Children’s services: what does an inequalities perspective add?

Paul Bywaters, Professor of Social Work,Coventry University

To become a stakeholder in the Child Welfare Inequalities Project contact Paul Bywaters P.Bywaters@coventry.ac.uk

Children’s services inequalities

Definition

Child welfare inequity occurs when children and/or their parents face unequal chances,

experiences or outcomes of involvement with child welfare services that are systematically

associated with structural social disadvantage and are unjust and avoidable.

Inequalities in children’s services

‘By 2020 our ambition is that all vulnerable children, no matter where they live, receive the same high quality of care and support’ (p.12) Putting Children First, 2016

3 dimensions of inequality

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

2. In how services respond: experiences

3. In childhood and adult outcomes

3 Studies funded by the Nuffield Foundation to detail and explain inequalities in intervention rates

• Nuffield 1: Pilot Study (in the West Midlands). 10% of all children in England. Data from 31.3.2012.

• JRF: Review of the relationship between poverty and child abuse and neglect for JRF and Nuffield (2016)

• Nuffield 2: Four Nations Study (CWIP): comparing proportion of children on child protection plans/registers (CPP) or looked after children (LAC) between England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales and between local authorities within each country.

Aim

to establish child welfare inequalities as a core concept in policy making, practice and research in the UK and internationally.

Objectives• To detail the relationship of deprivation, policy and other factors to

inequalities in key child welfare intervention rates through separate and comparative studies in the four UK countries

• To develop and begin to test a theoretical framework for understanding inequalities in child welfare intervention rates, focusing in particular on the ‘inverse intervention law’

• To establish the necessary empirical, theoretical and methodological foundations for new directions in research, policy and practice to reduce avoidable child welfare inequalities

• To build research capacity for the investigation of child welfare inequalities

• To influence the role and direction of child welfare services in the UK, by promoting evidence-informed discussion

Intervention Rate Inequalities Model

Inconsistencies in the data

Demand Differences in levels of need:

Socio-economic circumstances of

families

Neighbourhood deprivation

Community factors

Ethnic mix of the population

Supply

Differences in patterns of services:

national legal and policy

frameworks

local policies, practices and

cultures

the level of resources in different

local authorities/countries

Inequalities in intervention rates

Methods: Nuffield 2

1. Background policy and trend analyses and literature review of the relationship between poverty and CAN (JRF)

2. Quantitative study in 4 UK countries. Data linkage between routinely collected children’s services data; population data and IMD scores. Largely descriptive analysis.

3. Integrated methods case studies in selected LAs in England and Scotland supplemented by consultations in NI and Wales.

What are the key data challenges?

• No data collected/no systematic research about family socio-economic circumstances

• No public data at a level of geography below LA

• Limited published data on ethnicity

• Quality of data on disability, expenditure

• Missing cases: SGOs, Adoption

Quantitative Data Sources

• Routine data on each child who was on a Child Protection Plan (CPP) or was a Looked after Child (LAC) at 31st March 2015 (31st July in Scotland)

• Age, gender, ethnic category, reason for child protection concern legal status,, type of placement if in out-of-home care, parental home Lower Level Super Output Area (LSOA), small neighbourhoods (1600 people)

• Index of Multiple Deprivation scores of LSOAs, or equivalent in NI and Scotland

• Population data at LSOA level to enable us to calculate intervention rates per 10,000 children in the population.

Quantitative Sample

England: 12% 18 LAs 8000 LAC 6000 CPP

N.Ireland: 100% 5 Trusts 2900 LAC 1850 CPR

Scotland: 50% 10 LAs 8400 LAC 1400 CPR

Wales: 100% 22 LAs 5000 LAC 2850 CPP

Total: 24,000 LAC

12,000 CPP/CPR

55 LAs and Trusts.

1 2 3 4 5

LA 1 58 21 18 3 0

LA 2 0 0 6 37 57

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Perc

enta

ge o

f ch

ildre

n

The percentage of children (0-17) living in LSOAs with different levels of deprivation from the least

deprived 20% (Column 1) to the most deprived (Column 5) in two LAs (2014)

1 2 3 4 5

NI 1 13 19 31 37

Wales 7 16 24 26 26

Scotland 19 19 18 17 26

England 20 19 19 18 24

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Perc

enta

ge o

f ch

ildre

n

Percentage of Child Population (0-17) by Deprivation Quintile 4 UK Countries 2015

Comparing like with like?

• Compulsory Supervision Orders

• Parent and kinship care

• Adoption and Special Guardianship Orders

Table 1: Percentage of LAC in each UK country placed with

parents, relatives or friends.

