Exploring inequities in child welfare and child protection services: explaining the ‘inverse intervention law’

Paul Bywaters, Geraldine M. Brady, Tim Sparks, Elizabeth Bos, L. Bunting, B. Daniel, B. Featherstone

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

39 Citations (Scopus)
40 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Attempts to record, understand and respond to variations in child welfare and protection reporting, service patterns and outcomes are international, numerous and longstanding. Reframing such variations as an issue of inequity between children and between families opens the way to a new approach to explaining the profound difference in intervention rates between and within countries and administrative districts. Recent accounts of variation have frequently been based on the idea that there is a binary divide between bias and risk (or need). Here we propose seeing supply (bias) and demand (risk) factors as two aspects of a single system, both framed, in part, by social structures. A recent finding from a study of intervention rates in England, the ‘inverse intervention law’, is used to illustrate the complex ways in which a range of factors interact to produce intervention rates. In turn, this analysis raises profound moral, policy, practice and research questions about current child welfare and child protection services.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)98-105
JournalChildren and Youth Services Review
Volume57
Early online date31 Jul 2015
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Oct 2015

Fingerprint

child protection
Child Welfare
child welfare
Law
Ethics
England
administrative district
trend
Research
social structure
supply
demand

Bibliographical note

NOTICE: this is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Children and Youth Services Review. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Children and Youth Services Review, [57, (2015)] DOI: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2015.07.017

© 2015, Elsevier. Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

Keywords

  • child welfare
  • child protection
  • social inequity
  • social policy

Cite this

Exploring inequities in child welfare and child protection services: explaining the ‘inverse intervention law’. / Bywaters, Paul; Brady, Geraldine M.; Sparks, Tim; Bos, Elizabeth; Bunting, L.; Daniel, B.; Featherstone, B.

In: Children and Youth Services Review, Vol. 57, 10.2015, p. 98-105.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Bywaters, Paul ; Brady, Geraldine M. ; Sparks, Tim ; Bos, Elizabeth ; Bunting, L. ; Daniel, B. ; Featherstone, B. / Exploring inequities in child welfare and child protection services: explaining the ‘inverse intervention law’. In: Children and Youth Services Review. 2015 ; Vol. 57. pp. 98-105.
@article{c4011dd5d4474c328ad21a2c02e1c02d,
title = "Exploring inequities in child welfare and child protection services: explaining the ‘inverse intervention law’",
abstract = "Attempts to record, understand and respond to variations in child welfare and protection reporting, service patterns and outcomes are international, numerous and longstanding. Reframing such variations as an issue of inequity between children and between families opens the way to a new approach to explaining the profound difference in intervention rates between and within countries and administrative districts. Recent accounts of variation have frequently been based on the idea that there is a binary divide between bias and risk (or need). Here we propose seeing supply (bias) and demand (risk) factors as two aspects of a single system, both framed, in part, by social structures. A recent finding from a study of intervention rates in England, the ‘inverse intervention law’, is used to illustrate the complex ways in which a range of factors interact to produce intervention rates. In turn, this analysis raises profound moral, policy, practice and research questions about current child welfare and child protection services.",
keywords = "child welfare, child protection, social inequity, social policy",
author = "Paul Bywaters and Brady, {Geraldine M.} and Tim Sparks and Elizabeth Bos and L. Bunting and B. Daniel and B. Featherstone",
note = "NOTICE: this is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Children and Youth Services Review. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Children and Youth Services Review, [57, (2015)] DOI: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2015.07.017 {\circledC} 2015, Elsevier. Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/",
year = "2015",
month = "10",
doi = "10.1016/j.childyouth.2015.07.017",
language = "English",
volume = "57",
pages = "98--105",
journal = "Children and Youth Services Review",
issn = "0190-7409",
publisher = "Elsevier",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Exploring inequities in child welfare and child protection services: explaining the ‘inverse intervention law’

AU - Bywaters, Paul

AU - Brady, Geraldine M.

AU - Sparks, Tim

AU - Bos, Elizabeth

AU - Bunting, L.

AU - Daniel, B.

AU - Featherstone, B.

N1 - NOTICE: this is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Children and Youth Services Review. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Children and Youth Services Review, [57, (2015)] DOI: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2015.07.017 © 2015, Elsevier. Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

PY - 2015/10

Y1 - 2015/10

N2 - Attempts to record, understand and respond to variations in child welfare and protection reporting, service patterns and outcomes are international, numerous and longstanding. Reframing such variations as an issue of inequity between children and between families opens the way to a new approach to explaining the profound difference in intervention rates between and within countries and administrative districts. Recent accounts of variation have frequently been based on the idea that there is a binary divide between bias and risk (or need). Here we propose seeing supply (bias) and demand (risk) factors as two aspects of a single system, both framed, in part, by social structures. A recent finding from a study of intervention rates in England, the ‘inverse intervention law’, is used to illustrate the complex ways in which a range of factors interact to produce intervention rates. In turn, this analysis raises profound moral, policy, practice and research questions about current child welfare and child protection services.

AB - Attempts to record, understand and respond to variations in child welfare and protection reporting, service patterns and outcomes are international, numerous and longstanding. Reframing such variations as an issue of inequity between children and between families opens the way to a new approach to explaining the profound difference in intervention rates between and within countries and administrative districts. Recent accounts of variation have frequently been based on the idea that there is a binary divide between bias and risk (or need). Here we propose seeing supply (bias) and demand (risk) factors as two aspects of a single system, both framed, in part, by social structures. A recent finding from a study of intervention rates in England, the ‘inverse intervention law’, is used to illustrate the complex ways in which a range of factors interact to produce intervention rates. In turn, this analysis raises profound moral, policy, practice and research questions about current child welfare and child protection services.

KW - child welfare

KW - child protection

KW - social inequity

KW - social policy

U2 - 10.1016/j.childyouth.2015.07.017

DO - 10.1016/j.childyouth.2015.07.017

M3 - Article

VL - 57

SP - 98

EP - 105

JO - Children and Youth Services Review

JF - Children and Youth Services Review

SN - 0190-7409

ER -