Understanding Overrepresentation of Indigenous Children in Child Welfare Data

Cram, Fiona; Gulliver, Pauline; Ota, Rissa; Wilson, Moira

doi:10.1177/1077559515580392

Cited by 40 publications

(50 citation statements)

References 19 publications

(35 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Underlying these factors are social structures affecting people's social position and life chances, including social class and race and incorporating a historical legacy as Cram et al (2015) argue. Demand interacts with the supply of servicesboth child welfare services and other formal and informal resources which may result in referrals or reports of children at risk -to produce intervention rates.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The categories, White, Black and Asian are very broad and encompass groups with very different histories and current circumstances (Cram et al, 2015). But, leaving those major problems on one side, why might the inverse relationship be evident for White but not for Black and Asian families?…”

Section: Explaining the Difference Between White And Ethnic Minority mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…risk (or need) and bias (Cram et al, 2015;Jonson-Reid et al, 2009) or, in other words, demand (incidence) or supply (services' responses). Variations in demand may reflect families in differing circumstances or with differing characteristics Bradt et al, 2014); differences between racial or ethnic groups, sometimes overlapping with religious affiliations (Wulczyn et al, 2013;Drake et al,, 2009;Owen and Statham, 2009);…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

Bywaters

Brady

Sparks

et al. 2015

Children and Youth Services Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Explaining the Difference Between White And Ethnic Minority mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Bywaters

Brady

Sparks

et al. 2015

Children and Youth Services Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In many countries, Indigenous and some ethnic groups are disproportionally represented in child welfare systems, representing inequalities in the chances of system contact (Cram, Gulliver, Ota, & Wilson, ; Fluke, Chabot, Fallon, MacLaurin, & Blackstock, ). Disproportionality can be defined as “… the state of being out of proportion … a condition that exists when the proportion of people of a certain race or ethnicity in a target population differs from the proportion of people of the same group in a reference population” (Detlaff, , p. 44).…”

Section: Inequalities Disproportionality and The Risk‐bias Debatementioning

confidence: 99%

Ethnic inequalities in child welfare: The role of practitioner risk perceptions

Keddell

Hyslop

2019

Child & Family Social Work

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Indigenous children have a long history of overrepresentation in child protection systems. This exploratory, mixed methods study examined practitioner perceptions of risk in response to client ethnic group (n = 67). A staged online survey elicited responses to a blinded vignette. Half the sample received the vignette as a Pākehā (White) family and the other half as Māori (Indigenous). Apart from this, family descriptions were identical. Respondents rated their perceptions of the children's risk and related constructs and stated what decisions they would make. Qualitative perceptions of risk, safety, problem causes, and plan goals were elicited. The quantitative findings showed family ethnicity had a moderate effect on perceptions of risk, safety, and decisions. The Māori family was perceived as higher risk than the Pākehā family and had more decisions made about them. Stage 2 of the survey showed the most marked effects (d = 0.484 risk, 0.487 safety; p = 0.06). Qualitative responses showed similar constructions of risk, safety, problems, and plan goals regardless of ethnicity.Structural factors associated with ethnicity were not considered to contribute to the family's social problems. Results suggest a combination of unconscious bias and a "colour blind" approach to practice may contribute to ethnic inequalities. Implications for education, research, and practice are discussed.

show abstract

“…Moreover, this review and the feasibility study identified the risk that predictive modelling would overpredict Māori child maltreatment and result in hypersurveillance of Māori whānau (Blank, et al, 2014;Wilson et al, 2015;Wilson & Cram, in press). A subsequent collaborative investigation of the potential for hypersurveillance did not resolve these issues, and urged caution in using and interpreting administrative data (Cram, Gulliver, Ota, & Wilson, 2015).…”

Section: Reflections On Linked Administrative Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

He awa whiria—braided rivers: Understanding the outcomes from Family Start for Māori

Cram¹,

Vette²,

Wilson³

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In Aotearoa New Zealand a braided rivers-he awa whiria metaphor is facilitating conversations between Māori (indigenous peoples) and non-Māori researchers about the integration of knowledge systems. This article explores how an approach based on he awa whiria can work in practice in the examination of the efficacy for Māori whānau (families) of the government's intensive home-visiting programme, Family Start. A retrospective impact evaluation of Family Start for children born from 2004 to 2011 examined the outcomes for children in families receiving Family Start, compared to a matched control group who did not receive this service. The awa-or knowledge streams-called upon to inform the consideration of the findings for Māori from this evaluation related to: Family Start and its child development and parenting curriculum Āhuru Mōwai and Born to Learn, whānau ora, and measures of whānau wellbeing, other indigenous home-visiting programmes, the impact evaluation method, and the indigenous data sovereignty movement. Braiding (whiria) across these knowledge streams offered new perspectives on the impact evaluation's results for Māori. These results suggested that Family Start reduced post-neonatal mortality for Māori children, regardless of whether the Family Start provider was Māori or nonMāori. Māori children receiving Family Start were more likely to be fully up-to-date with immunisations at age 2, and their mothers were more likely to access services for treatment of addiction relative to the control group. The impact of Family Start on child maltreatment was uncertain. He awa whiria provided a vehicle for Māori and non-Māori research and practice expertise to contribute knowledge to understanding Family Start and explaining these findings. This metaphor holds the promise of supporting Māori engagement with the growing use of linked administrative data.In 1998 the Aotearoa New Zealand government introduced Family Start, an intensive home-visiting programme for pregnant mothers and families with preschool children. The programme targets families and whānau 1 whose social, economic, and family circumstances put at risk good health, education, and social outcomes for their children. Referrals are made by a range of organisations and individuals, and families and whānau may self-refer. Families and whānau are generally enrolled prior to their child's first birthday and remain in the programme until the family can confidently cope and access support on their own, or the child reaches school age (Ministry of Social Development, 2016). Half the children served by Family Start are Māori (Vaithianathan, Wilson, Maloney & Baird, 2016).A recent impact evaluation of Family Start covered children entering the programme over the period 2004to 2011 -12 (Vaithianathan et al., 2016. During this time, Family Start workers made regular home visits (either weekly or fortnightly depending on need) and sought to improve parenting using a structured child development and parenting curriculum called "Āhuru Mōwai and Born to Learn" (se...

show abstract

Understanding Overrepresentation of Indigenous Children in Child Welfare Data

Cited by 40 publications

References 19 publications

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

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

Ethnic inequalities in child welfare: The role of practitioner risk perceptions

He awa whiria—braided rivers: Understanding the outcomes from Family Start for Māori

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About