconnection should not be simply characterised as a contest between ‘virtuous researchers’ and pragmatic and short sighted policy makers and politicians. A commitment to longer term research and policy development focused on structural reforms to address the long standing inequalities and disadvantages experienced by individuals, families and communities should be a fundamental goal of social science research. However, solution focussed social and policy research requires iterative approaches which can bring together multiple disciplines and views, and as we have highlighted ‘a policy problem is not solved’ until it is implemented accountably, adaptively effectively’.

Conclusion: Future Opportunities and Challenges

This chapter has examined selected historical and contemporary social policy episodes that have been engaged in the dynamics of families in Australia and the research and evidence that has influenced their development and implementation. Beginning with the Harvester decision in 1907 we have traversed court judgements together with legislative, policy and program reforms and controversies. While there has been, and continues to be significant research and evaluation activities associated with these episodes, their policy influence or impact is not easily assessed. More integrated approaches to data and evidence including the role of big-data complemented by qualitative methodologies can support more experimental policy research to address the ‘real world’ needs of individuals, families and communities. For example, better linkages between long standing child-family centric data sets such as LSAC and other administrative social security, education and health related data as part of co-designed intervention strategy for a local community or specific cohort offers promise. More strategically, the largely ad hoc approach to social policy research and policy practice for families over the life course requires reform. The promise of a future social policy research system offered by what United States researchers Ron Haskins and Greg Margolis (2015, p. 239) called an evidence based movement “of thousands of evidence-based social programs that address each of the nation’s most important social problems and that under the onslaught of these increasingly effective programs, the nation’s social problems will at last recede”. This challenge and opportunity should be embraced by policy makers, researchers and community advocates, especially as we respond to the COVID-19 pandemic with its unpreceded disruption and unavoidable dilemmas for individuals, families and communities.