Poverty, child abuse and neglect: patterns of cost and spending

Abstract

This article examines recent data on the costs of poverty, child abuse and neglect (CAN), paying particular attention to contemporary and related patterns of spending in England. The discussion reflects CAN spending associated with some interpretations of Early Intervention. The evidence outlined within this article suggests that the financial costs of poverty and CAN are both substantial and associated. Analyses of spending patterns also suggest E is thinking (Jütte et al., 2014). Evidence on the cost effectiveness of Early Intervention, with a focus on working with and supporting families, rather than child removal, also suggests that current spending patterns are financially inefficient.

Austerity, rationing and inequity: trends in children’s and young peoples’ services expenditure in England between 2010 and 2015

“…On the one hand, there are underlying demographic and market factors such as population growth, wages and salary agreements, and inflation (Hastings, et al 2015). On the other, there are changes in service demand factors reflecting stressors that result in higher rates of referral to services (Hood, et al 2016;Mason and Bywaters 2016). Poverty, in particular, is a strongly associated characteristic of children who are taken into care (Looked After Children) or have some kind of contact with childrenÕs services (Bramley and Watkins 2008;Bywaters, et al 2014aBywaters, et al , 2017aMason and Bywaters 2016).…”

“…On the other, there are changes in service demand factors reflecting stressors that result in higher rates of referral to services (Hood, et al 2016;Mason and Bywaters 2016). Poverty, in particular, is a strongly associated characteristic of children who are taken into care (Looked After Children) or have some kind of contact with childrenÕs services (Bramley and Watkins 2008;Bywaters, et al 2014aBywaters, et al , 2017aMason and Bywaters 2016). However, there has historically been a greater focus on individualised mediating factors: drug use, maternal mental health, domestic violence, that are often also strongly associated with poverty (Cleaver, et al 2011;Bywaters, et al 2016).…”

“…Poverty, in particular, is a strongly associated characteristic of children who are taken into care (Looked After Children) or have some kind of contact with childrenÕs services (Bramley and Watkins 2008;Bywaters, et al 2014aBywaters, et al , 2017aMason and Bywaters 2016). However, there has historically been a greater focus on individualised mediating factors: drug use, maternal mental health, domestic violence, that are often also strongly associated with poverty (Cleaver, et al 2011;Bywaters, et al 2016). The relationship between these individual problems and poverty goes beyond comorbidity, as low income is a well-evidenced causal factor in a range of childrenÕs outcomes Stewart 2013, 2017).…”

“…These trends are reflected in changes in rates of intervention and usage of childrenÕs services over the same time period (Mason and Bywaters 2016). JŸtte et alÕs (2015) analysis of secondary data found rising numbers of children in need due to abuse or neglect, rising numbers of children on Child Protection Plans (CPPs), and rising rates of children starting placements in care (LAC).…”

Radical practice in a risk-averse environment: Learning from ATD Fourth World UK

“…(Krumer-Nevo, 2009, p. 318). Yet, Mason and Bywaters (2016) have observed that poverty and allegations of neglect are so interlinked that prioritising context-blind, policing-type investigations over supportive measures will likely prove both ineffective and financially inefficient. Aotearoa New Zealand child protection history contains instances of counterproductive policy stemming from a context-blind approach.…”