1 
 
 
 
 
 
BME children subject to a child protection plan or 
who are looked after (2006-2010): An evaluation on 
behalf of Buckinghamshire County Council 
 
 
Margaret Greenfields, Jason Schaub & Nadia Wager 
Faculty of Society and Health 
Buckinghamshire New University 
 
 
(enquiries to: Margaret.Greenfields@bucks.ac.uk) 
 
 
 
 
 
May 2010    
 
 
 2 
CONTENTS 
 
Executive Summary         3 
 
List of Figures & Tables      12 
 
1) Introduction/Research Background   14 
 
2) Literature Review       17  
 
3) Context, Methodology (and Limitations)  27  
       
4) Findings ? Quantitative     38 
 
5) Findings ? Qualitative     71 
 
6) Recommendations                78 
 
Appendix 1 - Focus Group Topic Guide    81        
               
Bibliography        82 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 
Executive Summary 
BME children subject to a child protection plan or who are looked after (2006-
 2010): An evaluation on behalf of Buckinghamshire County Council 
 
The purpose of this research was to explore the data pertaining to Black and Minority 
Ethnic (BME) children in contact with Buckinghamshire County Council social care 
teams between April 2006 and September 2009 to ascertain whether evidence exists 
which may suggest disproportionality: either under or over representation of BME 
children amongst the population who are subject to referral, become ?looked after? 
(LAC) or subject to a child protection plan (CPP) and to seek explanatory reasons for 
any significant findings. A further aim of the project was to consider whether children 
from BME families (or members of some ethnic groups) were as likely to receive 
access to appropriate support services as White children and families, or if decisions 
were made, or actions/omissions occurred at key decision making points because of 
their ethnicity, leading to outcomes which affected BME families (or members of 
certain groups or communities) more negatively than if they had been members of 
the White majority population (disparity).  
The research team set out to:   
 Undertake a literature review in relation to disproportionality (over/under 
representation of BME children in child welfare statistics) and disparity 
(whether different treatment or opportunities are afforded to BME families in 
contact with child welfare services). 
 Examine comparative data on BME children in the welfare system and 
numbers in the general population across comparative authorities to see if 
Buckinghamshire demonstrates exceptional patterns. 
 Explore the referral statistics for children and young people in 
Buckinghamshire between April 2006 and September 2009 to determine 
whether and where there might be an indication of under or over 
representation of black and minority ethnic children.  
 Investigate whether any evidence exists which may explain findings or 
indicate specific patterns in relation to the history/referral routes of BME 
children who are LAC or subject to a CPP (e.g. increased disability rates 
amongst some communities; numbers of unaccompanied asylum seeking 
children; etc.)  
 To review a sample of files of both BME and White British/White Other to 
examine whether any evidence exists which may explain findings or indicate 
specific patterns in relation to the history/referral routes of BME children who 
are LAC or subject to a CPP (e.g. increased disability rates amongst some 
communities; numbers of unaccompanied asylum seeking children; etc.)  
 To explore with social care professionals (children and families? ?front-line? 
social workers and managers) their understanding of factors which may 
potentially lead to differing patterns of engagement or perceptions of/actual 
disparity in service delivery and/or outcomes when engaging with BME 
communities (e.g. poor record-keeping which fails to correctly identify ethnic 
origin of child on case files; limited contact with certain communities so that 
cases referred may have reached a greater level of severity before social care 
staff are alerted to concerns). 
 4 
 To make a series of cost-limited/fiscally-neutral recommendations to assist 
BCC in shaping the direction of training needs and data recording protocols 
identified as arising from this project.   
 
 
 
Literature Review: Summary of Key Findings by BME Group 
Black Caribbean, Black African and Black Other 
 Black children and young people appear to be over-represented in the child 
welfare statistics both in the primary and secondary school years. 
 However, they are less likely to be subject to being placed on the Child 
Protection Register.  
 Black Caribbean males are referred at a younger age than both their female 
same-ethnicity, and white counterparts.  They have the youngest age at 
referral of all the ethnic groups. 
 They are also more likely to receive a subsequent referral. 
 They are less likely than their White counterparts to be identified as 
experiencing physical or sexual abuse. 
 Black African children/ young people are the most likely ethnic group to be 
referred due to parental illness or disability. 
British Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Indian or Asian Other 
 Asian children tend to be over-represented in the 4 ? 11 years age group, but 
there appears to be less disproportionality in the older age group. 
o They are the least likely group to receive a subsequent referral 
 
o British Pakistani females tend to referred at a younger age, but the 
British Pakistani males tend to experience a longer duration of referral 
 
o They are most likely to be referred due to parental illness/disability and 
absent parenting 
 
 The British Bangladeshi group tend to experience twice the length of referral 
as their White counterparts 
 
o They demonstrate three times the likelihood of being referred over the 
age of 16 years 
 
o They demonstrate three times the likelihood of progressing onto the 
Child Protection Register 
 
o They tend to be over represented in the abuse /neglect need category 
 
 British Indian children are the least likely group to be referred under the age of 
5 years and most likely to be referred between the ages of 5 and 9 years. 
 
 5 
o They are most likely, in combination with the Asian Other group, to be 
referred due to the child?s own disability. 
 
 
 
Mixed Ethnic Groups 
 Children from Mixed groups aged 4 ? 11 years tend to be over represented in 
the child welfare statistics.  However, for children aged 12-16 years there 
appears to be less disproportionality. 
 
 The need codes most likely to be applied to these groups are family 
dysfunction, and abuse and neglect. 
 
 These children are those most likely to be referred pre-birth and under the 
age of one year 
 
 Mixed White and Asian males are referred at a younger age than both their 
female same-ethnicity and White counterparts. 
 
o Males are referred for twice the duration of their female same-ethnicity 
counterparts. 
 
o Mixed White and Asian children are the most likely group to be referred 
between the ages of one and four years. 
 
  Mixed White and Black Caribbean females tend to be referred at a younger 
age 
 
o This is the group most likely to be identified as experiencing physical, 
emotional and sexual abuse 
 
Disproportionality in Buckinghamshire 
In common with all comparator authorities, disproportionality in Looked After 
Children (LAC) statistics is found in Buckinghamshire in relation to all BME 
groups. In all comparator authorities, Mixed ethnicity children are over-presented 
in the figures of children living in care. Broadly comparable patterns of over and 
under-representation in LAC statistics according to ethnic origin exist across all 
comparator authorities. 
? Buckinghamshire demonstrates the largest over-representation of mixed 
ethnicity children (5% in the population but 13% LAC) in comparison to 
Oxfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire. 
? Whilst disproportionality is found across all BME groups (most noticeably 
children of ?mixed? ethnic origin who are significantly over-represented in 
terms of risk of becoming LAC when compared to their presence within the 
school population) when the percentage of children from BME communities is 
calculated within the county, utilising school census data (DCSF, 2009) rather 
than 2001 Census data, disproportionality is not as extreme as may appear 
when out-of-date statistics which fail to take account of ?natural growth? and in-
 migration of BME families are utilised.   
 6 
Methodological Concerns 
 The lack of up-to-date baseline data in relation to the size of the BME population in 
Buckinghamshire may potentially lead to identification of disproportionality or an 
excessive rate of referral/CPP/LAC for children of certain communities. Whilst we 
have posited that the 10% BME population of Buckinghamshire identified in the 
Buckinghamshire Joint Strategic Needs Assessment, (2009:35) is likely to represent 
too low a figure for the population and instead suggest that the school returns 
specified in Table 5 offer a more nuanced picture of the size of particular BME groups 
within the school age population we note that disproportionality can still be seen 
although at a lower rate than is found when utilising 2001 Census data.   
 
 The data set analysed in Phase One of the research is based upon referrals rather 
than individual cases and it is therefore difficult to focus on the experience of 
individual children or families. Thus an increased rate of referrals of children from one 
particular community may potentially reflect on-going concerns in relation to one child 
or a particular family rather than evidence of disparity or ethnicity-specific issues.  
 
 873 out of  7,718 uniquereferral cases did not have any ethnicity recorded. Of these 
in 19 cases ethnicity was recorded as ?Refused? and the remaining 854 cases were 
categorised as ?Not Recorded?.  Thus indicating that the ethnicity code is unavailable 
for 11.3% of this population. 
 
 Analysis of individual case files found that discrepancies existed in front-line 
recording issues. Recording of ethnicity of children is not automatic at the point of 
referral and this data is gathered when identity issues are explored during work with 
the child and family. Where this data has been omitted at the point of referral or 
wrongly entered (as was evident in 16% of case files reviewed) this may give a 
skewed picture of the extent of referrals (either over or under-representation) of 
children within certain ethnic categories. For example, child categorised as Black 
Caribbean when they are actually of mixed Black Caribbean and White heritage.  
 
 Need codes for referral were also subject to levels of variation in usage, with ?other? 
(Need code N9) providing extremely limited information. Where ?other? or ?no ethnicity? 
is recorded we cannot predict the likelihood of  cases relating to children from specific 
ethnic groups or with particular types of need proceeding until the child received a 
protection plan or became looked after. Only one need code is mentioned on each 
referral which makes it difficult to establish when needs change over time. 
  
 Although the team understood that all data relating to unaccompanied asylum 
seeking children had been removed from the cases analysed it would appear 
possible ? based upon findings from the data-analysis (specifically  some Black 
African children who were classified as ?other? rather than under the appropriate 
ethnic group - see Chapter 3) that some cases may have fallen within this category,  
 
 Referrals fail to provide information on the person who is the cause of  concern or 
danger to the child and thus not only does omission of this fact make it difficult to 
predict whether a situation is on-going or if a child will only receive an initial referral 
(for example if a report pertaining to domestic violence is resolved at an early stage 
by the alleged perpetrator leaving the household) or whether specific 
circumstances/individuals can be identified as representing a trend which could 
 7 
potentially be taken into account in pro-active planning for child protection. 
 
 The implementation of the Integrated Care System (ICS) in Buckinghamshire in 2007  
created a relatively abrupt transition from paper to electronic files. As a result, many 
of the files reviewed have not been fully updated on the electronic system, and much 
data is still held on the paper file.  Although some back-dated data has been entered, 
for many cases, information prior to 2009 is missing from the electronic files meaning 
that staff (and the research team) have to request access to paper versions which 
can be a lengthy process. The inability to easily access previous existing paper files 
means that a potential exists for recording errors to be replicated if data has not been 
accurately entered onto the database and/or a social worker is awaiting access to 
paper files from storage. 
 
 As a result of the change to ICS some CLA files do not have comprehensive details 
recorded, including potential under-recording of placement moves, and period in care.  
ICS files opened after 2009 are more likely to have complete data recorded although 
some concerns still exist over accuracy - e.g. in relation to use of ethnic codes, needs 
category etc.   
 
Findings from analysis of Referral Statistics in Buckinghamshire 
? Although the situation in Buckinghamshire is broadly similar to the national 
picture some differences were found:  
 
? The White population are slightly under represented in the child welfare 
statistics. 
 
? Both the Asian and Mixed ethnicity groups appear to be slightly over 
represented amongst children aged 4 to 11 years, however, there appears to 
be greater proportionality in children and young people over the age of 12 
years. 
 
? Black children and young people are considerably over?represented in both 
age groups. This might account for the fact that there a greater proportion of 
Black youth who come into contact with the child protection system at a later 
age. 
 
? The likelihood of receiving a subsequent referral is very slightly increased for 
children who are younger at the age of initial referral and of British 
Bangladeshi origin; and less likely for children of British African and, Mixed 
White and Black Caribbean origins.  
? Amongst children aged 1-4 years of age ?Mixed Other? children are nearly 2.5 
times as likely as White British children to be re-referred. Mixed White & 
Asian; Mixed White & Black African and Black British Other are all over 1.5 
times as likely to be re-referred at this life stage. 
 
? A decrease in referrals is found amongst mixed ethnicity children as they 
become older. It is presumed that this is because mixed ethnicity children 
about whom concerns exist will already have come to the attention of social 
care professionals at a younger age than other groups, perhaps as a result of 
 8 
early stressors and lack of family support for parents, whom research 
suggests have an increased likelihood of being young White female care 
leavers.  
 
? The British African and Mixed Other ethnic groups are very unlikely to receive 
a Child protection plan in comparison to their White British counterparts, this 
appears to be despite fairly high levels of abuse and neglect recorded for 
these two groups at the point of referral.  Additionally British Caribbean 
children are also significantly less likely to be given a care plan although this 
is likely to relate to the age of referral which is often during teenage years for 
males from this community  
? Children whose referral needs are associated with abuse and neglect are 
most likely to proceed to a child protection plan and/or become looked after 
regardless of their ethnicity. 
? Two factors that strongly predict the likelihood of a child/ young person 
becoming looked after are an older age at referral and absent parenting (often 
associated with being an unaccompanied minor).  Absent parenting confers 
over 17 times the risk of entering into the looked after children system over 
and above the risk conferred by abuse and neglect. 
? For most ethnic groups there is little difference in the age at referral of males 
and females.  However Mixed White/Asian males are referred at a 
considerably earlier age in comparison to their female counterparts (average 
of 5.15 years of age compared to 7.1 years), and the White British group (8 
years for males and 8.62 for females). In the British Bangladeshi group there 
was a similar gender difference (average 7.67 years for males in comparison 
to 9.5 years for females) Referral periods by gender show no significant 
difference other than longer periods of contact with social care 
agencies/duration of CPP for Mixed Asian/White males (197.5 days in 
comparison to 147.5 days) although this may be accounted for by younger 
age at referral. 
? Those most over represented in the referrals made when the children were 
aged 1-4 years are the Mixed White & Asian group.  British Bangladeshi; 
British Pakistani and Mixed White and Black Caribbean children also 
demonstrate a slightly increased likelihood of referral when compared with 
their White British counterparts within this age-range. 
 
? Findings indicate that Asian (specifically Bangladeshi and Pakistani) children 
who are at risk are first identified when entering school and thus come to the 
attention of social care agencies at primary school age.  
 
? Mixed White & Asian children have almost seven times the likelihood of 
receiving a subsequent referral as children from other ethnic groups if a first 
referral is made pre-birth. 
 
For cases which proceed to CPP:  
? In comparison to the White majority group Asian children are far less likely to 
be considered for child protection on the basis of emotional and sexual abuse, 
 9 
multiple forms of abuse or neglect.  However, they are more than twice as 
likely to be subject to a protection plan under the category of physical abuse.  
? With regard to cases concerning Black children and young people, little 
variation exists between this group and their White counterparts in the 
likelihood of receiving a CPP for emotional abuse, neglect and multiple forms 
of abuse. They are far less likely than White British children to be identified as 
having issues of physical or sexual abuse. 
? It is in cases of Mixed ethnic group children that considerable over 
representation is identified in each of the abuse categories, with the exception 
of multiple forms of abuse.  At the most extreme these children and young 
people are four times more likely to be identified as experiencing sexual 
abuse and three times more likely to have been identified as experiencing 
physical abuse.  
Review of Case Files (both Child Protection and Children Looked After)  
Sixty two percent CP/CLA cases relating to BME children and comparative 6.1% 
of White British/White Other cases were examined to determine routes into Child 
Protection and the  Looked After system and to determine whether actions taken 
and information provided were congruent with the child?s ethnicity code and 
service provision.  
Ethnic coding, categories of need and actions undertaken formed the primary 
data source. In some cases a review of the paper file was also required to clarify 
information, for example where a child?s case had initially been opened in a hard 
copy file and only some information had been transferred to the electronic 
system. In this section of the review the CP pre-conference report(s); initial/core 
assessments, CLA paperwork, family tree, chronology and case notes were all 
reviewed. 
Out of the files reviewed, data recording issues were of concern in at least 26 
cases (16% of the sample) where discrepancies existed in terms of incorrectly 
identified race/ethnicity. Significant concerns must therefore apparently exist on 
the accuracy of a) returns to the DCSF pertaining to ethnicity and more 
importantly b) whether children?s identity needs are appropriately met if 
inaccurate recording of their ethnic origin remains uncorrected on the file. 
 
Disparity 
Examination of databases giving reasons for referral to social care, referral 
outcomes and the likelihood of children from some ethnic minority communities 
proceeding to a child protection plan or becoming looked after, demonstrate 
trends which are indicative of disparity for some BME communities.  
The depth review of 61% of |CP/CLA case files relating to BME children and a 
comparative sample of 6.2% of White British and White Other cases, indicates 
good practice in the face of extremely heavy caseloads and lack of resources and 
that social workers are first and foremost concerned for the safety of the child or 
children regardless of their ethnicity, but that disparity does exist in some cases 
relating to BME families.  
 
Specifically disparity exists in terms of lack of targeted resources and contact with 
some communities in Buckinghamshire leading to later and more serious referrals 
or decisions being made at an earlier stage after referral to place a child on a CPP 
 10 
or for the child to become looked after.  Case files reviewed found, in some cases, 
a limited understanding of the needs of certain communities and/or children 
(specifically those children of dual or multiple ethnic heritage). Lack of appropriate 
support or access to preventative services has in some cases led to less positive 
outcomes for some families ? e.g. earlier or targeted support for White mothers of 
dual/multiple heritage children and young Black African or Caribbean lone parents 
may potentially have enabled some children to remain with birth families rather 
than proceeding to adoption.  
 
Focus Group Findings 
Two focus groups were undertaken with social care professionals to explore 
themes emergent from the data analysis and case file reviews, one with 
management level staff, and one with front-line practitioners. Although the same 
topic guide was utilised with both groups, within the first focus group (undertaken 
with six Team Managers and one specialist independent worker from both North 
and South of the County) the focus was on strategic planning of services and the 
impacts of inappropriate or inaccurate classification of children?s ethnicity on 
providing a good quality service. In the second group five social workers who were 
between five and thirty-one years qualified were present, working within a range of 
teams: ICS, Children with Disabilities, Care and Protection and Adoption.  
 
The key themes which emerged from the qualitative focus groups concerned 
predominantly: 
 Staff culture in relation to recording data and lack of awareness of 
importance of statistical accuracy (this is not a problem in terms of practical 
working with families, merely in recording accurately). 
 
 Uncertainty about ethnicity in some circumstances and not wishing to offend 
families by stressing the issue 
 
 Over-stretched and under-resourced practice impacting on work-load 
 
 Lack of knowledge in relation to some communities and uncertainty in 
working with certain families 
 
 The limited contacts with some community groups leading to difficulties in 
establishing preventative work or effective lines of communication 
 
Workers appeared to be concerned first and foremost with the safety and welfare 
of children of all ethnic groups. What is lacking in some cases is access to support 
for working with families, and with families in need of services. Comprehension of 
the need for strategic approaches to recording of ethnicity and how this can 
impact on county level resourcing is often low amongst front line practitioners. The 
lack of a clear county-wide strategy for engaging with the diverse communities 
present in Buckinghamshire appears to be counter-productive in terms of 
supporting vulnerable BME families.  
 
Recommendations 
 
The Recommendations arising from this report fall into three categories:  
 11 
 Issues around accurate recording of Ethnicity/Need: 
 Engaging with potential disparity issues ? and awareness relating to 
support and preventative services appropriate to particular communities  
 Preventative Work ? in particular those which are directed at particularly 
vulnerable groups ? e.g. Care-leavers and young parents of dual/multiple 
heritage children; Bangladeshi women with limited English language 
knowledge caring for young children.  
For a full list of the recommendations, please see pages 78-80. 
 
Conclusion: 
Evidence exists within case files, (supported by the findings from focus groups) that 
staff are critically aware of the need to be sensitive to issues around ethnicity and 
culture when engaged in safeguarding children and supporting them whilst living out 
of the family home. Where disparity does exist this appears to relate to lack of 
knowledge of available resources; poorly targeted services or lack of cultural 
knowledge by staff members. Implementation of the recommendations detailed 
within the report are likely to have  some impact in terms of  engaging staff and 
parents/children at risk and reducing the numbers of children who proceed to 
become subject to a CPP or looked after. However, it is unlikely that 
disproportionality within the child welfare system can be totally eradicated given the 
additional stressors and risk factors associated with the ?ethnic penalty?,  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 12 
List of Figures & Tables 
 
 
Table 1: (Children looked after, starting to be looked after and ceasing to  
be looked after compared with whole population data by ethnic group 
 - reproduced from Owen and Statham 2009:32)     29 
 
Table 2: (Age of children at first becoming looked after by ethnic group 
 (national statistics) - reproduced from Owen and Statham 2009:35)  30 
 
Table 3:  Fertility Rates by Ethnic Groups (Components of change 
2001-2003 ? ?natural change?)       31 
 
Table 4: Children Looked After at 31/3/09 (number and %) by ethnic origin 
and local authority (Buckinghamshire and comparator authorities)  32 
 
Table 5: School Age children by main categories of ethnicity expressed  
as a (rounded) percentage of population (DCSF school census returns,  
2009) and as percentage of looked after children (DCSF looked after  
children data, 2009).  Buckinghamshire and four comparator authorities 34 
 
Table 6: Disproportionality of child welfare referrals in Buckinghamshire 38 
 
Table 7: Predicting Subsequent Referral      40 
 
Table 8: Predictors of becoming subject to a CPP     41 
 
Table 9: Predictors of becoming looked after (CLA)    41 
 
Table 10: Age at referral, duration of referral by ethnic group   45 
 
Table 11: Comparison of Need Code by Ethnic Group (Only or First  
Referral sample)         48 
 
Table 12: Comparison of Need Code by Ethnic Group  
(Subsequent Referral sample)       50 
 
Table 13: Comparison of Need Category between Ethnic Groups  
for all CPP Cases.         52 
 
Table 14 Comparison of Need Category between Ethnic Groups   53 
for all CP Cases. 
 
