Summary: Michael Oppenheimer and Jesse Anttila-Hughes begin with a primer on how the greenhouse effect works, how we know that Earth is rapidly getting warmer, and how we know that the recent warming is caused by human activity. They explain the sources of scientific knowledge about climate change as well as the basis for the models scientists use to predict how the climate will behave in the future. Although they acknowledge the large degree of uncertainty that surrounds predictions of what will happen decades or even centuries in the future, they also emphasize the near certainty that climate change has the potential to be extremely harmful to children. Most children around the world will face hotter, more extreme temperatures more frequently. Higher temperatures will directly affect children’s health by increasing the rates of heatstroke, heat exhaustion, and heat-related mortality. Excessive heat is also likely to affect children indirectly by disrupting agricultural systems, driving up prices, and increasing food scarcity. Many of the world’s children may see local demand for water outstrip supply, as shifting precipitation patterns dry out some regions of the world, make other regions wetter, and increase the frequency of both unusually dry periods and unusually severe rains. Mountain glaciers will recede further, significantly reducing storage of winter snows and thus springtime runoff, which has traditionally been used to water fields and recharge reservoirs. Melting ice will also raise sea levels, triggering direct physical threats to children through flooding and erosion and indirect threats through migration and expensive adaptation. Climate change is also expected to make weather-based disasters more frequent and more damaging. This is particularly worrisome for children, not only because of the physical peril disasters pose but also because disasters can have debilitating long-term indirect effects on children. Damage to ecosystems from climate change may also harm children; for example, acidification the world’s oceans will reduce food supplies, and disease-carrying insects will invade new areas in response to changing rains and temperatures. In the face of such dire forecasts, Oppenheimer and Anttila-Hughes argue, climate change forces us to directly confront the value we put on future children’s wellbeing. Fortunately, we have reason for hope as well as for concern: “History,” they write, “has demonstrated time and again that humans can tackle uncertain threats in times of need.”
{"title":"The Science of Climate Change","authors":"M. Oppenheimer, J. Anttila-Hughes","doi":"10.1353/FOC.2016.0001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/FOC.2016.0001","url":null,"abstract":"Summary: Michael Oppenheimer and Jesse Anttila-Hughes begin with a primer on how the greenhouse effect works, how we know that Earth is rapidly getting warmer, and how we know that the recent warming is caused by human activity. They explain the sources of scientific knowledge about climate change as well as the basis for the models scientists use to predict how the climate will behave in the future. Although they acknowledge the large degree of uncertainty that surrounds predictions of what will happen decades or even centuries in the future, they also emphasize the near certainty that climate change has the potential to be extremely harmful to children. Most children around the world will face hotter, more extreme temperatures more frequently. Higher temperatures will directly affect children’s health by increasing the rates of heatstroke, heat exhaustion, and heat-related mortality. Excessive heat is also likely to affect children indirectly by disrupting agricultural systems, driving up prices, and increasing food scarcity. Many of the world’s children may see local demand for water outstrip supply, as shifting precipitation patterns dry out some regions of the world, make other regions wetter, and increase the frequency of both unusually dry periods and unusually severe rains. Mountain glaciers will recede further, significantly reducing storage of winter snows and thus springtime runoff, which has traditionally been used to water fields and recharge reservoirs. Melting ice will also raise sea levels, triggering direct physical threats to children through flooding and erosion and indirect threats through migration and expensive adaptation. Climate change is also expected to make weather-based disasters more frequent and more damaging. This is particularly worrisome for children, not only because of the physical peril disasters pose but also because disasters can have debilitating long-term indirect effects on children. Damage to ecosystems from climate change may also harm children; for example, acidification the world’s oceans will reduce food supplies, and disease-carrying insects will invade new areas in response to changing rains and temperatures. In the face of such dire forecasts, Oppenheimer and Anttila-Hughes argue, climate change forces us to directly confront the value we put on future children’s wellbeing. Fortunately, we have reason for hope as well as for concern: “History,” they write, “has demonstrated time and again that humans can tackle uncertain threats in times of need.”","PeriodicalId":51448,"journal":{"name":"Future of Children","volume":"26 1","pages":"11 - 30"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1353/FOC.2016.0001","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66360551","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"法学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Summary: Our efforts to put the brakes on climate change or adapt to a warming climate present a fundamental tradeoff between costs borne today and benefits that accrue to the children and grandchildren of the current generation. In making investments today that affect future generations’ prospects, we need to think carefully about how we value their welfare compared to our own. A common economic formula recommends giving up only 5 cents today for every dollar of benefits 100 years in the future; we call this discounting the future. Underlying this approach is the assumption that future generations will be much better off than our own, just as we are much wealthier than our ancestors were. Would our descendants’ agree with this approach? Are there reasons to put more value on future benefits? William Pizer, Ben Groom, and Simon Dietz discuss three possible reasons that we might put a higher value on future benefits. First, people disagree considerably about the correct discount rate. Other plausible interpretations of society’s preferences or observed data could increase the weight we place on future benefits by as much as a factor of five. Second, we may have failed to correctly value future climate change impacts, particularly those related to the loss of environmental amenities that have no close monetary substitutes. Third, we may not be properly valuing the risk that a warming climate could cause sudden and catastrophic changes that would drastically alter the size of the population. Ultimately, the authors write, many of the choices about how we value future generations’ welfare come down to ethical questions, and many of the decisions we must make come down to societal preferences—all of which will be difficult to extract from data or theory.
