Child welfare inequalities in the four nations of the UK

Item also deposited in University of Stirling repository at: http://hdl.handle.net/1893/27484Comparative International data on patterns of inequality in child welfare interventions, for example, the proportion of children about whom there are substantiated child protection (CP) concerns or who are in out-of-home care (CLA), are far less developed than data about inequalities in health. Few countries collect reliable, comprehensive information and definitions, methods of data collection and analysis are rarely consistent. The four UK countries (England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales) provide a potential ‘natural experiment’ for comparing intervention patterns. This study reports on a large quantitative, descriptive study focusing on children in contact with children’s services on a single date in 2015. It found that children’s chances of receiving a child protection intervention was primarily related to family socio-economic circumstances, measured by neighbourhood deprivation, within all four countries and in every local area. There was a strong social gradient which was significantly steeper in some countries than others. Ethnicity was another important factor underlying inequalities. While inequalities in patterns of intervention between the four countries were considerable, they did not mirror relative levels of deprivation in the child population. Inequalities in intervention rates result from a combination of demand and supply factors. The level and extent of inequity raise profound ethical, economic and practical challenges to those involved in child protection, the wider society and the state.Funding: The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The authors wish to acknowledge the support of the Nuffield Foundation which funded the work reported here (grant reference: KID 41935). The Nuffield Foundation is an endowed charitable trust that aims to improve social wellbeing in the widest sense. It funds research and innovation in education and social policy and also works to build capacity in education, science and social science research. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Foundation. More information is available at www.nuffieldfoundation.orgNO DIVISIONpublished5426publishe