Table 15 Need Code by Age Group (Lone/First referral Sample)   54 
 
Table 16 Comparison of Age of Child at Referral by Ethnic Group  55 
 
Table 17 Comparison of Age of Child at Re-Referral by Ethnic Group 57 
 
Table 18 CPP cases - Age of Child at Referral by Ethnic Group  59 
 13 
 
Table 19 Likelihood of Re-referral by Ethnic Group    61 
 
Table 20 Comparison of Child Protection Plan Categories by   62 
Collapsed Ethnic Groups 
 
Table 21 Comparison of Child Protection Plan Categories   63 
by Ethnic Group 
 
Table 22 Files Reviewed by Ethnic Group     65 
  
 
Figures 
 
Figure 1: Estimated Marginal Means of Age on Date of Referral  42 
 
Figure 2: Estimated Marginal Means of Duration of Referral   43 
 
Figure 3: Files Reviewed by Ethnic Group      66 
 
Figure 4: Gender Breakdown of Reviewed Files    67 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
            
      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 14 
 
 
Chapter 1 
Introduction/Research Background 
 
 
The purpose of the evaluation which forms the basis of this report was to explore the 
data pertaining to Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) children in contact with 
Buckinghamshire County Council social care teams between April 2006 and 
September 2009 to ascertain whether evidence exists which may suggest either 
under or over representation of BME children amongst the population who are 
subject to referral, become ?looked after? (LAC) or subject to a child protection plan 
(CPP). 
 
Specific aims of this project consisted of: 
 
 Identifying whether any indications of disproportionality exist (specifically, 
whether a higher or lower percentages of BME children are LAC or subject to 
a CPP than would be expected given the size of the BME population resident 
within Buckinghamshire when compared to the ?white?/non-BME population)1. 
To this end, data in the public domain pertaining to comparator local 
authorities was also examined (see Chapter 3 for a discussion on the 
limitations of the methodology employed) to enable consideration of whether 
the patterns found in Buckinghamshire were within standard parameters or 
represented significant variations from broadly similar localities.  
 Investigating whether any evidence exists which may explain findings or 
indicate specific patterns in relation to the history/referral routes of BME 
children who are LAC or subject to a CPP (e.g. increased disability rates 
amongst some communities; numbers of unaccompanied asylum seeking 
children; etc.) 
 To consider whether further areas for investigation were required ? e.g. 
around the extent of BCC?s engagement with specific communities ? a factor 
which might potentially impact on timing of referrals and intervention. 
 To explore with social care professionals (children and families ? ?front-line? 
social workers and managers) their understanding of factors which may 
potentially lead to differing patterns of engagement or perceptions of/actual 
disparity in service delivery and/or outcomes when engaging with BME 
communities (e.g. poor record-keeping which fails to correctly identify ethnic 
origin of child on case files; limited contact with certain communities so that 
cases referred may have reached a greater level of severity before social care 
staff are alerted to concerns). 
                                              
1
  We note here that significant difficulties for undertaking nuanced analysis inherent in use of 
reductionist terminology and pre-existing administrative categories such as ?black? and ?white? (ONS, 
2003). In particular we note that particular categories of ?white? minority ethnic children e.g. Roma; 
Turkish; etc. are likely to remain un-identified and under-represented in both national and local data 
sets as a result of being subsumed within the category of ?white other?. Nb: Gypsy/Roma and Traveller 
of Irish Origin were first introduced as ethnic categories in DCSF looked after children returns in 2009. 
 15 
 To make a series of cost-limited/fiscally-neutral recommendations to assist 
BCC in shaping the direction of training needs and data recording protocols 
identified as arising from this project.   
 
Buckinghamshire County Council commissioned Buckinghamshire New University to 
undertake this research following an OFSTED review which was critical of the 
apparent over-representation of BME children within LAC and CPP statistics within 
the County.  This short report (which is the primary output of the rapid responsive 
evaluation) is therefore directly concerned with evaluating the factors which might 
lead to apparent or actual disproportionality of BME children within relevant statistical 
categories and exploring whether any evidence exists to indicate disparity (unequal 
treatment of BME children) in processes leading up to a child becoming looked after 
or subject to a CPP.     
 
When reading this report ? certain caveats must be taken into account ? (explained 
in further detail within the Methods and Findings chapters).  
 
a) Paucity of base line data impacting on accurate identification of the size of the 
BME population in Buckinghamshire (see below) which could lead to 
identification of disproportionality or an excessive rate of referral/CPP/LAC for 
children in certain categories.  
 
b) Discrepancies in front-line recording issues ? specifically those in relation to 
recording of ethnicity of children where this data may have been omitted at 
the point of referral or wrongly entered (as was evident in 16% of cases 
reviewed in depth and 11.3% of the referral statistics). Inevitably this may give 
a skewed picture of the extent of referrals (either over or under-
 representation) of children within certain ethnic categories. 
 
c) Need codes for referral were also subject to levels of variation in usage, with 
?other? (Need code N9) providing extremely limited information which could not 
be utilised to predict the likelihood of cases relating to children from specific 
ethnic groups or with particular types of need, proceeding until the child 
received a protection plan or became looked after. 
 
d) Although the team understood that all data relating to unaccompanied asylum 
seeking children had been removed from the cases analysed it would appear 
possible ? based upon findings from the data-analysis (see Chapter 3) that 
some cases fell within this category. 
 
e) The data set analysed was based upon referrals rather than unique case 
numbers and thus it has proved difficult to focus on individual cases and 
follow their history of contact with the social care team. 
 
f) Where referral codes have varied across time, these have not been updated 
presenting a static view of the situation for any given case. 
 
g) Referrals fail to provide information on the person who is the cause of  
concern or danger to the child and thus not only does omission of this fact 
make it difficult to predict whether a situation is on-going or if a child will only 
 16 
receive an initial referral (for example if a report pertaining to domestic 
violence is resolved at an early stage by the alleged perpetrator leaving the 
household) or whether specific circumstances/individuals can be identified as 
representing a trend which could potentially be taken into account in pro-
 active planning for child protection. 
 
h) The implementation of the Integrated Care System in 2007 (April for the North 
of the County; June for the South) created a relatively abrupt transition from 
paper to electronic files. The shift between different types of data storage 
means that some CLA files do not have comprehensive details recorded, 
including potential under-recording of placement moves, and period in care.  
ICS files opened after 2009 are more likely to have complete data recorded 
although some concerns still exist over accuracy - e.g in relation to use of 
ethnic codes, needs category etc. 
 
i) The analysis undertaken on referral datasets found that it was impossible to 
identify children who were members of the same family. Accordingly an 
apparent over-representation of a relatively small ethnic group might in some 
cases be explained by a series of referrals relating to one or two relatively 
large families ? thus indicating issues faced by one family rather than 
reflective of disproportionality, disparity or particular concerns faced by 
members of any specific ethnic group.      
 
 
The report is structured as follows: Chapter 2 contains a brief literature review which 
identifies key recent texts and research findings which are relevant to a study of 
disproportionality, disparity, access to services for children from BME populations 
and potential explanations for statistical findings. In Chapter 3 the stages of the 
research undertaken are explained, and the limitations of the study (referred to in 
brief above) are expanded upon. The following two chapters present the findings 
from the research ? firstly the quantitative findings which have emerged from the 
review of referral statistics and depth analysis of a selection of case files and in the 
Qualitative Data chapter, the results of focus groups undertaken with managers and 
front line children and family staff. In Chapter 6 a series of recommendations are 
made arising from the findings and limitations of the data identified throughout the 
report. 
 
In undertaking this research we would like to express our thanks to the 
commissioning team and social workers who have provided us with support in 
accessing staff and sources of data drawn upon in this study. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 17 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chapter 2 
Literature Review 
 
It has been recognised for many years that black and dual heritage/mixed ethnicity 
children are over-represented in looked after children statistics (Butt & Mirza, 1996) 
whilst Asian children are present in such statistics at a lower rate than is to be 
expected given their numbers in the overall population (Bebbington & Miles, 1989). 
Despite the persistence of these figures and concerns raised within the literature that 
these patterns of under and over-representation may result from lack of access to 
appropriate preventative services (Hunt et.al., 1999; Butt & Box, 1998; Greene et al., 
2008);  only limited explanatory categories ? each of which will be discussed in more 
detail below ? have been proposed to explain this phenomenon: 
 
? that BME children are more likely to be resident in larger, poorer, more 
socially excluded households with higher rates of parental and child disability 
present within the household (Bebbington & Beecham, 2003; Ahmad, 2000; 
Chamba et al., 1999;  
? that a number of variables exist in relation to entry into and histories whilst in 
the care system for children from certain minority groups such as age of 
becoming looked after;  (Chand, 2000; Hunt et al., 1999) 
? that families from BME populations may be reluctant to engage with services 
for a variety of cultural reasons including inappropriate or inaccessible 
services or that disparity may exist in terms of practitioners treatment of BME 
children and families with whom they engage, for example at key decision 
making points or when particular pathways are selected such as placement 
away from home, investigation of allegations of abuse or neglect, or offering 
services. (Flynn, 2002; Chahal, 2004; Kellett & Apps, 2009) 
 
The DCSF commissioned research carried out by Owen and Statham (2009) 
undertook the most in-depth exploration to date of disproportionality and disparity in 
relation to BME children in the British child welfare system. That study included a 
comprehensive literature review and also comprised a report on the secondary 
analysis of three datasets of child welfare statistics supplied by the DCSF (Children 
in Need Census; children subject to a CPP/on the CPR and annual statistical 
returns on children looked after). It is not our intention to repeat the excellent 
discussion of relevant literature contained with that report but merely to note key 
themes and texts, supplemented by recently published literature and/or studies 
which may have been excluded in the Owen and Statham review, where they 
appear to us to be relevant in terms of suggesting explanations for the findings 
within the current study. 
 
 18 
The concepts of ?disproportionality? and ?disparity?  
Owen and Statham (2009) comprehensively review the above factors which are 
characteristic of much of the American research into differentials in rates (by 
ethnicity) of presence in child welfare statistics from initial contact with social care 
professionals through to return to family, adoption or closing of a case for other 
reasons. Within a far-ranging report into under/over representation of BME children 
in the American child welfare system Hill (2006) defined disproportionality as 
?differences in the percentage of children of a certain racial or ethnic group in the 
country as compared to the percentage of the children of the same group in the 
child welfare system? and disparity as ?unequal treatment when comparing a racial 
or ethnic minority to a non-minority? (Hill, 2006:3). Disparity which can occur at a 
number of crucial decision making stages e.g. allocation of resources, investigation 
of neglect/abuse or when making a decision in relation to child protection plans, may 
thus arise as a result of institutional racism (Hill, 2004; Riddell-Heaney, 2003). 
 
Comparative International Literature on Disproportionality/Disparity 
  
American studies have tended to focus on several different stages of the child 
welfare to explore whether and where disparity occurs ? these are: reporting of 
concerns; investigation, substantiation of allegations/concerns; what decisions are 
made about placement of a child and when and whether the child exits the case 
system ? for example through being placed with family members; into other foster 
care; adoption or growing up and out of the care placement and whether a child re-
 enters the child welfare system ? for example if a placement breaks down or a child 
returned home is unable to remain there. 
 
Owen and Statham (2009:9) note that whilst Hill (2006) reports that ?race is related 
to ... decision making at almost every stage of the process? the majority of these 
studies fail to explore why such differences occur at different decision making 
stages. In seeking to identify explanatory categories which impact on the decisions 
taken, Owen and Statham refer to Bowser and Jones, (2004) which combined focus 
groups and qualitative interviews with social workers combined with statistical 
analysis of case files to explore disproportionate numbers of BME children in the 
welfare system in San Francisco.   
 
This latter study considered a number of variables ? in particular high levels of 
poverty and substance misuse amongst African American lone mothers; better 
educated/affluent families (who are less likely to be BME) being supported or ?being 
given the benefit of the doubt? when concerns are raised; and African-American 
mothers in crisis receiving limited support from relatives which is in part due to more 
?stable? family members having moved from drugs and crime-ridden inner-city areas 
wherever possible. Further factors identified by Bowser and Jones (2004) include 
increased rates of reporting of abuse/neglect by African-American relatives when 
concerns exist about children ? partially to access support services for families and 
secondly to ensure legal stability where a child is in an unofficial kinship care 
placement.  
Blackstock (2009) in reviewing the limited data on over-representation of First Nation 
children in the welfare system in Canada and drawing comparisons to the situation of 
Aboriginal children in Australia emphasises poverty and social exclusion issues 
 19 
similar to those identified for African-American families, with the additional impacts of 
being displaced national minorities within their traditional lands, a situation which 
creates a further set of identity tensions. Tilbury (2009) reports that both 
disproportionality and disparity beset Aboriginal and Torres Islander children in 
Australian in the child welfare system  finding that ?the data show that child welfare 
interventions are persistently more intrusive for indigenous children, and that levels 
of disproportionality have not improved over time... despite calls by indigenous 
community agencies for more input to decision-making, their participation in the 
Australian child welfare system remains marginal?.  A further Australian study (Kaur, 
2007) reported that an in-depth review of literature found no survey or assessment 
tool used by social workers which was able to explore the concept of cross cultural 
competence within the child protection setting. When combined with limited 
knowledge of some cultural and ethnic groups, this limitation in service providers? 
knowledge may account for disparity in decision making. 
In contrast to studies which found clear disparity and disproportionality between 
ethnic groups, Courtney and Skyles, (2003) reviewing American statistics on 
children in the welfare system ? of all ethnicities - found that surrounding factors 
were often as important as race. The reported that disproportionality decreased in 
the US statistics when larger scale data sets were analysed, specifically when re-
 analysis controlled for poverty and explored factors such as rate of adoption and 
reunification or child?s age and type of placement.  
 
Wulczyn and Lery (2007) noted (particularly interestingly in the light of findings in 
Buckinghamshire pertaining to disproportionality across age/ethnic group ? see 
further under quantitative findings) that in America higher rates of disproportionality 
exist for younger children and teenagers and that such variants by ethnicity are 
lowest in areas with greater poverty, more lone parents, families with lower 
educational status and higher percentages of BME residents. 
 
Whilst the international (overwhelmingly American) studies may comprise 
informative background resources, the significant cultural variations between the UK 
and US/Australia and the rather different child protection systems in each country 
means that it is important not to assume that all the variables or practices identified 
in international settings hold true to Britain. Not least because Asian children 
(identified as being of particular concern in Buckinghamshire due to their 
disproportionate representation in child protection statistics), fail to warrant a 
mention in any American literature we were able to examine.       
  
British Resources on Disproportionality/Disparity 
 
UK studies have consistently reported over-representation of black and ?mixed? 
ethnicity children in child welfare statistics and an under-representation of Asian 
children when compared to their presence in the whole population (Owen & 
Statham, 2009).  
 
Findings from research reports which seek to develop explanatory categories for 
disproportionality, tend to fall into three main groups: demographic explanations; 
cultural variables which lead, for example, to different patterns of entry into the 
 20 
welfare system and thirdly, disparity within the child protection system including in 
access to appropriate preventative services. 
 
Demographic Elements 
Evidence exists to suggest that some categories of BME children; specifically from 
Bangladeshi; Pakistani and Somalian families (Craig, 2005; Modood et al., 1997) 
are vastly over-represented amongst children living in poor households. Platt (2007) 
found that of all BME groups the highest rates of poverty were found amongst 
Bangladeshi, Pakistani and Black African households with two-thirds of Bangladeshi 
families living in poverty. Adult unemployment is often excessively high amongst 
these communities with data from 2005/6 finding that 60% of Bangladeshi and 66% 
of Pakistani men were working, in contrast to 78% of Indian and 80% of White 
British males. Female engagement with paid work varies by ethnic group, and 
religious practice (often inextricably linked to culture) also appears to impact on 
employment status and thus the overall wealth of a household.  Overall, 26% of 
Muslim women were employed in 2005/6 in contrast to 62% of Hindu and Sikh 
females. In that same year 23% of Bangladeshi females were reported to be in paid 
work as opposed to 65% of Black Caribbean and ?mixed? ethnic women (Spence, 
2007). 
 
Poverty rates are also linked to living in larger families, with over 50% of households 
with three or more children likely to be poor, despite the fact that only one third of 
households in the UK are in families with this number of children and only ten 
percent of families have four or more dependent children. Of families with three or 
more dependent children, most of the poorest are members of BME communities, 
particularly of Bangladeshi or Pakistani origins (Bradshaw et al., 2006).  Ghate and 
Hazel (2002) found that despite often living amongst extended community networks, 
minority ethnic families tended to have relatively small support networks on which 
they could draw. Platt (2007) however reported that Bangladeshi and Pakistani 
families had fairly high levels of informal social contact (albeit this does not 
necessarily equate to support), but Black Caribbean and Black African women 
(particularly lone mothers) often reported feeling isolated. For BME families living in 
an area where they are part of a very small community, or indeed households where 
residents are a minority group within a larger or different BME population, greater 
risk of social isolation inevitably exist.  Sinclair et al. (2007) reported that the 25% 
sample of BME children in a 7,000 study of looked after children were more likely 
that white children to enter into care for reasons connected to poverty and 
disadvantage.  
 
Harriss and Salway (2008) in summarising the literature on ethnicity, long-term 
illness and poverty noted disparity in access to support and take up of both benefits 
and services amongst BME communities. When combined with evidence that 
disability rates amongst both adults and children are higher in BME households, 
particularly those Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Black Caribbean and (increasingly), Black 
African (ONS, 2004; ONS, undated; Bebbington & Beecham, 2003; Ahmad, 2000; 
Chamba et al., 1999) it is likely that the demographic issues outlined above are 
likely to explain at least certain elements of disproportionality at both referral and 
subsequent stages.  
 
 21 
The under-representation of Asian children in child welfare statistics is noteworthy 
given the increased risk of extreme poverty and exclusion faced by some 
communities. We consider below the research evidence in relation to lack of take-up 
of services/disparity in services offered, which may a) potentially lead to those 
children coming into contact with child welfare services being at greater risk by the 
time social care has engaged with the family, and b) mean that some Asian 
communities may feel particularly reluctant to report concerns in relation to child 
protection for a combination of reasons, including fear of stigma or belief that 
children?s welfare and protection could best be met by accessing support from within 
the family. Alternatively, it could be argued that under-representation in welfare 
statistics is in fact reflective of the degree of levels of parenting support available to 
families. Selwyn et al. (2008) reported that Asian children in the care system were 
most often initially referred in connection with acute stress within the family leading 
to risk of neglect or abuse ? tending to support the supposition that families with 
strong social networks and relatively large communities will only be in contact with 
social care agencies once internal communities resources have been exhausted. 
 
Welfare Contacts/Care Pathways for BME Children 
A second common explanation for under and over representation of BME children in 
welfare statistics consists of examining variables which impact on timing and nature 
of contact with professional agencies. 
 
One group of studies has indicated that cultural factors may be highly relevant in 
identifying the age at which, and reasons why, children from certain communities first 
come into contact with the welfare system. However, no clear conclusions can be 
drawn from reviews of research which explore issues ranging from parental attitudes 
towards corporal punishment; intra-community acceptability of reporting neglect and 
abuse, and stressors which may lead to referral (Chand & Thoburn, 2005b). 
 
Thoburn et al. (2005) found that whilst physical abuse referrals for BME parents 
were no more likely than for ?White? parents, some communities (particularly Black 
Caribbean and Black African parents were more likely to have used an implement to 
hit a child than were White parents. Similarly, referrals for children being left  ?home 
alone? were more commonly found within Black African families, which may be either 
reflective of safe and acceptable parenting practices when within a close knit 
community with family support available or related to low income and inability to pay 
for childcare when working (Gibbons and Wilding, 1995).   Analysis of pathways to 
care by ethnic origin (Selwyn et al, 2008) found that mixed ethnicity and white 
children were most commonly referred over concerns about neglect; Asian children 
for severe family stress leading to a risk of neglect or abuse and Black Caribbean 
and Black African children for physical abuse.  
 
Selwyn et al. (2008) noted however that the age of referral and contact with child 
welfare systems varied considerably by ethnicity (as we have found in the 
Buckinghamshire sample see Chapter 4). Their report found that physical abuse 
referrals amongst Black children were generally in relation to older children (as 
opposed to infants or very young primary school age)  who may therefore (we can 
extrapolate) be engaging in challenging behaviours leading to parents perceiving of 
themselves as ?chastisting?  rather than physically abusing their children. Kellett and 
Apps (2009:3) quote a Black Caribbean family support worker as saying ?African and 
 22 
West Indian families? culture is ? ?I got beat when I was younger, didn?t do me any 
harm? and from a personal point of view I can see where they?re coming from but 
you?ve got to try to help them to understand that they need to find different ways of 
dealing with their child?s challenging behaviour?.  Irfan and Cowburn, (2004) reported 
that of a sample of fifty 16-25 year old British Pakistani women, 75% reported they 
had been physically chastised  with 65% stating that they had been slapped, 50%  
punched and 42% spanked, hit with a shoe or pushed ? however over 74% of 
respondents felt that had not been abused but suitably chastised for unacceptable 
behaviour. Cultural variations may also explain some unwillingness to report 
concerns to social care agencies if physical punishment meted out to young people 
and children is regarded as being within acceptable community norms which may be 
at odds with child protection presumptions. Barn (2006) found however that no major 
differences existed between ethnic groups when parents were asked to consider 
attitudes towards physical punishment of children aged 7 to 11 years of age. 
 
The NSPCC (2007) study on attitudes to child protection amongst South Asian 
families found that amongst the sample of 500 participants, over a third had 
suspected that a child was being abused within their community, but of these 
around half had not reported their concerns. Where no report had been made, the 
major reason given was that ?Izzat? (family honour) of not only the child and family 
suspected of abusing or neglecting a child would be compromised if such a report 
was made, but also the individual who had made the report and their family would 
also risk having their own Izzat compromised if they spoke about the alleged abuse 
or neglect.  Sexual abuse, followed by physical and emotional abuse were regarded 
as most compromising to Izzat and causing Sharam (shame). Gilligan and Akhtar 
(2006) in a qualitative exploration of barriers to reporting child abuse concerns found 
similar concerns expressed by women in their sample. Selwyn et al. (2008) noted 
that mixed ethnicity Asian children were likely to be given up for adoption to 
preserve family Izzat.   
 
