Legal Epidemiology Group
What do we do?
We carry out epidemiological research with the aim of better understanding how the law operates on a day-to-day basis and how it affects the health and well-being of the population. We specialise in the use of population-level quantitative methodology to analyse administrative data sets including those from the courts, health, social care and education sectors.
What is legal epidemiology?
We define legal epidemiology as the branch of epidemiology that seeks to bridge the gap between the fields of legal and health and well-being research in order to provide answers to policy- and practice-relevant research questions. It aims to contribute to the understanding of how legal processes operate on a population level and the short- and long-term outcomes for the individuals whom they affect, in all domains of health and well-being. Promoting the use of empirical methods to understand law and effectively disseminating research findings to improve the quality of policy and individual-level decision-making are both central to its approach.
Legal epidemiology is not just about the law of health or healthcare. Instead it recognises that a host of upstream, social factors influence health and well-being across life. As such, legal epidemiology seeks to understand law in all its manifestations in society. You can read more about our conceptualisation of legal epidemiology in Jay MA. Legal epidemiology, evidence-informed law and administrative data: new frontiers in the study of family justice. In: Creutzfeldt N, Mason M, McConnachie K. Routledge Handbook of Socio-Legal Theory and Methods. London: Routledge, 2019.
- Matthew A Jay
- Rachel Pearson
- Louise Mc Grath-Lone
- Linda Wijlaars
- Ruth Gilbert
- Pearson RJ, Jewell A, Wijlaars L, Bedston S, Finch E, Broadhurst K, Downs J, Gilbert R. Linking data on women in public family law court proceedings concerning their children to mental health service records in South London. (In press, Int J Pop Data Sci). Download
- Pearson RJ, Jay MA, O'Donnell M, Wijlaars L, Gilbert R. Characterizing newborn and older infant entries into care in England between 2006 and 2014. Child Abuse & Neglect 2020, 104760.
- Mc Grath-Lone L, Harron K, Dearden L, Gilbert R. Exploring placement stability for children in out-of-home care in England: a sequence analysis of longitudinal administrative data. Child Abuse & Neglect, 2020; 109.
- Pearson RJ, Jay MA, Wijlaars PMML, De Stavola B, Syed S, Bedston SJ, Gilbert R. Association between health indicators of maternal adversity and the rate of infant entry to local authority care in England: a longitudinal ecological study. BMJ Open; 10:e036564.
- Jay MA, Gilbert R. Special educational needs, social care and health. Archives of Disease in Childhood.
- Bedston S, Pearson R, Jay MA, Broadhurst K, Gilbert R, Wijlaars L. Data Resource: Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service. International Journal of Population Data Science 2020;5:1:1:17.
- Jay MA. Legal epidemiology, evidence-informed law and administrative data: new frontiers in the study of family justice. In: Creutzfeldt N, Mason M, McConnachie K. Routledge Handbook of Socio-Legal Theory and Methods. London: Routledge, 2019.
- Jay MA and Mc Grath-Lone L. Educational outcomes of children in contact with social care in England: a systematic review. BMC Systematic Reviews 2019;8:155.
- Jay MA, Pearson R, Wijlaars L, Olhede S, Gilbert R. Using administrative data to quantify overlaps between public and private children law in England: report for the Ministry of Justice on the Children in Family Justice Data Share pilot. You can download the full report or a one-page summary.
- Jay MA and Gilbert R. We need debate on data-driven policing. The Guardian, 23 April 2019.
- Jay MA, Mc Grath-Lone L, Gilbert R. Data Resource Profile: National Pupil Database (NPD). Int J Pop Data Science 2019;4:1:08.
- Emmott E, Jay MA, Woodman J. Cohort Profile: Children in Need (CIN) records of children referred for social care support in England. BMJ Open 2019; 9(2): e02771.
- Jay MA, Woodman J, Broadhurst K, Gilbert R. Harnessing administrative data for family justice research and practice. March  Fam Law 315.
- Jay MA, Woodman J, Broadhurst K, Gilbert R. Who cares for children? Population data for family justice research, 2017.
- Mc Grath-Lone L, Dearden L, Harron K, Nasim B, Gilbert R. Factors associated with re-entry to out-of-home care among children in England. Child Abuse & Neglect. 2017;63:73-83.
- Mc Grath-Lone L, Dearden L, Nasim B, Harron K, Gilbert R. Changes in first entry to out-of-home care from 1992 to 2012 among children in England. Child Abuse & Neglect 2016;51:163-171.
- Mc Grath-Lone L, Woodman J, Gilbert R. Letter responding to “Safeguarding children and improving their care in the UK”. The Lancet.
- Mc Grath-Lone L. Hard evidence: are more children going into care? The Conversation; 9 Dec 2015.
- Mc Grath-Lone L, Harron K, Dearden L, Nasim B, Gilbert R. Data Resource Profile: Children Looked After return. Int J Epi. 2016;45(3):716-717f.
- Evaluating the Children Act: a legal epidemiological investigation of the educational outcomes of looked after children and children in need
Why are we doing this project?