总结:我们为遏制气候变化或适应气候变暖所做的努力，需要在今天承担的成本与当代人的子孙后代所获得的利益之间进行根本性的权衡。在今天进行影响子孙后代前景的投资时，我们需要仔细考虑如何将他们的福利与我们自己的福利相比较。一个常见的经济学公式建议，在未来100年，每获得1美元的福利，今天只放弃5美分;我们称之为未来折现。这种方法背后的假设是，子孙后代将比我们自己过得好得多，就像我们比祖先富裕得多一样。我们的后代会同意这种做法吗?有理由把更多的价值放在未来的利益上吗?William Pizer, Ben Groom和Simon Dietz讨论了我们可能更看重未来利益的三个可能原因。首先，人们对正确的贴现率有很大的分歧。对社会偏好或观察到的数据的其他合理解释可能会使我们对未来利益的重视程度增加多达五倍。其次，我们可能没有正确评估未来气候变化的影响，特别是那些与环境便利设施的丧失有关的影响，而这些环境便利设施没有紧密的货币替代品。第三，我们可能没有正确评估气候变暖可能导致突然和灾难性变化的风险，这种变化可能会极大地改变人口规模。作者写道，最终，我们如何评价后代福利的许多选择归结为道德问题，我们必须做出的许多决定归结为社会偏好——所有这些都很难从数据或理论中提取出来。
{"title":"Weighing the Costs and Benefits of Climate Change to Our Children","authors":"Simon Dietz, Ben Groom, W. Pizer","doi":"10.1353/FOC.2016.0007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/FOC.2016.0007","url":null,"abstract":"Summary: Our efforts to put the brakes on climate change or adapt to a warming climate present a fundamental tradeoff between costs borne today and benefits that accrue to the children and grandchildren of the current generation. In making investments today that affect future generations’ prospects, we need to think carefully about how we value their welfare compared to our own. A common economic formula recommends giving up only 5 cents today for every dollar of benefits 100 years in the future; we call this discounting the future. Underlying this approach is the assumption that future generations will be much better off than our own, just as we are much wealthier than our ancestors were. Would our descendants’ agree with this approach? Are there reasons to put more value on future benefits? William Pizer, Ben Groom, and Simon Dietz discuss three possible reasons that we might put a higher value on future benefits. First, people disagree considerably about the correct discount rate. Other plausible interpretations of society’s preferences or observed data could increase the weight we place on future benefits by as much as a factor of five. Second, we may have failed to correctly value future climate change impacts, particularly those related to the loss of environmental amenities that have no close monetary substitutes. Third, we may not be properly valuing the risk that a warming climate could cause sudden and catastrophic changes that would drastically alter the size of the population. Ultimately, the authors write, many of the choices about how we value future generations’ welfare come down to ethical questions, and many of the decisions we must make come down to societal preferences—all of which will be difficult to extract from data or theory.","PeriodicalId":51448,"journal":{"name":"Future of Children","volume":"26 1","pages":"133 - 155"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1353/FOC.2016.0007","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66360944","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"法学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
According to the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2015--with an average global temperature 1.6[degrees] Fahrenheit warmer than the twentieth-century average--was Earth's warmest year since record keeping began in 1880, continuing a half-century-long trend of rising temperatures. The debate about climate change and appropriate policy response is often framed in terms of the likely impact on our children. Children born in 2016 will be 34 in 2050 and 84 in 2100. How will the probable rise in temperature (3.6 to 7.2[degrees] Fahrenheit, or 2 to 4[degrees] Celsius), rising sea levels, and the increasing likelihood of extreme weather affect the course of their lives and the lives of their children? This issue of The Future of Children outlines the likely consequences of climate change on child health and wellbeing and identifies policies that could mitigate negative impacts. Four interrelated themes emerge from the issue. 1. Climate change will fundamentally alter Earths climate system in many ways that threaten children's physical and mental wellbeing. 2. Today's children and future generations will bear a disproportionate share of the burden of climate change, which will affect child wellbeing through many direct, indirect, and societal pathways. 3. Children in developing countries and countries with weak institutions face the greatest risks. 4. The uncertainties associated with climate change and its mitigation--coupled with the fact that the costs of climate change mitigation policies need to be paid now, but the benefits will accrue in the future--make it difficult to enact appropriate policies. In the past decade, the science of climate change has progressed rapidly. By combining evidence from direct observation, climate modeling, and historical sources (such as ice cores that can reveal information about climate centuries ago), scientists have become virtually certain that human activities are altering our climate in ways that will have drastic effects for future generations through mechanisms such as sea-level rise, warmer temperatures, and a higher frequency of natural disasters. Children are largely left out of discussions about appropriate responses to climate change, but they ought to be central to these debates because they--as well as future generations--have a much larger stake in the outcome than we do. Compared with adults, children are physically more vulnerable to the direct effects of extreme heat, drought, and natural disasters. Climate change's indirect effects can also derail children's developmental trajectories--for example, through conflict, vector-borne diseases, economic dislocation, undernutrition, or migration--making it harder for them to reach their full potential. As some of the most vulnerable members of society, children generally suffer whenever there is social upheaval. Given the profound changes to society that may accompany climate change, it is likely that children will be especially severely a