Chand (2000) and Hunt (1999) note however that an interplay between cultural 
factors, stressors, gender and child?s age at contact with the welfare system are all 
likely to be significant. Sinclair et al. (2007) in a study of looked after children found 
proportionately more girls from the Pakistani and Indian communities than boys and 
that Mixed White and Black African, Mixed White and Asian, Pakistani and 
Bangladeshi children were proportionately more likely to enter into care as babies 
under the age of one year. In contrast, African children were significantly more likely 
to become looked after as teenagers. A study of 200 BME children placed for 
adoption (Selwyn et al., 2008) found that children of mixed ethnicity (predominantly 
Caribbean or Asian fathers and White mothers) were overwhelmingly referred prior 
to one year of age and that in many cases the mothers were themselves care 
leavers. The generalisability of findings relating to Black or Asian children was low as 
a result of sibling groups and small numbers of cases, however, age and ethnicity 
were found to be the main determinants for whether adoption occurred. Babies were 
ten times more likely to be adopted than children over the age of three and mixed 
ethnicity children four times more likely to be adopted than those of Asian heritage ? 
a factor potentially linked to availability of Asian adoptive parents and the wider pool 
of potential adoptive parents for mixed heritage children.   
 
 23 
The final category of explanations which emerges from research studies into 
disproportionality within the child welfare system concerns inaccessibility or services 
which may assist families in crisis, and/or disparity of treatment of BME children and 
families with whom social care professionals come into contact.  
 
Institutional Racism and Disparity  
Significant concerns over institutional racism and the ways in which this may impact 
on social care professionals? engagement with and treatment of cases involving 
BME families have been raised in a number of high profile serious case reviews 
(Harran, 2002), not least, that of Victoria Climbie (Chand, 2003).  A number of 
commentators have expressed concerns that accepted anti-oppressive practice 
within social care may in itself potentially be racist and endanger children from BME 
communities through ignoring or failing to recognise situations of harm (Healy, 2005; 
Humphreys et al., 1999; Riddell-Heaney, 2003).   
 
Owen and Statham (2009:16) reviewing the limited studies on decision making and 
ethnicity report that ?anecdotal accounts?suggest that professionals ... may be 
more reluctant to act because of fears of offending community sensibilities or being 
accused of racism . however research studies provide little evidence to support 
this?. Gordon and Gibbons (1998) found no difference between white and BME 
children in terms of likelihood of being placed on the child protection register. 
Vulnerability factors such as parental mental health; substance abuse; step-parents 
in the household or the criminal record of a parent were more likely to impact on 
decisions in relation to child protection. Brophy et al. (2003) also found that 
concerns for children?s wellbeing were based on substantive grounds and that by 
the time a case reached court ?cultural conflict? e.g. in acceptability of behaviour 
such as physical chastisement, were ?rarely pivotal? in deciding whether thresholds 
had been met (Owen and Statham, 2009:16).   
 
Selwyn et al. (2008) reported that no systematic bias existed in decision making 
concerning BME children although social workers were often more hesitant and 
sometimes confused over how to best to meet the needs of BME children. Boushel 
and Sharma (1995) noted the importance of ensuring that out of home placements 
supported a child?s identity and that dual heritage children had specific needs in 
finding a suitably matched placement. The balancing act between retaining a child 
at home in the absence of suitable alternative carers or alternatively placing a dual 
heritage child in a household where carers could only match or meet  some of their 
identity support needs have to be balanced against undue delay in placing a child in 
a safe environment. Harman (2010) found that social workers of young white lone 
parents with dual heritage children often failed to engage with the extent of the 
racism and disapproval (from both their own and the child?s father?s family) 
experienced by mothers. Competing perspectives over whether a child was black or 
mixed ethnicity means that service providers and service users alike were often 
confused over lack of information, with social workers often explicitly criticising 
mothers or labelling them as ?racist? or ?politically unaware? of their children?s 
experiences because of their privileged ethnic position or lack of knowledge over 
(for example) care of black hair or skin.  
 
Boushel (2008) in reviewing the research on the experiences of vulnerable, poor, 
young multiracial families expressed concerned over how practitioners often failed 
 24 
to engage with issues of family structure, locality and racism in supporting parents 
with young children. Given that Owen and Statham (2009:45) report that dual 
heritage children are most likely to become looked after below the age of seven, a 
clear role exists for enhancing early years practice and knowledge in relation to 
mixed heritage families, particularly when only one parent is providing care, a factor 
which is a stressor and leads to an increased likelihood of engagement with social 
care services for families of any ethnicity (Brandon, et al.1999; Devaney, 2009).   
 
Whilst on the balance of evidence (both in our evaluation of case files in 
Buckinghamshire - see Chapter 3 - and from reviewing the existing literature) we 
would support Williams and Soydan?s (2005) findings that social workers react in 
similar ways to any safeguarding referral ? emphasising the need to protect the child 
regardless of a child?s supposed  ethnicity ? we would endorse Barn?s (2007) call to 
context. Barn (2007: 1432) emphasises the need to take a nuanced perspective 
when engaging with BME families, noting that given ?political, cultural and 
professional perspectives on race and ethnicity have important consequences  for 
minority ethnic children and families, the social work profession needs 
to?.[incorporate] a critical culturalist perspective? involve a paradigm shift from 
essentialist notions of race which view culture in rigid and inflexible ways to one in 
which cultural sensitivity is understood within the context of power relations?. 
Accordingly, the necessity of ensuring that services are not regarded as universally 
accessible, and the importance of acknowledging barriers to engagement with BME 
families, has the potential to impact on the success of preventative child protection 
strategies and reduce disproportionality in welfare statistics. 
 
Availability and Appropriateness of Services for BME Families 
Research findings persistently identify concerns that support services may not be 
appropriate or accessible for BME families. Where overt or covert barriers to 
engagement with support and preventative services exist, the inevitable corollary is 
a greater likelihood of children coming into contact with social care  agencies at 
points of extreme crisis leading to more episodes of care, or, perhaps more 
alarmingly, that families are not in contact with child welfare systems at all, despite 
children being at risk, or actively experiencing harm.   
 
Hunt et al. (1999) reported that as an overall group BME children are more likely to 
come into contact with social care agencies at times of crisis, and that moreover 
families have often not been known to social workers previously or, had not been in 
receipt of preventative or support services. Whilst cultural barriers (considered 
above) may offer some explanation for these discrepancies in care pathways, the 
systemic failure of social care agencies to engage with vulnerable families has been 
alleged by some commentators or BME community groups (Chahal, 2004: Butt & 
Mirza, 1996; Butt & Box, 1998; Greene, et al.,2008).  Barn et al. (1997), reported 
that Black Caribbean and Black British children were more likely to be placed away 
from home quickly, followed by ?mixed? ethnicity, Asian and then White children 
indicating that limited support was available to enable children to remain with their 
carers or that their circumstances were extremely severe at the point of first 
engagement.  
 
For BME families caring for severely disabled children services tend to be offered 
later support, less frequent respite, and lower cost services (Bebbington & 
 25 
Beecham, 2003; Flynn, 2002). Chamba et al. (1999) found that two-thirds of parents 
caring for a severely disabled child said they needed more breaks from care, yet 
only a quarter of families received short-term breaks. Of a sample of nearly 600 
parents, many families were unaware of respite schemes. Just over half of parents 
interviewed stated that they had positive contacts with professionals although those 
with a dedicated key worker reported receiving more supportive services.    
It has been suggested that cultural issues may impact on take up of services ? 
specifically when interpreters are required or a strong cultural expectation exists of 
caring for children without external agency support (Hatton et al., 2004; Divedi, 
2002) 
 
Problems with receiving interpretation services have been regularly reported for 
families where English is not their first language (Brophy et al., 2003; Brandon, et al. 
1999; Chand & Thoburn, 2005a). Inevitably this impacts significantly on both 
comprehension of access to services and in engaging with child protection 
proceedings or working with service providers. Ashley (2005) found that Family 
Group Conferences which have a good success rate in supporting children to remain 
out of the looked after children system, or to be placed with extended family 
members were often little utilised by BME families, and/or offered to Black and Asian 
families at a lower rate than would be expected given their children?s representation 
in care statistics. 
 
For BME children who do become looked after, and where family carers are 
unavailable (often because of the demographic factors discussed above) coupled 
with difficulties in recruiting foster carers from some communities (Harrison, 2009)  
means that children from Black and Asian communities in particular are likely remain 
in non-culturally matched placements with potential impacts on their identity and 
well-being (Boushel & Sharma, 1995), or if freed for adoption have to wait an 
average of 8 months longer for a family to be found for them than are White children 
(Ivaldi, 2000).   
 
Despite the generally bleak picture in terms of over-representation in poverty 
statistics and lack of accessibility and appropriateness of services for BME families a 
number of examples of good practice exist which are proving effective in supporting 
BME communities in engaging in empowering dialogue with social care providers. 
Whilst initiatives are not necessarily targeted at families engaged with social care 
departments in child protection proceedings, the development of specialist projects 
which assist individuals or groups (for example black learning disabled young adults 
in entering into partnership with social care agencies or Somalian-speaking disabled 
people engaging with direct advocacy ? see further Singh, 2005) to work with social 
care providers create circumstances where further linkages can be built and trust 
developed which will potentially assist in encouraging local BME families in 
accessing services and realising that involvement with social workers does not have 
to be a negative experience.   
 
Caballero et al. (2008) in a study of how parents of ?mixed? children negotiate identity 
and parenting issues found that issues of belonging and difference for their children 
may not be parents' main preoccupation. Although the sample in this study appears 
somewhat biased towards middle class ?intact? families, and contact with social care 
services is not considered within this report, the findings that racial, ethnic or faith 
 26 
difference appear insignificance when compared with issues such as juggling a 
work-life balance, concerns about their children's health, etc. may well provide an 
insight into how parents and extended families of ?mixed? children who are in contact 
with child welfare services perceive of their families ? that ?mixedness? is merely one 
part of their everyday lives and thus of less importance than it appears to social 
workers (and see Harman, 2010 op. cit. for discussion on white lone mothers? lack of 
engagement with politicised notion of race and ethnicity). 
 
Ashley (2005 op. cit. cited in Owen and Statham, 2009:11) found that some Family 
Group Conference projects were successful in engaging with BME families. Page  et 
al. (2007) reviewed the literature on good practice in engaging with BME parents in 
relation to children?s services. In addition they undertook case studies on ten projects 
identified as offering particularly strong guidance and potential for replication. The 
use of staff from specific minority communities and the development of specialist 
services with the support of local community groups or places of worship appear to 
offer a particularly strong model for effective support of parents and families ? 
considerations which will referred to briefly in our recommendations at the end of this 
report.      
 27 
 
Chapter 3 
Context, Methodology (and Limitations of study) 
 
Background Issues 
Undertaking an exploration of disproportionality and disparity within the British child 
welfare system is a relatively complex matter as data on ethnicity is often not 
routinely collected at the point of referral or during early contact with the child 
protection system. Owen and Statham (2009:18) in the leading study on disparity 
and disproportionality, note however that it is possible to identify three consistent 
levels of involvement with services where data on ethnicity is routinely available for 
analysis: Children in Need (most recent CIN census 2005), Children subject to a 
Child Protection Plan (CPP) and Looked After Children (LAC). NB.: in relation to 
CPP statistics by ethnicity (as opposed to gender/actual figures) this data is not 
routinely available in the public domain on a local authority basis and was made 
available to the authors by the DCSF (Owen & Statham 2009:18). In addition to 
secondary analysis of these data sets the research team undertook a review of 
anonymised longitudinal records to explore the likelihood of children from particular 
ethnic groups experiencing more than one period of care, or number of placements 
etc. Use of longitudinal data permitted the team to consider whether 
disproportionality could be a product of children remaining in the care system for a 
longer period of time (showing an over-representation of a particular ethnic group 
relative to their presence in a local population) or if they became looked after at a 
higher rate than would be expected.  
 
In order to consider whether children were over or under-represented in child welfare 
statistics it was necessary for Owen and Statham to calculate the proportion of BME 
children/families in any given area. The only consistent data set available to them 
was the 2001 Census which is inevitably significantly out of date. In our own 
calculations we have been faced with the same difficulty in accessing up to date 
statistical evidence of the BME population of Buckinghamshire. We have therefore 
used such evidence as is available to suggest the likely growth rate of BME 
populations in the local authority area (see Table 3 below) although we have 
hesitated to identify an actual number of children.  However as we suggest below 
(see under limitations) the projected growth rate and supporting evidence in relation 
to numbers of BME children in the education system in Buckinghamshire (Table 5 
below) may indicate that lower rates of disproportionality exists in relation to children 
in contact with Children?s Services  than may at first appear when reliant upon 2001 
Census data.  
 
In order to frame the local area data it is important to consider the national picture in 
relation to representation of BME children in child welfare statisticsIn their review of 
the data sets listed above, Owen and Statham (2009) found some evidence of 
disparity in the treatment of BME children and young people when considering the 
mean odds ratios across England.  However, they also note that there were 
significant differences in the odds ratios produced for each of the ethnic minority 
groups by the different local authorities.  Thus, suggesting that there is little by way 
of uniformity in the inequalities experienced by the BME children across England in 
relation to the white majority children/young people.  
 
 28 
Overall however, their findings indicate that:  
 
 Children/young children of mixed ethnic groups tended to be over 
represented (OR) in all three stages of child welfare intervention: needs 
census (OR 1.75), Child Protection Register (OR 1.75) and Looked 
after Children (OR 2.5).  
 
o This group tend to: 
 
? Be younger that the time of initial referral 
 
? Stay longer in the welfare system 
 
? Be most likely referred for abuse and neglect (Bebbington & 
Beecham, 2003) 
 
? Be least likely referred for absent parenting (ibid) 
 
? Mothers are often care leavers themselves (Selwyn et al., 
2008) 
 
? Mothers typically white and fathers tend to be either Black 
Caribbean or Pakistani (ibid). 
 
 Black children/young people tended to be over represented both in terms 
of the needs census (OR 4.0) and Looked after Children (OR 3.5 ? 10.0) 
 
o Sinclair et al. (2007) reported that Black African children were more 
likely to enter care as teenagers than any other ethnic group 
 
o Selwyn et al. (2008) Black African referrals are most likely to 
mention low income as the primary need 
 
 Conversely, children/ young people of Asian origin tended to be under 
represented at all three stages of intervention; needs census (OR 0.75), 
Child Protection Register (OR 0.33) and Looked after Children (OR 0.5). 
 
o This group consists of those most likely to be referred due to their 
own disability (Bebbington & Beecham, 2003). 
 
o When exploring the issue of gender, females from Indian and 
Bangladeshi backgrounds are found to be over represented in the 
Looked after Children population (Sinclair et al., 2007). 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 29 
Table 1: (Children looked after, starting to be looked after and ceasing to 
be looked after compared with whole population data by ethnic group - 
reproduced from Owen and Statham 2009:32)  
 
 
 
 
Table 1 indicates that the percentages of children becoming looked after tend to vary 
from the percentages derived from the 2001 census data (from which the whole 
population data is drawn). Rate of entry into and leaving the looked after children 
statistics tend to match fairly well ? thus disproportionality appears to be present in 
terms of percentage of children becoming looked after rather than length of time in 
the care system. 
 
Reasons for becoming looked after are (across all ethnic groups) most commonly 
abuse or neglect (accounting for 60% of cases) although this is below 50% for Black 
African and ?other Asian? children and in excess (62-65%) for ?mixed? ethnic groups. 
However, ?absent parenting? as a reason for entry into care (at national level) 
accounts for 21% of Black African children; 19% of ?other Asian? and 24% of ?other? 
Ethnic groups ? leading Owen and Statham to posit (2009:37) that despite the 
intentional exclusion of unaccompanied asylum seeking children from the data sets 
that category slippage has occurred with children in these circumstances being 
coded as having absent parents. They note too that Black African children had a 
high percentage of codes for entering care as a result of  parental illness or disability 
(12%) as opposed to 7% overall for all groups of children. Family dysfunction 
(average all groups 12.8%) and family in acute distress (average 10.3%) were found 
to be below average for children of Bangladeshi, Pakistani, Black African and Indian 
groups but highest amongst BME children for Black Caribbean, and ?other mixed? 
categories. Socially unacceptable behaviour (average all groups 4.9%) was higher 
amongst Black Caribbean children (6.7%) and disability of a child as a reason for 
 30 
becoming looked after at 3.9% across all ethnic groups was only found to be above 
average for Chinese children where it accounted for 12.9% indicating that Chinese 
families felt unable to care for disabled children, potentially for cultural reasons or as 
a result of long working hours and other responsibilities.  
 
Table 2 below considers the average age (across England) at which children enter 
the looked after system. Children in the four ?mixed? categories have the lowest 
mean age for becoming looked after with Bangladeshi and Black African children 
tending to be older before coming into the care system.  
 
 
Table 2: (Age of children at first becoming looked after by ethnic group 
(national statistics) - reproduced from Owen and Statham 2009:35)  
 
 
 
 
The comparative Buckinghamshire statistics (age at contact with social care 
agencies and reasons for contact whilst not directly comparable in many cases, are 
presented in Chapter 4). 
 
In conclusion to the National data: Owen and Statham (2009:45) suggest that whilst 
the factors considered within the literature (in particular lack of access to services 
and engagement issues over child protection with some communities may account 
for disproportionality and discrepancy, many factors including ecological issues 
(poverty, poor housing, disability etc.) impact on a child becoming ?in need? and 
hence more at risk of becoming looked after or subject to a protection plan. 
However, the greater risk of being poverty/social excluded experienced by Asian and 
some Black groups is not necessarily reflected in terms of prevalence rates in CIN 
statistics.  Whilst Black children are over-represented in CIN data they were under-
 represented in terms of CPP statistics although Black and White children become 
present in CPP data at similar rates. Ultimately, Black children are more likely to 
become looked after than White children, which could either mean that they come 
into care for reasons unconnected with their safety(hence no prior CPP for many 
children) or due to a sudden crisis, or that disparity in terms of providing a protection 
plan exists in relation to Black children. Asian children are under-represented within 
all three datasets. Mixed ethnicity children are over-represented in terms of being in 
need, subject to a CPP and looked after. 
 31 
Although Owen and Statham (2009) are unable to offer definitive answers for the 
disproportionality found at national levels, they recommend that local studies be 
undertaken to consider whether variation occurs across local authority districts, that 
ethnicity of children be routinely collected at each pathway or decision-making point 
and that family information data is collated alongside that of the children ? all points 
which we have identified within our own review of the data in Buckinghamshire.  
 
Buckinghamshire Data in Context   
Whilst 2001 Census data suggests that 8% of the population are from ?non-white? 
minority ethnic communities; the 2005 ONS experimental population estimates by 
ethnic group proposed that 10% of Buckinghamshire residents were of BME origins 
(Buckinghamshire Joint Strategic Needs Assessment, 2009: 35).  In the intervening 
five years since the ONS undertook this calculation we can however tentatively posit, 
based upon the ONS population trends and fertility rate by ethnicity calculations 
(Large & Ghosh, 2006) that the BME population of Buckinghamshire will have risen 
broadly in line with the rates detailed in Table 3 - albeit with a compound growth rate 
adding further to the overall size of the population. Platt (2009) found that 20% of 
children across Britain are of ?mixed? race, with 50% of males of Caribbean origin; 
20% of men of African origin and 10% of both male and females of Indian heritage 
being in a relationship with somebody of a different ethnic origin. Accordingly ? the 
BME population of both Buckinghamshire as a whole, and most specifically ?mixed? 
ethnicity children are likely to have risen to a rate which is statistically significant 
when contemplating whether disproportionality exists in terms of their presence 
within LAC and CPP data. 
 
Table 3:  Fertility Rates by Ethnic Groups (Components of change 2001-2003 ? 
?natural change?)  
 
Ethnic Group Natural Growth % 
White British 0.0 
White Irish -1.0 
White Other 0.3 
Mixed White/Black Caribbean 3.4 
Mixed White/Black African 4.0 
Mixed White/Asian 3.8 
Mixed Other 3.4 
Asian/British Asian Indian 0.8 
Asian/British Asian Pakistani 1.9 
Asian/British Asian Bangladeshi 2.1 
Asian/British Asian - Other 1.2 
Black/Black British Caribbean 0.5 
Black/Black British- African 1.9 
Black/Black British ? Other Black 2.3 
 
Source: Large, P.  & Ghosh, K. (2006) Estimates of the population by ethnic group for areas within 
England Population Trends 124:10,  London, ONS 
 
As the first stage of exploring whether disproportionality and disparity exists in 
relation to BME children in Buckinghamshire?s contact with the child welfare system, 
a simple comparison was undertaken measuring Buckinghamshire against 
 32 
authorities with a similar profile to explore the percentage of looked after children 
(LAC) by ethnicity.  
 
Table 4: Children Looked After at 31/3/09 (number and %) by ethnic origin and 
local authority (Buckinghamshire and comparator authorities) 
 
Information extracted from DCSF: Children Looked After in England (including 
adoption and care leavers) year ending 31 March 2009  
 
Local Authority  ETHNIC ORIGIN Numbers  of 
children 
(where 
represented 
as % of total 
LAC - figure in 
brackets) 
  
 Mixed Asian/Asian-
 British 
Black 
/Black-British 
TOTAL BME 
(excludes. 
?other?) 
as % of LAC 
Other 
Ethnic 
Group
 2
  
TOTAL BME 
children (inc. 
?other?) 
expressed as 
% of LAC 
Bucks 40 (13) 10 (4) 20 (6) 23% 20 (6) 29% 
Beds. 25 (10) 20 (8) 10 (3) 21% 15 (6) 27% 
Brack.Forest - - 5 (7) 7% - 7% 
Cambs. 25 (5) 30 (6) 20 (5) 16% 10 (2) 18% 
Hants. 30 (3) 20 (2) 20 (2) 7% 30 (3) 10% 
Herts. 95 (10) 45 (4) 50 (5) 19% 30 (3) 22% 
Oxon 40 (10) 35 (8) 25 (6) 24% 5 (2) 26% 
Surrey 35 (4) 20 (3) 10 (1) 8% 90 (11) 19% 
W. Berks.  
 
- 5 (7) - 7% 5 (6) 13% 
Windsor & 
Maidenhead 
10 (13) - - 13% - 13% 
Wokingham - - - n/a - n/a 
 
Notes:  (from DCSF website) 
 To avoid identification of individual cases - numbers from 1 to 5 inclusive have been 
suppressed, being replaced in the table by a hyphen (-).   
 At local authority level the England totals have been rounded to the nearest 10 in 
compliance with the rule referred to above. 
 Percentages have been rounded to whole numbers unless the numerator  
    was five or less or the denominator was 10 or less, in which case they have been 
    suppressed and replaced by a hyphen. 
 
