Area-deprivation, social care spending and the rates of children in care proceedings in local authorities in England

Key Question Being Explored in This Insight:

Stefanie Doebler highlights a strong positive relationship between socioeconomic area deprivation and high child care proceedings in England between 2015 and 2019.

View the page of: Stefanie Doebler

Institution: Lancaster University

Explore more insights in:

Culture and Society Social Sciences Sociology

Media Literacy Toolkit

Faculti's Media Literacy Toolkit helps viewers critically engage with academic insights by analyzing the research context, identifying perspectives, and encouraging thoughtful evaluation.

Critical Questions to Consider ▼

What assumptions does the research make?
Are there alternative perspectives not explored?
What are the limitations of the research method?

Bias and Perspective Awareness ▼

This research comes from Lancaster University . Reflect on how the institution's academic focus and research partnerships may shape the questions being explored.

Further Reading ▼

Read the Study

Stefanie Doebler highlights a strong positive relationship between socioeconomic area deprivation and high child care proceedings in England between 2015 and 2019.

Image courtesy of interviewee. February 21, 2024

Log-in or Sign-up to Faculti
Currently viewing this subject insight as a guest. You have insight(s) remaining for this month. Login to view 8000+ figures on the platform.

Generating Workspace...

Export as PDF

This video video is a transcript discussing a study on the rising rates of poverty and extreme deprivation in the UK, focusing on its impact on children and families. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation's recent findings reveal that approximately 3.8 million people, including one million children, experience destitution in the UK. The UN Special Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty has indicated that the government's inaction could breach international law.

The research, co-authored by scholars from Lancaster University, examines the rates of children entering compulsory care proceedings in deprived areas. Evidence shows that living in these areas significantly correlates with children being taken into care, with the risk of care proceedings being notably higher in the most deprived neighborhoods. The study utilized large-scale data linking children’s court cases with local authority deprivation and social care expenditure data.

Key findings indicate that over 90% of children in care proceedings are infants, with rates of care significantly higher in deprived areas compared to wealthier ones. For instance, children in the 10% most deprived areas are nearly 15 times more likely to enter care than those in affluent areas. The research highlights the importance of preventive services and funding, showing that additional social care spending can effectively decrease the incidence of children entering care.

However, deprived local authorities struggle to meet the increased demand for intervention amidst budget cuts and greater needs from other demographic groups. While preventive spending is critical, the direct effects of deprivation remain a significant barrier that needs addressing, requiring larger investments in combating poverty to support families and reduce the number of children entering care. The overall emphasis is on the necessity for the government to take serious action in alleviating deprivation to support local authorities and improve the circumstances for vulnerable families.

Language:

Export as PDF

X-TIMESTAMP-MAP:LOCAL=00:00:00.000,MPEGTS=900000

00:00.185 --> 00:03.445
The context, of this, study, is that,

00:03.445 --> 00:04.685
that we know that there has,

00:04.825 --> 00:07.525
has been quite a worrying increase in poverty

00:07.785 --> 00:11.405
and extreme deprivation in, some areas in the uk.

00:11.825 --> 00:14.045
Um, there's just a recent, just,

00:14.045 --> 00:17.125
earlier the last year, the Joseph Fr Foundation authored

00:17.125 --> 00:18.245
by Susan Fitzpatrick

00:18.245 --> 00:21.685
and others, have found an approximately three point,

00:21.685 --> 00:25.165
8 million, people, in experiencing,

00:25.435 --> 00:28.525
destitution extreme poverty, in the uk.

00:28.825 --> 00:31.485
And that includes, around 1 million children.

00:32.105 --> 00:35.605
And, just lost aut on the un special rapport,

00:35.665 --> 00:38.125
on extreme poverty and human rights.

00:38.125 --> 00:42.045
Olivia, the sch ter, I think he's pronounced,

00:42.045 --> 00:45.285
visited the UK and reported that poverty in,

00:45.395 --> 00:48.405
some areas in the UK is, so high that,

00:48.405 --> 00:51.245
the government's failure to act on, on this poverty,

00:51.245 --> 00:54.365
would constitute, breaking international law.

00:54.625 --> 00:58.245
And in this context, we are worried about the wellbeing

00:58.245 --> 01:00.485
of children and, the wellbeing of,

01:00.505 --> 01:02.565
of families in deprived areas.

