{"id":3171,"date":"2019-12-24T13:23:04","date_gmt":"2019-12-24T13:23:04","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/empathygap.uk\/?p=3171"},"modified":"2021-07-30T16:57:30","modified_gmt":"2021-07-30T15:57:30","slug":"children-in-need-statistics-england","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/empathygap.uk\/?p=3171","title":{"rendered":"Children in Need: Statistics (England)"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"
Number of children subject to a protection plan by category of abuse<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

This will be a rather flat-footed presentation of salient\ndata relating to children \u201cin need\u201d and \u201cin care\u201d. All the data herein relates\nto England alone (not the whole of the UK) unless otherwise stated. Data\nrelates to the year ending March 2018, or at 31 March 2018, unless otherwise\nstated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Throughout it will be seen that boys outnumber girls in\ncare, in need, and in all their adverse effects. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

(NB: Whilst male babies outnumber female babies at birth, in\nthe UK the sex ratio at birth is, in round numbers, 51% to 49%. This does not\nexplain the extent to which boys outnumber girls in care and in need, which is significantly\ngreater).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Terminology \/ Definitions<\/h1>\n\n\n\n

By \u201cin care\u201d I strictly mean a child \u201clooked\nafter by a local authority\u201d, defined under the Children Act 1989. This applies\nif the child (i) is provided with accommodation for a least 24 hours, or, (ii) is\nsubject to a care order or a placement order. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Children classified as \u201cin need\u201d, or subject\nto a protection order, are not necessarily included in the \u201ccare\u201d statistics.\nThe number of children classed as \u201cin need\u201d is far larger than the number \u201cin\ncare\u201d (nearly ten times as many). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cChild\u201d means all those under 18.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sources<\/h1>\n\n\n\n

Number of children in care: https:\/\/www.gov.uk\/government\/statistics\/children-looked-after-in-england-including-adoption-2017-to-2018<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Characteristics of children in need: https:\/\/www.gov.uk\/government\/collections\/statistics-children-in-need<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Outcomes for looked-after children: https:\/\/www.gov.uk\/government\/statistics\/outcomes-for-children-looked-after-by-las-31-march-2018<\/a> and https:\/\/www.gov.uk\/government\/collections\/statistics-looked-after-children<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

National KS2 SATS statistics: https:\/\/www.gov.uk\/government\/statistics\/national-curriculum-assessments-key-stage-2-2018-provisional<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Number of Children in Care (England)<\/h1>\n\n\n\n

The number of children in care has increased from\n47,590 in 1994, shortly after the 1989 Children Act was passed, to 75,420 in\n2018, see Figure 1.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Of these, 69% (52,180) had been looked after\nfor a continuous period of at least a year. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The total number of children in care at some\ntime during 2017\/18 was 104,100 (58,620 boys, 45,480 girls). That\u2019s 0.9% of the\npopulation of children under 18.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There are 28% more boys than girls in care\n(the gender split is 56.1% to 43.9%). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 63% of cases the main reason for the child\nbeing taken into care was classed as \u201cneglect or abuse\u201d. (Family dysfunction is\nthe second largest category, at 15%, and then absent parenting at 6.4%).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The care data do not disaggregate between\nneglect and abuse. However, data relating to protection plans do disaggregate\nand indicate that neglect is four times more frequently the cause than physical\nand sexual abuse combined (though emotional abuse is also a major factor), see\nFigure 6. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

19% of children in care were placed in care by\nvoluntary agreement. The rest were almost all subject to care orders or\nplacement orders. 290 (0.38%) were remanded to youth detention centres.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

280 of the children in care are also mothers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The average duration of a continuous period in\ncare is 25 months. (But a given child may be subject to more than one such period\nin care). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The number of boys in care convicted of\noffences or cautioned during the year was 1,150 (5.5% of boys in care aged\nbetween 12 and 17), compared with 360 girls (2.3% of girls in care aged between\n12 and 17).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Just under 30,000 children left the care\nsystem in the last year, and 32,000 entered care.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Of those leaving care in the last year, 31%\ndid so because they reached 18.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

