1. Re-framing child maltreatment: from risk to inequality Paul Bywaters Coventry University

3. 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.

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

5. Looked After Children Rates in Wales and England 2015 2015 Wales89England60 Pembrokeshire46Wokingham20 Ceredigion62Camden43 Caerphilly70Newham52 Denbighshire83Bury69 Swansea109Coventry79 Neath Port Talbot156Blackpool158

6. 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.

7. 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

8. Why do child welfare inequalities matter? The economic argument The human rights argument The social justice argument

9. 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

10. 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.

11. West Midlands Study 13 LAs >10% of all UK children >10% of all CPP and LAC

12. 4 key concepts 1.Relationship between social determinants and intervention rates 2.Social gradient 3.Intersectionality 4.Inverse care law

14. Relationship between social determinants and intervention rates

15. Social gradient

16. Intersectionality

17. 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). Quintile12345N WBRI15.319.918.319.327.2824553 MWBC4.912.811.418.657.635204 MWBA6.821.811.518.951.64845 MWAS10.126.913.617.846.118224 MOTH8.118.312.317.852.210938 AIND8.823.015.319.046.349772 APKN1.52.95.612.378.389318 ABAN1.42.24.58.084.322016 AOTH4.610.110.017.761.522031 BAFR1.73.75.512.177.822978 BCRB1.54.78.214.472.417210 BOTH1.22.85.111.879.712355

18. 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 713860.591.2122.1 N=2893 159.6 N=589 20.8 N=260 78.3 N=310

19. Intersectionality: Multiple Categories Table 12: LAC Rates by Ethnic Category and Deprivation Quintile, where the number of children is greater than 10. 12345AllN = WBRI17.626.144.776.6125.464.95355 MWBC 69.157.4111.3126.1107.4378 MWBA 164.184.086.742 MWAS 64.577.3204.7124.0226 MOTH 124.496.5179.9245.0185.6203 AIND 10.614.310.452 APKN 11.920.918.8168 ABAN 21.020.445 AOTH 46.331.030.968 BCRB 72.9172.4142.9246 BAFR 50.539.140.593 ALL17.926.742.769.491.260.57138

20. 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.

21. Inverse Intervention Law

22. Impact of IIL: Comparison of two LAs County actual numbers, 2012 sample Projected with Borough RatesDifference % Difference CPP525143-382-72.7 LAC605333-272-44.9 Total1130477-653-57.8

23. 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 Borough82255.1 County5373.8

24. Intervention rate model

25. 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.

26. Does poverty cause child abuse and neglect? Neither a sufficient nor a necessary factor. But a contributory direct and indirect causal factor.

27. Can social workers do anything about the impact of family income and wealth on child maltreatment?

28. 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

29. 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

30. References