01:03.225 --> 01:06.005
Um, and, so in my paper

01:06.145 --> 01:09.885
or in our papers, co-authored by, Karen Bhur RA

01:09.905 --> 01:14.445
and, Linda Cusworth at the Center for, child

01:14.445 --> 01:16.885
and Family Research at Lancaster University.

01:17.305 --> 01:21.205
And, we, basically dis discussed this context

01:21.585 --> 01:24.485
and focus on the rates of children,

01:24.535 --> 01:26.605
going into compulsory care proceedings

01:26.605 --> 01:28.685
that are taken away from their parents

01:29.185 --> 01:31.285
and going, potentially going into care,

01:31.555 --> 01:33.165
appearing in family courts.

01:33.665 --> 01:37.405
Um, there is a plethora of evidence on various,

01:38.075 --> 01:41.245
poor outcomes for families and children in deprived areas.

01:41.585 --> 01:44.885
Um, researched by David Tyler Robinson, Ben Barr,

01:44.885 --> 01:46.845
and Sophie Wickham, Davara Bennett,

01:46.995 --> 01:50.485
they found increased mortality rates in deprived areas.

01:51.185 --> 01:54.325
Um, famously in 2009, Kate Pickett

01:54.325 --> 01:57.925
and Richard Wilkinson in the spirit level found various,

01:58.305 --> 01:59.925
poor life force outcomes.

02:00.025 --> 02:02.205
For example, teenage pregnancies,

02:02.205 --> 02:04.605
increased rate drug misuse, and,

02:04.625 --> 02:06.445
and mental wellbeing issues and,

02:06.445 --> 02:08.765
and health issues in deprived areas.

02:09.625 --> 02:13.085
Um, there are also some, other teams

02:13.105 --> 02:15.765
of colleagues in my research area on child welfare

02:16.165 --> 02:18.605
inequalities, Paul Bay Waters, Callum.

02:18.625 --> 02:20.085
We, Dara Bennett

02:20.105 --> 02:22.965
and others who have been doing research on the associations

02:22.965 --> 02:26.405
between deprivation and the numbers of children in care now,

02:26.405 --> 02:28.765
we are all using various different data sources,

02:29.065 --> 02:33.405
and we kind of, ended up, producing similar findings

02:33.405 --> 02:34.605
with different data sources.

02:34.785 --> 02:37.485
So that, allows us to be quite confident

02:37.485 --> 02:38.765
that our findings are robust.

02:39.225 --> 02:41.445
Um, and we found strong associations,

02:41.515 --> 02:44.605
very strong associations between living in a deprived area

02:45.225 --> 02:48.645
and, the likelihood of children ending up in care.

02:49.745 --> 02:52.845
Um, we were also interested in the effect of authority

02:52.845 --> 02:55.405
because we know that over the last decade there have been

02:55.515 --> 02:59.765
cuts to local authority spending expenditure for,

03:00.025 --> 03:01.325
things like libraries,

03:01.425 --> 03:04.685
but also pr broadly preventative support.

03:05.145 --> 03:07.605
Um, and preventative support could be something like a

03:07.605 --> 03:10.485
library where people can read, people can enjoy themselves,

03:10.865 --> 03:14.045
or a youth club or, a a child,

03:14.045 --> 03:15.925
mother child family center

03:16.015 --> 03:18.005
where people can go and get some support.

03:18.385 --> 03:20.885
And there have been cuts to all sorts of services.

03:21.385 --> 03:24.165
So, local authorities have been stripped down

03:24.545 --> 03:28.445
and are kind of scrambling to, to cater the increased need

03:28.445 --> 03:29.925
of children needing intervention.

03:30.385 --> 03:32.405
And we were interested in prevention.

03:32.505 --> 03:33.885
How does prevention matter?

03:34.075 --> 03:37.245
Because, obviously if we arrive at the point

03:37.245 --> 03:39.525
where we need intervention, it's already too late,

03:39.575 --> 03:42.165
we're already, there's already harm happening.

03:43.105 --> 03:46.445
Um, so, what we did,

03:46.665 --> 03:49.765
was we used large scale, data,

03:50.045 --> 03:52.245
a large scale data linkage study,

03:52.245 --> 03:56.205
that is representative, of, the, the,

03:56.775 --> 04:00.525
local authorities in the uk, in, in, in England,

04:00.645 --> 04:01.645
I should say in England.