{"title":"Children and Climate Change: Introducing the Issue","authors":"Janet Currie, O. Deschenes","doi":"10.1353/FOC.2016.0000","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/FOC.2016.0000","url":null,"abstract":"According to the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2015--with an average global temperature 1.6[degrees] Fahrenheit warmer than the twentieth-century average--was Earth's warmest year since record keeping began in 1880, continuing a half-century-long trend of rising temperatures. The debate about climate change and appropriate policy response is often framed in terms of the likely impact on our children. Children born in 2016 will be 34 in 2050 and 84 in 2100. How will the probable rise in temperature (3.6 to 7.2[degrees] Fahrenheit, or 2 to 4[degrees] Celsius), rising sea levels, and the increasing likelihood of extreme weather affect the course of their lives and the lives of their children? This issue of The Future of Children outlines the likely consequences of climate change on child health and wellbeing and identifies policies that could mitigate negative impacts. Four interrelated themes emerge from the issue. 1. Climate change will fundamentally alter Earths climate system in many ways that threaten children's physical and mental wellbeing. 2. Today's children and future generations will bear a disproportionate share of the burden of climate change, which will affect child wellbeing through many direct, indirect, and societal pathways. 3. Children in developing countries and countries with weak institutions face the greatest risks. 4. The uncertainties associated with climate change and its mitigation--coupled with the fact that the costs of climate change mitigation policies need to be paid now, but the benefits will accrue in the future--make it difficult to enact appropriate policies. In the past decade, the science of climate change has progressed rapidly. By combining evidence from direct observation, climate modeling, and historical sources (such as ice cores that can reveal information about climate centuries ago), scientists have become virtually certain that human activities are altering our climate in ways that will have drastic effects for future generations through mechanisms such as sea-level rise, warmer temperatures, and a higher frequency of natural disasters. Children are largely left out of discussions about appropriate responses to climate change, but they ought to be central to these debates because they--as well as future generations--have a much larger stake in the outcome than we do. Compared with adults, children are physically more vulnerable to the direct effects of extreme heat, drought, and natural disasters. Climate change's indirect effects can also derail children's developmental trajectories--for example, through conflict, vector-borne diseases, economic dislocation, undernutrition, or migration--making it harder for them to reach their full potential. As some of the most vulnerable members of society, children generally suffer whenever there is social upheaval. Given the profound changes to society that may accompany climate change, it is likely that children will be especially severely a","PeriodicalId":51448,"journal":{"name":"Future of Children","volume":"26 1","pages":"3 - 9"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1353/FOC.2016.0000","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66360484","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"法学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Summary: We have good reason to predict that a warming climate will produce more conflict and violence. A growing contingent of researchers has been examining the relationship in recent years, and they’ve found that hotter temperatures and reduced rainfall are linked to increases in conflict at all scales, from interpersonal violence to war. Children are especially vulnerable to conflict, Richard Akresh writes. In addition to directly exposing children to violence and trauma, conflict can tear families apart, displace whole populations, interrupt schooling, cut off access to health care or food, and eliminate the jobs that families depend on for a living. Children caught in a war zone may suffer physical injuries, malnutrition, developmental delays, and psychological damage, with effects on their physical health, mental health, and education that can persist into adulthood and constrict their ability to make a living. Moreover, those effects can spill over to the next generation and beyond, damaging the affected countries’ ability to develop human capital. The likelihood that rates of conflict will increase on a hotter planet, then, poses a serious threat to children’s wellbeing—especially in poorer countries, which already see the most wars and other conflicts. Unfortunately, Akresh writes, we still poorly understand the mechanisms that link climate to conflict, and we have almost no evidence to tell us which types of policies could best mitigate the effects of climate change-related violence on children.
