US & Britan At Bottom In Child Welfare Survey

[Love As Arson]

The United States and Britain ranked at the bottom of a U.N. survey of child welfare in 21 wealthy countries that assessed subjects 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 United States was 20th and Britain 21st, according to the report released Wednesday in Germany by UNICEF, the U.N. children's agency;

One of the study's researchers, Jonathan Bradshaw, said children fared worse in the United States 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 preventive care for children in the U.S.

The study also gave the two countries 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 United States second from last 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 who 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 lived 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 United States, where 16 percent of adolescents lived with stepfamilies.

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 United States and Britain were in the bottom two-thirds of five of the six categories.

The United States 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.


I disagree with their reasoning, however, that single-parenting is the cause of unsafe behaviour, but rather it is single-parenting under the conditions I highlighted.

[aminorthreat55]

Yet another reason why Sweden kicks ass.

[Love As Arson]

I find it interesting that nations that engage in welfare-state policies are doing better than the US which decidedly defers to the free market to help its citizens.

[Love As Arson]

Unlike European countries, many of the leftists were purged from discourse in the McCarthy era, just as it had begun exerting significant will. I will say, as I did in another thread, the way in which workers in America arise is quite tame, because capitalists have managed to enshrine peaceful protest, with its limited implications, while denigrating a physical manifestation of the outrage one feels. Personally, I'd like for there to be something similar to the uprisings in France.

[Jason Tate]

Hmm.

[Ms Smurf]

Yeah, we suck. If it isn't blowjobs in the locker room it's crack in the library and all because our Daddy never loved us. B.S. If you want to do well in school you will, if you can't be assed, you'll end up getting a McJob.

[AnF1500]

Haha yes this problem has been getting alot of attention latley. But whats worrying to me is what Tony Blair thinks he should do about it....

Very interesting article.


This could be a slightly worrying trend. Governments staring into their crystals....where will it all end? World leaders hearing voices from above (and that's already there too). Talk about pre-emptive strikes. This from The Guardian (UK):

We can clamp down on antisocial children before birth, says Blair

· Intervention 'could prevent later problems'
· Package of proposals courts controversy

Lee Glendinning
Friday September 1, 2006
The Guardian


Tony Blair has said it is possible to identify problem children who could grow up to be a potential "menace to society" even before they are born.
Setting out plans for state intervention to prevent babies born into high-risk families becoming problem teenagers of the future, the prime minister said teenage mothers could be forced to accept state help before giving birth, as part of a clampdown on antisocial behaviour. Mr Blair defended the need for state intervention and said action could even be taken "pre-birth" if necessary as families with drug and alcohol problems were being identified too late.
"If we are not prepared to predict and intervene far more early then there are children that are going to grow up in families that we know perfectly well are completely dysfunctional, and the kids a few years down the line are going to be a menace to society and actually a threat to themselves," he told BBC News. There could be sanctions for parents who refused to take advice, he added.

Mr Blair's uncompromising remarks in a BBC interview come after the Guardian revealed earlier this week full details of his wide-ranging plans for tackling social exclusion.
The package, worked out at a Chequers summit meeting with ministers and leading agencies such as the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and Turning Point, covers ideas on children in care, teenage mothers and mentally ill people on benefit - those who have been "difficult to reach" in previous government programmes.
The prime minister will set out his plans in a speech next Tuesday, but it his trenchant language in his first broadcast interview since returning from holiday which is certain to stir controversy.
He admitted many people might be uneasy with the idea of intervening in people's family life but said there was no point pussy-footing".
Official figures released in February showed the conception rate for girls aged 13-15 was 7.5 per 1,000 in 2004. Ministers are looking at new strategies to curb teenage pregnancy and compulsory 12-week programmes for vulnerable young parents to improve their skills bringing up children.
The leader of the government's Respect taskforce, Louise Casey, is a strong advocate of parenting classes for people whose children behave antisocially.
The radical proposal is believed to have come out of that meeting at Chequers and a government policy paper on the issue is due to be published soon.
While help had to be offered, Mr Blair said, "some sense of discipline and responsibility" had to be brought to bear. "You either steer clear and say that's not for government to get into, in which case you don't deal with the problem. Or, and this is really what I'm saying, I think we need to deal with these particular issues and we actually do intervene and we intervene at a very early stage.
"If you've got someone who is a teenage mum, not married, not in a stable relationship ... here is the support we are prepared to offer you, but we do need to keep a careful watch on you and how your situation is developing because all the indicators are that your type of situation can lead to problems in the future," he said.
The Conservatives have objected to this course, saying the government should not try to run people's lives.
Conservative policy director Oliver Letwin said: "The answer is not more state intervention. It is to encourage the social enterprise, the voluntary sector, community groups, to help people without trying to run their lives for them."
One thinktank suggested it was almost "genetic determinism" to suggest children could turn out to be troublemakers before they were born. Norman Lamb, chief of staff to Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell, said: "Empty threats to pregnant mothers will do little to restore confidence in a government that has failed to tackle poverty, crime and social exclusion for the last nine years."