 
 
As can be seen in Table 4, although Buckinghamshire has a slightly lower 
percentage of BME children in the looked after children system that does 
neighbouring Oxfordshire, ?mixed? ethnicity children experience a greater likelihood 
                                              
2
  Category includes information refused/not available or collected for first time in 2009. nb: 
Gypsy/Roma or Traveller of Irish origin included within ?White? statistics ? first collected in 2009. 
Nationally as of 31/3/09 10 Travellers of Irish Origin and 20 Gypsy/Roma children were recorded as 
being looked after. It is impossible to tell if these children were in the comparator areas above as data 
recorded in compliance with rules listed above. 
 
 
 33 
of becoming looked after (representing 13% of all BME children in care) than they do 
in any comparator authority other than Windsor and Maidenhead where ?mixed? 
ethnicity children represent the sole category of BME children who are looked after. 
However, see further under limitations of the study for a discussion on how data in 
relation to small numbers can be skewed by few family groups ? a factor which is 
more likely to be relevant to Windsor and Maidenhead where only 10 BME children 
account for 13% of all LAC, than in Buckinghamshire where the 13% of LAC who are 
of ?mixed? ethnicity comprise 40 children.    
 
Accordingly in the face of the comparative data, Buckinghamshire LAC statistics do 
appear to show a relatively dramatic over-representation of BME children when 
compared to the headline figure of 10% of residents being from minority ethnic 
communities (Buckinghamshire Joint Strategic Needs Assessment, 2009:35).  
 
In an attempt to extrapolate further the size/percentage of children from BME 
populations in Buckinghamshire and selected comparator authorities, with the intent 
of establishing how great a discrepancy exists in terms of looked after children by 
ethnicity, in Table 5 we have utilised data from the 2009 DCSF school census and 
looked after children returns to indicate the percentages of children by broad ethnic 
group.  
 
Table 5 clearly indicates an increase in children across ?mixed? and Asian ethnic 
groups between secondary and primary school age across all authorities, indicative 
of the rising population of BME children. Given that children of all ethnicities are 
more likely to become looked after at primary school age, disproportionality by ethnic 
group (particularly for ?mixed? ethnicity children), whilst still stark, is slightly less 
marked than when projected ethnicity data is used as a basis for analysis. 
 
In Chapter 4 further comparative detail is provided on Buckinghamshire education 
statistics and contacts with child welfare services by broad ethnic group.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 34 
Table 5: School Age children by main categories of ethnicity3 expressed as a 
(rounded) percentage of population (DCSF school census returns, 2009) and 
as percentage of looked after children (DCSF looked after children data, 2009).  
Buckinghamshire and four comparator authorities4 
 
County Ethnicity Primary School 
census  
Returns (2009) 
Secondary School 
census  
Returns (2009) 
Looked After 
Children - all ages 
(2009) 
Bucks White5 80% 80% 70% 
 Mixed  5% 4% 13% 
 Asian 12% 11%  4% 
 Black  2% 2%  6% 
Oxon White 87% 88% 75% 
 Mixed  4% 3% 10% 
 Asian  5% 4%  8% 
 Black  2% 2%  6% 
Beds. White 84% 86% 74% 
 Mixed  6% 4% 10% 
 Asian  7% 6%  8% 
 Black  3% 2%  3% 
Herts. White 84% 85% 78% 
 Mixed  5% 4% 10% 
 Asian  6% 5%  4% 
 Black  3% 3%  5% 
Cambs. White 91% 91% 81% 
 Mixed  3% 3%  5% 
 Asian  3% 2%  6% 
 Black  1% 1%  5% 
 
 
Methodology of the Study 
 
The research presented in this report was undertaken in four distinct phases: 
 
Firstly, statistical analysis of all referral statistics to children and family teams in 
Buckinghamshire between April 2006 to September 2009 to determine whether and 
where there might be an indication of under and over representation by ethnic group. 
This database included entries for 7,718 unique cases and a further 2,514 additional/ 
subsequent referrals.  It is important to note however, that ethnicity was not recorded for 
873 of the unique cases. 
 
Secondly a review of 162 case files of children referred to Children and Family 
teams and present within the child protection and looked after child databases to 
explore reasons for referral, patterns of referral and decisions made/outcome of 
                                              
3
  Excludes ?other/refused? 
4
  Buckinghamshire and four comparator Local Authorities with highest recorded BME looked after 
children (DCSF, 2009). Excludes ?other? ethnic groups.   
5
  ?White? category in school data includes Gypsy/Roma and Travellers of Irish Heritage. These 
populations were first included under looked after children statistics in 2009 as ?other? ethnic groups. 
 35 
investigation by ethnic group, to examine whether disparity of treatment exists for BME 
children in the study area. The CP and CLA database containing file from April 2006-
 September 2009. A random sample of children?s files was selected for review. Whilst the 
files of all children identified as being of BME origins were included with the sampling 
frame, with 130 out of 213 files (61%) of files of BME children subject to review and 
analysis. A smaller comparative sample of White British/White Other files (32/515 or 
6.2%) was subjected to the same process. Whilst electronic files containing data such as 
unique ICS number, ethnic coding, categories of need and actions undertaken formed 
the primary data source, in some cases a review of the paper file was also required to 
clarify information, for example where a child?s case had initially been opened in a hard 
copy file and only some information had been transferred to the electronic system. When 
undertaking the review of children?s files the CP pre-conference report(s); initial/core 
assessments, CLA paperwork, family tree, chronology and case notes were all reviewed. 
Personal data on children was reviewed solely to determine that it matched the 
information on the database and that the information present was reflected within the 
remainder of the file. Particular attention was paid to analysis/reason for contact sections 
as well as the data included under the heading of Identity within the child?s development 
needs. The emphasis of this aspect of the review was to determine whether the actions 
taken and information provided were congruent with the child?s ethnicity code and 
service provision. 
 
A simultaneous literature review of relevant publications (and where possible grey 
literature) was undertaken to enable consideration of pre-existing explanations for and 
patterns of disproportionality and disparity in relation to BME children in the child welfare 
system. Data was also sourced on comparator authorities to enable consideration of 
whether Buckinghamshire was unique or broadly similar in percentages of BME children 
in contact with child welfare services. Finally a data-review was undertaken to attempt to 
ascertain likely patterns of growth rate amongst BME communities in Buckinghamshire to 
enable consideration of whether natural growth could account for some elements of 
apparent disproportionality. 
 
The final stage of the project consisted of holding focus groups to obtain qualitative 
data from both children and family managers and front line children and family team 
social workers. Two separate focus groups were undertaken, one with managers and 
one with social work front line staff. The topic guide (attached as an Appendix) focussed 
on practitioners? perceptions of whether disproportionality or disparity does exist, and if 
so, the reasons for such variance with regard to their contacts with BME families. 
Alternatively social workers and managers were invited to consider whether practice 
issues or administrative constraints impacted on the way in which data is recorded, or 
actions are taken with regard to BME families and the ways in which errors in recording 
ethnic coding could potentially skew the data on children in contact with the welfare 
system. A further element of the discussion consisted of considering barriers and 
solutions to engaging with local BME communities to strengthen access to preventative 
services and encourage earlier pro-active reporting of child protection concerns before a 
family reached crisis.    
 
Limitations to the Study 
 
 There is a paucity of baseline data in relation to the size of the BME population in 
Buckinghamshire which may potentially lead to identification of disproportionality 
 36 
or an excessive rate of referral/CPP/LAC for children of certain communities. 
Whilst we have posited that the 10% BME population of Buckinghamshire 
identified in the Buckinghamshire Joint Strategic Needs Assessment, (2009:35) is 
likely to represent too low a figure for the population and instead suggest that the 
school returns specified in Table 5 offer a more nuanced picture of the size of 
particular BME groups within the school age population we note that 
disproportionality can still be seen although at a lower rate than is found when 
utilising 2001 Census data.   
 
 The data set analysed in Phase One of the research is based upon referrals 
rather than individual cases and thus it is difficult to focus on the experience of 
individual children or families. Thus an increased rate of referrals of children from 
one particular community may potentially reflect on-going concerns in relation to 
one child or a particular family.  In practice and for ease of future analysis it would 
be preferable to treat new referrals as additional variables to one particular case 
rather than opening another case. To overcome the problem and remove the risk 
of double-counting, the analysis was conducted on a split data file separating out 
the analysis of unique referrals (e.g. the first referral for a particular case or the 
only referral made), and subsequent referrals. However, caution must be 
exercised when interpreting the analyses based on the ?subsequent referrals? as 
this may be compromised by the fact that individual cases may be included more 
than once.   
 
 Analysis of individual case files found that discrepancies existed in front-line 
recording issues. As noted above, recording of ethnicity of children is not 
automatic at the point of referral and (as has been noted within the review of case 
files and also referred to within focus groups) this data is gathered when identity 
issues are explored during work with the child and family. Where this data has 
been omitted at the point of referral or wrongly entered (as was evident in 16% of 
case files reviewed and 11.3% of the referral entries) this may give a skewed 
picture of the extent of referrals (either over or under-representation) of children 
within certain ethnic categories. For example, child categorised as Black 
Caribbean when they are actually of mixed Black Caribbean and White heritage.  
 
 Need codes for referral were also subject to levels of variation in usage, with 
?other? (Need code N9) providing extremely limited information which could not be 
utilised to predict the likelihood of  cases relating to children from specific ethnic 
groups or with particular types of need proceeding until the child received a 
protection plan or became looked after. Only one need code is mentioned on each 
referral.  For ease of analysis it would be preferable to record each of  the needs 
as they apply to the individual case.  Inevitably needs may change over time due 
to the interventions utilised, the natural aging of the child or due to a change in 
composition/dynamics or circumstances of the family.  Thus it would be preferable 
to record the data longitudinally.  Currently only the dominate need at the time of 
initial referral has been used in the analysis. 
 
 Although the team understood that all data relating to unaccompanied asylum 
seeking children had been removed from the cases analysed it would appear 
possible ? based upon findings from the data-analysis (specifically  some Black 
African children who were classified as ?other? rather than under the appropriate 
 37 
ethnic group - see Chapter 3) that some cases may have fallen within this 
category, an issue also identified by Owen and Statham in their study where 
Absent parenting was often found to be a proxy for unaccompanied minors (see 
above). 
 
 Referrals fail to provide information on the person who is the cause of  concern or 
danger to the child and thus not only does omission of this fact make it difficult to 
predict whether a situation is on-going or if a child will only receive an initial 
referral (for example if a report pertaining to domestic violence is resolved at an 
early stage by the alleged perpetrator leaving the household) or whether specific 
circumstances/individuals can be identified as representing a trend which could 
potentially be taken into account in pro-active planning for child protection. 
 
 The implementation of the Integrated Care System in 2007 (April for the North of 
the County; June for the South) created a relatively abrupt transition from paper to 
electronic files. As a result, many of the files reviewed have not been fully updated 
on the ICS system, and hold much data in the paper file. The CLA teams, in 
particular, have very recently begun to implement some of the ICS framework, but 
much of the information on their files (prior to 2009) is blank (particularly in relation 
to the January 2010 introduction of the Fostering and Adoption ICS modules). It is 
highly likely that is because other cases had an easy ?entry-point? into ICS, i.e. 
with a new referral. With cases that were open at the time of the transition to ICS, 
there was no easy ?entry-point?, which made the transition to ICS more difficult for 
those files.   
 
 Accordingly some CLA files do not have comprehensive details recorded, 
including potential under-recording of placement moves, and period in care.  ICS 
files opened after 2009 are more likely to have complete data recorded although 
some concerns still exist over accuracy - e.g. in relation to use of ethnic codes, 
needs category etc. When undertaking the review of individual cases paper files 
were requested when necessary, although this process was time-consuming, as 
the files had to be sourced from Central Administration, and were sometimes in 
other council locations, thereby creating delay in reviewing. The inability to easily 
access previous existing paper files means that a potential exists for recording 
errors to be replicated if data has not been accurately entered onto the database 
and/or a social worker is awaiting access to paper files from storage.  It would 
appear that the workflow functions of ICS may have had an impact on data entry 
practice, as without completing the previous step, the workflow function would not 
allow a file to be moved on (closed, transferred to another team, etc.). 
 
 The analysis undertaken on referral datasets found that it was impossible to 
identify children who were members of the same family. Accordingly an apparent 
over-representation of a relatively small ethnic group might in some cases be 
explained by a series of referrals relating to one or two relatively large families ? 
thus indicating issues faced by one family rather than reflective of 
disproportionality, disparity or particular concerns faced by members of any 
specific ethnic group.      
 
 
 
 38 
      
 
Chapter 4 
Findings ? Quantitative 
 
 
Within this chapter findings are presented from the analysis of all child welfare 
referrals received by Buckinghamshire Children and Families teams between April 
06 to December 09 and the sample of 162 case files treated to in-depth analysis. 
 
 
DATA PERTAINING TO CHILD WELFARE REFERRALS 
 
Table 6 Disproportionality of child welfare referrals in Buckinghamshire 
 
 
 Combined School Aged Secondary School Aged 
 Education Child 
Protection 
Education Child 
Protection 
White  78.8% 75% 81.1% 79.3% 
Mixed 
 
5% 6.4% 4.3% 4.5% 
Asian 
 
12.9% 14.1% 11.4% 11.6% 
Black  2.3% 4.5% 2.1% 4.6% 
 
 
As can be seen referrals vary quite significantly from the recorded LAC data shown 
in Table 5.  Whilst Table 6 shows referrals of ?mixed? children of secondary school 
age accounting for 4.5% of initial child welfare contacts (only slightly above the rate 
at which this group is found within secondary school population), ?mixed? ethnic 
groups account for 13% of looked after children in the County, (DCSF, 2009) 
indicating disproportionality in rates of coming into care for this group. In effect, 
children and young people of Mixed ethnic origin are only slightly more likely (OR = 
1.28) to be referred, yet more than two and a half times more likely to become LAC 
then one would expect on the basis of probability. 
 
Since the baseline data on pupils? ethnicity produced by schools (schools? census) 
does not report comparable ethnic groups in all categories, it appeared preferable to 
draw comparisons using broad ethnic groups.  However, it must be noted that where 
there were less than five pupils at a school of a particular ethnic origin they were 
recorded as ?<5? rather than giving the actual number.  A decision was therefore 
made to recode these entries as ?three? pupils.  In some cases this would have been 
an over estimation and in others an under estimation, however such errors were 
unavoidable with the current recording practice. 
 
When the national picture was produced for proportionality in child welfare 
intervention the general picture is that the white group is fairly under-represented in 
the child protection statistics with Asian groups being most under-represented in 
LAC, CPP and CIN figures (see Owen & Latham, 2009).  In contrast, both Black and 
 39 
Mixed ethnicity children and young people tend to be over-represented in the 
national figures. 
 
In Buckinghamshire exploring actual referral statistics creates a somewhat different 
picture. 
 
 The white population are slightly under represented in the child welfare 
statistics (75% of referrals, 70% of LAC, 79% of child population). 
 
 Both the Asian and Mixed ethnicity groups appear to be slightly over 
represented amongst referrals of children aged 4 to 11 years (see below), 
however, greater proportionality in referrals of children and young people 
over the age of 12 years (14% of total referrals, 4% of LAC and 13% of 
population). Disproportionality therefore exists in terms of chance of 
becoming looked after. The increase in referrals for primary school-age 
Asian children is likely to be accounted for by educational professionals 
picking up on need which has previously not been noted if children are not 
accessing pre-school or SureStart provision and services.  
 
 Black children and young people are considerably over?represented in 
referrals across all age groups. (4.5% of referrals at all age, 6% of LAC 
and 2% of population). Disproportionality therefore exists in chances of 
becoming looked after. The increase in percentage of referrals and 
disproportionality may partially be accounted for by the fact that there 
greater proportion of Black youth come into the child protection system at 
a later age (Sinclair et al., 2007) and moreover some Black African 
unaccompanied minors may exist within this referral category (see 
limitations note above). 
 
 
Disparity in Treatment 
 
 
To enable evaluation of disparity in treatment and disproportionality of raw data 
analysis was undertaken to consider ethnicity, age and need code as variables 
impacting on referral, likelihood of becoming subject to a CPP or becoming looked 
after.  
 
(1) Predicting Subsequent Referral 
 
Binary logistic regression was performed using the enter method.  The predictors 
entered into the model included age at referral, gender, referral source, ethnicity and 
need code.  This revealed a statistically significant predictive model ( df 
p = .0005).  Cox and Snells? R and Nagelkerke R  of cases 
were correctly classified by the model.  The table below highlights the statistically 
significant findings and the borderline trends.  When reading the predictive value of 
the ethnic groups these need to be read as in relation to their White British 
counterparts (the control group).  Similarly, when examining the likelihood conferred 
by each of the need codes these must be interpreted in terms of their predictive 
power in relation to that conferred by abuse and neglect. 
 40 
 
 
Table 7: Predicting Subsequent Referral 
 
 
Variable B SE Wald df sig Exp (B) 
Age at referral -.031 .005 39.217 1 .0005 .969 
Ethnic Group       
    British African -1.284 .346 13.749 1 .0005 .277 
    Mixed White & Black      
Caribbean 
-1.195 .534 5.009 1 .025 .303 
    British Bangladeshi .616 .346 3.180 1 .075 1.852 
Need Code       
    Disability -.364 .074 24.345 1 .0005 .695 
    Family in Acute Stress -.392 .177 4.914 1 .027 .675 
    Socially unacceptable         
behaviour 
-.436 .072 36.600 1 .0005 .646 
    Low income -.306 .117 6.815 1 .0009 .736 
 
Thus the likelihood of receiving a subsequent referral is very slightly increased for 
children who are younger at the age of initial referral and of British Bangladeshi 
origin (even though this factor only attained a borderline level of statistical 
significance) and less likely for children of British African and Mixed White and Black 
Caribbean origins.  See note above in relation to 4-11 year old Asian children being 
over-represented in terms of referrals once they enter into the education system.  In 
comparison to the risk conferred by the abuse and neglect need category, disability, 
socially unacceptable behaviour and low income need categories confer slightly less 
risk of receiving a subsequent referral. 
 
(2) Predicting which cases will result in a child protection plan (CPP) 
 
Binary logistic regression was performed using the enter method on the first or only 
referral data.  The predictors entered into the model included age at referral, gender, 
referral source, ethnicity and need code.  This revealed a statistically significant 
predictive model ( df p = .0005).  Cox and Snells? R and 
Nagelkerke R  of cases were correctly classified by the model.  The 
table below highlights the statistically significant findings and the borderline trends.  
When reading the predictive value of the ethnic groups these need to be read as in 
relation to their White British counterparts.  Similarly, when examining the likelihood 
conferred by each of the need codes these must be interpreted in terms of their 
predictive power in relation to that conferred by abuse and neglect. 
 
 41 
Table 8: Predictors of becoming subject to a CPP  
 
Variable B SE Wald df sig Exp (B) 
Age at referral -.056 .010 31.316 1 .0005 .946 
Ethnic Group       
    British African -2.653 .675 15.438 1 .0005 .070 
    Mixed Other -2.382 1.138 4.378 1 .036 .092 
    British Caribbean -1.530 .788 3.770 1 .052 .217 
Need Code       
    Parental Illness/Disability -1.374 .584 5.539 1 .019 .253 
    Family Dysfunction -.621 .247 6.313 1 .012 .537 
 
The British African and Mixed Other ethnic groups are very unlikely to be given a 
child protection plan in comparison to their White British counterparts, this appears to 
be despite fairly high levels of abuse and neglect recorded for these two groups.  
Additionally the British Caribbean group are also significantly less likely to be given a 
CPP.  Disparity of treatment therefore apparently exists in relation to Black children. 
 
In comparison to the ability of the abuse and neglect need category to predict the 
likelihood of a CPP, need codes identified as parental illness/disability and family 
dysfunction are also less likely to be associated with the initiation of a protection plan 
across all groups. 
 
(3) Predicting which cases will result in children becoming looked after 
(CLA) 
 
Binary logistic regression was performed using the enter method on the first or only 
referral data.  The predictors entered into the model included age at referral, gender, 
referral source, ethnicity and need code.  This revealed a statistically significant 
predictive model ( df p = .0005).  Cox and Snells? R and 
Nagelkerke R  of cases were correctly classified by the model.  The 
table below highlights the statistically significant findings.  When examining the 
likelihood conferred by each of the need codes these must be interpreted as their 
predictive power in relation to that conferred by abuse and neglect. 
 
Table 9: Predictors of becoming looked after (CLA)  
 
 
Variable B SE Wald df sig Exp (B) 
Age at referral .108 .043 6.312 1 .012 1.114 
Need Code       
Absent parenting 2.848 .718 15.742 1 .0005 17.255 
 
 
Within the Buckinghamshire statistics it would appear that the two factors that predict 
the likelihood of a child/ young person entering local authority care are an older age 
at referral and absent parenting. Both factors are strongly associated with being an 
unaccompanied minor (UM). Absent parenting confers over 17 times the risk of 
 42 
entering residential care over and above the risk conferred by abuse and neglect and 
once again we would propose that inclusion of UMs within this analysis is the most 
likely explanation for this finding. 
 
Comparison of age at referral and duration of referral for males and females 
from each of the ethnic groups. 
 
Owen and Statham (2009) refer to ethnicity, age and gender variables in relation to 
children?s contact with the child welfare system. Accordingly the intersectionality of 
these variables when compared with needs codes may indicate that cultural 
elements ? for example the value placed on children of a particular gender or 
attitudes to chastisement/corporal punishment as children become older and more 
challenging - impact on reasons for referral and age at which this occurs.   
 
Using the Split data file, the ?Duplicate? variable was utilised to ensure each child was 
only captured once. Analysis was thus undertaken on cases that were only referred 
once or on the initial referral for those who received subsequent referrals 
(unique referrals). 
 
A two-way MANOVA was conducted to examine the main and interactive effects of 
ethnic group and gender on the two dependent variables. 
 
No main effect of gender was found, neither was there any evidence of a statistically 
significant interaction effect between gender and ethnicity.  However the graphs 
below identify noteworthy trends. 
 