{"title":"Climate Change, Conflict, and Children","authors":"Richard Akresh","doi":"10.1353/FOC.2016.0003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/FOC.2016.0003","url":null,"abstract":"Summary: We have good reason to predict that a warming climate will produce more conflict and violence. A growing contingent of researchers has been examining the relationship in recent years, and they’ve found that hotter temperatures and reduced rainfall are linked to increases in conflict at all scales, from interpersonal violence to war. Children are especially vulnerable to conflict, Richard Akresh writes. In addition to directly exposing children to violence and trauma, conflict can tear families apart, displace whole populations, interrupt schooling, cut off access to health care or food, and eliminate the jobs that families depend on for a living. Children caught in a war zone may suffer physical injuries, malnutrition, developmental delays, and psychological damage, with effects on their physical health, mental health, and education that can persist into adulthood and constrict their ability to make a living. Moreover, those effects can spill over to the next generation and beyond, damaging the affected countries’ ability to develop human capital. The likelihood that rates of conflict will increase on a hotter planet, then, poses a serious threat to children’s wellbeing—especially in poorer countries, which already see the most wars and other conflicts. Unfortunately, Akresh writes, we still poorly understand the mechanisms that link climate to conflict, and we have almost no evidence to tell us which types of policies could best mitigate the effects of climate change-related violence on children.","PeriodicalId":51448,"journal":{"name":"Future of Children","volume":"142 1","pages":"51 - 71"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1353/FOC.2016.0003","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66361235","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"法学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Summary:Though estimates vary, as many as 2 million to 3.7 million U.S. children under age 18 may have a lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender parent, and about 200,000 are being raised by same-sex couples.Much of the past decade’s legal and political debate over allowing same-sex couples to marry has centered on these couples’ suitability as parents, and social scientists have been asked to weigh in. After carefully reviewing the evidence presented by scholars on both sides of the issue, Gary Gates concludes that same-sex couples are as good at parenting as their different-sex counterparts. Any differences in the wellbeing of children raised in same-sex and different-sex families can be explained not by their parents’ gender composition but by the fact that children being by raised by same-sex couples have, on average, experienced more family instability, because most children being raised by same-sex couples were born to different-sex parents, one of whom is now in the same-sex relationship.That pattern is changing, however. Despite growing support for same-sex parenting, proportionally fewer same-sex couples report raising children today than in 2000. Why? Reduced social stigma means that more LGBT people are coming out earlier in life. They’re less likely than their LGBT counterparts from the past to have different-sex relationships and the children such relationships produce. At the same time, more same-sex couples are adopting children or using reproductive technologies like artificial insemination and surrogacy. Compared to a decade ago, same-sex couples today may be less likely to have children, but those who do are more likely to have children who were born with same-sex parents who are in stable relationships.In the past, most same-sex couples raising children were in a cohabiting relationship. With same-sex couples’ right to marry now secured throughout the country, the situation is changing rapidly. As more and more same-sex couples marry, Gates writes, we have the opportunity to consider new research questions that can contribute to our understanding of how marriage and parental relationships affect child wellbeing.