700 children left young offenders\u2019\ninstitutions or prison in the last year (2.3% of those leaving care).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Figure\n1: The number of children in care, 1994 – 2018<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Ethnicity in Care<\/h1>\n\n\n\n

Ethnicity of children in care: 30% are not\n\u201cWhite British\u201d and 25% are not \u201cWhite\u201d. (These compare with the national\nfigures of 19.5% and 15% respectively). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The number of unaccompanied asylum-seeking\nchildren in care has increased from 2,060 in 2014 to 4,480 in 2018. 92% of\nthese are boys, and 82% are aged 16 or 17. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The ethnicity of unaccompanied asylum-seeking\nchildren in care is: White 11%, Black 25%, Asian (excluding Chinese of which\nthere are almost none) 25%, \u201cOther\u201d 36%. I believe that \u201cOther\u201d can probably be\ninterpreted as \u201cSemitic\u201d (recalling that, despite the universal misuse of the\nterm \u201cantisemitic\u201d, Semitic does not<\/em> mean \u201cJewish\u201d). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Emotional and Behavioural Health in Care<\/h1>\n\n\n\n

Children in care aged 5 to 16 are subject to a\nStrengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ). This is used to indicate a\nchild\u2019s wellbeing, or otherwise. A score of 0 to 13 is considered normal, 14 to\n16 is borderline, and 17 to 40 is a cause for concern.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

9,350 boys (42% of the relevant cohort) and\n6,060 girls (35% of the relevant cohort) scored at the \u201ccause for concern\u201d\nlevel, a substantial excess of boys (by 54%). See Figure 2.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Figure 2:\nSDQ Score, Boys and Girls<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Adoption from Care<\/h1>\n\n\n\n

The number of children adopted from care has\nincreased from 2,190 in 1993\/94, shortly after the 1989 Children Act was\npassed, to 3,820 children in 2017\/18 (though that is down from 5,050 in\n2013\/14). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Parental consent was \u201cdispensed with\u201d in 88%\nof cases of children adopted from care.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The likelihood of adoption from care\ndiminishes rapidly after the age of 4. 78% of those adopted were 4 or younger,\n20% were aged 5 to 9. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Girls are (marginally) more likely to be\nadopted from care than boys (5.5% cf 4.8%). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Just over 10% (400) of the adopters were single (370 women,\n30 men).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Just under 70% of the adopters were a married couple of\ndifferent sex, and a further 8% were an unmarried couple of different sex.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

12% (460) of adopters were a couple of the same sex (280 male\ncouples, 180 female couples).
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Figure 3: Number of adoptions from care, 1994 – 2018<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Children in Need (England)<\/h1>\n\n\n\n

705,060 children in England were classed as \u201cin need\u201d at\nsome time during 2017\/18, just under 6% of all children in England (see also\nFigure 4). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The number of children \u201cin need\u201d at 31 March 2018 was\n404,710 (see also Figure 4). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Of children in need at 31 March 2018, 54% were boys and 46%\ngirls (an excess of boys of 18%).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The number of children with a protection plan starting\nduring 2017\/18 was 68,770. This statistic has been increasing markedly over the\npreceding 9 years (Figure 5).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The number of children with a protection plan at 31 March\n2018 was 53,790. This statistic has been increasing markedly over the preceding\n9 years (Figure 5).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Figure 6 shows the breakdown of the categories of abuse\nleading to protection orders. Neglect is the most common reason (48%), with\nemotional abuse easily the second most common (35%). Moreover, these are the\ntwo categories which have been increasing, and together account for the overall\nincrease in protection plans seen in Figure 5. Physical abuse (8%) has been\nfalling as a cause, and sexual abuse (4%) roughly static. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

These datasets do not include information on perpetrators.\nHowever, the nature of the dominant abuse categories suggests that mothers\nrather than fathers are the main perpetrators, and moreover that it is abuse by\nmothers which is mainly leading to the increasing incidence of protection\norders. It would be valuable to obtain specific data to confirm this\nimplication.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