 
 43 
 
For most ethnic groups there is little difference in the age at referral of males and 
females.  However, for the Mixed White and Asian group, males appear to be 
referred at a considerably earlier age in comparison to their female counterparts (a 
mean of 5.15 years of age in comparison to 7.1 years), and the White British group 
(8 years for males and 8.62 for females). Similarly, in the British Bangladeshi group 
there was a similar gender difference (a mean of 7.67 years for males in comparison 
to 9.5 years for females) evident.   Although overall, this group were referred at 
similar ages to the White British group. 
 
Again in terms of duration of referral there was no significant effect of gender, 
although a couple of important trends were indicated.  Mixed White and Asian males 
experience a considerably longer referral period in comparison to their female 
counterparts (a mean of 197.5 days in comparison to 147.5 days).  This can be 
explained by the relatively younger age at which they were first referred.  Similarly, 
the cases identified as ?Other Ethnic Group? also demonstrated a longer referral 
duration for males in comparison to females (a mean of 295.8 days for males in 
comparison to 121.9 days for females).  However, on this occasion this is not 
paralleled by a difference in age at referral and no obvious explanation occurs. 
 
 
 
The analysis suggested that there were main effects of ethnicity upon both age at 
referral (F(15,7322) = 7.898, p = 0.0005,  and duration of referral (F(15,7322) = 
10.086, p = 0.0005, .  Post hoc analysis employing Tukey?s test revealed 
significant differences between the following minority ethnic groups in comparison to 
 44 
the White British group (mean age at referral = 8.32 years and mean referral duration 
of 224.2 days). 
 
Age at referral: 
 Control group (White British mean 8.32 yeas) 
 White Other (mean = 9.54, p = 0.0005) ? thus slightly older than the 
comparison group 
 British Pakistani (mean = 7.37, p = 0.002) ? thus slightly younger than the 
comparison group 
 Not recorded (mean = 7.54, p = 0.014) - thus slightly younger than the 
comparison group 
 Other Ethnic group (mean = 11.72, p = 0.0005) ? considerably older than the 
comparison group (potentially due to more recent migration from Eastern 
Europe. This group may also capture some UMs for example from 
Afghanistan and/or Iraq) 
 Mixed White and Black Caribbean (mean = 6.97, p = 0.004) ? considerably 
younger than the comparison group 
 Mixed White and Asian (mean = 5.99, p = 0.013) ? significantly younger than 
the comparison group 
 
 
Overall ?mixed? groups are more likely to be referred at a younger age, and this may 
relate to the lack of support of parents and/or social disapproval of White lone 
mothers with mixed ethnicity children discussed within the literature review.  
 
Regarding Duration of referral (in days) 
 
 Not recorded (mean = 109.32, p = 0.0005) -  less than half the length of 
referral of the White British group. 
 
 British Bangladeshi (mean = 383.9, p = .070) ? almost twice the length of 
referral of the White British comparison group 
 
The same analysis was then conducted with the ?same child? category of referral (N 
= 2234). 
 
The analysis revealed no main effect or interaction effect of gender and ethnicity on 
duration of referral.   
 
With regards to age of referral a main effect of ethnicity was evident (F(15,2233) = 
3.458, p = 0.0005, .  However, post hoc analysis employing Tukeys 
demonstrated that the only significant deviation from the mean age of  referral for 
children from the White British group was for the White Other group (p = 0.21).  The 
average age at referral of the White British group was 7.4 years, whereas the White 
Other group appeared to be referral at a slightly older age of 8.99 years.  Again this 
might possibly be associated with the more recent migration of Eastern European 
families and their existing children. 
 
 45 
The same analysis was also conducted for the ?same ref? group (N = 179).  There 
was no evidence of any main or interaction effects for this sample. 
 
A similar two way MANOVA was computed on the cases that went on to receipt of a 
child protection plan (CPP).  In this analysis there were 317 males and 291 females.  
No main effect was found for gender on either age at referral or duration of 
referral/being subject to a Plan. 
 
However, a main effect was found for ethnicity on both age at referral (F(14,607) = 
2.580, p = 0.001, .and the duration of intervention (F(12,607) = 3.060, p = 
0.0005, .  Overall the mean age for referral of the White British cases was 
6.7 years and the mean duration of contact with social welfare agencies for this 
group was 581 days.  
  
For age at referral and duration of referral ethnic comparisons are only really feasible 
for groups with 12 or more cases.  Thus, the following comparisons were drawn. 
 
 
 
Table 10: Age at referral, duration of referral by ethnic group  
 
 
 Age at Referral (Years) Duration of Referral (Days) 
 Total Males Females Total Males Females 
White 
British 
6.70 
(419) 
6.52 
(223) 
6.90 
(196) 
581 580 581 
White 
Other 
9.03 
(40) 
9.18 
(17) 
8.91 
(23) 
467 435 467 
British 
Pakistani 
6.03 
(35) 
7.50 
(18) 
4.47 
(17) 
657 765 542 
Mixed 
White & 
British 
Caribbean 
4.39 
(41) 
6.63 
(19) 
2.45 
(22) 
553 543 562 
British 
Caribbean 
4.30 
(20) 
3.50 
(12) 
5.50 
(8) 
640 665 603 
Mixed 
White & 
Asian 
6.08 
(12) 
4.88 
(8) 
8.50 
(4) 
710 850 428 
 
Figures presented in parenthesis refer to the actual number of cases in each category 
 
Importantly the analysis also revealed a statistically significant interaction effect 
between gender and ethnicity on age at referral (F(12,607) = 1.934, p = 0.028, 
.  However, the gender differences observed within ethnic groups for the 
duration of their referral did not attain a level of statistical significance (p = .371).  
 
 
 
 46 
Key findings related to age at referral: 
 
 Overall, cases from the Mixed White & British Caribbean and the British 
Caribbean groups who go on to receive a CPP tend to be referred at a 
significantly younger age than their White British counterparts potentially 
indicating long-term concerns over the parent(s) ability to care and/or lack of 
support of lone mothers (see literature review above). 
 
 However, when the two gender groups are examined separately by ethnic 
group: 
 
o Females from the Mixed White & British Caribbean group are referred 
at a considerably younger age than their male same-ethnicity 
counterparts and overall are the group of children referred at the 
youngest age.  
 
o Similarly, the British Pakistani females are referred at a significantly 
younger age than both their British Pakistani male counterparts and the 
White British comparison group. This finding may potentially be a 
product of approaches to gender within specific communities and the 
privileging of males if neglect, family stress or low income are found to 
be key reasons for referral.  
 
 Only female Mixed White & British Caribbean cases, male Mixed White and 
Asian and Black Caribbean males are referred at a significantly younger age 
than the White British cases.  Mixed White & British Caribbean males tend to 
be referred at a similar age to the White British comparator group. 
 
 When the whole group is considered the Mixed White & Asian group tend to 
be referred at a similar age to that of the White British comparison group.  
However, when the two genders are considered separately for this group the 
males are referred at a significantly younger age than their female 
counterparts and the White British comparison group. 
 
 Similarly British Caribbean males are referred at a younger age than both 
their female same ethnic group counterparts and the White British comparison 
group.   British Caribbean males have the youngest age of referral of all of the 
ethnic groups mentioned here. 
 
Key findings related to duration of referral: 
 
 
 Interestingly, whilst females in the British Pakistani group tended to be 
referred at a significantly younger age than the British Pakistani males, with 
regards to duration of referral the opposite trend is noted.  That is, males tend 
to be referred for considerably longer than their female same ethnic group 
counterparts. 
 
 In contrast, for the Mixed White & Asian group, the males tend to referred for 
twice as long as the same ethnicity females and this reflects the fact that on 
 47 
average the females are referred at a considerably older age than their male 
same-ethnicity counterparts. 
 
 
 48 
Comparison of Need Codes by Ethnic Group 
 
In the light of demographic and other variables discussed within Chapter 2 it is 
important to consider the reasons why children come into contact with the child 
welfare system.   Chi-squared analyses were computed to examine potential 
differences in the frequency of which the referral codes are applied to the different 
ethnic groups at point of first contact. 
 
The initial analysis was conducted on the first or only referral group.  This revealed a 
statistically significant effect of ethnic group on need code allocation ( df 
p = .0005).  The key differences are highlighted in the table below. 
 
Table 11: Comparison of Need Code by Ethnic Group (Only or First Referral 
sample) 
 
 Need 1 
Abuse 
Neglect 
Need 2 
Disability 
Need 3 
Parent 
illness/ 
disability 
Need 4 
Family 
in 
acute 
stress 
Need 5 
Family 
dys-
 function 
 
Need 6 
Socially 
unaccept-
 able 
behaviour 
 
Need 7 
Low 
income 
 
Need 8 
Absent 
parenting 
 
Need 9 
Other 
1 White 
British 
29.7% 
(1291) 
6.6% 
(288) 
2.2% 
(95) 
6.8% 
(294) 
33.4% 
(1450) 
5.9% 
(256) 
0.2% 0.9% 14.3% 
2 White 
Other 
         
3 British 
Pakistani 
  4.6% 
(28) 
      
4 Not 
recorded 
         
5 British 
African 
44% 
(37) 
   19% 
(16) 
    
6 Mixed 
Other 
         
7 Other 
Ethnic 
Group 
16.9% 
(15) 
    1.1% 
(1) 
   
8 Mixed 
White & 
Black 
Caribbean 
    41.2% 
(115) 
    
9 Refused  15.5% 
(3) 
  10.5% 
(2) 
0%   21.1% 
(4) 
10 British 
Indian 
 13.3% 
(10) 
       
11 Asian 
British 
Other 
 13.2% 
(15) 
       
12 British 
Caribbean 
         
13 British 
Bangladeshi 
42.9% 
(2) 
 7.1% 
(2) 
      
14 Mixed 
White & 
Black 
African 
 1.5% 
(1) 
7.7% 
(5) 
 44.6% 
(29) 
    
15 Mixed 
White & 
Asian 
        27.6% 
(21) 
16 Black 
British 
Other 
         
 
 
 49 
Key findings: 
 
 Significant over representation of British Bangladeshi and British African 
children receiving referrals classified as abuse/neglect, which is similar to the 
findings in the national statistics. Thus both the national data and the figures 
for Buckinghamshire indicate that there is an under-representation of 
Pakistani children under these categories.   
 
 British Indian and Asian Other are twice as likely as the White British sample 
to be referred on the basis of the child?s disability. 
 
 The British Pakistani group are twice as likely to be referred due to parental 
illness or disability and the British Bangladeshi and Mixed White & Black 
African group are three times as likely to be referred on this basis matching 
national patterns and research literature considered above. 
 
 Mixed White & Black Caribbean, and Mixed White & Black African are 
considerably more likely to referred on the basis of family dysfunction which 
may relate to age of mother, mothers being former care leavers or lack of 
family support. The British African group are the least likely to receive this 
need code. 
 
 The Mixed White and Asian group are almost twice as likely to be allocated an 
?other? need code although no clarity exists over what this entails. 
 
The same analysis was then computed for those cases classified as ?same child? and 
?same ref? in combination (subsequent referrals).  Again this demonstrated that there 
was a significant difference in need code allocation on the basis of ethnic group 
( df p = .0005).   
 
 
 50 
Table 12: Comparison of Need Code by Ethnic Group (Subsequent Referral 
sample) 
 
 Need 1 
Abuse 
Neglect 
Need 2 
Disability 
Need 3 
Parent 
illness/ 
disability 
Need 4 
Family 
in 
acute 
stress 
Need 5 
Family 
dys-
 function 
 
Need 6 
Socially 
unaccept-
 able 
behaviour 
 
Need 7 
Low 
income 
 
Need 8 
Absent 
parenting 
 
Need 9 
Other 
1 White 
British 
26.8% 
(438) 
3.3% 
(54) 
2% 
(32) 
8.7% 
(142) 
30.4% 
(497) 
5.6% 
(91) 
0.3% 
(5) 
0.9% 
(15) 
22.1% 
(166) 
2 White 
Other 
         
3 British 
Pakistani 
 9.4% 
(14) 
     4.7% 
(7) 
 
4 Not 
recorded 
18.8% 
(12) 
 7.8% 
(5) 
      
5 British 
African 
  10.3% 
(3) 
20.7 
(6) 
10.3% 
(3) 
    
6 Mixed 
Other 
         
7 Other 
Ethnic 
Group 
    16.7% 
(1) 
16.7% 
(1) 
16.7% 
(1) 
16.7% 
(1) 
 
8 Mixed 
White & 
Black 
Caribbean 
37.4% 
(40) 
        
9 Refused          
10 British 
Indian 
14.3% 
(2) 
21.4% 
(3) 
   21.4% 
(3) 
   
11 Asian 
British 
Other 
 12% 
(4) 
 29.4% 
(10) 
    5.9% 
(2) 
12 British 
Caribbean 
         
13 British 
Bangladeshi 
50% 
(2) 
       50% 
(2) 
14 Mixed 
White & 
Black 
African 
52% 
(14) 
        
15 Mixed 
White & 
Asian 
     14.8% 
(4) 
   
16 Black 
British 
Other 
36% 
(5) 
 7.1% 
(1) 
      
 
 
Key findings: 
 
 Black British Other and Mixed White and Black Caribbean are considerably 
over represented in referrals on the basis of abuse and neglect.  Additionally 
Mixed White and Black African and the British Bangladeshi are dramatically 
over represented in this need category. 
 
 Most of the Asian groups (Indian, Pakistani and Asian Other) are significantly 
over represented in the need code indicating child disability.  This would 
possibly explain the younger age of referral and longer duration of referral 
found for some of the Asian groups in the previous tables. 
 
 51 
 Parental illness/disability is most likely to be recorded as a need category for 
Black African and Black British Other groups, in comparison to the White 
British Group. 
 
 Black African and Asian British Other are over represented in the referrals 
made on the basis of the family experiencing acute stress ? often associated 
with living in poverty. 
 
 British Indian and Mixed White & Asian Other appear to be over represented 
in referrals made on the basis of socially unacceptable behaviour although 
whether this relates to behaviour of the child/young person or (potentially less 
likely, especially for British Indian children) of the parent(s) with care. 
 
 The British Pakistani group appear to be over represented in the absent 
parenting need category. This finding is somewhat unexpected but may 
potentially relate to parents spending lengthy periods of time abroad and 
children residing with relatives during their absence and becoming in need of 
support services (for example if living with elderly grandparents,  or where a 
father does not live in the UK as a result of immigration status issues).  
 
 
Analysis was then undertaken of categories of need at first referral for children who 
subsequently became subject to a child protection plan.  
 
 52 
Table 13: Comparison of Need Category between Ethnic Groups for all CPP 
Cases. 
 
 
 Need 1 
Abuse 
Neglect 
Need 2 
Disability 
Need 3 
Parent 
illness/ 
disability 
Need 4 
Family 
in 
acute 
stress 
Need 5 
Family 
dys-
 function 
 
Need 6 
Socially 
unaccept-
 able 
behaviour 
 
Need 7 
Low 
income 
 
Need 8 
Absent 
parenting 
 
Need 9 
Other 
1 White British 
(N = 469, 7.6%) 
36.1% 
 
1.5% 2.8% 4.1% 29.6% 5.9% 
 
0% 0.4% 19.6% 
2 White Other  
(N = 45, 7.2%) 
40.9% 0% 0% 6.8% 27.3% 9.1% 4.5% 0% 11.4% 
3 British Pakistani 
(N = 37, 4.7%) 
67.6% 0% 0% 0% 16.2% 10.8% 0% 0% 5.4% 
4 Not recorded 
(N=9, 1.0%) 
20.0% 0% 0% 0% 20.0% 0% 0% 20% 40% 
5 British African 
(N = 1, 0.9%) 
0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 
6 Mixed Other 
(N = 10, 5.1%) 
50% 0% 0% 0% 50% 0% 0% 0% 0% 
7 Other Ethnic 
Group 
(N = 3, 3.1%) 
0% 0% 0% 0% 33.3% 3.6% 0% 0% 66.7% 
8 Mixed White & 
Black Caribbean 
(N = 55, 13.8%) 
40% 0% 3.6% 12.7% 25.5% 0% 0% 0% 14.5% 
9 Refused 
(N = 0, 0%) 
         
10 British Indian 
(N = 5, 5.4%) 
20% 0% 0% 0% 60% 0% 0% 0% 20% 
11 Asian British 
Other 
(N = 4, 2.7%) 
25% 0% 0% 25% 50% 0% 0% 0% 0% 
12 British 
Caribbean 
(N = 21, 8.3%) 
42.9% 0% 0% 14.3% 33.3% 0% 0% 0% 9.5% 
13 British 
Bangladeshi 
(N = 8, 23.5%) 
75% 
 
0% 0% 0% 25% 0% 0% 0% 0% 
14 Mixed White & 
Black African 
(N = 4, 4.3%) 
100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 
15 Mixed White & 
Asian 
(N = 12, 11.3%) 
58.3% 0% 0% 0% 16.7% 0% 0% 0% 25% 
 
16 Black British 
Other 
(N = 6, 8.8%) 
33.3% 0% 0% 0% 33.3% 0% 0% 0% 33.3% 
 
Chi-squared analysis comparing the likelihood of receiving a child protection plan 
(CPP) for each of the ethnic groups demonstrated a statistically significant difference 
(N = 675, df p = .0005).   
 
Overall 7.6% of the White British referrals culminated in a CPP.  Thus for the British 
Bangladeshi group 23.5% of whom received a child protection plan, experienced 
almost a three-fold likelihood of this action being taken.   
 
Furthermore both the Mixed White and Black Caribbean and Mixed White and Asian 
groups similarly demonstrated increased likelihoods for receiving a CPP (13.8% and 
11.3% respectively). Whilst disproportionality clearly exists for all of these groups 
when considered against the comparator White British group, the effects of 
 53 
ecological and demographic factors such as poverty, low levels of contact with social 
care agencies prior to crisis and inaccessible or inappropriate services for 
Bangladeshi children may offer an explanation for some of the gross 
disproportionality in relation to CPP for this group. ?Mixed? children are potentially 
more likely to be living in low income homes with a younger, lone parent carer.  
 
British African, Mixed Other and Asian Other groups demonstrated considerably 
lower likelihoods of receiving a protection plans (0.9%, 3.1% and 2.7% respectively) 
potentially indicating that concerns for these groups are less likely to relate to child 
protection than to being a child in need or disabled. 
 
With regard to a separate analysis computed to investigate potential differences in 
the need categories attributed to each CPP case on the basis of ethnic group, this 
exercise also revealed a statistically significant difference between ethnic groups 
overall ( df p = .0005).  Higher proportions of British Pakistani, 
British Bangladeshi, Mixed White and Black African and Mixed White and Asian 
groups were identified as being subject to a CPP under the category of abuse/ 
neglect.   
 
The groups most likely to be identified as experiencing acute stress in the family are 
the Other Ethnic Group, Asian British Other and the British Caribbean groups. 
 
CPP cases that were disproportionately identified as experiencing family dysfunction 
were drawn from the Mixed Other, British Indian and Asian British Other groups.  In 
contrast, British Pakistani and the Mixed White and Asian groups were the least 
likely to be identified with this need code. 
 
The two needs related to disability and illness of either the child or the parents rarely 
featured as need codes in cases that had progressed to child protection planning.  
Similarly, the need codes related to socially unacceptable behaviour, low income and 
absent parenting hardly featured in the CPP cases. 
 
Table 14 Comparison of Need Category between Ethnic Groups for all Child 
Protection Cases. 
 
 Need 1 
Abuse 
Neglect 
Need 4 
Family 
in 
acute 
stress 
Need 5 
Family 
dys-
 function 
 
Need 6 
Socially 
unaccept-
 able 
behaviour 
 
Need 8 
Absent 
parenting 
 
Need 9 
Other 
1 White British 
(N = 28, 0.5%) 
35.7% 
 
7.1% 35.7% 3.6% 
 
7.1% 10.7% 
2 White Other  
(N = 2, 0.3%) 
0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 
3 British Pakistani 
(N = 5, 0.6%) 
75% 0% 0% 0% 0% 25% 
6 Mixed Other 
(N = 1, 0.51%) 
0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 
7 Other Ethnic 
Group 
(N = 2, 2.6%) 
0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 
15 Mixed White & 
Asian 
(N = 1, 1%) 
0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 
 
 54 
 
 
Chi-squared analysis comparing the likelihood of children becoming looked after for 
each of the ethnic groups did not demonstrated a statistically significant difference, 
between the groups, however, the results were approaching statistical significance 
despite the relatively small sample size (N = 39, df p = .150).  The 
key finding appears to be the predictive ability of the absent parenting need category 
to calculate the likelihood of being placed into local authority care for the following 
groups: White Other, Mixed Other, Other Ethnic Group and Mixed White and Asian.  
It is conceivable that this finding might be partly accounted for by the small number 
of unaccompanied minors in these categories claiming asylum. 
 
Comparison of Need Category by Age Group for the Referrals 
 
Chi-squared analysis was conducted on the first/lone referral sample to determine 
whether there is a difference in the need code attributed to the case on the basis of 
age group.  This revealed a significant finding ( df p = .0005). The 
table below highlights the most important differences. 
 
 
Table 15 Need Code by Age Group (Lone/First referral Sample)  
 
 Need 1 
Abuse 
Neglect 
Need 2 
Disability 
Need 3 
Parent 
illness/ 
disability 
Need 4 
Family 
in 
acute 
stress 
Need 5 
Family 
dys-
 function 
 
Need 6 
Socially 
unaccept-
 able 
behaviour 
 
Need 7 
Low 
income 
 
Need 8 
Absent 
parenting 
 
Need 9 
Other 
Unborn 35.9% 0% 5% 6.0% 32.2% 3.0% 0.3% 1.0% 16.4% 
<1 25.8% 8.5% 4.4% 7.3% 32.7% 5.8% 0.2% 0.6% 14.7% 
1-4 26.0% 8.5% 2.7% 6.4% 33.9% 5.8% 0.2% 0.7% 15.8% 
5-9 29.5% 5.9% 2.3% 7.1% 32.8% 6.0% 0.1% 0.9% 15.5% 
10-15 30.7% 5.9% 2.0% 7.3% 31.8% 5.6% 0.2% 2.4% 14.5% 
16+ 26.8% 9.0% 7.0% 7.6% 26.6% 5.6% 1.1% 7.0% 15.7% 
 
 
Key Findings: 
 The unborn cases have a greatest representation in the abuse/neglect need 
code category. This provides a strong indicator that these cases represent 
families known to social care agencies prior to the current pregnancy. 
Similarly relatively high representation of unborn children exists in cases 
where the need code of family dysfunction exists. Socially unacceptable 
behaviour in such cases must by definition refer to the mother or other parent 
if they are present in the household. 
 
