More kids struggle where the US income gap widens

In US counties where personal incomes cluster on opposite sides of the rich and poor spectrum, children might endure more neglect and abuse, according to a new US study. 

Jeff Morehead/Chronicle-Tribune/AP
Educational assistant Melissa Sizemore, at right, helps Head Start preschoolers, from left, Jamauri Norman, Lamarion Anderson, Zynaida Ortega and Jaydn Clark as they cut out hearts for an art project at Tucker Career and Technology Center in Marion, Ind. on Thursday, Jan. 30.

In US counties where personal incomes cluster on opposite sides of the rich and poor spectrum, children might endure more neglect and abuse, according to a new US study.

Based on the analysis of data from the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System and the US Census Bureau's American Community Survey, the effect appears strongest in counties with high poverty.

Approximately every minute, about six maltreatment referrals are given to state and local agencies in the US, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

It's not possible to say income inequality actually causes child maltreatment, but, "we know the reverse hypothesis is not true," John Eckenrode said. "Child maltreatment does not cause income inequality."

Mr. Eckenrode, a psychologist at Cornell University in Ithaca, N.Y., led the study.

"Also we have ruled out some possible alternate explanations  in our study, such as level of education, public assistance levels, child poverty rates, and state-level variations in rates of maltreatment," he told Reuters Health.

"Given what we already know, it makes sense that income inequality could create a social context where child maltreatment happens," said Kate Pickett, a social epidemiologist at the University of York in the United Kingdom.

"This adds to past evidence that greater income inequality harms us all," she said. Researchers looked at data on 3,142 US counties between 2005 and 2009. They found that rates of child maltreatment ranged widely, from 0.2 percent to 3.1 percent of children. Using statistical methods to gauge income inequality, they found a steep rise in the rate of child maltreatment with rising inequality. The relationship held after researchers adjusted for poverty itself, and other factors such as the racial and ethnic makeup of regions, education levels, and the number of people receiving public assistance income.            

Where inequalities are most extreme, communities may become more polarized, with the affluent group influencing where public aid money goes, or what programs are made available in the community, said Ruth Gilbert, a clinical epidemiologist at University College London in the UK.

"Where the state or federal government is a key provider of services, such as day care and education," Dr. Gilbert said, "then you may have situations where poorer children mingle with middle-class kids and this helps create a better understanding between the two classes."

Writing in the journal Pediatrics, the researchers suggest a "comprehensive approach" is needed to address the problem. State and federal money could be used to improve and expand programs with successful track records, such as the Nurse Family Partnership program, Eckenrode said. Currently that program can reach only about 30,000 families in the US per year. "We could scale up that and other proven programs even further," he said.

Federal support for maternity or paternity leave, or daycare education costs, is "not seen in the US as much as here in the UK," Gilbert said.

"Where the state (or federal) government is a key provider of services, such as day care and education, then you may have situations where poorer children mingle with middle-class kids and this helps create a better understanding between the two classes," she noted.

"The more distance between the two social classes, the less likely the poor will receive services and support," Gilbert said.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.