Every child has a fundamental human right to education, enshrined in a range of international human rights instruments. In England, all school-aged children must receive full-time and effective education which, for most children, occurs through state-funded schools. Some children, however, miss out on their education through off-rolling and formal exclusion. Off-rolling occur where a school removes a child from their roll for some illegitimate purpose, such as to game league tables. Children can be formally excluded, either temporarily or permanently, as a disciplinary measure. It is known that children otherwise vulnerable to poor outcomes, such as children looked after and children in need, are more likely to miss out but evidence as to the extent to which this occurs is limited.
We therefore aim to use whole-of-England data to quantify the extent to which children are off-rolled and excluded across the entirety of secondary school and how this varies geographically. In particular, we aim to quantify the extent to which children in need, children on child protection plans and children looked after (including children who previously held these statuses) are more at risk of off-rolling and exclusion.
The data used in this project.
We will use the National Pupil Database linked to data from children’s social care on children in need and children looked after.
How to find more information about the study
Publications from this study will be published on the Legal Epidemiology Group page at https://www.ucl.ac.uk/child-health/research/population-policy-and-practice-research-and-teaching-department/cenb-clinical-5. We have already published a systematic review of educational outcomes among children who receive social care services and a Data Resource Profile of the National Pupil Databse and child in need census. You will also find a Privacy Notice with more information on how we comply with general data protection regulations (GDPR): https://www.ucl.ac.uk/child-health/research/population-policy-and-practice-research-and-teaching-department/cenb-clinical-4.”
The Research team
Funder: MRC through the UCL-Birkbeck Doctoral Training Partnership
- Understanding local authority variation in receiving children into care
Why is this research needed?
The number of children in England who become ‘looked-after’ (i.e. children who are in the care of their local authority or accommodated by children’s social care services) has continued to rise in recent years. However, there is large variation among local authorities and some have even seen a decrease in the number children becoming looked-after each year.
What are we going to do?
This analysis will look at how much of this variation can be explained by risk factors for entry into care. In particular, we will explore the impact of poor health outcomes among mothers such as mental ill health, substance misuse and experience of violence or adversity on the variation in the number of children received into local authority care.
- Understanding the healthcare needs of mothers involved in care proceedings
Why is this research needed?
Mothers involved in care proceedings often have complex healthcare needs, such as drug and/or alcohol misuse, exposure to violence and mental health problems, as well as chronic physical conditions. However, there is insufficient evidence about the extent to which healthcare needs of mothers whose children enter public care or are adopted are sufficiently met before, during and after care proceedings. In addition, around 1 in 4 mothers involved in an initial care proceeding will be subject to recurrent care proceedings within seven years - initial evidence suggests that many are caught in a cycle of repeat pregnancies within quick succession of one another, leaving them with insufficient time or resources to evidence change to their capacity to parent. As the rate of children placed in out-of-home care rises, so too does the need to identify opportunities to engage with women in a healthcare setting to reduce the likelihood of initial and recurrent care proceedings and to improve the health and welfare outcomes for vulnerable mothers and children.
What are we going to do?
We will conduct novel data linkage of case management data from the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service and administrative NHS healthcare records to provide the first national systematic analysis of the health needs of mothers in England, before, during and after care proceedings. This research project will provide evidence of how healthcare need and use differs between mothers who become subject to care proceedings and those who do not. This will inform the development of healthcare interventions that could be triggered through referrals in courts, social care and healthcare services to reduce unmet healthcare need among mothers at risk of/subject to care proceedings.
Contact Rachel Pearson
- Public and private family law: understanding the overlap
Why was this research needed?
Within the context of the Children Act 1989, a distinction is frequently drawn between public and private family law. The public branch concerns state interventions in the lives of families in connection with child protection. Local authorities (LAs) have duties to safeguard the welfare of children in their areas and a range of powers at their disposal to discharge this duty. By contrast, the private domain is characterised by disputes between private parties concerning the upbringing of a child. This typically occurs in the context of relationship breakdown (whether or not there is a divorce or dissolution of a civil partnership). Recourse to the court is available where the parties cannot agree between themselves, with section 8 orders (e.g. child arrangements orders) being the most common private law orders. It has been suggested, however, that this neat dichotomy breaks down in practice and in fact many cases are a hybrid of both. The extent to which this occurs, and the extent to which children who come through the private system return to it or the public system is currently unknown. Our study therefore seeks to answer the question: to what extent is there an overlap between English private and public family child law?
What did we do?
We had been granted access by the Ministry of Justice to its Children in Family Justice Data Share. This contains linked data from the family courts administrative database named FamilyMan, Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass) data, Children Looked After data and National Pupil Database data. Using these data we quantified the extent to which children who are involved in private family law proceedings return to court or are otherwise found to be in the public family law system.
Jay MA, Pearson R, Wijlaars L, Olhede S, Gilbert R. Using administrative data to quantify overlaps between public and private children law in England: report for the Ministry of Justice on the Children in Family Justice Data Share pilot. Download the full report or a one-page summary.
Contact Matthew Jay
For any queries about the Legal Epidemiology Group, please contact Matthew Jay.