[Sleepaway]

Its good to see a thread involving British politics, although I don't really have anything to say on the matter other than its no surprise that those nations came top.

[mercutio7]

Yeah, we suck. If it isn't blowjobs in the locker room it's crack in the library and all because our Daddy never loved us. B.S. If you want to do well in school you will, if you can't be assed, you'll end up getting a McJob.
Except opportunity isn't equal everywhere.

[x togepi x]

i'm getting straight as in school. I'll probably get a mcJob. what's that?

you can't blame everything on people being lazy?

so that pull yourself by your own bootstraps part of conservative ideology is bullshit?

NO WAY

[mercutio7]

i'm getting straight as in school. I'll probably get a mcJob. what's that?

you can't blame everything on people being lazy?

so that pull yourself by your own bootstraps part of conservative ideology is bullshit?

NO WAY
True that. I have strait A's, but I honestly don't work half as hard as my friend in Bronxville, NY who has a slightly lower GPA than me but works 4 times as hard. The difference is, I live in NH, where the opportunity to succeed was handed to me on a dinner plate.

[justinevans]

True that. I have strait A's, but I honestly don't work half as hard as my friend in Bronxville, NY who has a slightly lower GPA than me but works 4 times as hard. The difference is, I live in NH, where the opportunity to succeed was handed to me on a dinner plate.

You would think someone with straight A's could spell the word properly.

[justinevans]

The study also gave the two countries low marks for their higher incidences of single-parent families and risky behaviors among children, such as drinking alcohol and sexual activity.



Is this the government's fault?

[Sleepaway]

Drinking is part of British culture. People here just love to get wasted, and you start young too.

[IAPAI]

Haha yes this problem has been getting alot of attention latley. But whats worrying to me is what Tony Blair thinks he should do about it....

Very interesting article.


This could be a slightly worrying trend. Governments staring into their crystals....where will it all end? World leaders hearing voices from above (and that's already there too). Talk about pre-emptive strikes. This from The Guardian (UK):

We can clamp down on antisocial children before birth, says Blair

· Intervention 'could prevent later problems'
· Package of proposals courts controversy

Lee Glendinning
Friday September 1, 2006
The Guardian


Tony Blair has said it is possible to identify problem children who could grow up to be a potential "menace to society" even before they are born.
Setting out plans for state intervention to prevent babies born into high-risk families becoming problem teenagers of the future, the prime minister said teenage mothers could be forced to accept state help before giving birth, as part of a clampdown on antisocial behaviour. Mr Blair defended the need for state intervention and said action could even be taken "pre-birth" if necessary as families with drug and alcohol problems were being identified too late.
"If we are not prepared to predict and intervene far more early then there are children that are going to grow up in families that we know perfectly well are completely dysfunctional, and the kids a few years down the line are going to be a menace to society and actually a threat to themselves," he told BBC News. There could be sanctions for parents who refused to take advice, he added.