{"title":"Marriage and Family: LGBT Individuals and Same-Sex Couples","authors":"G. Gates","doi":"10.1353/FOC.2015.0013","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/FOC.2015.0013","url":null,"abstract":"Summary:Though estimates vary, as many as 2 million to 3.7 million U.S. children under age 18 may have a lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender parent, and about 200,000 are being raised by same-sex couples.Much of the past decade’s legal and political debate over allowing same-sex couples to marry has centered on these couples’ suitability as parents, and social scientists have been asked to weigh in. After carefully reviewing the evidence presented by scholars on both sides of the issue, Gary Gates concludes that same-sex couples are as good at parenting as their different-sex counterparts. Any differences in the wellbeing of children raised in same-sex and different-sex families can be explained not by their parents’ gender composition but by the fact that children being by raised by same-sex couples have, on average, experienced more family instability, because most children being raised by same-sex couples were born to different-sex parents, one of whom is now in the same-sex relationship.That pattern is changing, however. Despite growing support for same-sex parenting, proportionally fewer same-sex couples report raising children today than in 2000. Why? Reduced social stigma means that more LGBT people are coming out earlier in life. They’re less likely than their LGBT counterparts from the past to have different-sex relationships and the children such relationships produce. At the same time, more same-sex couples are adopting children or using reproductive technologies like artificial insemination and surrogacy. Compared to a decade ago, same-sex couples today may be less likely to have children, but those who do are more likely to have children who were born with same-sex parents who are in stable relationships.In the past, most same-sex couples raising children were in a cohabiting relationship. With same-sex couples’ right to marry now secured throughout the country, the situation is changing rapidly. As more and more same-sex couples marry, Gates writes, we have the opportunity to consider new research questions that can contribute to our understanding of how marriage and parental relationships affect child wellbeing.","PeriodicalId":51448,"journal":{"name":"Future of Children","volume":"25 1","pages":"67 - 87"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1353/FOC.2015.0013","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66360865","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"法学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
A large volume of high-quality research shows that unhealthy children grow up to be unhealthy adults, that poor health and low income go hand in hand, and that the consequences of both poverty and poor health make large demands on public coffers. Thus promoting children's health is essential for improving the population's health; policies to prevent children's health problems can be wise investments; and policy makers should implement carefully designed policies and programs to promote child health. According to the World Health Organization, health is a state of complete physical, mental, and social wellbeing, and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity. We view health in this broad sense, encompassing both physical and mental health indicators. And because some children's health problems may go undiagnosed or take years to become apparent, we also consider conditions that predict poor child health (such as low birth weight) and behaviors that affect health (such as substance use). We view policies in a broad sense as well. Because an array of physical and social factors--including unsafe housing, pollution, food insecurity, and maltreatment, all of which are related to poverty--can adversely affect health, many types of policies are important for child health. Thus we consider the effects of policies that don't specifically focus on health (such as cash or in-kind assistance, or parenting education programs) in addition to policies that focus on access to health care or the direct provision of medical services. Relevant policies come in many shapes and sizes, ranging from large federal programs such as Head Start and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to more modest local public health initiatives. U.S. child health policy is thus a patchwork of efforts at the federal, state, and local levels. Many policies aim specifically to improve child health, while others have different goals but could indirectly affect the health of children. Some health-related policies target children directly, attempting to treat health problems once they occur or to prevent them from occurring, while others target women during or before pregnancy with the goal of improving the health of newborns. Some policies target low-income children, while others are more universal. For this issue of The Future of Children, we commissioned a group of experts to review research on how effectively U.S. policies promote child health. The articles, based on the strongest evidence to date, assess how best to promote child health and, more specifically, what interventions and strategies work best at various stages of children's development. In the lead article, Sara Rosenbaum and Robert Blum paint a portrait of child health in the United States today, setting it in its historical, national, and international context. Maya Rossin-Slater reviews programs to promote child health at birth and in the early childhood years. Craig Gundersen, Ingrid Gould Ellen and She
{"title":"Policies to Promote Child Health: Introducing the Issue","authors":"J. Currie, N. Reichman","doi":"10.1353/FOC.2015.0000","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/FOC.2015.0000","url":null,"abstract":"A large volume of high-quality research shows that unhealthy children grow up to be unhealthy adults, that poor health and low income go hand in hand, and that the consequences of both poverty and poor health make large demands on public coffers. Thus promoting children's health is essential for improving the population's health; policies to prevent children's health problems can be wise investments; and policy makers should implement carefully designed policies and programs to promote child health. According to the World Health Organization, health is a state of complete physical, mental, and social wellbeing, and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity. We view health in this broad sense, encompassing both physical and mental health indicators. And because some children's health problems may go undiagnosed or take years to become apparent, we also consider conditions that predict poor child health (such as low birth weight) and behaviors that affect health (such as substance use). We view policies in a broad sense as well. Because an array of physical and social factors--including unsafe housing, pollution, food insecurity, and maltreatment, all of which are related to poverty--can adversely affect health, many types of policies are important for child health. Thus we consider the effects of policies that don't specifically focus on health (such as cash or in-kind assistance, or parenting education programs) in addition to policies that focus on access to health care or the direct provision of medical services. Relevant policies come in many shapes and sizes, ranging from large federal programs such as Head Start and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to more modest local public health initiatives. U.S. child health policy is thus a patchwork of efforts at the federal, state, and local levels. Many