Search This Blog

Sunday, February 18, 2007

US and UK worst places in developed world to be a child

By Ann Talbot - 16 February 2007

The United States and Britain are the worst places in the major
industrialised nations to be a child, according to a new report produced
by Unicef. The organisation, which usually highlights the plight of child
soldiers and children living in poverty in the so-called developing world,
has turned the spotlight on 21 wealthy OECD countries. Its findings have
exposed the appalling results of growing social inequality in both the UK
and US. The report thoroughly refutes the claims of both governments to be
reducing child poverty.

"It's a pretty bleak picture," said Professor Jonathan Bradshaw. Bradshaw,
a leading social scientist at York University in the UK, compiled the
report and was speaking at its launch.

One of the most disturbing aspects of the report is the high level of
unhappiness reported in children living in the US and Britain. Bradshaw
ascribed this to the "dog-eat-dog" attitude that prevails. "In a society
which is very unequal, with high levels of poverty, it leads on to what
children think about themselves and their lives. That's really what's at
the heart of this," he said.

For the first time, this report has drawn the link between the widening
levels of social inequality in the UK and US and the extremely high levels
of risk-taking behaviour such as substance abuse and underage sex in both
countries. Its statistical tables reveal a picture of misery worthy of
Hogarth. Throughout its pages, the authors are at pains to point out that
they are dealing with relative poverty, and that in comparison with the
past, educational standards and living conditions have improved. But the
statistics speak for themselves. The report is all the more horrifying for
the measured tone that it takes.

The UK and US have the highest percentage of children living in relative
poverty, which is defined as less than 50 percent of the national median.
By this measure, more than 20 percent of American children and around 16
percent of British children are growing up in poverty.

How are we to explain these figures? Bradshaw pointed to two decades of
neglect in the UK. Child poverty, he said, is twice the level it was in
1979. Experts called on to comment seemed astonished that the figures in
Britain could be so high when the Labour government of Tony Blair, and
particularly the Chancellor Gordon Brown, has made the reduction of child
poverty such a flagship policy. Brown's Child Tax Credit scheme was
supposed to lift children out of poverty. The report exposes such claims
as a fraud. As Bradshaw says about the US and Britain, "What they have in
common are very high levels of inequality.... They don't invest as much in
children as continental European countries do."

The poverty the report exposes is the result of a massive shift in wealth
to the richest members of society, partly, but by no means solely, due to
the elimination of welfare programmes.

The UK and the US have levels of child poverty comparable to those in
Spain, Italy and Portugal. These southern European countries came late to
industrialisation and endured decades of fascist rule. This is not the
case in the UK and the US. This is also reflected in the figures for
Ireland. Ireland has had high levels of economic growth in the 1990s, and
its economy has become known as the Celtic Tiger. But the results of that
growth have been unevenly distributed. Child poverty in Ireland stands at
15 percent, among the highest in the OECD.

Nor is child poverty the result of unemployment. Fewer than 8 percent of
UK children live in households without at least one working parent. In the
US, the figure is even lower, with fewer than 2 percent of poor children
having no working parent. The Unicef report reveals the true scale of the
working poor in both these countries and the toll it is taking on the
quality of young lives.

Britain and the US move up the scale when poverty is measured in terms of
material possessions such as cars, televisions, computers, etc. More
children in the UK and US live in families that have these consumer goods,
but that still does not raise them from the bottom of the scale when the
child's total well-being is measured. The actual deprivation experienced
is perhaps better expressed in terms of the high proportion of
15-year-olds in both these countries who report fewer than 10 books in
their homes.

When it comes to the health and safety of children, the US is down at the
bottom of the league table, with the UK well below average. The US has one
of the highest levels of death from accidents and injuries.

These figures were based on some of the most fundamental health
indicators. They include the health of infants under one year old,
immunisation rates from 12 to 23 months, and the number of accidents to
children under the age of 19.

Both the UK and US are in the bottom third of the scale for infant
mortality, which is one of the most widely accepted standards for social
development internationally. Compared to other OECD countries, the UK and
the US have extremely high rates of infant mortality.

Similarly, they have among the highest levels of low-birth-weight babies.
A low birth weight is associated with an increased risk to life and health
among infants and to impaired cognitive and physical development
throughout childhood. It is also indicative of deprivation in the mother.
The birth-weight figures for the US and UK point to two generations in
poverty. These low birth weights chart the decline in living standards for
the mass of population in these countries since the gains of welfare
programmes began to be attacked.

Despite its National Health Service, the UK has among the lowest rates of
immunisation among OECD countries. Although immunisation rates in all OECD
countries are higher than in developing countries, the standard must be
high to ensure "herd immunity" from common childhood killer diseases. As
the report points out there is also the danger that small differences in
levels indicate a failure to "reach the unreached" and may suggest that
children of marginalised groups are missing out on basic health services.

