Cited by 89Ethics and Social Impacts of AIChild Welfare and AdoptionE-Government and Public Services

Datafied child welfare services: unpacking politics, economics and power

Open access
Redden, Joanna, Dencik, Lina, Warne, Harry·2020·Policy Studies

Abstract

This article analyses three distinct child welfare data systems in England. We focus on child welfare as a contested area in public services where data systems are being used to inform decision-making and transforming governance. We advance the use of “data assemblage” as an analytical framework to detail how key political and economic factors influence the development of these data systems. We provide an empirically grounded demonstration of why child welfare data systems must not be considered neutral decision aid tools. We identify how systems of thought, ownership structures, policy agendas, organizational practices, and legal frameworks influence these data systems. We find similarities in the move toward greater sharing of sensitive data, but differences in attitudes toward public-private partnerships, rights and uses of prediction. There is a worrying lack of information available about the impacts of these systems on those who are subject to them – particularly in relation to predictive data systems. We argue for policy debates to go beyond technical fixes and privacy concerns to engage with fundamental questions about the power dynamics and rights issues linked to the expansion of data sharing in this sector as well as whether predictive data systems should be used at all.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/01442872.2020.1724928

Cites

63 of 64 references verified0 citation errors · 1 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Henry, Sarah. 2016. "A Families Database -From an Individual to a Holistic View, Local Datavores Workshop." https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=M128IZ1OltQ.
  2. Lupton, Deborah. 2016. The Quantified Self. Cambridge: Polity.
  3. Lyon, David, ed. 2002. Surveillance as Social Sorting: Privacy, Risk and Automated Discrimination. New York, NY: Routledge.
  4. Waterhouse, K., and Manchester City Council. 2018. FOI Reference TREAWZBQX Internal Review Aug 2018.
  5. Winner, Langdon. 1980. "Do Artifacts Have Politics?" Daedalus 109 (1): 121-136.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Redden, J., Dencik, L., & Warne, H.
Affiliations
Cardiff University (GB)
Corresponding author
Redden, Joanna
Venue
Policy Studies
Published
2020-02-14
Volume
41
Issue
5
Pages
507-526
ISSN
  • 0144-2872 (ISSN-L)
  • 1470-1006
OpenAlex
W3005834607
Cited by
89
References
61
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 6
FWCI
17.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Policy Studies (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Goldsmiths (University of London) (acceptedVersion)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (acceptedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
The Open Society Foundations
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Child Welfare and Adoption
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › E-Government and Public Services
Keywords
child welfare, data systems, data assemblages, predictive analytics, data sharing, public-private partnerships, power relations, data governance, decision-making, sensitive data, privacy, child protection, England

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review