04:02.145 --> 04:06.005
Um, and, the data consists of,

04:06.005 --> 04:08.605
data from the children and family court advisory

04:08.625 --> 04:13.325
and support service, CAFCA England, on,

04:13.465 --> 04:17.805
the, well on, children

04:18.345 --> 04:22.205
in, those are case, data cases of children

04:22.745 --> 04:25.645
in court cases, compulsory care proceedings,

04:25.645 --> 04:28.485
they're called section 31 care proceedings.

04:28.985 --> 04:31.765
Um, and those child cases we linked

04:31.945 --> 04:34.085
to local authority data on deprivation.

04:34.625 --> 04:36.885
So the Ministry for Housing communities

04:36.885 --> 04:38.605
and local government has released

04:38.625 --> 04:43.005
or regularly releases data on area deprivations, employment,

04:43.105 --> 04:46.125
income deprivation, housing deprivation, and so on.

04:46.545 --> 04:49.205
Um, and we linked that, to deprivation data

04:49.265 --> 04:52.805
and to data from the Ministry of Housing Communities

04:52.805 --> 04:56.205
and local government on, the local authorities' budgets.

04:56.205 --> 05:00.405
It section 251 data on, local authorities budget

05:00.505 --> 05:03.965
and spending on various, types of expenditure on.

05:03.985 --> 05:08.205
And, some of those variables measure broadly measure,

05:08.425 --> 05:09.965
preventative services.

05:10.745 --> 05:12.725
Um, so our data set consists

05:12.725 --> 05:17.565
of 117,098 cases involving children in the

05:17.565 --> 05:19.285
section 31 care proceedings,

05:19.465 --> 05:21.565
but we've then aggregated the data.

05:22.065 --> 05:27.005
So we basically have, end up with a 3,775

05:27.535 --> 05:31.845
child cases in 151 local authorities,

05:32.025 --> 05:34.205
and per five years of data.

05:34.625 --> 05:36.485
And then we split them up into age groups

05:36.585 --> 05:40.365
and basically looked at infants children were, who were one

05:40.365 --> 05:43.725
to four years old, five to nine years old, and so on,

05:44.065 --> 05:46.205
and then the 16 to 17 year olds.

05:46.305 --> 05:48.485
So we grouped the data by age,

05:48.485 --> 05:50.885
because we were interested in the difference,

05:51.065 --> 05:53.765
is it affecting younger children more than older children?

05:54.345 --> 05:55.765
And we did find that.

05:56.715 --> 05:59.485
Um, but we, we get to the findings maybe in a minute.

06:00.025 --> 06:04.125
Um, and we carried out, various, statistics.

06:04.125 --> 06:06.965
So we looked at descriptive statistics of local authorities.

06:07.465 --> 06:09.645
Um, so we've got two units of analysis.

06:09.645 --> 06:12.405
The first unit of analysis is the 100,

06:12.405 --> 06:16.125
50 local authorities, 151 local authorities.

06:16.425 --> 06:18.765
And for that, we looked at the numbers of children

06:18.985 --> 06:21.845
who do end up in cappa 10,000 of the population.

06:22.465 --> 06:26.885
Um, and we, for our modeling, for our statistical modeling,

06:27.345 --> 06:30.165
our unit of analysis is the aggregate child case

06:30.235 --> 06:34.365
observation per year and per the 151 local authorities.

06:35.065 --> 06:38.285
Um, and we carried out, structural equation model.

06:38.865 --> 06:42.125
Um, now structural equation model is a type of regression.

06:42.435 --> 06:45.565
It's a type of, it's a broad family of models that model,

06:45.705 --> 06:49.565
relationship between theorized latent variables.

06:49.565 --> 06:52.365
So those are theory concept that we can't,

06:53.155 --> 06:54.605
observe in the real world.

06:54.665 --> 06:56.045
So we need to find measures

06:56.065 --> 06:58.445
to operationalize those theories.

06:58.945 --> 07:01.645
For example, deprivation, area deprivation is,

07:01.665 --> 07:03.485
is such a concept where we need

07:03.485 --> 07:05.045
to find some way of measuring it.

07:05.425 --> 07:08.765
And, for that, we then used, the five domains

07:08.865 --> 07:13.205
of the, IMD, the English index of multiple deprivation,

07:13.415 --> 07:16.125
which is employment income deprivation,

07:16.125 --> 07:18.125
health deprivation, crime deprivation.

07:18.145 --> 07:20.765
So we, and we basically fitted a model

07:20.765 --> 07:24.205
where we disentangle these different domains of deprivation

07:24.205 --> 07:25.765
because they might contribute

07:25.765 --> 07:27.525
differently to the rates of children.