 From birth to five and again from 16+, cases are more likely to be referred on 
the basis of the child?s disability than the other age group. 
 
 Parental illness/ disability appear more frequently as a referral category in the 
case of children both under a year of age and in vitro and again in the older 
children aged 16+. 
 55 
 
 The 16+ age group are the least likely age group to be referred on the basis of 
family dysfunction although they are relatively highly represented in cases of 
abuse/neglect. 
 
 Socially unacceptable behaviour is least likely to be categorised as the need 
basis for referral in cases of unborn children. 
 
 Low income as a need category at referral appears to be most likely applied 
to young people aged 16+. 
 
 Postpartum, absent parenting appears to become an increasingly popular 
need category used at referral for each of the age groups.  The greatest 
likelihood is for the 16+ age group ? again this may be reflective of either UMs 
or family breakdown and young people becoming looked after as a result of 
their inability to remain at home. 
 
 
Table 16 Comparison of Age of Child at Referral by Ethnic Group 
  
Chi-square analysis was computed to examine the representation of referrals in each 
age category for each of the different ethnic groups and to determine whether there 
were any statistical differences with regards to the age/ethnic group representation.  
The analysis for the lone or first referral sample revealed a statistically significant 
difference ( n df p = .0005).  The key differences are 
highlighted in the table below. 
 
 Unborn <1 
year 
1-4 
years 
5-9 
years 
10-15 
years 
 
16+ 
years 
1 White British 2.7% 6.2% 22.3% 25.9% 35.1% 7.9% 
2 White Other 2.6% 3.7% 15.4% 26.5% 40.9% 10.9% 
3 British Pakistani 1.8% 7.8% 27.5% 28..6% 26.7% 7.7% 
4 Not recorded 12.0% 8.7% 25.3% 20.0% 25.9% 8.2% 
5 British African 4.8% 9.5% 17.9% 26.2% 32.1% 9.5% 
6 Mixed Other 7.0% 7.6% 19.0% 28.0% 31.2% 7.0% 
7 Other Ethnic Group 1.1% 1.1% 10.0% 15.6% 43.3% 28.9% 
8 Mixed White & Black Caribbean 8.2% 11.0% 27.0% 23.4% 24.8% 5.7% 
9 Refused 5.3% 0% 15.8% 36.8% 36.8% 5.3% 
10 British Indian 0% 6.5% 15.6% 33.8% 35.1% 9.1% 
11 Asian British Other 3.5% 5.2% 20.9% 27.8% 36.5% 6.1% 
12 British Caribbean 1.8% 6.5% 21.1% 26.8% 30.4% 10.1% 
13 British Bangladeshi 3.3% 3.3% 30.0% 20.0% 20.0% 23.3% 
14 Mixed White & Black African 4.6% 6.2% 23.4% 21.5% 35.4% 4.6% 
15 Mixed White & Asian 6.5% 14.3% 33.8% 23.4% 14.3% 7.8% 
16 Black British Other 1.9% 7.7% 17.3% 32.7% 38.5% 1.9% 
 
Key findings: 
 
 With regard to pre-birth referrals: 
 56 
 
o The Mixed White & Black Caribbean group demonstrate a three-fold 
likelihood of being referred in this life stage than the White British 
population.   
 
o Similarly the Mixed White & Asian group demonstrate a two-fold 
likelihood and the Mixed White & Black African and the Black African 
groups demonstrate odds ratios of referral pre-birth of 1.7 and 1.8, 
respectively.  Referrals for all of these ?mixed? children at this stage of 
life are likely to relate to unsupported lone parents, or parents already 
known to the child welfare system (see Owen & Statham, 2009)     
  
o Those groups least likely to be referred at this stage are British Indian 
(0), Other Ethnic group (OR 0.41), British Pakistani (OR 0.67), British 
Caribbean (OR 0.67) and the Black British Other (OR 0.70). Access to 
family support/strong social networks and the likelihood (particularly for 
Asian families) of children being born within a stable household/ 
marriage may to some extent account for these findings.  
 
 With regard to referrals made under the age of one year: 
 
o The Mixed White & Asian group demonstrate a two-fold risk at this 
stage (OR 2.31). 
   
o Similarly both the Mixed White & Black Caribbean and the British 
African groups also demonstrate  elevated likelihoods for referral at this 
stage, with  odds ratios of 1.77 and 1.53 respectively.  
 
 Accordingly disproportionality becomes more significant for ?mixed? ethnicity 
children at a relatively young age when compared to other groups.  
 
o The minority ethnic groups who demonstrated the least likelihood of 
referral during this life stage included Other Ethnic group (OR 0.18), 
British Bangladeshi (OR 0.53) and White Other (OR 0.60). 
 
 Those most over represented in the referrals made when the children were 
aged 1-4 years are the Mixed White & Asian group with an odds ratio of 1.52.   
 
o Similarly, the British Bangladeshi (OR 1.35), British Pakistani (OR 1.23) 
and Mixed White and Black Caribbean (OR 1.21) groups also 
demonstrate a slightly increased likelihood of referral during this time. 
 
o The least likely groups to be referred during this time are the British 
Indian (OR 0.45) and the Other Ethnic Group (OR 0.90). 
 
 In relation to referrals made when children are aged between 5 and 9 years: 
o Those most over represented are the British Indian (OR 1.31) and the 
Black British Other (OR 1.27) groups. 
 
 57 
o Those referred least at this stage are the Other Ethnic Group (OR 
0.60). 
 
 In relation to referrals made when children are aged 10 to 15 years: 
 
o Those most over represented are the Other Ethnic Group (OR 1.23). 
 
o Those who are least likely to be referred at this stage are the Mixed 
White & Asian (OR 0.41) and the British Bangladeshi (OR 0.57) 
groups. 
 
 It is arguable that Mixed ethnicity children who are in contact with the Child 
Welfare system will already have come to the attention of social care 
professionals at a younger age than other groups perhaps as a result of early 
stressors and lack of family support for parents. As noted elsewhere it is likely 
that Asian children at risk are first identified when entering school and thus 
come to the attention of social care agencies at primary school age.  
 
 Finally, with regard to the referrals made of young people aged 16 years plus: 
o Those most over represented in the figures are the Other Ethnic Group 
(OR 3.66) and the British Bangladeshi (OR 2.95) groups. 
 
o The group least likely to be referred in this life stage is the Black British 
Other Group (1.9%). 
 
The same analysis was then computed for the ?subsequent referral group?, which 
demonstrated a statistically significant finding ( n df p = 
.0005). 
 
Table 17 Comparison of Age of Child at Re-Referral by Ethnic Group 
 
 Unborn <1 
year 
1-4 
years 
5-9 
years 
10-15 
years 
 
16+ 
years 
1 White British 3.1% 7.0% 26.8% 26.1% 33.4% 3.6% 
2 White Other 2.5% 2.5% 17.2% 29.4% 42.9% 5.5% 
3 British Pakistani 1.3% 5.1% 38.2% 28.% 24.8% 2.5% 
4 Not recorded 13.2% 8.8% 23.5% 19.1% 26.5% 8.8% 
5 British African 0% 6.9% 10.3% 24.1% 55.2% 3.4% 
6 Mixed Other 2.4% 17.1% 26.8% 19.5% 29.3% 4.9% 
7 Other Ethnic Group 0% 0% 42.9% 14.3% 0% 42.9% 
8 Mixed White & Black Caribbean 4.3% 10.3% 27.6% 26.7% 28.4% 2.6% 
9 Refused 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 
10 British Indian 0% 0% 0% 50% 43.0% 6.3% 
11 Asian British Other 0% 0% 11.4% 37.1% 48.6% 2.9% 
12 British Caribbean 2.4% 4.8% 23.8% 26.2% 33.3% 9.5% 
13 British Bangladeshi 0% 0% 50% 0% 25.0% 25% 
14 Mixed White & Black African 0% 11.1% 25.9% 22.2% 37.0% 3.7% 
15 Mixed White & Asian 20.7% 13.8% 31.0% 20.7% 13.8% 0% 
16 Black British Other 12.5% 12.5% 18.8% 25.0% 31.3% 0% 
 58 
 
Key findings: 
 
 The White British group demonstrate a trend whereby the likelihood of re-
 referral dramatically increases for children aged 1-4 years and plateaux for 
those aged 5-9, then there is a slight increase again for those aged 10-15 
years and a dramatic decline for those over the age of 16 years. 
 
With regard to subsequent referrals made in the pre-birth phase: 
 
 The Mixed White & Asian group have an odds ratio of 6.7, suggesting they 
have almost seven times the likelihood of receiving a subsequent referral 
in this life stage. 
 
 Similarly the Black British Other group also demonstrated a considerably 
higher likelihood than would be expected (OR 4.0) 
 
In relation to re-referrals made for children under the age of one year: 
 
 The Mixed Other group appear to demonstrate the highest rate of re-
 referral (OR 2.4). 
 
 Additionally, the Mixed White & Asian (OR 1.97), Mixed White & Black 
African (OR 1.6) and the Black British Other (OR 1.8) also appear to be 
over-represented at this life stage. 
 
Of the re-referrals made for children aged one to four years: 
 
 The Other Ethnic Group (OR 1.6) and the British Pakistani (OR 1.4) 
groups appear to be over-represented, which appears to counterbalance 
their relative under-representation in the younger age groups. 
 
 The Asian British Other Group are under-represented for all children (born 
and un-born) under the age of five years. 
 
 Whilst the re-referrals made from within the Black British Other group were 
considerably over-represented in the younger age groups, in this particular 
age group re-referral is less likely (OR 0.4).  
 
With regards to the subsequent referrals made amongst children aged five to nine 
years: 
 
 The highest rate of referral is in the Asian British Other group (OR 1.4), 
however this is counterbalanced by the fact that subsequent referrals in 
the younger age groups were under represented. 
 
The two groups least likely to be referred at this stage were the Mixed Other (OR 
0.75) and the Other Ethnic Group (OR 0.55), however, both had considerably higher 
rates of referral in younger age groups. 
 
 59 
In respect of subsequent referrals made for young people aged 10 to 15 years 
demonstrate: 
 Four ethnic groups have a slightly higher rate of re-referral that their White 
British counterparts: British African (OR 1.7), Asian British Other (OR 1.5), 
British Indian (OR 1.3), and White Other (OR 1.3). 
 
Finally of the subsequent referrals made in the oldest age group (16 years plus): 
 The Other Ethnic Group are the most highly over represented in terms of 
referral (OR 12.0) ? suggesting that they are twelve times more likely to be 
referred than their White British similar aged counterparts. 
 
 Similarly the British Bangladeshi (OR 7.0) and British Caribbean (OR 2.6) 
groups are also over represented.  
 
A similar analysis was computed on the cases proceeding to CPP stage which 
produced a statistically significant finding ( df p = .026). 
 
Table 18 CPP cases - Age of Child at Referral by Ethnic Group 
 
 
 Unborn <1 
year 
1-4 
years 
5-9 
years 
10-15 
years 
 
16+ 
years 
1 White British 10.7% 
(50) 
7.9% 
(37) 
26.7% 
(125) 
27.3% 
(128) 
26.2% 
(123) 
1.3% 
(6) 
2 White Other 11.1% 
(5) 
0% 22.2% 
(10) 
22.2% 
(10) 
42.2% 
(20) 
2.2% 
(1) 
3 British Pakistani 5.4% 
(2) 
8.1% 
(3) 
35.1% 
(13) 
29.7% 
(11) 
18.9% 
(7) 
2.7% 
(1) 
4 Not recorded 0% 0% 22.2% 
(2) 
11.1% 
(1) 
66.7% 
(6) 
0% 
5 British African 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 
(1) 
0% 
6 Mixed Other 40% 
(4) 
10% 
(1) 
0% 10% 
(1) 
40% 
(4) 
0% 
7 Other Ethnic Group 0% 0% 33.3% 
(1) 
66.7% 
(2) 
0% 0% 
8 Mixed White & Black Caribbean 25.5% 
(14) 
16.4% 
(9) 
32.7% 
(18) 
12.7% 
(7) 
12.7% 
(7) 
0% 
10 British Indian 0% 0% 40% 
(2) 
60% 
(3) 
0% 0% 
11 Asian British Other 25% 
(1) 
0% 25% 
(1) 
25% 
(1) 
25% 
(1) 
0% 
12 British Caribbean 4.8% 
(1) 
14.3% 
(3) 
42.9% 
(9) 
28.6% 
(6) 
4.8% 
(1) 
4.8% 
(1) 
13 British Bangladeshi 12.5% 
(1) 
12.5% 
(1) 
12.5% 
(1) 
25% 
(2) 
37.5% 
(3) 
0% 
14 Mixed White & Black African 50% 
(2) 
0% 25% 
(1) 
0% 25% 0% 
15 Mixed White & Asian 0% 16.7% 
(2) 
33.3% 
(4) 
16.7% 
(2) 
33.4% 
(4) 
0% 
16 Black British Other 16.7% 
(1) 
33.3% 
(2) 
0% 16.7% 
(1) 
33.3% 
(2) 
0% 
 60 
 
 
The significant over-representation of Mixed Black/White ethnicity children in the pre-
 birth stage has been identified above as potentially resulting from lack of family and 
social support for parents who may themselves have been looked after children or 
families experiencing stress/family dysfunction (see literature review).  
 61 
Comparison of the likelihood of each ethnic group being subject to a 
subsequent referral. 
 
Chi-squared analysis comparing first and subsequent referrals within each ethnic 
group demonstrated a statistically significant finding 
( n df p .0005).  The proportions of subsequent referrals 
made within each ethnic group are represented in the table below.  The sample size 
presented in parenthesis refers to the total sample and not just subsequent referrals. 
 
Table 19 Likelihood of Re-referral by Ethnic Group 
 
 Subsequent Referral  
1 White British (n = 6198) 27.5% 
2 White Other (n = 623)   26.2% 
3 British Pakistani (n = 783)   20.1% 
4 Not recorded (n = 899)   7.6% 
5 British African (n = 113)   25.7% 
6 Mixed Other (n = 198)   20.7% 
7 Other Ethnic Group (n = 97)     7.2% 
8 Mixed White & Black Caribbean (n = 398)   29.1% 
9 Refused (n = 21)     9.5% 
10 British Indian (n = 93)    17.2% 
11 Asian British Other (n = 150)   23.3% 
12 British Caribbean (n = 252)   33.3% 
13 British Bangladeshi (n = 34)     11.8% 
14 Mixed White & Black African (n = 92)     29.3% 
15 Mixed White & Asian (n = 106)   27.4% 
16 Black British Other (n = 68)     23.5% 
 
Black Caribbean and ?mixed? White and Black Caribbean children were highly likely 
to receive a re-referral once they had first had contact with child welfare systems. 
The data also suggests a possible trend whereby overall Asian groups may be less 
likely to experience a subsequent referral, whereas combined Black groups are more 
likely to be re-referred.  Thus a subsequent computation was conducted to calculate 
the percentages of subsequent referrals made for these two collapsed groups.  This 
revealed that 29.7% of the combined Black groups and 21.1% of the combined Asian 
referrals become subject to a subsequent referral. This effect may potentially be 
accounted for lack of access to culturally suitable services, disparity in treatment re: 
allocation of preventative or support services or a greater representation in neglect 
statistics leading to longer periods of referral and typically re-referral. 
 
 
Comparison of Child Protection Category Allocation 
by Broad Racial and Ethnic Groups 
 
Chi-squared analysis revealed a statistically significant difference in the child 
protection plan categories allocated to the children and young people of different 
broad racial groups ( df p = .0005). 
 
 
 62 
Table 20 Comparison of Child Protection Plan Categories by Collapsed Ethnic 
Groups 
 
 Emotional 
Abuse 
Multiple 
Abuse 
Neglect Physical 
Abuse 
Sexual 
Abuse 
1 White 
 
3.4% 
(233) 
1.8% 
(123) 
4.3% 
(290) 
0.6% 
(42) 
0.5% 
(33) 
2 Asian  
 
1.5% 
(16) 
OR 0.4 
1.1% 
(12) 
OR 0.6 
0.9% 
(10) 
OR 0.2 
1.3% 
(14) 
OR 2.2 
0.2% 
(2) 
OR 0.4 
3 Black 
 
2.8% 
(12) 
1.8% 
(8) 
3.7% 
(16) 
0% 
 
0% 
 
4 Mixed 
 
5.2% 
(31) 
OR 1.5 
1.0% 
(6) 
6.7% 
(40) 
OR 1.6 
1.8% 
(11) 
OR 3.0 
2% 
(12) 
OR 4.0 
 
In comparison to the white majority group the Asian cases are far less likely to be 
considered for child protection on the basis of emotional and sexual abuse, multiple 
forms of abuse or neglect.  However, they are more than twice as likely to be subject 
to a plan under the category of physical abuse (see under literature review for a 
discussion on cultural attitudes to corporal punishment). 
 
With regard to cases concerning Black children and young people, in terms of 
emotional abuse, neglect and multiple forms of abuse they are almost equally likely 
to be identified under these categories as their White counterparts.  However, they 
are far less likely to be identified as having issues of physical or sexual abuse. 
 
It is in cases of Mixed ethnic group children that considerable over representation is 
identified in each of the abuse categories, with the exception of multiple forms of 
abuse.  At the most extreme these children and young people are four times more 
likely to be identified as experiencing sexual abuse and three times more likely to 
have been identified as experiencing physical abuse. The literature which suggests 
that mixed ethnicity children are more likely to reside with younger, white lone parent 
mothers who may potentially be less likely to receive from support from extended 
family members, and who themselves may have been looked after children reflects 
an increased likelihood that these children may be inadequately protected, or may 
live in chaotic environments with parents under stress, residing in dysfunctional 
families or who have poor personal and safeguarding skills ? thus increasing the risk 
factors for children within this category.  Alternatively, it may be that if the mothers 
are already known to child welfare that their parenting is already subject to official 
scrutiny and thus potential harm to their children is more readily identified.   
 
Whilst distinct difference is noted between the CPP categories allocated to each of 
these broad racial groups, such analysis does not help to identify more subtle 
nuances that reflect distinct cultural differences and access to supportive 
networks/social capital between actual ethnic groups. 
 
 63 
Comparison of Child Protection Plan Categories by Ethnic Group 
 
In order to consider variance in categories of registration by ethnic group (rather than 
broad category) further analysis was undertaken. Chi-squared analysis revealed a 
statistically significant difference in the child protection categories allocated to the 
children and young people of different ethnic groups ( df p = .0005). 
 
Table 21  Comparison of Child Protection Plan Categories 
by Ethnic Group 
 
 
 Emotional 
Abuse 
Multiple 
Abuse 
Neglect Physical 
Abuse 
Sexual 
Abuse 
1 White British 
 
3.5% 
(216) 
1.9% 
(117) 
4.2% 
(259) 
0.6% 
(39) 
0.5% 
(31) 
2 White Other  
 
2.7% 
(17) 
1% 
(6) 
5% 
(31) 
0.5% 
(3) 
0.3% 
(2) 
3 British Pakistani 
 
1.4% 
(11) 
OR 0.4 
1.5% 
(12) 
0.8% 
(6) 
OR 0.2 
0.8% 
(6) 
OR 1.3 
0.3% 
(2) 
4 Not recorded 
 
0% 0.1% 
(1) 
0.7% 
(6) 
0% 0% 
5 British African 
 
0% 0% 1.8% 
(2) 
0% 0% 
6 Mixed Other 
 
2% 
(4) 
2.5% 
(5) 
2.5% 
(5) 
0% 0% 
7 Other Ethnic Group 1% 
(1) 
0% 2.1% 
(2) 
0% 0% 
8 Mixed White & Black 
Caribbean 
5.5% 
(22) 
OR 1.6 
0.3% 
(1) 
8.8% 
(35) 
OR 2.1 
1.8% 
(7) 
OR 3.0 
3% 
(12) 
OR 6.0 
10 British Indian 
 
1.1% 
(1) 
0% 4.3% 
(4) 
0% 0% 
11 Asian British Other 0% 0% 0% 2.7% 
(40) 
OR 4.5 
0% 
12 British Caribbean 4.8% 
(12) 
2% 
(5) 
4% 
(10) 
0% 0% 
13 British Bangladeshi 11.8% 
(4)  
OR 3.4 
0% 0% 11.8% 
(4) 
OR 19.7 
0% 
14 Mixed White & Black 
African 
2.2% 
(2) 
1.1% 
(1) 
0% 1.1% 
(1) 
0% 
15 Mixed White & Asian 6.6% 
(7) 
OR 1.9 
3.8% 
(4) 
OR 2.0 
4.7% 
(5) 
2.8% 
(3) 
OR 4.7 
0% 
16 Black British Other 0% 4.4% 
(3) 
OR 2.3 
5.9% 
(4) 
0% 0% 
Total number 297 155 369 67 47 
 
Whilst caution must be exercised when interpreting these findings since some of the 
small numbers in some of the ethnic groups may reflect family functioning rather 
than actual ethnic differences, they do help to illustrate that it may be erroneous to 
make generalisations from the findings related to broad racial groups. 
 
Whilst the previous analysis indicated that the only child protection category in which 
Asian cases are over represented is physical abuse, this current analysis suggests 
 64 
that this might only be applicable to the British Bangladeshi and ?Asian Other? cases 
rather than those of Pakistani or Indian origin. 
 
Although overall the ?Asian? cases are very unlikely to be recorded as involving 
neglect, the British Indian cases appear to demonstrate some parity with the British 
White sample. 
 