policies aim specifically to improve child health, while others have different goals but could indirectly affect the health of children. Some health-related policies target children directly, attempting to treat health problems once they occur or to prevent them from occurring, while others target women during or before pregnancy with the goal of improving the health of newborns. Some policies target low-income children, while others are more universal. For this issue of The Future of Children, we commissioned a group of experts to review research on how effectively U.S. policies promote child health. The articles, based on the strongest evidence to date, assess how best to promote child health and, more specifically, what interventions and strategies work best at various stages of children's development. In the lead article, Sara Rosenbaum and Robert Blum paint a portrait of child health in the United States today, setting it in its historical, national, and international context. Maya Rossin-Slater reviews programs to promote child health at birth and in the early childhood years. Craig Gundersen, Ingrid Gould Ellen and She","PeriodicalId":51448,"journal":{"name":"Future of Children","volume":"25 1","pages":"3 - 9"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1353/FOC.2015.0000","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66360600","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"法学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Summary:Children’s mental health covers a wide range of disorders. Some, such as ADHD and autism, tend to manifest themselves when children are young, while others, such as depression and addiction, are more likely to appear during the teenage years. Some respond readily to treatment or tend to improve as children grow older, while others, such as autism, are much more intractable.Moreover, children’s mental and behavioral disorders may be detected and treated in any number of settings, from a pediatrician’s or psychologist’s office to schools to the juvenile justice system. This heterogeneity points to one of the problems Alison Cuellar finds with the United States’ approach to children’s mental health. Policies and programs to help children with mental disorders are fragmented and lack coordination, funding follows idiosyncratic rules, and all of this makes prevention programs hard to deliver.Another problem, Cuellar writes, is that treatment often focuses on controlling symptoms in the present rather than on long-term life chances. Treatments and programs that reduce children’s symptoms don’t necessarily lead to long-term gains in areas like education and employment; that is, even children whose treatment is deemed successful may fare more poorly in life than children without mental disorders. Thus Cuellar recommends that we evaluate whether treatment for at least some disorders should focus less on relieving symptoms and more on educational achievement and overall functioning.Another question for which policy makers in particular need the answer is whether our resources are best spent on programs that focus on detecting and treating individual children with mental health problems or on programs that focus more broadly on preventing mental health problems among populations of children who are likely to have high rates of mental disorders—for example, minority children who live in disadvantaged neighborhoods.
{"title":"Preventing and Treating Child Mental Health Problems","authors":"A. Cuellar","doi":"10.1353/FOC.2015.0005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/FOC.2015.0005","url":null,"abstract":"Summary:Children’s mental health covers a wide range of disorders. Some, such as ADHD and autism, tend to manifest themselves when children are young, while others, such as depression and addiction, are more likely to appear during the teenage years. Some respond readily to treatment or tend to improve as children grow older, while others, such as autism, are much more intractable.Moreover, children’s mental and behavioral disorders may be detected and treated in any number of settings, from a pediatrician’s or psychologist’s office to schools to the juvenile justice system. This heterogeneity points to one of the problems Alison Cuellar finds with the United States’ approach to children’s mental health. Policies and programs to help children with mental disorders are fragmented and lack coordination, funding follows idiosyncratic rules, and all of this makes prevention programs hard to deliver.Another problem, Cuellar writes, is that treatment often focuses on controlling symptoms in the present rather than on long-term life chances. Treatments and programs that reduce children’s symptoms don’t necessarily lead to long-term gains in areas like education and employment; that is, even children whose treatment is deemed successful may fare more poorly in life than children without mental disorders. Thus Cuellar recommends that we evaluate whether treatment for at least some disorders should focus less on relieving symptoms and more on educational achievement and overall functioning.Another question for which policy makers in particular need the answer is whether our resources are best spent on programs that focus on detecting and treating individual children with mental health problems or on programs that focus more broadly on preventing mental health problems among populations of children who are likely to have high rates of mental disorders—for example, minority children who live in disadvantaged neighborhoods.","PeriodicalId":51448,"journal":{"name":"Future of Children","volume":"25 1","pages":"111 - 134"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1353/FOC.2015.0005","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66360704","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"法学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Summary:In theory, improving low-income families’ housing and neighborhoods could also improve their children’s health, through any number of mechanisms. For example, less exposure to environmental toxins could prevent diseases such as asthma; a safer, less violent neighborhood could improve health by reducing the chances of injury and death, and by easing the burden of stress; and a more walkable neighborhood with better playgrounds could encourage children to exercise, making them less likely to become obese.Yet although neighborhood improvement policies generally achieve their immediate goals— investments in playgrounds create playgrounds, for example—Ingrid Gould Ellen and Sherry Glied find that many of these policies don’t show a strong effect on poor children’s health. One problem is that neighborhood improvements may price low-income families out of the very neighborhoods that have been improved, as new amenities draw more affluent families, causing rents and home prices to rise. Policy makers, say Ellen and Glied, should carefully consider how neighborhood improvements may affect affordability, a calculus that is likely to favor policies with clear and substantial benefits for low-income children, such as those that reduce neighborhood violence.Housing subsidies can help families either cope with rising costs or move to more affluent neighborhoods. Unfortunately, demonstration programs that help families move to better neighborhoods have had only limited effects on children’s health, possibly because such transitions can be stressful. And because subsidies go to relatively few low-income families, the presence of subsidies may itself drive up housing costs, placing an extra burden on the majority of families that don’t receive them. Ellen and Glied suggest that policy makers consider whether granting smaller subsidies to more families would be a more effective way to use these funds.