07:27.595 --> 07:30.085
Okay? It might be areas that are more mental health deprived

07:30.325 --> 07:31.765
rather than just income.

07:32.385 --> 07:34.845
Um, and we then looked at association

07:34.845 --> 07:37.245
between those deprivation domains

07:37.665 --> 07:40.245
and social care expenditure, so different kinds

07:40.245 --> 07:41.285
of social care spending,

07:41.585 --> 07:44.125
and we're interested in the joint effect of,

07:44.125 --> 07:48.565
both on our outcome variable, which is the rates of children

07:49.235 --> 07:52.085
that are going through those compulsory care proceedings

07:52.085 --> 07:54.965
and appear in the, in the English family courts.

07:55.625 --> 07:59.765
Um, so we were interested in that mediated moderated effect,

07:59.825 --> 08:03.405
so the interplay between deprivation and expenditure.

08:03.705 --> 08:06.405
But we were also, of course, interested in the known

08:07.105 --> 08:10.605
direct effect of deprivation on, the numbers

08:10.665 --> 08:12.405
or rates of children ending up in care,

08:12.575 --> 08:15.365
which we already know from other research exists.

08:15.945 --> 08:19.085
So we try to get at, contribute to the field

08:19.105 --> 08:23.485
by getting at that, mechanism that may be happening

08:23.485 --> 08:26.125
between, deprivation and spending.

08:26.785 --> 08:30.205
The vast majority, over 90% of children in compulsory care,

08:30.265 --> 08:33.205
pro proceedings in English family courts are infants.

08:33.205 --> 08:36.085
They're babies that are younger than 1-year-old.

08:36.585 --> 08:38.005
So that's quite dramatic.

08:38.265 --> 08:41.725
Um, and we know this from previous work by Karen Hurs,

08:41.725 --> 08:43.485
BA ra, and,

08:43.625 --> 08:47.005
and colleagues, at the Nuffield family,

08:47.005 --> 08:48.165
justice Observatory.

08:48.505 --> 08:50.205
Um, so there has been other research,

08:50.265 --> 08:52.445
but we, replicated that finding.

08:52.825 --> 08:54.325
And we found, for example,

08:54.325 --> 08:57.805
that the incidence rates per 10,000 of the,

08:57.975 --> 09:01.285
child population of local authorities is,

09:02.145 --> 09:05.765
almost a hundred per, per 10,000 for infants,

09:06.065 --> 09:08.045
but it is only two 20, well, only

09:08.045 --> 09:10.165
but it is 22 for one to four year olds

09:10.225 --> 09:12.405
and five for the 16 years.

09:12.405 --> 09:15.725
So there is a, is is quite a large difference by age.

09:15.745 --> 09:17.805
So the vast majority are babies.

09:18.425 --> 09:21.485
Um, and we found strong relationships,

09:21.485 --> 09:22.765
between area deprivations

09:22.985 --> 09:26.485
and the rates of children, entering those compulsory,

09:26.585 --> 09:29.325
care proceedings, whether is a question being made,

09:29.325 --> 09:31.845
whether they have to be taken away from their families.

09:32.345 --> 09:35.605
Um, and, we found that the incidence rate

09:35.605 --> 09:39.685
of children in care proceedings is 2.5 times higher in the

09:39.685 --> 09:41.725
25% most,

09:41.845 --> 09:44.685
deprived than the 25% least deprived areas.

09:45.305 --> 09:49.325
Um, and if we look at the 10% most, deprived areas,

09:49.715 --> 09:52.165
then we find that children living in those,

09:52.235 --> 09:55.805
very deprived neighborhoods are almost 15 times more likely

09:56.275 --> 10:00.165
than children in wealthy areas to, have to go

10:00.165 --> 10:01.245
through those care proceedings

10:01.245 --> 10:03.285
and potentially being taken into care.

10:03.625 --> 10:05.285
So those are very stark differences,

10:05.285 --> 10:06.285
and they're very worrying.

10:06.985 --> 10:10.885
We also found complex associations between the social care

10:11.525 --> 10:14.645
spending of local authorities, and deprivation

10:14.905 --> 10:17.045
and the numbers of children moving into care.

10:17.625 --> 10:21.285
Um, so we found that all forms of local authorities, social,

10:21.505 --> 10:24.565
child social care expenditure,

10:25.025 --> 10:27.765
do show significant associations with the rates

10:27.765 --> 10:29.325
of children in care proceedings,

10:29.525 --> 10:32.045
preventative spending in particular.