With regards to the elevated risk for most forms of neglect/abuse evident it in the 
?Mixed? ethnicity cases, it appears that the those who are most likely to be identified 
as experiencing sexual abuse and neglect are the Mixed White and Black Caribbean 
group; whereas those most likely to be identified as experiencing multiple forms of 
abuse, physical and emotional abuse are the Mixed White and Asian group. No 
nuanced explanation can be provided for this variation in registration category by 
form of ?mixed? ethnicity family and it may well be that the small sample size reflects 
an individual family/small group of households in crisis rather than a broader trend.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 65 
DATA PERTAINING TO THE DEPTH REVIEW OF 130 CASE FILES OF BME 
CHILDREN AND COMPARATOR SAMPLE OF 32 ?WHITE BRITISH/WHITE 
OTHER? CHILDREN 
 
 
In Stage 2 of the review, a random sample was undertaken of CPP and CLA files 
dating from April 2006-September 2009.  130 out of 213 files (61% of the sub-
 sample) pertained to BME children whilst a smaller comparative sample of 32  
White British/White Other files was subjected to the same process.  
Table 21 shows the composition of files subjected to scrutiny and whilst this 
sample has not been explicitly matched to reflect the population size of each 
ethnic group, the spread of the sample is broadly in line with the population 
pattern of BME children in Buckinghamshire. A higher percentage of ?mixed? 
ethnicity children relative to their presence in CLA and CPP statistics are included 
in the sample.  
 
Table 22  Files Reviewed by Ethnic Group 
  
Ethnicity Files Reviewed Percentage 
of total 
British Bangladeshi 1 >1% (0.06%) 
Black Other 1 >1% (0.06%) 
Mixed White/Black 
African 
2 1.2% 
Chinese 2 1.2% 
Asian 6 3.7% 
Mixed White/Asian 7 4.3% 
Black African 9 5.5% 
Mixed Other 12 7.4% 
White Other 12 7.4% 
Other 16 9.9% 
British Pakistani 18 11.1% 
Black Caribbean 19 11.7% 
White British 20 12.3% 
Mixed White/Black 
Caribbean 
37 22.8% 
TOTAL 162 100% 
 
 66 
 
Out of the 162 files reasons for referral, patterns of referral and decisions 
made/outcome of investigation by ethnic group were treated to particular scrutiny. 
Pre-conference report(s); initial/core assessments, CLA paperwork, family tree, 
chronology and case notes were also examined.  As stated under methodology, 
particular attention was paid to analysis/reason for referral as well as the data 
included under the heading of Identity within the Child?s development needs. The 
emphasis of this aspect of the review was to determine whether the actions taken 
and information provided were congruent with the child?s ethnicity code and 
service provision. 
 
Figure 4 (below) shows the Gender breakdown of files reviewed (43.2% female, 
56.8% male). 
 
 
 67 
 
 
 
Out of the files reviewed, data recording issues were of concern in at least 26 cases 
(16% of the sample) where discrepancies existed in terms of incorrectly identified 
race/ethnicity. Specific examples include: 
 
 A child recorded as being Black Caribbean although the family tree and 
Identity section of the file show the mother as being Black African 
 Mixed Other child with parents noted as being White British and White 
Irish   
 Black Caribbean child whose parents were stated to be Black 
Caribbean and White. The child should thus have been categorised as 
mixed White/Black Caribbean. 
 
Significant concerns must therefore apparently exist on the accuracy of a) returns to 
the DCSF pertaining to ethnicity and more importantly b) whether children?s identity 
needs are appropriately met if inaccurate recording of their ethnic origin remains 
uncorrected on the file. This latter point was discussed in some detail during focus 
groups with practitioners and managers (see further Chapter 5) who indicated that 
despite mis-recording of ethnicity at referral stage, in practice the actual work 
undertaken with the child and family would allow social workers to accurately identify 
the ethnicity of a children and ensure that appropriate support would be put in place 
in relation to identity matters. 
 
After reviewing these files it is possible to posit that inaccuracies in recording 
ethnicity may potentially arise in several circumstances: 
    
 social workers (or other data entry personnel) being unsure as to which 
category a child or family should fit into, and, as a result, choosing incorrectly; 
 ethnicity being mis-categorised at the point of referral (or initial entry to ICS) 
and no-one has rectified the issue; 
 simple mis-categorisation, or poor data entry. 
 An interview undertaken with a Service Manager has also identified that 
Police and a range of other agencies (for example PCTs) across 
Buckinghamshire may utilise different ethnicity codes which do not  match up 
 68 
DCSF ethnicity codes. Accordingly further opportunities for error may exist as 
first referral if the referring agency are using different terminology or coding. 
 
Specific Issues by Ethnicity/Race  
 
The following variables were identified as noteworthy with regard to files pertaining to 
BME children.  Whilst it is not possible to generalise about the circumstances of 
particular ethnic groups as a result of these findings, certain trends can be noted 
which may indicate a greater likelihood of a case proceeding to CPP or a child 
becoming looked after for children of particular BME backgrounds (both in 
Buckinghamshire and nationally, based upon the existing literature). In any event, 
findings which relate to ethnicity recording practices generally, enable consideration 
of areas which could be potentially improved in relation to matching carers with (or 
ensuring that carers are alert to the needs of) children placed away from home, 
and/or providing identity support for CLA or those subject to a CPP. 
 
Files relating to Mixed White/Black Caribbean children typically contained consistent 
domestic violence references. Whilst domestic violence is a common reason for 
referral and indeed noted by Masson et al., (2008) to be as prevalent within both 
BME and White families involved in child welfare cases, it may be that DV is reported 
more prominently in  dual heritage families or as noted elsewhere that mixed Black 
Caribbean/White ethnicity children are frequently born to younger lone parents who 
have often been in care themselves, and who may be living unsupported, chaotic 
lifestyles (Selwyn, et al., 2008; Masson et al., 2008) which increases the likelihood 
that they and their children will experience domestic abuse.     
 
The British Pakistani group tended to have serious initial referrals as is common in 
national statistics (and see further Owen & Statham, 2009).  Lack of engagement 
with preventative services at an earlier stage before the situation had deteriorated 
significantly, and/or culturally accessible services would potentially impact on the 
severity at time of referral. For children from this community, 11 out of 18 cases 
(61%) were serious, later referrals, with: 
 concerns pertaining to parental mental health and; 
 domestic violence stated repeatedly; 
 physical abuse particularly present when stepchildren involved. 
 
Cultural barriers to reporting child protection concerns coupled with language 
barriers may have a particular impact on Bangladeshi women experiencing domestic 
violence and/or depression or mental ill-health leading to later, more serious child 
protection referrals. 
 
Children included within the ?Other? category (16 cases) which had, in initial 
discussions with Managers, been potentially identified as consisting mainly of 
unaccompanied minors (UM) were not in all cases found to be in this situation. 
Whilst UMs who are claiming, or have claimed, asylum fall mostly within the Other 
category, there are some exceptions. It appears important to note that this category 
is not comprised exclusively of UM children, or that all UM children are categorised 
in this manner. UM/asylum seeking children tended instead to fall into several major 
ethnic groups, Black African (although on review of the cases it was found that some 
of these children were still categorised as Other), Afghani, and Iranian/Syrian.  
 69 
 
Mixed Other files. In a few of these cases no race or ethnicity was identified in the 
reports, continuing the confusion about the child?s ethnicity, as frequently the 
?mixture? of races were not-specifically noted ? potentially creating concerns around 
how well a child?s need would be met if they were placed away from home. 
 
In addition, some Mixed Black Caribbean/White files had no reference to one of the 
parts of the dual heritage, or how identify support would be addressed to meet the 
needs that part of a child?s heritage.  
 
Children classified as Mixed White/Asian were again predominantly subject to a CPP 
or were a looked after child as a result of serious concerns. For this group concerns 
fell into a number of different areas ? mental health, DV, substance use (specifically 
drugs) and serious child protection concerns 
 
The categories of White British and White Other also appear to have some recording 
issues, with at least 3/32 files categorised as White Other that it was clear are 
reviewing the file should have been categorised as White British. White Other usually 
included pan-European children, although there were some exceptions, which could 
potentially have been mistakes at the time of categorisation  
 
DV was a significant concern within White British and White Other files ? and also, 
particularly, in files where the mother was White, and in an inter-ethnic relationship. 
(DV concerns featured in 9 of the 32 files (28%) of White British/White Other files. 
The second highest concern for children within these categories was alcohol and/or 
drugs misuse being included in 7/32 files, or 22% of this group.) 
 
There were 3 cases of young black women (both Black African and Black Caribbean) 
who gave up their children for adoption. Because of the specific nature of the 
concerns for these young women, it may have been possible that with some targeted 
support, these children may not have needed to be placed into local authority care 
 
Ethnicity recording concerns appear to be particularly problematic in cases relating 
to Eritrean children. Whilst several children from this community were identified as 
Black African, one child was identified as Mixed Other, while yet another was simply 
identified as Other. Clearly consistency in reporting practice would assist in service 
planning (specifically in terms of considering what support needs may be required for 
particular groups) across the authority as a whole, as well as enabling greater 
accuracy in terms of identifying particular BME populations resident within 
Buckinghamshire.  
 
Finally, as has been noted in relation to the large scale datasets pertaining to referral 
statistics, sibling groups appear to have a significant impact on data, where small 
ethnic groupings exists. As a result, a single, multi-child family (or 2 such families), 
would significantly move the data spread and skew the findings. This was a 
particular problem for such groups as British Pakistani and Mixed White/Asian 
groups. Accordingly it is not possible to generalise on routes into the CLA or CPP 
statistics for small numbers of cases by ethnicity.  
 
 70 
In conclusion ? although both the quantitative review of referral statistics and depth 
exploration of a sample of case files indicate that reasons for referral, CPP and 
children becoming looked after are broadly in line with national patterns, there does 
appear to be disparity in terms of access to preventative services for some BME 
groups, the likelihood of children receiving a protection plan, and that rate (and 
stage) at which children become involved with the welfare system. 
 
Whilst analysis of referrals indicates that disproportionality does exist ? most 
noticeably for mixed ethnicity children, for Asian children this is less marked than 
their presence in CLA statistics would indicate. The increase in BME children within 
the population (calculations not undertaken but evidence provided to indicate that as 
an overall broad group they are now present at a rate above the 10% estimated 
within the Buckinghamshire Joint Strategic Assessment published in 2009) will also 
explain some apparent disparity within statistics pertaining to referral of children from 
these communities. 
 
Record keeping and accuracy of recording of ethnicity data does however appear to 
be persistent and problematic although probably not above the error rate found in 
other authorities. Evidence from the review of case files suggests that social workers 
may be too ?colour-blind? or sensitive in recording ethnicity as this information may be 
noted in a way that is counter-productive to Buckinghamshire County Council?s 
reporting needs. In some reports, there was no indication within the Identity section 
of the child?s ethnicity, or how to engage with or support the child?s ethnicity.  
 
Finally clear evidence can be found (in common with national trends) for certain 
groups of BME children to be experiencing poverty, domestic violence within their 
households, social exclusion, low engagement with support and preventative 
services at an early stage, and parents experiencing stress and/or family 
dysfunction. Whist the picture in Buckinghamshire is by no means unique, it would 
appear that the development of preventative services targeted at particular 
communities, coupled with outreach and awareness raising around child welfare and 
child protection procedures and responsibilities could assist in ensuring that referrals 
concerning children from some minority communities take place prior to significant 
incidents or crisis being reached (see further under recommendations) or that 
children and families are supported to avoid children entering into the looked after 
children system at such a disproportionate rate.  
 71 
Chapter 5 
Findings ? Qualitative 
 
The qualitative findings consist of a summary of topics which were discussed within 
two short interviews, one with a Service Manager and one with an Independent 
Worker, and two focus groups held with social care professionals to explore themes 
emergent from the data analysis and case file reviews. 
 
Although the same topic guide was utilised with both groups within the first focus 
group (undertaken with six Team Managers and one specialist independent worker 
from both North and South of the County) strategic planning of services and the 
impacts of inappropriate or inaccurate classification of children?s ethnicity on 
providing a good quality service. 
 
In the second group five social workers who were between five and thirty-one years 
qualified were present, working within a range of teams: ICS, Children with 
Disabilities, Care and Protection and Adoption. These front-line staff were more likely 
to discuss the actual day-to-day impacts on their work of excessive administration 
and heavy case loads, bringing to the group the benefit of their experience of current 
working practices ?there are times when you are given a case, you just run with it 
and you don?t have time to look at stuff like that?.  
 
Accordingly all participants in focus groups were highly experienced professionals 
who brought a wealth of experience to the discussion groups. 
 
Practitioners were aware that ethnicity should be recorded at an early stage of 
contact with a child and family ?you would hope that if it a professional making a 
referral that it would even go back as far as the numbered referral form?.  Although 
as noted by the manager interviewed separately ?police and other agencies when 
they are referring to Bucks have different ethnicity codes which do not match up? . 
 
In many cases both managers and front-line staff agreed that ?we just pick up on 
what is said there [referral form] and that is what would be recorded and we?d run 
with that?. 
 
All staff were aware that when ethnic data was wrongly noted it could potentially take 
months for the record to be amended causing confusion or potential problems in 
planning. One manager reported that ?I noticed something the other day? two 
children called siblings and they two of them have different recordings of ethnicity. 
They are both dual heritage children but one of them is recorded as White British 
and the other as White British/Black Caribbean? I have flagged it up as wrong?  
 
When asked to consider when and how obvious errors were amended practitioners 
spoke about their concern to get things right ?well, I mean X [manager] wouldn?t have 
the confidence of the child unless she was the child?s social worker ? whereas a 
child?s social worker if they noticed an obvious error they they?d just do it 
themselves?. 
 
However, front-line practitioners were alert to the importance of non-oppressive 
practice and reluctant sometimes to raise the issue of ethnicity ?social workers don?t 
 72 
want to offend, primarily the young person? ?there are many people that will argue 
over whether they should be categorised as Black-Caribbean or Black British?  
 
Accordingly for front-line practitioners they were more likely to state that they would 
find out about a child?s ethnicity through their dealings with the child or when 
completing the section of the forms relating to Identity  ?I don?t even look at the ?front 
sheet? to see what the child?s identified as, I can get that information from the rest of 
the file?    
 
Both managers and front-line staff were alert to cases where incorrect recording of 
ethnicity can have a negative impact on children and families ?we had a situation 
where a child was up for adoption and it wasn?t clear at all. Eventually we found out it 
[father?s ethnicity] was either Ghana or Guyana?. 
 
Several practitioners reported that ?it is very difficult when they are withholding the 
paternity of the children from social workers and it is difficult to get confirmation from 
anyone? . Cases of unspecified paternity appeared to mainly related to mixed 
race/dual heritage children a white mother, and were often those which were 
proceeding to adoption. 
 
?There is a huge significance in adoption ?cos you are looking at adopting with the 
wrong ethnicity ? you could be matching children incorrectly? which could impact on 
the rest of their lives. To get the ethnicity wrong is pretty fundamental for the identity 
of that child in the future? 
 
?It also impacts on long term foster carers ? even if you are not placing with foster 
carers who reflect the ethnicity you expect them to promote and explore but if they 
don?t have the right details?? 
 
One manager noted that ?there is still quite a lot of suspicion as to why we are 
having to define ourselves by ethnicity and I think people are still not asking the 
question because?it?s a sensitive area? 
  
Within the managerial focus group, a discussion on training needs of social workers 
ensued, in part related to the difficulties of fitting children and families into the DCSF 
categories when their identity was complex ?when they come to put it on the system 
it doesn?t fit? we are prescribed categories... but [we need] something underneath it 
make it possible for us to identify as what the families want to be classified as?  
 
?really the one that most clearly matches me is Afro Caribbean but what does that 
tell you about me and where I am from? What do you know about? That I am from 
Jamaica or where? In fact I was born here and consider myself Black British but 
what does that really tell you about other than I?m Black and I?m British?. The codes 
don?t really tell you anything when you matching children? how does it tell you what 
someone?s heritage really is?  
 
?there?s a training element in a sense of how the initial contact information on identity 
is obtained and what do workers in effect carry with them to obtain that? for me it 
could be about carrying an aide memoire in some form? but it is still a list of 
categories and where do you fit? 
 73 
NB: in a discussion outside of the focus group a commissioning officer noted that 
children of British born Caribbean Asian origin or dual Black British/Caribbean Asian 
heritage ? as may be found within the local population from St. Vincent - could well 
be mis-classified on ICS as a result of lack of suitable codes within the system. 
One key theme which emerged from the focus groups was the lack of clarity 
amongst front line staff (and to some extent managers) about the impacts of 
recording of ethnicity on the local authority as a whole ? ranging from Ofsted 
inspections which might raise concerns about disproportionality which was in fact not 
as extreme as could appear if recording was accurate - to the ability of local 
authorities to draw down resources which were dependent upon accurate statistics.  
 
?You have to recognise that you record information for certain purposes ? when you 
record your demographics you are talking government statistics and you are talking 
about management information? when you talk about filling in an assessment and 
filling in identity sections? the conversation [about identity] should go in the identity 
section ? that is the section you really want to know about?   
   
?I think we do fail a little bit on that ? one question I thought about as I was coming to 
this meeting was do people know what the codes mean and should we be talking 
codes anyway but I think they need something that they have with them [see under 
proposals ? a card which lists ethnic codes] to help in the initial stages ? but also a 
recognition that that?s not an end in itself and if things change along the way you go 
back and update?      
 
The use of the code ?other? was discussed with Managers in relation to training 
needs of staff. It had been suggested that most children within his category would be 
unaccompanied minors (UM)  however analysis of case files found that was not 
always the case. ?it?s Mums that don?t want to disclose who the dads are?. I guess 
that would be the biggest area ? where you?ve got mixed heritage but Mum might not 
know exactly who the partner is? [in terms of paternity and/or ethnicity] 
 
?I?ve had a mixed race child I worked with? went all the way to ... adoption ? 
everyone was convinced was Afro-Caribbean and then the father surfaced and he 
was of mixed race himself, but he was Asian as well ? half Asian and half African?   
 
UM asylum seekers who were classified as ?other? were often from certain 
geographical areas such as Afghanistan or Iraq. Whilst these children do not 
necessarily fit well into existing ethnic codes the question of whether additional 
categories could be developed was considered, as well as the question of  
appropriate coding (e.g. as Black African) for some UM?s currently listed as ?other?.  
 
?It is really down to recording ? if it?s not done, but it would be picked up. Most of our 
unaccompanied asylum seekers arrive over the weekend and the emergency duty 
team have the ability to record information on the system so that would be one of the 
immediate problems coming up ? identifying it ? but I would say that we generally get 
told where they?re from and what area? 
 
?I wonder if that has improved more recently? there is [now] a specialist worker and 
I know that that person has done a lot of work to improve things?    
 
 74 
When asked to consider issues of working with dual heritage families or those with a 
white mother typical responses included ?lack of disclosure of who the father is? as a 
particularly complicating factor as well as ?not dual heritage, it?s multi heritage... dual 
is less and less current. Dad is dual heritage but Mum is different dual heritage? 
 
Some front-line staff raised concerns that ?with dual heritage ? we?ve ignored the 
white portion of their identity and looked for a black foster carer?  or that lack of 
appropriate support for parents and carers can lead to very poor outcomes for 
children ?there was a case where a child was taken to initial child protection case 
conference but they wouldn?t have been if the family had been given some education 
and then the family wouldn?t have been on the CP process?if it?s not a worker with 
understanding [things can escalate]? 
 
The need for support for lone parents of mixed ethnicity children was emphasised 
particularly by front-line staff, who saw conflicting advice, lack of social worker 
awareness and few positive identity models for children as adding to the sense of 
isolation experienced by both children and their mothers: 
 
 ?I once heard a social worker recommend to a mother that was White British with a 
dual heritage to daughter to ?cut the child?s hair? 
 
?A BME social worker to support that [social worker who gave poor advice] would be 
good? 
 
?workshops would be good ? both for families with mixed heritage children and social 
workers?  
 
?I remember as a social worker [currently a manager] working in ? predominantly 
British area and we had a handful of children who were Afro Caribbean and we were 
their social workers? it was only because I had a friend who told me about different 
creams that needed to be used and different things for hair or I wouldn?t personally 
know ? and we don?t have that training?. and then meeting the needs of children 
from different ethnic minorities who have health and dietary requirements unless 
there are parents who can tell us that ? often we don?t get that information and often 
young children don?t have that information themselves? 
 
One manager and one front-line staff member explicitly referred to good practice in 
other localities for white social workers and parents working with dual heritage or 
children from diverse ethnic communities whose care they might be unfamiliar with: 
 
?there was a BME mentor at X foster care?it is not just about Black children but 
children from all different cultures and ethnicities ? we just don?t have the training, we 
are expected to provide but we don?t have the training, we don?t have the services? 
 
?when a child is of mixed parentage ? other local authorities have special BME 
services ? called a Heritage Framework Assessment in Northamptonshire ? just like 
a Core Assessment? 
 
?They [another authority] would have parties for the BME young people in care to 
help to support their identity? 
 75 
Several front-line practitioners and managers mentioned the value of drawing upon 
the experience and knowledge of different members of teams and the way in which 
could be beneficial in terms of staff awareness-raising as well as supporting children. 
A database of worker?s ethnicities and teams as a source of expertise was regarded 
as potentially too narrow a resource particularly ?some workers from some cultures 
may not want to be identified [just] by their ethnicity?  
 
When asked to contemplate whether practitioners were aware of specific issues that  
were found with more frequency in some ethnic groups, most discussion occurred 
around the needs of Asian women: 
 
?In Pakistani families ? I?ve had a few cases where the mother doesn?t stimulate the 
children? she?s not sure about what the issue is ? the children are fed and cared for, 
but she doesn?t understand about the stimulation needs of the children?  
 
?With Muslim families and mixed gender groups ? their children miss out on a lot of 
activities because there aren?t single sex groups for swimming and such? 
 
?Women without English are very isolated. They cannot access services? 
 
?We really should have a service, a support service for new families in the UK? 
 
?This service doesn?t really have awareness of cultural diversity? 
 
Two managers stressed the variability of services and resources across the County 
?for example... I can sit here and say in the North that we?ve got a centre that?s called 
the Multicultural Centre. If I was new here and was working with an Asian family or 
Chinese, let me go to the MC and find the information out about how wrong could I 
be ? that?s the ethos of the MC?  
 
