The inverse intervention law: Towards an explanation of inequities in child protection intervention rates in the UK

Objectives: Recent epidemiological research on child protection rates in England produced an unexpected finding: the inverse intervention law (Bywaters et al., 2015). Affluent local authorities (LAs) overall had much higher... [ view full abstract ]

Objectives:
Recent epidemiological research on child protection rates in England produced an unexpected finding: the inverse intervention law (Bywaters et al., 2015). Affluent local authorities (LAs) overall had much higher rates of children on child protection plans (CPP) or in out-of-home care (LAC) than LAs that were disadvantaged overall, when comparing small neighbourhoods equivalent in socio-economic terms. We outline new evidence to test an explanatory model.
Methods:
The paper is based on two studies of, respectively, a 10% sample of all children in England at 31.3.12, based exclusively in the West Midlands and a representative 12% sample across all English regions at 31.3.15. We analysed data routinely reported nationally, linked with administrative data on demography and neighbourhood deprivation.
Results:
The first study found that a child living in the most deprived 10% (decile) of small neighbourhoods in England had an 11 times greater chance of being on a CPP or LAC than a child in the most affluent decile. However, when comparing equivalent small neighbourhoods between LAs in the top and bottom thirds by overall socio-economic status, LAs in the most affluent third had rates around double those in the disadvantaged third. In this paper, we will report the findings of the second study.
Conclusions:
Inequities in intervention rates are explicable through a model involving both supply and demand factors. The socio-economic conditions of families and neighbourhoods affect the level of demand; while conditions which affect the resourcing and structuring of services are described as supply factors. The new evidence will confirm or modify the inverse intervention law finding and the explanatory model, drawing conclusions for the understanding of child welfare inequities, internationally.
Bywaters, P. et al. (2015) Exploring inequities in child welfare and child protection services: explaining the ‘inverse intervention law’, Children and Youth Services Review October, pp. 98-105