10:32.505 --> 10:35.285
So preventative spending, on youth support

10:35.545 --> 10:38.165
and what used to be short start centers on, on,

10:38.165 --> 10:39.725
on mother family centers

10:40.185 --> 10:43.365
and so on, are significantly negatively related

10:43.385 --> 10:45.765
to the rates of children going in care in

10:45.765 --> 10:46.845
those local authorities.

10:46.905 --> 10:49.125
So there is a preventative success

10:49.145 --> 10:50.845
of having those services there.

10:51.425 --> 10:54.485
Um, for example, just to kind of visualize it a bit,

10:54.525 --> 10:58.965
a 1000 pound increase in social care spend per child in a

10:58.965 --> 11:01.405
given year and local authority is associated

11:01.405 --> 11:05.205
with a 12% decrease in the child incidence rate,

11:05.355 --> 11:07.245
theoretically going into care.

11:07.245 --> 11:09.005
So this is based on a model estimation,

11:09.005 --> 11:10.525
but in theory, you would,

11:10.585 --> 11:13.285
you could expect a 12% decrease, and that's a lot.

11:13.705 --> 11:16.725
So it, that does have a really strong protective effect.

11:17.145 --> 11:20.725
Um, however, there is an interplay with,

11:20.755 --> 11:21.885
with deprivation

11:21.885 --> 11:25.845
because we know that the most deprived areas have been,

11:26.285 --> 11:27.765
stripped off budgets.

11:27.765 --> 11:30.525
So they, they, they are left with a lot less,

11:30.585 --> 11:31.765
money to spend.

11:32.225 --> 11:35.205
So local authorities often scramble, they have to cater

11:35.265 --> 11:37.085
to the increased need for intervention.

11:37.145 --> 11:39.565
So there's not so much left for other, other things.

11:39.565 --> 11:42.605
They also have to cater to, to an aging population.

11:42.715 --> 11:45.245
They have to spend on roads on and, and services.

11:45.785 --> 11:49.765
Um, and, we found a one standard deviation increase,

11:49.785 --> 11:52.365
or, or, or basically a one unit increase in our

11:52.605 --> 11:55.605
standardized deprivation measure is associated

11:55.915 --> 11:59.685
with a 540 pound increase in spend per child in the,

11:59.685 --> 12:00.685
in the more deprived area.

12:00.785 --> 12:05.565
So they do spend more on, social services, but and,

12:05.565 --> 12:07.045
and on prevention if they can.

12:07.105 --> 12:08.125
So they do spend more,

12:08.505 --> 12:11.685
but, it would only reduce the incident rate by 6%

12:11.685 --> 12:13.685
because the direct effect of deprivation is

12:13.685 --> 12:15.325
so strong in those areas.

12:15.785 --> 12:18.565
So they're basically battling the strong direct effect.

12:18.915 --> 12:22.525
They, would need a lot more funding for prevention, yes,

12:22.865 --> 12:24.845
but they also would need a lot more funding

12:25.185 --> 12:27.845
to really ameliorate the direct deprivation

12:27.845 --> 12:29.125
that is affecting families.

12:29.125 --> 12:33.325
Because if we tackle deprivation, if we tackle,

12:33.325 --> 12:37.365
poverty in areas that will, that will, show results

12:37.395 --> 12:40.165
that will clearly, have an effect on, on the numbers

12:40.185 --> 12:43.205
of children that can stay within their families.

12:43.625 --> 12:45.085
Now, one caveat is we need

12:45.085 --> 12:46.925
to be careful when we talk about deprivation

12:46.925 --> 12:49.965
and poverty, not to mix, levels up.

12:49.985 --> 12:53.285
So not to mix up the individual level with aggregate level.

12:53.745 --> 12:56.605
Um, so there is individual level poverty and households,

12:56.705 --> 13:00.285
but our paper is looking at the aggregate level deprivation,

13:00.625 --> 13:04.205
of, local authorities, which is a context effect.

13:04.205 --> 13:06.805
So it's the context those children live in.

13:07.105 --> 13:09.925
So there may be families who are not deprived themselves,

13:10.185 --> 13:12.085
but they live in very deprived neighborhoods.

13:12.385 --> 13:14.645
And just living in those deprived neighborhoods,

13:14.715 --> 13:16.525
even if I'm not deprived myself,

13:17.155 --> 13:19.845
already has a negative effect in itself.

