Child protection and children ‘looked-after’: The role of socio-economic

inequalities

Paul BywatersCoventry University

Evidence Base

Project 1: Deprivation and Children’s Services’ Outcomes. What can mapping Looked After Children

and children on Child Protection Plans tell us? 2013-14. Nuffield Foundation.

Project 2: Identifying and Understanding Inequalities in Child Welfare Intervention Rates. 2015-17. Nuffield

Foundation.

Project 3: Understanding the Relationship between Poverty and Child Abuse and Neglect. A literature review. Joseph Rowntree Foundation and Nuffield

Foundation. 2015-16.

Looked After Children Rates in Wales and England 2015

2015 2015

Wales 89 England 60

Pembrokeshire 46 Wokingham 20

Ceredigion 62 Camden 43

Caerphilly 70 Newham 52

Denbighshire 83 Bury 69

Swansea 109 Coventry 79

Neath Port Talbot 156 Blackpool 158

Why do child welfare inequalities matter?

The economic argument

The human rights argument

The social justice argument

Inequities in Child Welfare

1. In who receives children’s services interventions: chances

2. In how services respond: experiences

3. In childhood and adult outcomes

Do children’s services reflect, reproduce, reinforce or reduce social inequities?

Problems with the evidence

1. No data collected about family circumstances

2. No official data on incidence or prevalence of maltreatment, have to use CPPs as proxy

3. No data at a level of geography below LA

4. Limited data on ethnicity

2 Studies

1. West Midlands study: 10% of all UK children; 13 LAs.

2. Four Nations Study (CWIP):

13% of English children in 18 LAs

100% of Welsh (22 LAs) and NI children (5 HSCBs)

50% of Scottish children (10 LAs)

4 key concepts

1. Relationship between social determinants and intervention rates

2. Social gradient

3. Intersectionality

4. Inverse care law

Relationship between social determinants and intervention rates

Social gradient

Intersectionality

CIN, CPP and LAC Rates per 10,000 Children at 31.3.12 (Midlands Sample).

White Mixed Asian Black Other All

CIN 253.7 351.5 109.4 226.7 298.9 235.8

CPP 39.5 62.9 21.6 34.1 37.7 37.7

LAC 64.4 122.7 17.7 71.9 51.6 60.5

Distribution of Child Population by Ethnic Group

Table 7: Percentage of West Midlands children aged 0-17 by ethnic category and deprivation

quintile (5 is most deprived).

Quintile 1 2 3 4 5 N

WBRI 15.3 19.9 18.3 19.3 27.2 824553

MWBC 4.9 12.8 11.4 18.6 57.6 35204

MWBA 6.8 21.8 11.5 18.9 51.6 4845

MWAS 10.1 26.9 13.6 17.8 46.1 18224

MOTH 8.1 18.3 12.3 17.8 52.2 10938

AIND 8.8 23.0 15.3 19.0 46.3 49772

APKN 1.5 2.9 5.6 12.3 78.3 89318

ABAN 1.4 2.2 4.5 8.0 84.3 22016

AOTH 4.6 10.1 10.0 17.7 61.5 22031

BAFR 1.7 3.7 5.5 12.1 77.8 22978

BCRB 1.5 4.7 8.2 14.4 72.4 17210

BOTH 1.2 2.8 5.1 11.8 79.7 12355

Intersectionality: Broad Categories

Table 10: West Midlands LAC rates (per 10000 children) overall and by ethnic

category in the most disadvantaged quintile (Q5)

Numb

er of

Childre

n on

LACs

LAC

Rate

Overall

LAC

Rate All

Q5

White

LAC

Rate Q5

Mixed

LAC

Rate Q5

Asian

LAC

Rate Q5

Black

LAC

Rate

Q5

All West

Midlands

Sample

7138 60.5 91.2 122.1

N=2893

159.6

N=589

20.8

N=260

78.3

N=310

Intersectionality: Multiple CategoriesTable 12: LAC Rates by Ethnic Category and Deprivation Quintile, where the

number of children is greater than 10.

1 2 3 4 5 All N =

WBRI 17.6 26.1 44.7 76.6 125.4 64.9 5355

MWBC 69.1 57.4 111.3 126.1 107.4 378

MWBA 164.1 84.0 86.7 42

MWAS 64.5 77.3 204.7 124.0 226

MOTH 124.4 96.5 179.9 245.0 185.6 203

AIND 10.6 14.3 10.4 52

APKN 11.9 20.9 18.8 168

ABAN 21.0 20.4 45

AOTH 46.3 31.0 30.9 68

BCRB 72.9 172.4 142.9 246

BAFR 50.5 39.1 40.5 93

ALL 17.9 26.7 42.7 69.4 91.2 60.5 7138

Inverse Intervention Law

Overall a child’s chances of an extreme child welfare intervention is much greater at higher levels of deprivation. But for any given level of neighbourhood deprivation, a child in a local

authority with low overall deprivation is morelikely to be on a CPP or to be a looked after child than a child in an equivalent neighbourhood in a

very deprived local authority.

Inverse Intervention Law

Impact of IIL: Comparison of two LAs

County

Countyactual numbers, 2012 sample

Projected with Borough Rates Difference

% Difference

CPP 525 143 -382 -72.7LAC 605 333 -272 -44.9Total 1130 477 -653 -57.8

Impact of Inverse Intervention Law: comparison of two LAs, funding.

Expenditure per head, All 0-17, £, 2015

% of all aged 0-17 living in Quintile 5, 2014

Borough 822 55.1

County 537 3.8

Intervention rate model

Key question

Are higher rates or lower rates better for children?

Does poverty cause child abuse and neglect?

Can social workers do anything about family income and wealth?

Implications of an inequalities perspective

1. Data

2. Policy

3. Finances

4. Locus and focus of services

5. Practice

6. Inspection

7. Training

8. Research

To join the Child Welfare Inequalities Network on jiscmail go to

www.jiscmail.ac.uk/childwelfareinequalities

To become a stakeholder in the Child Welfare Inequalities Project contact Sophie Blackmore

ac0672@coventry.ac.uk

ReferencesBywaters, P., Bunting, L. , Davidson, G. , Hanratty,J. , Mason, W. , McCartan, C. and Steils, N. (2016) The relationship between poverty, child abuse and neglect: an evidence review. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation. https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/relationship-between-poverty-child-abuse-and-neglect-evidence-review Bywaters, P., Brady, G., Sparks, T., Bos, E., Bunting, L., Daniel, B., Featherstone, B., Morris, K. & Scourfield, J. (2015) Exploring inequities in child welfare and child protection services: explaining the ‘inverse intervention law’, Children and Youth Services Review, v. 57, October, pp. 98-105 doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2015.07.017 Bywaters, P. (2015) Cumulative jeopardy? A response to Brown and Ward. Children and Youth Services Review, online, doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2015.03.001 Bywaters, P. (2015) Inequalities in child welfare: towards a new policy, research and action agenda. British Journal of Social Work, 45 (1): 6-23 doi:10.1093/bjsw/bct079 Bywaters, P., Brady, G., Sparks, T., and Bos, E. (2014) Inequalities in child welfare intervention rates: the intersection of deprivation and identity, Child and Family Social Work, doi:10.1111/cfs.12161 Bywaters, P., Brady, G., Sparks, T., and Bos, E. (2014) Child welfare inequalities: new evidence, further questions, Child and Family Social Work, doi:10.1111/cfs.12154