{"title":"Housing, Neighborhoods, and Children’s Health","authors":"I. Ellen, S. Glied","doi":"10.1353/FOC.2015.0006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/FOC.2015.0006","url":null,"abstract":"Summary:In theory, improving low-income families’ housing and neighborhoods could also improve their children’s health, through any number of mechanisms. For example, less exposure to environmental toxins could prevent diseases such as asthma; a safer, less violent neighborhood could improve health by reducing the chances of injury and death, and by easing the burden of stress; and a more walkable neighborhood with better playgrounds could encourage children to exercise, making them less likely to become obese.Yet although neighborhood improvement policies generally achieve their immediate goals— investments in playgrounds create playgrounds, for example—Ingrid Gould Ellen and Sherry Glied find that many of these policies don’t show a strong effect on poor children’s health. One problem is that neighborhood improvements may price low-income families out of the very neighborhoods that have been improved, as new amenities draw more affluent families, causing rents and home prices to rise. Policy makers, say Ellen and Glied, should carefully consider how neighborhood improvements may affect affordability, a calculus that is likely to favor policies with clear and substantial benefits for low-income children, such as those that reduce neighborhood violence.Housing subsidies can help families either cope with rising costs or move to more affluent neighborhoods. Unfortunately, demonstration programs that help families move to better neighborhoods have had only limited effects on children’s health, possibly because such transitions can be stressful. And because subsidies go to relatively few low-income families, the presence of subsidies may itself drive up housing costs, placing an extra burden on the majority of families that don’t receive them. Ellen and Glied suggest that policy makers consider whether granting smaller subsidies to more families would be a more effective way to use these funds.","PeriodicalId":51448,"journal":{"name":"Future of Children","volume":"25 1","pages":"135 - 153"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1353/FOC.2015.0006","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66360714","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"法学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Summary:The U.S. legal system gives parents the authority and responsibility to make decisions about their children’s health care, and favors parental rights over society’s collective responsibility to provide for children’s welfare. Neither the federal government nor state governments have an affirmative obligation to protect and promote children’s health, nor do children have a right to such protection. In this sense, write Clare Huntington and Elizabeth Scott, policies to promote child health in this country, such as those discussed elsewhere in this issue, are optional.Our libertarian legal framework grants parents broad authority to raise their children as they see fit. Parents can refuse recommended medical treatment for their children, and when they do so, courts respond with deference, particularly when parents’ objections are based on religious beliefs. Parental authority has its limits, however. For example, the government can intervene to protect children’s welfare in cases of medical neglect or when the child’s life is in danger. Additionally, the law sometimes limits parental authority over older children. For example, teenagers may be able to refuse some treatments, such as psychiatric hospitalization, over their parents’ objections. Older minors may also have access to treatments such as family planning services without their parents’ consent.Because the government has no positive obligation to promote children’s health, write Huntington and Scott, children’s health programs are often underfunded and vulnerable to political pressure. Programs are also more likely to focus on responding to family crises than on helping parents raise healthy children. In this environment, policy makers, researchers, and advocates must build political support by showing that investments in children’s health not only benefit children but also promote social welfare.