13:20.355 --> 13:21.845
What I also wanted to highlight is

13:21.845 --> 13:24.365
that there is this strong direct effect of deprivation,

13:24.625 --> 13:28.605
and that really far outweighs, the relief

13:28.635 --> 13:31.405
that is achieved by increased social care spending.

13:31.545 --> 13:34.805
So it is very important to spend more on social care, but

13:34.805 --> 13:38.245
because the direct effect of deprivation is so strong,

13:38.625 --> 13:41.125
to today in, in, in today's world, we really need

13:41.125 --> 13:42.245
to tackle deprivation.

13:42.785 --> 13:45.085
We do see, deprived,

13:45.085 --> 13:46.765
local authorities, firefighting.

13:46.905 --> 13:49.765
We see them scrambling to address an urgent need

13:49.765 --> 13:52.685
for intervention, for intervention, for,

13:52.685 --> 13:56.405
for intervention, that, protect children.

13:56.785 --> 14:00.365
And we see an increased need for preventative services.

14:00.505 --> 14:02.405
We see the effects of austerity,

14:02.405 --> 14:05.565
basically leaving local authorities with very little left

14:05.585 --> 14:07.885
to spend, especially in the north of England,

14:07.885 --> 14:10.685
especially in the, in the, northeast of England.

14:10.685 --> 14:12.925
So there are local authorities that are,

14:12.985 --> 14:14.245
really very deprived

14:14.305 --> 14:16.005
and have high rates of children in care.

14:16.425 --> 14:18.445
Um, and, we, we, we,

14:18.445 --> 14:20.885
we can see them basically on, on the map.

14:21.585 --> 14:23.405
Um, and those authorities need help.

14:23.715 --> 14:26.925
They need more investment in a prevention,

14:26.925 --> 14:28.205
they need bigger budgets,

14:28.345 --> 14:31.205
but they also need more investment into directly tackling,

14:31.305 --> 14:32.685
de tackling deprivation,

14:32.795 --> 14:35.805
because it's not just spending for intervention spending

14:35.825 --> 14:38.205
for preventative tailored services for children.

14:38.385 --> 14:40.045
That's great. We need that,

14:40.385 --> 14:42.165
but we also need other services

14:42.435 --> 14:44.445
that help fa families out of poverty.

14:45.025 --> 14:48.725
So if the, so-called leveling up agenda,

14:48.725 --> 14:50.805
of the government is to be taken seriously.

14:51.335 --> 14:53.125
There needs to be put a lot of,

14:53.365 --> 14:55.285
a lot more money be put into that,

14:55.545 --> 14:58.765
really leveling up those areas, creating,

14:58.765 --> 15:00.845
sustainable employment,

15:01.525 --> 15:03.685
creating educational opportunities for those

15:03.685 --> 15:05.045
who are left out because

15:05.045 --> 15:06.325
there's a lot of children in schools.

15:06.325 --> 15:08.325
They're not, I wouldn't say they're left behind.

15:08.325 --> 15:11.725
They're left out thereby default, left out

15:11.725 --> 15:14.525
because the, the life circumstances that's created

15:14.745 --> 15:17.565
for these children, are so dire.

15:17.565 --> 15:20.485
So we really need to do a lot more to help,

15:20.485 --> 15:21.365
local authorities.

Rising Poverty and Child Welfare Crisis in UK

00:00:00 - The context, of this, study, is that, that we know that there has, has been quite a worrying increase in poverty and extreme deprivation in, some areas in the uk. there's just a recent, just, earlier the last year, the Joseph Fr Foundation authored by Susan Fitzpatrick and others, have found an approximately three point, 8 million, people, in experiencing, destitution extreme poverty, in the uk. And that includes, around 1 million children.
00:00:35 - on extreme poverty and human rights. Olivia, the sch ter, I think he's pronounced, visited the UK and reported that poverty in, some areas in the UK is, so high that, the government's failure to act on, on this poverty, would constitute, breaking international law. And in this context, we are worried about the wellbeing of children and, the wellbeing of, of families in deprived areas.
00:01:06 - or in our papers, co-authored by, Karen Bhur RA and, Linda Cusworth at the Center for, child and Family Research at Lancaster University. And, we, basically dis discussed this context and focus on the rates of children, going into compulsory care proceedings that are taken away from their parents and going, potentially going into care, appearing in family courts.
00:01:38 - poor outcomes for families and children in deprived areas. researched by David Tyler Robinson, Ben Barr, and Sophie Wickham, Davara Bennett, they found increased mortality rates in deprived areas. famously in 2009, Kate Pickett and Richard Wilkinson in the spirit level found various, poor life force outcomes. For example, teenage pregnancies, increased rate drug misuse, and,
00:02:06 - and health issues in deprived areas. there are also some, other teams of colleagues in my research area on child welfare inequalities, Paul Bay Waters, Callum. We, Dara Bennett and others who have been doing research on the associations between deprivation and the numbers of children in care now, we are all using various different data sources, and we kind of, ended up, producing similar findings with different data sources.
00:02:37 - that our findings are robust. and we found strong associations, very strong associations between living in a deprived area and, the likelihood of children ending up in care. we were also interested in the effect of authority because we know that over the last decade there have been cuts to local authority spending expenditure for, things like libraries, but also pr broadly preventative support.

