/
Re-framing child maltreatment: from risk to Re-framing child maltreatment: from risk to

Re-framing child maltreatment: from risk to - PowerPoint Presentation

calandra-battersby
calandra-battersby . @calandra-battersby
Follow
388 views
Uploaded On 2017-07-30

Re-framing child maltreatment: from risk to - PPT Presentation

inequality Paul Bywaters Coventry University Destitution in England Neglect Estimated minimum of 312000 children in any one week in 2015 75 of whom were still destitute 34 months later Parents ID: 574234

children child rates lac child children lac rates social intervention welfare 2015 rate deprivation data quintile services inequalities foundation

Share:

Link:

Embed:

Download Presentation from below link

Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Re-framing child maltreatment: from risk..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.


Presentation Transcript

Slide1

Re-framing child maltreatment: from risk to

inequality

Paul Bywaters

Coventry UniversitySlide2
Slide3

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

.Slide4

Do children’s services reflect, reproduce, reinforce or reduce social inequities? Slide5

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

158Slide6

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.Slide7

Inequities in Child Welfare

In who receives children’s services interventions:

chances

In how services respond:

experiences

In childhood and adult

outcomesSlide8

Why do child welfare inequalities matter?

The economic argument

The human rights argument

The social justice argumentSlide9

Problems with the evidence

No data collected about family circumstances

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

No data at a level of geography below LA

Limited data on ethnicitySlide10

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. Slide11

West Midlands Study

13 LAs

>10% of all UK children

>10% of all CPP and LACSlide12

4 key concepts

Relationship between social determinants and intervention rates

Social gradient

Intersectionality

Inverse care lawSlide13
Slide14

Relationship between social determinants and intervention ratesSlide15

Social gradient Slide16

IntersectionalitySlide17

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

12355Slide18

Intersectionality: Broad Categories

Table 10: West Midlands LAC rates (per 10000 children) overall and by ethnic category in the most disadvantaged quintile (Q5)

Number of Children 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

 Slide19

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

7138Slide20

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.Slide21

Inverse Intervention LawSlide22

Impact of IIL: Comparison of two LAs

County

County

actual numbers,

2012 sample

Projected with Borough Rates

Difference

% Difference

CPP

525

143

-382

-72.7

LAC

605

333

-272

-44.9

Total

1130

477

-653

-57.8Slide23

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

3.8Slide24

Intervention rate modelSlide25

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.Slide26

Does poverty cause child abuse and neglect?

Neither a sufficient nor a necessary factor.

But a contributory direct and indirect causal factor.Slide27

Can

social

workers do anything about

the impact of family

income and

wealth on child maltreatment?Slide28

Implications of an inequalities perspective

Data

Policy

Finances

Locus and focus of services

Practice

Inspection

Training

ResearchSlide29

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 Slide30

References