{"title":"Children’s Health in a Legal Framework","authors":"Clare Huntington, Elizabeth Scott","doi":"10.1353/FOC.2015.0008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/FOC.2015.0008","url":null,"abstract":"Summary:The U.S. legal system gives parents the authority and responsibility to make decisions about their children’s health care, and favors parental rights over society’s collective responsibility to provide for children’s welfare. Neither the federal government nor state governments have an affirmative obligation to protect and promote children’s health, nor do children have a right to such protection. In this sense, write Clare Huntington and Elizabeth Scott, policies to promote child health in this country, such as those discussed elsewhere in this issue, are optional.Our libertarian legal framework grants parents broad authority to raise their children as they see fit. Parents can refuse recommended medical treatment for their children, and when they do so, courts respond with deference, particularly when parents’ objections are based on religious beliefs. Parental authority has its limits, however. For example, the government can intervene to protect children’s welfare in cases of medical neglect or when the child’s life is in danger. Additionally, the law sometimes limits parental authority over older children. For example, teenagers may be able to refuse some treatments, such as psychiatric hospitalization, over their parents’ objections. Older minors may also have access to treatments such as family planning services without their parents’ consent.Because the government has no positive obligation to promote children’s health, write Huntington and Scott, children’s health programs are often underfunded and vulnerable to political pressure. Programs are also more likely to focus on responding to family crises than on helping parents raise healthy children. In this environment, policy makers, researchers, and advocates must build political support by showing that investments in children’s health not only benefit children but also promote social welfare.","PeriodicalId":51448,"journal":{"name":"Future of Children","volume":"25 1","pages":"177 - 197"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1353/FOC.2015.0008","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66360770","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"法学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In 2012, nearly 16 million U.S. children, or over one in five, lived in households that were food-insecure, which the U.S. Department of Agriculture defines as “a household-level economic and social condition of limited access to food.” Even when we control for the effects of other factors correlated with poverty, these children are more likely than others to face a host of health problems, including but not limited to anemia, lower nutrient intake, cognitive problems, higher levels of aggression and anxiety, poorer general health, poorer oral health, and a higher risk of being hospitalized, having asthma, having some birth defects, or experiencing behavioral problems. Many government programs aim explicitly to reduce food insecurity, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), the School Breakfast Program (SBP), the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), and the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP). (Other social safety-net programs—for example, the Earned Income Tax Credit—can also help alleviate food insecurity by increasing household income.) The fact that food insecurity remains so high even though the government spent over $100 billion on the various federal food-assistance programs in fiscal year 2012 poses a significant policy challenge.Food insecurity rates remain stubbornly high for a number of reasons. One is that we don’t fully understand what causes food insecurity or how food assistance and other programs can help alleviate it. Food insecurity has been researched extensively, and this research has helped policy makers and program administrators better address the problem. However, relatively little research has looked at what causes food insecurity among children in the first place, or the effectiveness of public policies, especially on more severe forms of food hardship.In this policy report, we highlight new research that seeks to fill this gap. Much of this work comes from the Research Program on Childhood Hunger at the University of Kentucky Center for Poverty Research, which was underwritten by the Food and Nutrition Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
{"title":"Childhood Food Insecurity in the U.S.: Trends, Causes, and Policy Options","authors":"C. Gundersen, James P. Ziliak","doi":"10.1353/FOC.2014.0007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1353/FOC.2014.0007","url":null,"abstract":"In 2012, nearly 16 million U.S. children, or over one in five, lived in households that were food-insecure, which the U.S. Department of Agriculture defines as “a household-level economic and social condition of limited access to food.” Even when we control for the effects of other factors correlated with poverty, these children are more likely than others to face a host of health problems, including but not limited to anemia, lower nutrient intake, cognitive problems, higher levels of aggression and anxiety, poorer general health, poorer oral health, and a higher risk of being hospitalized, having asthma, having some birth defects, or experiencing behavioral problems. Many government programs aim explicitly to reduce food insecurity, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), the School Breakfast Program (SBP), the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), and the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP). (Other social safety-net programs—for example, the Earned Income Tax Credit—can also help alleviate food insecurity by increasing household income.) The fact that food insecurity remains so high even though the government spent over $100 billion on the various federal food-assistance programs in fiscal year 2012 poses a significant policy challenge.Food insecurity rates remain stubbornly high for a number of reasons. One is that we don’t fully understand what causes food insecurity or how food assistance and other programs can help alleviate it. Food insecurity has been researched extensively, and this research has helped policy makers and program administrators better address the problem. However, relatively little research has looked at what causes food insecurity among children in the first place, or the effectiveness of public policies, especially on more severe forms of food hardship.In this policy report, we highlight new research that seeks to fill this gap. Much of this work comes from the Research Program on Childhood Hunger at the University of Kentucky Center for Poverty Research, which was underwritten by the Food and Nutrition Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).","PeriodicalId":51448,"journal":{"name":"Future of Children","volume":"11 1","pages":"1 - 19"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1353/FOC.2014.0007","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"66360550","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"法学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：