Mr Blair's uncompromising remarks in a BBC interview come after the Guardian revealed earlier this week full details of his wide-ranging plans for tackling social exclusion.
The package, worked out at a Chequers summit meeting with ministers and leading agencies such as the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and Turning Point, covers ideas on children in care, teenage mothers and mentally ill people on benefit - those who have been "difficult to reach" in previous government programmes.
The prime minister will set out his plans in a speech next Tuesday, but it his trenchant language in his first broadcast interview since returning from holiday which is certain to stir controversy.
He admitted many people might be uneasy with the idea of intervening in people's family life but said there was no point pussy-footing".
Official figures released in February showed the conception rate for girls aged 13-15 was 7.5 per 1,000 in 2004. Ministers are looking at new strategies to curb teenage pregnancy and compulsory 12-week programmes for vulnerable young parents to improve their skills bringing up children.
The leader of the government's Respect taskforce, Louise Casey, is a strong advocate of parenting classes for people whose children behave antisocially.
The radical proposal is believed to have come out of that meeting at Chequers and a government policy paper on the issue is due to be published soon.
While help had to be offered, Mr Blair said, "some sense of discipline and responsibility" had to be brought to bear. "You either steer clear and say that's not for government to get into, in which case you don't deal with the problem. Or, and this is really what I'm saying, I think we need to deal with these particular issues and we actually do intervene and we intervene at a very early stage.
"If you've got someone who is a teenage mum, not married, not in a stable relationship ... here is the support we are prepared to offer you, but we do need to keep a careful watch on you and how your situation is developing because all the indicators are that your type of situation can lead to problems in the future," he said.
The Conservatives have objected to this course, saying the government should not try to run people's lives.
Conservative policy director Oliver Letwin said: "The answer is not more state intervention. It is to encourage the social enterprise, the voluntary sector, community groups, to help people without trying to run their lives for them."
One thinktank suggested it was almost "genetic determinism" to suggest children could turn out to be troublemakers before they were born. Norman Lamb, chief of staff to Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell, said: "Empty threats to pregnant mothers will do little to restore confidence in a government that has failed to tackle poverty, crime and social exclusion for the last nine years."


Personally, I think that it's not such a bad idea. I mean, not the fact that the government should feel that they have strict control over low-income families, but that they need to start doing something about teen pregnancies and dysfunctional families raising dysfunctional kids.
Health class just isn't cutting it, and more and more girls keep getting knocked up in schools - even in Canada. It's a good idea, for everyone involved, to start giving extra funding to those who need it to raise a well-adjusted child.

[AnF1500]

Personally, I think that it's not such a bad idea. I mean, not the fact that the government should feel that they have strict control over low-income families, but that they need to start doing something about teen pregnancies and dysfunctional families raising dysfunctional kids.
Health class just isn't cutting it, and more and more girls keep getting knocked up in schools - even in Canada. It's a good idea, for everyone involved, to start giving extra funding to those who need it to raise a well-adjusted child.


To make such things such as parenting classes AVAILABLE, sure...but to force them upon anyone would be plain out rediculous.

I found that article very disturbing...

[mercutio7]

You would think someone with straight A's could spell the word properly.
Ouch. I'm broken. Thankfully intelligence isn't measured by how proficient one is at spelling words, but by how one uses them. I concede that I absolutely suck at spelling- but why don't you try responding to my argument opposed to scrounging for grammatical errors. Thanks :)

[justinevans]

Ouch. I'm broken. Thankfully intelligence isn't measured by how proficient one is at spelling words, but by how one uses them. I concede that I absolutely suck at spelling- but why don't you try responding to my argument opposed to scrounging for grammatical errors. Thanks :)

You act like someone who has to work harder for Straight A's is a bad thing. Grades are the actual problem with our education. I think it stunts our education growth because we focus on what we need to know for testing rather than developing a broad range of knowledge.

[mercutio7]

You act like someone who has to work harder for Straight A's is a bad thing. Grades are the actual problem with our education. I think it stunts our education growth because we focus on what we need to know for testing rather than developing a broad range of knowledge.
I too agree that grades and testing in general are extremely flawed. I'm not saying that one of my friends in the Bronx needs to study more, I'm saying her school is so fucked up that she is not only getting really good grades, but is virtually the acting (and unpaid) guidence councelor for her class, tutors younger kids whos teachers tell them they're going to fuck up anyway, and because of a lack of govt. funding, had to organize and teach sex ed. to w large proportion of her school. My point is that opportunity is not equaly everywhere. The "American Dream" isn't just dead, its gravestone has been defecated on.