Re-framing child maltreatment: from risk
to inequality
Paul Bywaters
Coventry University
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.
Do children’s services reflect, reproduce,
reinforce or reduce social inequities?
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
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.
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
Why do child welfare inequalities matter?
• The economic argument
• The human rights argument
• The social justice argument
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
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.
West Midlands Study
13 LAs
>10% of all UK children
>10% of all CPP and LAC
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).
CIN
CPP
LAC
White
253.7
39.5
64.4
Mixed
351.5
62.9
122.7
Asian
109.4
21.6
17.7
Black
226.7
34.1
71.9
Other
298.9
37.7
51.6
All
235.8
37.7
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
MWBA
MWAS
MOTH
4.9
6.8
10.1
8.1
12.8
21.8
26.9
18.3
11.4
11.5
13.6
12.3
18.6
18.9
17.8
17.8
57.6
51.6
46.1
52.2
35204
4845
18224
10938
AIND
APKN
ABAN
AOTH
8.8
1.5
1.4
4.6
23.0
2.9
2.2
10.1
15.3
5.6
4.5
10.0
19.0
12.3
8.0
17.7
46.3
78.3
84.3
61.5
49772
89318
22016
22031
BAFR
BCRB
BOTH
1.7
1.5
1.2
3.7
4.7
2.8
5.5
8.2
5.1
12.1
14.4
11.8
77.8
72.4
79.7
22978
17210
12355
Intersectionality: Broad Categories
Table 10: West Midlands LAC rates (per 10000 children) overall and by ethnic
category in the most disadvantaged quintile (Q5)
All West
Midlands
Sample
Numb LAC
er of
Rate
Childre Overall
n on
LACs
LAC
White
Mixed Asian
Black
Rate All LAC
LAC
LAC
LAC
Q5
Rate Q5 Rate Q5 Rate Q5 Rate
Q5
7138
91.2
60.5
122.1
159.6
N=2893 N=589
20.8
N=260
78.3
N=310
Intersectionality: Multiple Categories
Table 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 more
likely 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
CPP
LAC
Total
County
actual
numbers,
2012
Projected with
%
sample Borough Rates Difference Difference
525
143
-382
-72.7
605
333
-272
-44.9
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?
Are more or fewer amputations a sign of a
better way of managing arterial failure?
Presumption for prevention.
Does poverty cause child abuse and
neglect?
Neither a sufficient nor a necessary factor.
But a contributory direct and indirect causal
factor.
Can social workers do anything about the
impact of family income and wealth on
child maltreatment?
Implications of an inequalities perspective
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Data
Policy
Finances
Locus and focus of services
Practice
Inspection
Training
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
References
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-abuseand-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