At 31 March 2018, more boys (27,160) than girls (25,410)\nwere the subject of a child protection plan. More boys had protection plans in\nevery abuse category except sexual abuse. Sexual abuse was the abuse category\nleading to a protection plan for 1,330 girls and 810 boys. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ethnicity in Need<\/h1>\n\n\n\n

Where ethnicity was recorded, at 31 March 2018, 27.4% of\nchildren in need were non-white (cf., 15% in the general population).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Where ethnicity was recorded, at 31 March 2018, 23.1% of\nchildren with a protection plan were non-white (cf., 15% in the general\npopulation).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Figure 4: Number of children in need (England)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Figure 5: Number of children with protection plans<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n


\n<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Figure 6: Number of children subject to a protection plan\nby category of abuse<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Educational Attainment of Children in Need or in Care<\/h1>\n\n\n\n

The datasets consider outcomes for specific subsets of those\nin need or in care. For brevity I shall use the same shorthand but note that,\nfor the purpose of educational outcomes,<\/p>\n\n\n\n

  • \u201clooked-after children\u201d means children aged 5 to\n16 who have been looked after for a continuous period of at least 12 months at\n31 March 2018;<\/li>
  • \u201cchildren in need\u201d means children in need aged 5\nto 16 but not also looked after at 31 March 2018.<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n

    55.5% of looked after children were classed as SEN (Special\nEducational Needs). This compares with the national average of 14.4%. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    45.7% of children in need were classed as SEN.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    With such high prevalence of SEN in these demographics it is\ninevitable that educational attainment will be poor compared with the national\naverage. Whether the disadvantages that lead to a child being in need (or in\ncare) are causally implicated in the observed incidence of SEN, or whether the\ntwo things relate to a common third variable (e.g., genetics) I do not know. It\nwould be interesting to investigate this further. These datasets do not address\nthe issue. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Table 1a compares the Key Stage 2 SATS results (10\/11 year\nolds) for in-need and in-care children identified as SEN with the national\naverage, for boys and girls separately. The data are the percentages of the\ncohort achieving the expected standard. Unsurprisingly, the children rated as\nSEN perform very poorly compared with the national average. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Table 1b is the same for the non-SEN children in-care or\nin-need. For these in-care\/in-need children the attainment is much closer to\nthe national average, especially for the boys. The in-care\/in-need girls are a\nlittle behind the (higher) national average for girls. However, comparing\nTables 1a and 1b shows how meaningless it would be to concentrate on the\nattainment level for the in-need\/in-care children as a whole, without\ndisaggregation according to SEN categorisation (which is sometimes done). The\nnon-SEN contingent is broadly comparable with the national average at age 11. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    But things change dramatically by age 16 at GCSE. Tables 2a\nand 2b are a savage indictment of the care and \u201cin need\u201d processes in terms of\neducational attainment at secondary school. Table 2a indicates that the SEN\ncontingent achieve even the 9-4 grade range in both English and Maths only in\nsingle figures of percent. The performance of SEN pupils would not be expected\nto be stellar, but the national average for SEN pupils is at least in double\nfigures of percent (11% – 27%). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    More concerning still is Table 2b for the non-SEN contingent within the in-need and in-care demographics. Performance at KS2 SATS (Table 1b) implies that this cohort is not lacking in ability compared with the national average. And yet, by age 16 they have fallen radically behind the national average in GCSE performance (Table 2b). This is true for both boys and girls, with boys doing even worse than girls (as is the case nationally, of course). This underperformance at GCSE is clearly attributable to the disadvantages associated with being in care \/ in need. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Table 1a: Key Stage 2 SATS Results: Percentages Reaching\nthe Expected Standard, 2018<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n Subject<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n SEN Males*<\/sup><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n SEN Females*<\/sup><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n National Male<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n National Female<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
    \n Reading \n <\/td>\n 23(33)\n <\/td>\n 23(32)\n <\/td>\n 72\n <\/td>\n 79\n <\/td><\/tr>
    \n Writing \n <\/td>\n 17(25)\n <\/td>\n 23(30)\n <\/td>\n 72\n <\/td>\n 84\n <\/td><\/tr>
    \n Maths\n <\/td>\n 22(32)\n <\/td>\n 20(24)\n <\/td>\n 75\n <\/td>\n 76\n <\/td><\/tr>
    \n Grammar, spelling, etc\n <\/td>\n 20(29)\n <\/td>\n 23(30)\n <\/td>\n 73\n <\/td>\n 82\n <\/td><\/tr>
    \n All of Reading, Writing & Maths\n <\/td>\n 11(17)\n <\/td>\n 13(16)\n <\/td>\n 61\n <\/td>\n 69\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