Children's educational well-being was assessed on the basis of average
achievements in reading literacy, mathematical literacy and science
literacy, the percentage of children remaining in education between the
ages of 15 to 19, the percentage of 15- to 19-year-olds not in education,
employment or training, and the percentage of this age group expected to
find low-skilled employment. Scored on this basis, the US comes in below
average and the UK well below average. France and Austria also do badly,
while Poland, one of the poorest of the OECD countries, is the third

It is when the figures are broken down into their component parts that the
true extent of social inequality in the US and UK is revealed. They both
rank among the lowest for the proportion of 15- to 19-year-olds in
full-time or part-time education. These figures mean that a high
proportion of children in the UK and the US are being excluded from all
but the lowest-skilled and lowest-paid jobs.

Some of the most disturbing data in the report relates to the more
qualitative areas of social life. When children were asked about the
quality of their relations with their family and friends, the US and UK
were at the bottom of the scale. The UK's score can barely fit on the same
scale as the rest of the table. These cold statistics point to a truly
terrible social situation and suggest that a remarkable number of children
in the US and UK do not enjoy satisfying and supportive social relations,
either in the family or outside of it.

Indicators used included the percentage of children living in
single-parent families and step-parent families, the percentage of
children who report eating the main meal of the day with parents more than
once a week, the percentage of children who report parents spend time
"just talking" to them, and the percentage of 11-, 13- and 15-year-olds
who report finding their peers "kind and helpful."

Eighty percent of the children studied were in fact living in two-parent
families, so the results are not particularly related to the issue of
marriage breakdown. The US and the UK have the highest proportion of
children living in one-parent and step-parent families. But they have a
relatively high percentage of children who report spending time "just
talking" to their parents—no mean feat given the long working hours in
both countries.

It is when children are asked about their relationships with their peers
that a striking difference emerges. Fewer than half of the UK children
questioned found their peers "kind and helpful." This result merely hints
at the toll of misery suffered as a result of the bullying, conflict,
rivalry and tension that these children encounter on a daily basis.

The psychological impact of the poor quality of social relations in the UK
and the US is indicated by the health behaviour and high level of
risk-taking among young people in both countries. Risk-taking was measured
in terms of levels of obesity, substance abuse and sexual risk-taking.
Again, the UK results could barely fit on the table, and the results for
the US were not much better.

Health behaviour was measured by the percentage of children who eat
breakfast, eat fruit daily, are physically active or are overweight.
Risk-taking was measured by the percentage of 15-year-olds who smoke, have
been drunk more than twice, use cannabis, are having sex, or use condoms,
and the incidence of teenage pregnancy. The experience of violence was
measured by the percentage of 11-, 13- and 15-year-olds who reported being
involved in a fight during the last 12 months and the percentage who
reported being bullied in the last 2 months.

By these measures, children's health behaviours were worst in the US. The
UK has one of the lowest proportions of children who eat fruit every day.
The US has the highest proportion of overweight children, although it has
one of the highest physical activity levels. It is, however, difficult to
make much of this because the question asked of children was how many were
"physically active for one hour or more in the previous/typical week."

What is beyond dispute is that the level of obesity in the US pushes the
overall figure for poor health behaviours so far above average. In both
countries, children's diet is dominated by the products of the major food
manufacturers and fast food outlets. Simple activities such as walking or
cycling to school have declined. Even organised physical activities cannot
combat the unhealthy imbalance that has been created in these children's

When it comes to risk behaviours such as excessive drinking, smoking,
substance abuse and unprotected sex, children in the UK are in far greater
danger than in any other OECD country. Almost one third of 15-year-olds in
the UK reported that they have been drunk on more than one occasion. The
figures for cannabis use are similar in both the UK and the US.

The figures for 15-year-olds who have sex vary from 15 to 28 percent. Most
of these report using condoms, but both the US and the UK have extremely
high levels of teenage pregnancy. The authors of the report comment:

"Teenage fertility levels may also serve as an indicator of an aspect of
young people's lives that is otherwise hard to capture. To a young person
with little sense of current well-being—unhappy and perhaps mistreated at
home, miserable and under-achieving at school, and with only an unskilled
and low-paid job to look forward to—having a baby to love and be loved by,
with a small income from benefits and a home of her own, may seem a more
attractive option than the alternatives."

When children are asked their own opinion of their well-being, the UK
scores lowest. Children were asked how they rated their own health,
whether they like their school, and where they would place themselves on a
life-satisfaction scale. Whatever material factors go into producing this
opinion, the report demonstrates that a high proportion of children in the
UK and the US are unhappy. In both, a high proportion of children perceive
their own health to be poor, and fewer of them thought of themselves as
satisfied with their lives than their contemporaries in other countries.

No comments: