U.S., Britain rank last in child welfare in industrialized world

[Captain Chaos]

Wed February 14, 2007 14:30 EST DAVID McHUGH Associated Press Writer BERLIN (AP) _ The United States and Britain ranked at the bottom of a U.N. survey of child welfare in 21 wealthy countries that assessed everything from infant mortality to whether children ate dinner with their parents or were bullied at school. The Netherlands, followed by Sweden, Denmark and Finland, finished at the top of the rankings, while the U.S. was 20th and Britain 21st, according to the report released Wednesday by UNICEF in Germany. One of the study's researchers, Jonathan Bradshaw, said children fared worse in the U.S. and Britain _ despite high overall levels of national wealth _ because of greater economic inequality and poor levels of public support for families. ``What they have in common are very high levels of inequality, very high levels of child poverty, which is also associated with inequality, and in rather different ways poorly developed services to families with children,'' said Bradshaw, a professor of social policy at the University of York in Britain. ``They don't invest as much in children as continental European countries do,'' he said, citing the lack of day care services in both countries and poorer health coverage and preventative care for children in the U.S. The study also gave the U.S. and Britain low marks for their higher incidences of single-parent families and risky behaviors among children, such as drinking alcohol and sexual activity. Britain was last and the U.S. second from the bottom in the category focusing on relationships, based on the percentage of children who lived in single-parent homes or with stepparents, as well as the percentage that ate the main meal of the day with their families several times per week. That category also counted the proportion of children who said they had ``kind'' or ``helpful'' relationships with other children. The report's authors cautioned that the focus on single-parent families ``may seem unfair and insensitive'' and noted that many children do well with one parent. ``But at the statistical level there is evidence to associate growing up in single-parent families with greater risk to well-being _ including a greater risk of dropping out of school, of leaving home early, poorer health, low skills and of low pay,'' the report said. On average, 80 percent of the children in the countries surveyed live with both parents. There were wide variations, however, from more than 90 percent in Greece and Italy to less than 70 percent in Britain and 60 percent in the U.S., where 16 percent of adolescents lived with stepfamilies. Bob Reitemeier, chief executive of The Children's Fund charity in Britain, said the UNICEF report also showed that less than half of British children reported good relations with their peers. ``That really jumped off the page,'' he said, citing concerns about the competitive, ratings-based school environment in Britain and higher reported incidences of bullying and fighting. ``The environment for these young people is quite negative.'' The study ranked the countries in six categories, based on national statistics: material well-being, health and safety, education, peer and family relationships, behaviors and risks, and young people's own subjective sense of well-being. Both the U.S. and Britain were in the bottom two-thirds of five of the six categories. The U.S. finished last in the health and safety category, based on infant mortality, vaccinations for childhood diseases, deaths from injuries and accidents before age 19, and whether children reported fighting in the past year or being bullied in the previous two months. Britain finished at the bottom in behaviors and risks, which considered factors such as the percentage of children who had breakfast, ate fruit regularly, exercised, were overweight, used drugs or alcohol, were sexually active or became pregnant. The British government criticized the report, saying it did not take account of recent improvements to education, health and general living standards in the country. Some of the statistics also went back as far as 2001, it said. ``In many cases the data used is several years old and does not reflect more recent improvements such as the continuing fall in the teenage pregnancy rate or in the proportion of children living in workless households,'' said a spokeswoman for the British Department for Education and Skills on customary condition of anonymity. Opposition lawmaker Annette Brooke said the report reflected a ``shameful level of child poverty'' in Britain. ``It is shocking that we are doing so badly at bringing up our children,'' she said. ``Every child should be entitled to live in a stable, loving family environment.'' Officials at the U.S. State Department and Department of Health and Human Services were not immediately available for comment on the report. In general, northern European countries with strong social welfare systems dominated the upper half of the rankings. Southern European countries, such as Spain, Italy and Portugal, ranked higher in terms of family support and levels of trust with friends and peers. On the Net: http://www.unicef.org/media/files/Ch...ertyReport.pdf Copyright ﾩ 2007 The Associated Press

Are the U.S. and Britain doing something wrong?

[Gods_Mercenary]

Je ne sais pas, I'm not an analyst, really can't begin to muse until I get some more guidance.

[Captain Chaos]

There is no point to this sentence, please do not bother reading it!

[Captain Chaos]

This sentence, however, does have a point...

It seems to me that this UNICEF study point out that the U.S. is not investing properly in its kids.

[Gods_Mercenary]

I don't know what they want us to invest, I think it's probably more of a cultural problem, I don't think Britain is doing anything much different than other European countries.

[Gods_Mercenary]

I don't agree with the thing that injuries are detrimental, that's self inflicted, and a good broken bone doesn't hurt anyone that much.

[Milton Bradley]

It's all about education, and this is where it shows, in the statistics. Morons begat morons, and on down the line. Think this is suprising, give it another twenty years.

[Keith Hamburger]

OK. How about we go with the entire study appears to be biased towards nationalizing the raising of children. The problem is, where the US is the strongest in such nationalization, government run education, is where the problems with peer pressure and bullying arise.

And, at one time, in this country the "main meal of the day" was the mid-day meal. Well, with kids stuck in school and two parents having to work to pay all the taxes extorted from us, that meal is guaranteed to not be shared among our families.

What do they want from us?

The only thing I can tell is they want to take all of our freedoms and rights because having most of them isn't enough.

Keith

[The Bacon Guy]

I don't entirely trust the report; from what I gather, an awful lot of it was self-reporting. A cross-culture self-reporting study can't be considered valid.

[Captain Chaos]

I had kind of a bad childhood - in some ways. This was not really due to mistakes of my parents or the state. This was due to natural quirks of my personality. I was an exceedingly difficult child to raise.

I think my kids are having a pretty good childhood.

Maybe I am in the wrong strata of society to notice the ills this report speaks of?

[shawmutt]

I was raised on welfare, WIC, and other government assistance. I was able to make a better life for myself, mostly by luck. My siblings are still living below the poverty level, and from what I can gather will be for a very long time.

Out of 350 kids in my wife's school in Washington County, MD, 330 are living in households below the poverty level. Charity groups are pressed to the limits to get these people fed, fortunately enough people in this area do have good jobs and are charitable.

Teachers get paid peanuts, but are required to get master's degrees. My wife is a very talented teacher and is one of those rare folks that is doing what she loves for a living, but I wouldn't blame her if she chose to go to a different career. Summers off, sure, but between lesson plans, after school activities, etc. she easily puts in 60+ hours a week. Then there are the parents who don't care, or who are abusive to my wife or worse, their kids. Don't get me started on "No child left behind".

This is why I think gay marriage should be legal. Better to have a loving, unified family than some of the "families" we have around here. But what do I know--I think people should have to get a license before they are able to procreate too.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: shawmutt IThis is why I think gay marriage should be legal. Better to have a loving, unified family than some of the "families" we have around here. But what do I know--I think people should have to get a license before they are able to procreate too.

Just for laughs, why do think a gay marriage has a better chance to be "loving" and "unified"?

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Apeman81 Just for laughs, why do think a gay marriage has a better chance to be "loving" and "unified"?

Because they are very unlikely to have children by accident. If they have kids, it is most likely (but not certain) that they went out of their way to have these kids. This means they are more likely to be motivated to be good parents.

However...

The statistics on gay families compared to straight families does not reflect this. The outcome in terms of child happiness and being well adjusted is roughly similar. Thus, if there is an advantage to gay parents, it is not a huge one.

[shawmutt]

Just for laughs, why do think a gay marriage has a better chance to be "loving" and "unified"?

Sorry, let me clarify. It is better to have gay married couples added to the number of well-adjusted families. Gay couples are just as likely to have problems in a relationship, sometimes more so for the stigma placed on their relationship. However, I am fortunate to be close with a few gay couples who have adopted--and they have good, well-adjusted kids.

It's just my conservative "family values" side coming out, with a liberal twist.

[Nono]

If I might bring us back on-topic -- just for a sec, mind -- I'd like to slam Keith Hamburger's rant, which merely shows that you can take any topic -- any lil ol one -- and turn it into so much froth on fevered libertarian lips. Easy.

Infant mortality, poor nutrition and child violence speak for themselves.

[Milton Bradley]

Heh, I just saw the Fox News crew dismiss the whole premiss of the report with a " we'll the report is just a testiment to what UNICEF has become".


Then, they rationalized any after thought away with a "gee, aren't they supposed to spend that money on children, instead of investigating us."


See, it's just that simple, they're Lefties.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Heh, I just saw the Fox News crew dismiss the whole premiss of the report with a " we'll the report is just a testiment to what UNICEF has become". Then, they rationalized any after thought away with a "gee, aren't they supposed to spend that money on children, instead of investigating us." See, it's just that simple, they're Lefties.

Fox News is only taken seriously by rightist loons.

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: Nono Infant mortality, poor nutrition and child violence speak for themselves.

As I've pointed out, infant mortality is measured in different ways in different countries. In the US, if a child takes even one breath and fails to survive, that's counted as infant mortality. In other countries a child has to survive for one day or five days or some such before that is counted as infant mortality. In the US, extremely premature births are put into intensive care and, if they survive for a day or two, but then die, that counts against us. In other countries no attempt is made to save such an infant.

Unless we can be certain that what is being counted is identical, we can never be sure what "infant mortality" even means.

Poor nutrition in the US is primarily eating too much junk food and too little good food. In other countries poor nutrition is due to inadequate food supply and other issues. If the only thing that can be done about nutrition issues in the US is greater interference in our lives, I can do with out it.

Child violence is in large part due to age segregated mandatory schooling. There's lots of arguments to that point but we've even seen such discussions on here. Ideas like "dealing with schoolyard bullies teaches you how to deal with life so it's good to have such a situation" (obviously paraphrasing). Personally, I would never allow anyone to deal with me in such a manner in the workplace, but we setup a forced education system that all but encourages such behavior.

Of course these items speak for themselves, unless you stop to think of the realities behind such statements. Of course, if what you're after is eliminating what's left of our freedoms "for the children", you're just the person our politicians are looking for.

Keith

[Nono]

Quote by: Keith As I've pointed out, infant mortality is measured in different ways in different countries. In the US, if a child takes even one breath and fails to survive, that's counted as infant mortality. In other countries a child has to survive for one day or five days or some such before that is counted as infant mortality. In the US, extremely premature births are put into intensive care and, if they survive for a day or two, but then die, that counts against us. In other countries no attempt is made to save such an infant.

Care to back up this extravagant claim with any actual credible sourced fact? Are you suggesting that Sweden, say, (or any of the many other countries ahead of the US in this department) doesn't start counting from the first breath?

The US isn''t being compared with Burundi here.

Child violence is in large part due to age segregated mandatory schooling.

Oh is it now? Care to back that up?

[leftcider]

Quote by: shawmutt But what do I know--I think people should have to get a license before they are able to procreate too.

What sir, would be done with the unlicensed baby were this to be enacted?