Impact of Service Cuts on Child Support

00:03:07 - library where people can read, people can enjoy themselves, or a youth club or, a a child, mother child family center where people can go and get some support. And there have been cuts to all sorts of services. So, local authorities have been stripped down and are kind of scrambling to, to cater the increased need of children needing intervention. And we were interested in prevention. How does prevention matter? Because, obviously if we arrive at the point
00:03:39 - we're already, there's already harm happening. so, what we did, was we used large scale, data, a large scale data linkage study, that is representative, of, the, the, local authorities in the uk, in, in, in England, I should say in England. and, the data consists of, data from the children and family court advisory
00:04:13 - the, well on, children in, those are case, data cases of children in court cases, compulsory care proceedings, they're called section 31 care proceedings. and those child cases we linked to local authority data on deprivation. So the Ministry for Housing communities and local government has released
00:04:43 - income deprivation, housing deprivation, and so on. and we linked that, to deprivation data and to data from the Ministry of Housing Communities and local government on, the local authorities' budgets. It section 251 data on, local authorities budget and spending on various, types of expenditure on. And, some of those variables measure broadly measure, preventative services.
00:05:12 - of 117,098 cases involving children in the section 31 care proceedings, but we've then aggregated the data. So we basically have, end up with a 3,775 child cases in 151 local authorities, and per five years of data. And then we split them up into age groups and basically looked at infants children were, who were one to four years old, five to nine years old, and so on,
00:05:46 - So we grouped the data by age, because we were interested in the difference, is it affecting younger children more than older children? And we did find that. but we, we get to the findings maybe in a minute. and we carried out, various, statistics. So we looked at descriptive statistics of local authorities. so we've got two units of analysis. The first unit of analysis is the 100, 50 local authorities, 151 local authorities.

Analyzing Child Care Statistics and Deprivation

00:06:18 - who do end up in cappa 10,000 of the population. and we, for our modeling, for our statistical modeling, our unit of analysis is the aggregate child case observation per year and per the 151 local authorities. and we carried out, structural equation model. now structural equation model is a type of regression. It's a type of, it's a broad family of models that model, relationship between theorized latent variables.
00:06:53 - observe in the real world. So we need to find measures to operationalize those theories. For example, deprivation, area deprivation is, is such a concept where we need to find some way of measuring it. And, for that, we then used, the five domains of the, IMD, the English index of multiple deprivation, which is employment income deprivation, health deprivation, crime deprivation. So we, and we basically fitted a model
00:07:24 - because they might contribute differently to the rates of children. Okay? It might be areas that are more mental health deprived rather than just income. and we then looked at association between those deprivation domains and social care expenditure, so different kinds of social care spending, and we're interested in the joint effect of, both on our outcome variable, which is the rates of children that are going through those compulsory care proceedings
00:07:55 - so we were interested in that mediated moderated effect, so the interplay between deprivation and expenditure. But we were also, of course, interested in the known direct effect of deprivation on, the numbers or rates of children ending up in care, which we already know from other research exists. So we try to get at, contribute to the field by getting at that, mechanism that may be happening
00:08:26 - The vast majority, over 90% of children in compulsory care, pro proceedings in English family courts are infants. They're babies that are younger than 1-year-old. So that's quite dramatic. and we know this from previous work by Karen Hurs, BA ra, and, and colleagues, at the Nuffield family, justice Observatory. so there has been other research, but we, replicated that finding. And we found, for example,
00:08:57 - child population of local authorities is, almost a hundred per, per 10,000 for infants, but it is only two 20, well, only but it is 22 for one to four year olds and five for the 16 years. So there is a, is is quite a large difference by age. So the vast majority are babies. and we found strong relationships, between area deprivations and the rates of children, entering those compulsory,