With a parent With a relative or

friend

With parent,

relative or friend

NI 16 31 47

England 5 11 16

Wales 11 16 27

Scotland 23 29 52

1 2 3 4 5 ALL

NI 17 29 31 48 35

England 13 26 35 61 112 52

Wales 10 19 35 57 135 62

Scotland 18 34 45 82 188 82

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Rat

es p

er 1

0,0

00

ch

ildre

n

LAC not at home or with relatives or friends by Deprivation Quintile, UK Countries, 2015

1 2 3 4 5 ALL

NI 15 24 39 73 46

England 12 23 36 52 100 47

Wales 5 11 27 49 97 47

Scotland 5 10 23 27 63 28

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Rat

es p

er 1

0,0

00

ch

ildre

nCPP Rates by Deprivation Quintile and Overall,

4 UK Countries, 2015

All LAC. Rates by ethnic category and deprivation, England

1 2 3 4 5 All

White 12 23 34 62 141 57

Mixed 26 35 52 83 141 81

Asian 9 12 13 18 30 19

Black 11 75 53 74 77 70

Other 42 78 37 52 104 70

LAC Rates By Ethnic Group

Deprivation

1 2 3 4 5 All

White British 18 30 44 66 141 59

White Irish 22 71 69 91 374 111Mixed White and Black Caribbean 21 80 75 74 124 92

Mixed White and Black African 44 28 75 59 73 61

Mixed White and Asian 31 24 49 48 135 61

Asian Indian 1 4 1 10 10 6

Asian Pakistani 12 21 19 13 21 18

Asian Bangladeshi 28 12 32 47 43 41

Black African 24 39 88 80 65 68

Black Caribbean 19 21 111 109 142 118

Black Other 35 33 100 84 59 68

The Inverse Intervention Law

Overall, local authorities areas that have high average deprivation also have higher rates of children on child protection plans or who are

in out-of-home care.

BUT when you compare similar neighbourhoods in local authorities that

overall have high or low deprivation, it is the low deprivation local authorities that have

much higher rates.

The Inverse Intervention Law

1 2 3 4 5 All

High IMD 4 12 23 36 78 48

Low IMD 10 21 39 60 107 32

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Rat

e p

er 1

0,0

00

ch

ildre

nUK CPP Rate by LA deprivation group and neighbourhood deprivation quintile, 2015

Conclusions: quantitative study

• Deprivation: where you live/your families’ resources, is the central factor in inequalities for children

• The social gradient: is steeper in some places than others

• Ethnicity: very large inequalities urgently need better understanding

• The inverse intervention law: inequalities are also associated with LA level deprivation

• Countries: within countries, children’s chances vary by deprivation, between countries other factors are also at work

The elephant in the room

Poverty: not ‘the cause’ but ‘a causal factor’

Poverty is neither a necessary nor sufficient factor in the occurrence of Child Abuse and Neglect (CAN).

Many children who are not from families in poverty will experience CAN in some form and many children in

families who are living in poverty will not experience CAN. There can be many factors causing CAN. Poverty is

only one factor, but perhaps the most pervasive.

JRF Report on Poverty and Child Abuse and Neglect, 2016.

Destitution in England: Neglect?

Estimated minimum of 312,000 children in any one week in 2015; 75% of whom were still destitute 3-4 months later.

Parents or their children have lacked two or more of these six essentials over the past month, because they cannot afford them:

• shelter (have slept rough for one or more nights)

• food (have had fewer than two meals a day for two or more days)

• heating their home (have been unable to do this for five or more days)

• lighting their home (have been unable to do this for five or more days)

• clothing and footwear (appropriate for weather)

• basic toiletries (soap, shampoo, toothpaste, toothbrush).

or

Extremely low income.

Poverty

1. Extent and changing nature of poverty in austerity

2. Evidence from the US about the relationship between income and substantiated CAN

3. Common sense

Case study findings 1

Chronic and complex level of unmet need

Organisational change endemic: not to improve services for families

Evidence of IIL but attitudes, values, behaviours insufficient to explain

Case Study Findings 2Poor localities are the primary sites of social work practice:

poverty becomes taken for granted backdrop

Case Study Findings 2

Poor localities are the sites of social work practice: becomes taken for granted backdrop

Absence of services, practice tools and frameworks and casework that include addressing poverty as a core concern

Families are usually held individually responsibility for their socio-economic conditions

Some services and practices reinforce the shame that families feel and exacerbated the hardships they face.

Wider systemic change is needed to address CWI.

What are we not saying?

• Not able to answer ‘what works’

• Not saying that high rates are necessarily bad and low rates good

• Not saying that poverty is the only factor

• Not saying these inequalities can be addressed through minor tweaks of front line practice

What way forward?

1. Securing better data about children’s services, particularly about parents’ circumstances is urgently required.

2. Knowledge about the economic costs and benefits of the differing approaches to providing children’s services in the four countries would also be invaluable.

3. Reducing inequalities in children’s chances of involvement with children’s services should be a policy priority

4. Addressing the impact of deprivation should be an explicit focus of practice

ReferencesBywaters, P. (2016) 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. (2016) Child welfare inequalities: new evidence, further questions, Child and Family Social Work, vol. 21, pp. 369-80, 2016; doi:10.1111/cfs.12154

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 (2015), 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., 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

Mason, W. and Bywaters, P. (2016) Poverty, child abuse and neglect: patterns of cost and spending. Families, Relationships and Societies, volume 5 (1): 155-161

Bywaters, P., Kwhali, J., Brady, G., Sparks, T. and Bos, E. (2016) Out of sight, out of mind: ethnic inequalities in child protection and out-of-home care intervention rates. British Journal of Social Work Advance Access published December 10, 2016.

Bywaters, P., Webb, C and Sparks, T. (2017) Ofsted Judgements Do Reflect LA Deprivation and Expenditure, Community Care Jan 18th, 2017. http://www.communitycare.co.uk/2017/01/18/ofsted-ratings-reflect-local-authority-deprivation-spending/