?Being from the South what they have in the North is not reflected in the South so if 
you?re going to get more resources you can imagine there?s a whole part of the 
county sitting in X?. just getting here is quite difficult for me. The families who don?t 
have the financial means or transport ? depending on the part of the country where 
they live ? can be in a major problem? 
 
The topic of specific ethnic groups that would benefit from targeted services within 
Buckinghamshire led to quite heated discussion on resource allocation and 
engagement with BME families. In general it was regarded as Blue Skies thinking to 
ask for additional resources targeted at any one group when the service felt so over-
 stretched and often under-valued. 
 
?Other Boroughs for example London ? the ethnic diversity is just much higher? 
 
?There are an inordinate number of forms for Social Workers to complete ?  if there 
are five children coming into care there are 50 different forms to be filled out? 
 
?Are we looking to engage beyond the individual and with the ethnic communities?? 
 
 76 
?the difficulty we have every day is we don?t have interpreters on site and equally 
again ? being White British someone from Afghanistan, they speak a different type of 
language ? we don?t speak the language, we don?t know which region they come 
from and we don?t even have a rough pack to say people from X country could speak 
XXX or what regions have particular cultural issues? 
 
?Is it a training package we need or recourses being available at our fingertips?? 
 
Whilst both managers and front-line staff were generally pessimistic about the 
potential to draw down more funding to support what was recognised as an under-
 resourced area of work some suggestions were made for utilising pre-existing skills 
and resources to enhance the work already being undertaken.  
 
?We do need to recognise... it?s not just about having a training pack, we do need 
more resources, we have to be realistic ? we are not going to have resources and 
people at our disposal to meet every situation, we?re living in a changing world? we 
have a pool of resources within our team and with a bit of forethought they could be 
used for some level of interpreting and mentoring work but they would need to be 
insured for that, and paid and trained etc but if they used these people and teams all 
pulled together?. I think it is a resource which could be used? 
 
?One of the other problems is about knowledge ? what is available in the north, us in 
the south don?t know about unless we speak to a colleague who says why don?t you 
try such and such a person ? the knowledge and information is not known across the 
county or just because someone has worked there longer ? but if they go, that 
information is lost. We don?t have continuity?   
   
When asked to consider ways of overcoming barriers to communication and 
awareness of services amongst BME families ? a factor which the review has 
identified as leading to later, more serious referrals for child protection concerns 
amongst some communities professionals were interested in, but aware of the 
difficulties in engaging with BME communities who did not have a history of positive 
contact or awareness of social care:   
 
?There is a group that has recently been set up looking at recruitment of carers? 
how we can encourage people from different cultures to come into fostering and 
again it?s going to be quite challenging and need to think outside of the box? in 
some communities you have to speak to them in a language they can understand 
and get something as opposed to saying ?why aren?t you coming forward?? 
 
?It?s about talking in places ? like talking to their leaders in their community.. I know 
from a case we had that if we went and talked to the mosque we would get a decent 
answer rather than trying to peddle my way through ? fairly blind ? but we could also 
go and pick out the right person ? so it?s about building links with the communities? 
 
?We need to employ people to provide a service which doesn?t respond in a knee-
 jerk way but is actually embedded and in place and it is their role?? 
 
In conclusion ? the key themes which emerged from the qualitative focus groups 
concerned predominantly: 
 77 
 
 Staff culture in relation to recording data and lack of awareness of importance 
of statistical accuracy (this is not a problem in terms of practical working with 
families, merely in recording accurately). 
 
 Uncertainty about ethnicity in some circumstances and not wishing to offend 
families by stressing the issue 
 
 Over-stretched and under-resourced practice impacting on work-load 
 
 Lack of knowledge in relation to some communities and uncertainty in working 
with certain families 
 
 The limited contacts with some community groups leading to difficulties in 
establishing preventative work or effective lines of communication 
 
 
What is clear is that, based upon both quantitative analysis and qualitative data, 
workers are concerned first and foremost with the safety and welfare of children or 
all ethnic groups. What is lacking in some cases is access to support for working with 
families, and with families in need of services. Comprehension of the need for 
strategic approaches to recording of ethnicity and how this can impact on county 
level resourcing is often low amongst front line practitioners. The lack of a clear 
county-wide strategy for engaging with the diverse communities present in 
Buckinghamshire appears to be counter-productive in terms of supporting vulnerable 
BME families.  
 
In the final section of this report ? we therefore build upon suggestions raised and 
debated within the focus groups and findings from the quantitative analysis to 
suggest simple steps which can assist in supporting families in need, and to ensure 
that clarity exists over the precise numbers of BME children in the welfare system 
and variables impacting on their likely history within the child protection process.    
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 78 
 
Chapter 6 
Recommendations 
 
In this final section a list of recommendations arising from the data analysis and 
focus groups is proposed. Whilst these are largely cost-neutral or relatively low cost 
to implement,  some would require drawing down of training budgets to ensure 
appropriate levels of knowledge and skills are disseminated to staff, and others 
would require greater investment in staffing and staff time ? for example those 
involving community work. However utilising community development officers in 
some initiatives rather than social work staff would reduce costs and could potentially 
be joint-funded from across the PCT/LEA/LA.   
 
The recommendations are based upon the key findings relating to concerns over 
accuracy in recording ethnicity, likely causation of disproportionality (where this may 
potentially be impacted upon by undertaking preventative working with communities); 
and disparity where for example provision of appropriate support to BME groups ? 
which was not offered (see under qualitative findings) may potentially have led to a 
different outcome for the child or family involved. 
  
Accurate Recording of Ethnicity/Need:  impacts on drawing down of 
resources, enhanced knowledge base of client group/preventative 
planning and targeting of interventions and proof of meeting strategic 
targets across the authority   
 
 Provision of broad training or information dissemination on the reasons for 
ethnic codes within ICS, and the ability of the LA to then request funding from 
LGA to support these children with some very specific needs/strategic use of 
ICS.  
 
 Train staff on the importance or consistency in coding e.g. Eritrean children 
were found under a variety of ethnicity codes; UM from Africa not coded as  
?Black African?.  
 
 Need codes not always accurately recorded/overuse of ?other?. Consider new 
structure for the database ? entering each referral and need code as a new 
variable rather than adding as a new case 
 
 Identification of the parents? ethnicities within case files/databases  
 
 Consider the possibility of adding additional codes for UM children (e.g. Iraqi) 
and/or group them according to their ethnic background, so as to reflect the 
service provision needed for them  
 
 Explore whether scope exists to increase the ethnic categories to include 
Afghani and/or Middle Eastern 
 
 79 
 Provision of broad training around how to sensitively record a child?s ethnic 
identity within a file, and how to identify if the child?s ethnicity is being 
supported (or not) by it?s current home provision. 
 
 The provision of cards with different ethnic codes to social workers to hand 
out/talk through with service user to self-identity by ethnicity 
 
 
Engaging with potential disparity issues: Provision of Training and 
Support for Staff to ensure that staff are familiar with services and 
facilities available and can strategically and appropriately support BME 
families. 
 
 Workshops for social workers on diversity issues (e.g. hair and skin care for 
Black children) and supporting mixed ethnicity families.  
 
 Buckinghamshire CC to replicate the use of Heritage Framework 
Assessments as used in Northamptonshire 
 
 Development of additional support for CIN/CPP and CLA of dual heritage ? 
e.g. parties to meet other children of similar background/heritage to 
strengthen awareness of identity. 
 
 Additional relationship planning and parenting support for older children living 
in care  given research evidence of greater likelihood of CLA becoming young 
parents and suggestions of over-representation of young care leavers as 
parents of dual or multi-ethnic heritage children   
 
 The development of a database/resource list of expertise across the County ? 
both within social care services and externally ? e.g PCT; LEA, University 
expertise who can be contacted for advice/support in developing projects or 
individual working with families and communities e.g. Afghani of 
Gypsy/Traveller families 
 
 
 
Preventative Work: Engaging with stressors impacting on 
Disproprotionality  
 
 Greater collaborative engagement should occur with a range of agencies and 
LA departments, e.g., housing, debt advice, health visitors etc 
 
 Provision of an embedded community opportunity/development officer 
working across the authority to engage with BME communities and develop 
strategies for working with diverse communities on Child Protection issues 
including identifying potential foster carers. 
 
 80 
 Buckinghamshire County Council to become more pro-active in developing 
preventative work targeted at specific communities (e.g.  Bangladeshi women; 
Support services for lone White mothers of Mixed Ethnicity children, etc.). 
Such work could be jointly undertaken with the PCT and other agencies e.g. 
Surestart, local community groups, etc. 
 
 Preparation of resources on social care agencies, preventative work (such as 
access to parenting skills classes, enhanced take-up of family group 
conferences) and child protection issues in a range of community languages 
and formats (potentially jointly fundable via PCTs, SureStart, LEA funds, etc) 
 
 The development of multi-agency mentoring teams (charged with supporting 
staff around cultural diversity) to work with faith and community leaders to 
engage in raising awareness around CP issues, enhancing knowledge of 
preventative services etc.  
 
 
In conclusion whilst it is unlikely that disproportionality within the child welfare system 
can be totally eradicated given the additional stressors and risk factors associated 
with the ?ethnic penalty?, we would recommend that the initiatives outlined above 
could assist in identifying those children and families most at risk, engaging staff and 
parents with relatively lost-cost support strategies and reducing the numbers of 
children who proceed to CPP or CLA status with all the personal, social and long-
 term life-chance implications engagement with the child protection system brings.  
 
The pro-active involvement of communities and families whilst not unproblematic and 
potentially relatively resource intensive (at least in the early stages of the work) 
would we suggest bring significant dividends in terms of reducing both disparity and 
disproportionality and could utilise the resources and networks of a range of service 
providers, community and faith groups within the County through the development of 
participatory practice.  
 
As a footnote, we would draw the County?s attention to the Conservative pre-election 
policy paper on ?Building a Big Society? and the outcomes of the coalition 
Government?s 10 Downing Street roundtable discussion of 18th May 2010. We 
suggest that despite the likelihood of significant public sector cuts in the near future, 
that partnership working of the type suggested above might well be eligible for 
funding to assist in putting at least some the ?community-facing? proposals in place.   
   
 
 
 81 
Appendix 
 
Topic Guide Utilised with Children and Family Social Work Managers and  
Front-Line Staff 
 
 
Where, When, How and by Whom is the child?s ethnicity obtained? 
 
Where is it recorded? 
 
When is it reviewed? 
 
Any problems over inappropriate identification of ethnicity? 
 
What happens when a social worker is unclear about the child?s ethnicity? Or when 
the information provided conflicts with what appears to be the ethnicity? 
 
What happens when there is a single-parent of a dual heritage child? What are the 
provisions for the child?s ethnicity? How is that captured? 
 
Are there specific issues that seem to appear with more frequency in some ethnic 
groups? If so, what are the issues, and which groups? 
 
Are there specific ethnic groups that would benefit from targeted services within 
Bucks? If so, which groups, and what possible services? 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 82 
Bibliography 
 
Ahmad, W. ed. (2000)  Ethnicity, Disability and Chronic Illness, Buckingham, OUP  
 
Ashley, C. (2005) Family Group Conference Network Information, December 2005. 
www.frg.org.uk/FGC/FGC%20survey%20results%20Dec%2005.doc (document no 
longer available on website ? cited by Owen and Statham, 2009:11) 
 
Barn, R. (2006) Improving services to meet the needs of minority ethnic children and 
families. ECM Briefing 13. Dartington, Research in Practice 
 
Barn, R. (2007) ??Race?, ethnicity and child welfare: a fine balancing act?, British 
Journal of Social Work 37, 1425-1434 
 
Bebbington, A. and Beecham, J. (2003) Children in Need 2001: Ethnicity and service 
use. PSSRU Analysis Report  
http://www.dfes.gov.uk/qualityprotects/work_pro/analysis1.shtml 
 
Bebbington, A. and Miles, J. (1989) ?The background of children who enter local 
authority care? British Journal of Social Work 19, 5, 349-68 
 
Blackstock, C (2009) After the apology : why are so many First Nations children still 
in foster care? A summary of the research on ethnic over-representation and 
structural bias Children Australia; Vol. 34, Issue: 1 22-29 
 
Boushel, M  (2008) Vulnerable Multiracial Families and Early Years Services: 
Concerns, Challenges and Opportunities Children & Society Vol. 10 Issue 4:305 -
  316 
 
Boushel M and Sharma G (1995) Looking after Black and other minority children in 
Jackson S and Kilroe S (eds) Looking After Children: Good Parenting, Good 
Outcomes Reader, London HMSO 
 
Bowser, B. and Jones, T. (2004) Understanding the over-representation of African 
Americans in the child welfare system: San Francisco. San Francisco, Inter-City 
Family Resource Network, Inc.  
 
Bradshaw, J.,Finch, N., Mayhew, E., Ritakallio, V-M., & Skinner, C. (2006)  Child 
poverty in large families Bristol, Policy Press 
 
Brandon M., Thoburn J., Lewis A. & Way A. (1999) Safeguarding Children with the 
Children Act 1989  London, Stationery Office 
 
Brophy, J., Jhutti-Johal, J. and Owen, C. (2003) ?Assessing and documenting child 
ill-treatment in ethnic minority households?, Family Law, 33, 756-764 
 
Buckinghamshire PCT/Buckinghamshire County Council (2009) Joint Strategic 
Needs Assessment (no place of publication) available at: 
http://www.buckspct.nhs.uk/?page_id=667 
 
 83 
Butt, J and Box, L (1998) Family Centred: a study of the use of family centres by 
black families, London, REU 
 
Butt, J and Mirza, K (1996) Social care and black communities, London, 
HMSO  
 
Caballero, C., Edwards, R. &  Puthussery, S. (2008) Parenting 'mixed' children: difference and 
belonging in mixed race and faith families York, JRF 
 
Courtney, M. and Skyles, A. (2003) ?Racial disproportionality in the child welfare 
system?, editorial from special issue of Children and Youth Services Review, 25, 5/6, 
355-358 
 
Chahal, K (2004) Experiencing ethnicity: Discrimination and service provision York, JRF 
 
Chamba, R., Ahmad, W., Hirst, M., Lawton, D. and Beresford, B. (1999) On the 
Edge: Minority ethnic families caring for a severely disabled child. York: Joseph 
Rowntree Foundation 
 
Chand, A. (2000) ?The over-representation of black children in the child protection 
system: possible causes, consequences and solutions?, Child and Family Social 
Work, 5, 1, 67-77  
 
Chand, A. (2003) ?Race? and the Laming Report on Victoria Climbie: Lessons for 
Inter-Professional Policy and Practice?, Journal of Integrated Care 11(4) 28-37 
 
Chand, A. and Thoburn, J. (2005a) ?Research review: child and family support 
services with minority ethnic families: what can we learn from research? Child and 
Family Social Work, 10, 2, 169-178 
 
Chand, A. and Thoburn, J. (2005b) ?Research review: child protection referrals and 
minority ethnic children and families?, Child and Family Social Work, 11, 368-377 
 
Craig, G (2005) ?Poverty among black and minority ethnic children? in Preston, G ed. 
At Greatest Risk: the children most likely to be poor London, CPAG 
 
Department for Children Schools and Families (2009) DCSF: Children Looked After 
in England (including adoption and care leavers) year ending 31 March 2009, 
London, DCSF  
 
Devaney, J (2009) Chronic Child Abuse: The Characteristics and Careers of 
Children Caught in the Child Protection System British Journal of Social Work 
39(1):24-45 
 
Divedi, K (2002) Meeting the Needs of Ethnic Minority Children: including 
refugee, black and mixed parentage children: a handbook for professionals Jessica 
Kingsley Publishers 
 
 84 
Flynn, R (2002) Providing better access to short breaks for black disabled children and their 
parents York, JRF http://www.jrf.org.uk/publications/providing-better-access-short-breaks-black-
 disabled-children-and-their-parents 
 
Ghate, D. and Hazel, N. (2002) Parenting in poor environments: stress, support and 
coping.London: Jessica Kingsley 
 
Gibbons, J. and Wilding, J. (1995) Needs, risks and family support plans: Social 
Services Departments? responses to neglected children. Interim report to the 
Department of Health. Norwich, University of East Anglia 
 
Gilligan, P. and Akhtar, S. (2006) ?Cultural barriers to the disclosure of child sexual 
abuse in Asian communities: listening to what women say?, British Journal of Social 
Work, 36, 8, 1361-1377 
 
Greene, R., Pugh, R. and Roberts, D. (2008) Black and minority ethnic parents with 
mental health problems and their children. SCIE Research Briefing 29. 
Harman, V (2010) Social Work Practice and Lone White Mothers of Mixed-
 Parentage Children British Journal of Social Work 2010 40(2):391-406 
Harran, E (2002) Barriers to effective child protection in a multicultural society Child 
Abuse Review Vol. 11: 411?414 
 
Harrison, C (2009) A plea for more BME foster carers BBC website article 7/10/2009 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/northampton/hi/people_and_places/newsid_8292000/829
 2678.stm 
 
Harriss, K & Salway, S (2008)  Long term illness, poverty and ethnicity, A Race 
Equality Foundation Health Briefing Paper, London, REF  
 
Hatton, C., Akram, Y., Shah, R., Robertson, J. and Emerson, E. (2004) Supporting 
South Asian families with a child with severe difficulties. London: Jessica Kingsley 
 
Healy, K (2005) Social work theories in context: creating frameworks for practice  
Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan 
 
Hill, R (2004) Institutional racism in child welfare Race and Society, Vol. 7 (1):  17-33 
 
Hill, R. (2006) Synthesis of research on disproportionality in child welfare: an update. 
Casey-CSSP Alliance for Racial Equity in the Child Welfare System. 
http://www.racemattersconsortium.org/docs/BobHillPaper_FINAL.pdf 
 
Humphreys, C., Atkar, S., Baldwin, N. (1999) Discrimination in child protection work: 
recurring themes in work with Asian families. Child and Family Social Work 4: 4, 283-
 291. 
 
Hunt, J., Macleod, A. and Thomas, C. (1999) The Last Resort: Child protection, the 
courts and the Children Act. London: The Stationery Office 
 
 85 
Irfan, S. and Cowburn, M. (2004). ?Disciplining, chastisement and physical child 
abuse: perceptions and attitudes of the British Pakistani community?. Journal of 
Muslim minority affairs, 24 (1), 89-98. 
 
Ivaldi, G. (2000) Surveying Adoption: A comprehensive analysis of local authority 
adoptions 1998-1999 (England), London: BAAF 
 
Kaur, J (2007) Working with families from culturally and linguistically diverse 
communities in Queensland: an Australian exploratory study 
Children Australia v.32 no.4 2007: 17-24 
 
Kellett, J & Apps, J (2009) Assessments of parenting and parenting support need 
York, JRF 
 
Large, P. & Ghosh, K. (2006) Estimates of the population by ethnic group for areas 
within England Population Trends 124, London, ONS. 
 
Masson, J., Pearce, J. and Bader, K. (2008) Care profiling study. Ministry of Justice 
Research Series 4/08. www.justice.gov.uk/docs/care-profiling-study.pdf 
 
Modood, T., Berthoud, R., Lakey, J., Nazroo, J., Smith, P., Virdee S & Beishon, S 
(1997) Ethnic Minorities in Britain: diversity and disadvantage Grantham, Grantham 
Books 
 
NSPCC 92007) Family? honour? dilemma for British Asians reporting child abuse. 
Press release 19 March 2007. www.nspcc.org.uk 
 
Office of National Statistics (undated) Focus on Ethnicity and Identity [webpage ? 
accessed 12/5/10] available at:  
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=464&Pos=3&ColRank=2&Rank=576 
 
Office of National Statistics (2004) The Health of Children and Young People: 
Chapter 10 ? Disability, London, ONS available at:  
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/children/downloads/disability.pdf 
 
Office of National Statistics (2003) Ethnic group statistics. A guide for the collection 
and classification of ethnicity data, London, ONS 
 
Owen, C & Statham, J (2009) Disproportionality in Child Welfare - Prevalence of 
Black and Ethnic Minority Children within 'Looked After' and 'Children in Need? 
populations and on Child Protection Registers in England, London DCSF/IoE 
 
Page, J, Whitting, G & Mclean, C. (2007) Engaging Effectively with Black and 
Minority Ethnic Parents in Children?s and Parental Services, London: DCSF 
http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/research/programmeofresearch/projectinformation.cfm?proje
 ctid=14986&resultspage=1 
 
Platt, L. (2007) Poverty and ethnicity in the UK. Bristol: Policy Press 
 
Platt, L (2009) Ethnicity and family, London, EHRC/ISER/University of Essex 
 86 
 
Riddell-Heaney, J (2003) Safeguarding children: 2. Identifying and preventing 
institutional racism (on-line article published 1-2-03)  
http://www.nursingtimes.net/nursing-practice-clinical-research/safeguarding-children-
 2-identifying-and-preventing-institutional-racism/199590.article 
 
Selwyn, J., Harris P., Quinton, D., Nawaz, S., Wijedasa, D. and Wood, M. (2008) 
Pathways to permanence for black, Asian and mixed ethnicity children: dilemmas, 
decision-making and outcomes. Research Brief DCSF-RBX-13-08 
http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/DCSF-RBX-13-08(V2).pdf 
 
Singh, B (2005) Making change happen for black and minority ethnic disabled people York, JRF 
 
Sinclair, I., Baker, C., Lee, J. and Gibbs, I. (2007) The Pursuit of Permanence: a 
study of the English child care system. London: Jessica Kingsley 
 
Spence, A (2007) Skills, Employment and BME communities, London BTEG 
 
Tilbury, C (2009) The over-representation of indigenous children in the Australian 
child welfare system International Journal of Social Welfare 18(1) 54-67 
 
Thoburn, J., Chand, A. and Procter, J. (2005) Child welfare services for minority 
ethnic families: the research reviewed. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers 
 
Williams, C. and Soydan, H. (2005) ?When and how does ethnicity matter? A cross-
 national study of social work responses to ethnicity in child protection cases?, British 
Journal of Social Work, 35, 6, 901-920 
 
Wulczyn, F. and Lery, B. (2007) Racial disparity in foster care. Chapin Hall Center 
for Children, University of Chicago, USA. 
http://www.chapinhall.org/research/report/racial-disparity-foster-care-admissions