Impact of Deprivation on Child Care Rates

00:09:29 - whether they have to be taken away from their families. and, we found that the incidence rate of children in care proceedings is 2.5 times higher in the 25% most, deprived than the 25% least deprived areas. and if we look at the 10% most, deprived areas, then we find that children living in those, very deprived neighborhoods are almost 15 times more likely than children in wealthy areas to, have to go
00:10:01 - and potentially being taken into care. So those are very stark differences, and they're very worrying. We also found complex associations between the social care spending of local authorities, and deprivation and the numbers of children moving into care. so we found that all forms of local authorities, social, child social care expenditure, do show significant associations with the rates of children in care proceedings, preventative spending in particular.
00:10:35 - and what used to be short start centers on, on, on mother family centers and so on, are significantly negatively related to the rates of children going in care in those local authorities. So there is a preventative success of having those services there. for example, just to kind of visualize it a bit, a 1000 pound increase in social care spend per child in a given year and local authority is associated with a 12% decrease in the child incidence rate,
00:11:07 - So this is based on a model estimation, but in theory, you would, you could expect a 12% decrease, and that's a lot. So it, that does have a really strong protective effect. however, there is an interplay with, with deprivation because we know that the most deprived areas have been, stripped off budgets. So they, they, they are left with a lot less, money to spend. So local authorities often scramble, they have to cater to the increased need for intervention.
00:11:39 - They also have to cater to, to an aging population. They have to spend on roads on and, and services. and, we found a one standard deviation increase, or, or, or basically a one unit increase in our standardized deprivation measure is associated with a 540 pound increase in spend per child in the, in the more deprived area. So they do spend more on, social services, but and, and on prevention if they can. So they do spend more,
00:12:11 - because the direct effect of deprivation is so strong in those areas. So they're basically battling the strong direct effect. They, would need a lot more funding for prevention, yes, but they also would need a lot more funding to really ameliorate the direct deprivation that is affecting families. Because if we tackle deprivation, if we tackle, poverty in areas that will, that will, show results that will clearly, have an effect on, on the numbers

Understanding Poverty and Deprivation Effects

00:12:43 - Now, one caveat is we need to be careful when we talk about deprivation and poverty, not to mix, levels up. So not to mix up the individual level with aggregate level. so there is individual level poverty and households, but our paper is looking at the aggregate level deprivation, of, local authorities, which is a context effect. So it's the context those children live in. So there may be families who are not deprived themselves,
00:13:12 - And just living in those deprived neighborhoods, even if I'm not deprived myself, already has a negative effect in itself. What I also wanted to highlight is that there is this strong direct effect of deprivation, and that really far outweighs, the relief that is achieved by increased social care spending. So it is very important to spend more on social care, but because the direct effect of deprivation is so strong, to today in, in, in today's world, we really need
00:13:42 - We do see, deprived, local authorities, firefighting. We see them scrambling to address an urgent need for intervention, for intervention, for, for intervention, that, protect children. And we see an increased need for preventative services. We see the effects of austerity, basically leaving local authorities with very little left to spend, especially in the north of England, especially in the, in the, northeast of England. So there are local authorities that are,
00:14:14 - and have high rates of children in care. and, we, we, we, we can see them basically on, on the map. and those authorities need help. They need more investment in a prevention, they need bigger budgets, but they also need more investment into directly tackling, de tackling deprivation, because it's not just spending for intervention spending for preventative tailored services for children. That's great. We need that, but we also need other services that help fa families out of poverty.
00:14:48 - of the government is to be taken seriously. There needs to be put a lot of, a lot more money be put into that, really leveling up those areas, creating, sustainable employment, creating educational opportunities for those who are left out because there's a lot of children in schools. They're not, I wouldn't say they're left behind. They're left out thereby default, left out because the, the life circumstances that's created for these children, are so dire.
00:15:20 - local authorities.

Faculti AI can make mistakes

Research

Policy

Analysis

Data

Originals

Explainers

Podcasts

Faculti

New on Faculti

Idea Explorer

Definition

News Context

Critical Questions and Answers

Research Summaries

Area-deprivation, social care spending and the rates of children in care proceedings in local authorities in England

Media Literacy Toolkit

Critical Questions to Consider ▼

Bias and Perspective Awareness ▼

Further Reading ▼