    *<\/sup>In\nNeed (Looked After)<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Table 1b: Key Stage 2 SATS Results: Percentages Reaching\nthe Expected Standard, 2018<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n Subject<\/strong>\n <\/td> Non-SEN Males*<\/sup><\/strong> <\/td> Non-SEN Females*<\/sup><\/strong> <\/td>National<\/strong> Male<\/strong> <\/td>National Female<\/strong> <\/td><\/tr>
    \n Reading \n <\/td>\n 75(69)\n <\/td>\n 77(74)\n <\/td>\n 72\n <\/td>\n 79\n <\/td><\/tr>
    \n Writing \n <\/td>\n 77(70)\n <\/td>\n 84(80)\n <\/td>\n 72\n <\/td>\n 84\n <\/td><\/tr>
    \n Maths\n <\/td>\n 77(72)\n <\/td>\n 69(68)\n <\/td>\n 75\n <\/td>\n 76\n <\/td><\/tr>
    \n Grammar, spelling, etc\n <\/td>\n 77(71)\n <\/td>\n 79(77)\n <\/td>\n 73\n <\/td>\n 82\n <\/td><\/tr>
    \n All of Reading, Writing & Maths\n <\/td>\n 62(53)\n <\/td>\n 60(58)\n <\/td>\n 61\n <\/td>\n 69\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

    Table 2a: GCSE: Percentages Achieving Grades\n9-4 and 9-5 in Both English and Maths, 2018<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n Grade Range<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n SEN Males*<\/sup><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n SEN Females*<\/sup><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n National Male<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n National Female<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
    \n 9 – 4\n <\/td>\n 5(7)\n <\/td>\n 7(9)\n <\/td>\n 55\n <\/td>\n 64\n <\/td><\/tr>
    \n 9 – 5\n <\/td>\n 2(3)\n <\/td>\n 3(3)\n <\/td>\n 37\n <\/td>\n 44\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

    Table 2b: GCSE: Percentages Achieving Grades\n9-4 and 9-5 in Both English and Maths, 2018<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n Grade Range<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n Non-SEN Males*<\/sup><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n Non-SEN Females*<\/sup><\/strong>\n <\/td>\n National Male<\/strong>\n <\/td>\n National Female<\/strong>\n <\/td><\/tr>
    \n 9 – 4\n <\/td>\n 31(29)\n <\/td>\n 35(38)\n <\/td>\n 55\n <\/td>\n 64\n <\/td><\/tr>
    \n 9 – 5\n <\/td>\n 16(13)\n <\/td>\n 17(18)\n <\/td>\n 37\n <\/td>\n 44\n <\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    This will be a rather flat-footed presentation of salient data relating to children \u201cin need\u201d and \u201cin care\u201d. All the data herein relates to England alone (not the whole of the UK) unless otherwise stated. Data relates to the year ending March 2018, or at 31 March 2018, unless otherwise stated. Throughout it will be […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[15,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3171","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-children","category-education"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/empathygap.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3171","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/empathygap.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/empathygap.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/empathygap.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/empathygap.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=3171"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"http:\/\/empathygap.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3171\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3782,"href":"http:\/\/empathygap.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3171\/revisions\/3782"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/empathygap.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=3171"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/empathygap.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=3171"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/empathygap.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=3171"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}