Are we making parents unnecessarily fearful about the safety of their children? I think we are. Mega headlines about horrific child murders or brutality obviously worry people and if it does happen to your child it must be the most awful experience imaginable. But what is the real risk?
A fascinating study by Professor Pritchard of Bournemouth University’s School of Health and Social Care shows that as a proportion of the child population, violent death rates almost halved from 32 to 17 per million children.
In England and Wales, between 1974 and 2006, the annual number of such deaths fell by 38% from 136 to 84. He told BBC News: “Thirty years ago England and Wales were the third or fourth highest child killers in the Western world, but we’re now fourth lowest.” http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8497277.stm
This is a very different picture from the one we get from some parts of the media. Prof Pritchard said improvements in social care systems, along with a greater focus on child poverty, had helped improve the death rate.
“When these things go wrong it is very often because the usual good working-together has actually broken down,” Again the general picture we receive would suggest the opposite. So how do we convey to parents that their children are much safer then they use to be? I think well respected magazines that talk directly to parents have an important role to play here, magazines like Yours (http://www.yours.co.uk) and Your Family (http://www.yourfamily.org.uk). I do hope that using this blog and the good quality magazines will help reassure parents.
Good news can be very important news.
There is a lot of FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) being sown by the government and the media about child welfare. We have a cultre where all adults are assumed to be dangerous, especially if they haven’t got a piece of government paper to say otherwise. Parents are not to be trusted, volunteers are not to be trusted, death and danger lurks around every corner.
Of course, the reality is different. The vast majority of people do not wish to harm children, or anyone else, but the danger of a few is being blown out of all proportion.
CRB checks, the vetting database, the current home education argument, loss of volunteers from children’s clubs, all symptoms of a particular paranoid mindset.
What is needed is an outbreak of common sense and rejection of absurd bureaucracy that gets in the way of providing our children with a proper childhood and all the fun and games and yes, occasional falls out of trees, that older generations enjoyed.
“Are we making parents unnecessarily fearful about the safety of their children? I think we are.”
YAY! Thinking people!
Now, if we can only convince the media. And the tories. And the country.
The problem is that whenever the issue of child care comes to had it is always through terrible news, and that point is not a good time to say ‘this sort of thing dosn’t happen often’.
Very quick question, I`ll post more later as usual.
Have the violent death rates fallen due to the system or purely due to parents being more paranoid and careful ?
A lot of parents I know, unlike a couple of Doctors, who were/are the subject of media frenzy, would not have leave their young children in a vulnerable position.
The system appears to want it both ways and I do not believe the system is having the effect of the downturn in stastitics but the parents.
“Are we making parents unnecessarily fearful about the safety of their children?”
That is one of the most understated remarks I have noticed for a long time. I have just donated a tenner on the basis of its truth, to UNICEF.
They believe there may be as many as 10m street children in the world today.
In Brazil the police are known to go on campaigns of murdering street children, in sweep up operation organized between crime syndicates and the police.
In the UK?
“What is needed is an outbreak of common sense” …..and plenty of JM Barrie philosophy too!
I would suggest that this is a cultural shift to a more safety orientated mindset. Apart from Health and Safety promoting the idea of good risk/bad risk – I know that they have done this every now and again but generally every risk seems to be a bad one – I don’t know what you can do to reduce such a long term trend. I would also be interested in the answer to Carl H’s question. I have always assumed that it is parents taking more responsibility for their children – not state services – that were the more significant factor in increasing child safety.
http://www.governing-principles.com
“I have always assumed that it is parents taking more responsibility for their children – not state services ”
Self reliance is where socialism meets radicalism of all sorts. In tiny, but heavily populated, islands like these, state services will always play a large part, but more responsibility Yes! Yes! Yes!
I learnt my own lesson at the age of 56 by NOT having my own health insurance, relying on the state, which is intrinsically unreliable for the individual.
“NOT state services…. more responsibility… more self reliance!
I really must the noble lady most welcome on all our behalves since Carl H has not done his usual noble work, and say that preventing violence against the child is very much the work of the NSPCC. (Nat Soc for prevention of Cruelty to Children). They do marvellous work, with their uniformed inspectors, and it is not just the homes of the poor and needy to whom they go. Far from it. Neglect and cruelty to children are evident in the middle classes as well.
May all our children be well protected from
the dire descriptions that the informed ads of the NSPCC reveal. I wish I could do more for such children.
” but we’re now fourth lowest.”
The chart in the BBC link does not back up that statement ?
Hmmm something wrong with this data, see
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/117950940/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
Also by Dr.Pritchard
“In the 1970s, combined violent deaths of all children (0-14 years) (homicide, OECD and AAE) in England and Wales were 203 per million, they are now 61 per million, a 70% decline with only Italy having lower rates.”
4th or 2nd ???
The data used was from 9 Countries.
What the Daily said about Social care for children and abuse.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1142243/The-228-child-deaths-didnt-want-tell-about.html
Ooops sorry the data I linked to saying 61 per Million was 2002…Oh dear that means a 30%+ increase in deaths since then, upto 84 per million.
Quick everyone panic…..
The things you can do with statistics eh !
“Yours.co.uk
About us…..
Yours.co.uk is the brand new site for the over 50s which is for you – and by you!”
And the Yourfamily Safety Forum
Error 404 page not found…Ooops
“Good news can be very important news.”
Especially when told with such sincerity to those who have no wish to challenge it.
Sorry my Lady there is more….
“There is therefore no basis for media claims that child homicides have dropped since the 1970s.”
Child killings in England and Wales
Susan J. Creighton and Gerry Tissier (NSPCC Research
Department / NSPCC Media Office) January 2003
http://www.familieslink.co.uk/download/june07/Child%20killings.pdf
What is the exact definition of ‘violent death’ here? It seems to encompass more than pure homicide (whether murder or other physical assault that leads to death) — does it include children killed by cars or in house fires or in other situations that don’t involve physical assault?
The reason I’m curious is because I can’t help thinking of some of the more gruesome Public Information Films produced for children a few decades ago, like ‘Apaches’ and ‘Building Sites Bite’ and other horrific depictions of children dying through their own carelessness or simply by accident — not to mention the British Transport Films productions that showed children being maimed or killed around train tracks. Most of the PIFs that are aimed at children today — apart from the ever-present ones about wearing a seatbelt and not running into the street — don’t seem to be about the possibility of violent death. Cyber bullying, for instance, appears to be a popular PIF topic of late. I wonder if this shift in PIF trends reflects the apparent decline in all violent deaths in children, not just the ones that involve physical assault.
Thank you Twm O’r Nant.
I beg pardon my Lady for not welcoming you to the blog, yesterday was a particularly busy day in my non political life, no excuse for impoliteness though. We hope to see many more blogs from you.
I hope the above information helped in opening some eyes to statistics, what is happening is that people are setting out to prove something and will pick only the right data to prove their agenda. It is becoming too frequent with Government.
“Trust me I`m a Doctor or Scientist” doesn`t cut it anymore, the internet has given people a way to check data to some respect. The information above I put forward was probably about 30 minutes worth of work.
My apologies for having appeared to destroy your good news, truth however is better than good manners.
Some have queried our report evidence of the reduction of violent deaths of children (0-14) I suggest they see the sources of the newspaper articles, where the types of deaths of children (0-14)are clearly defined.
Paper [1] was an earlier analysis up to 2002, paper [2] forthcoming in the BJSW, takes the analysis of the confirmed range of types of violent deaths to 2006 based upon latest WHO data. People can then exmaine the rationale that shows a continued overall decline in violent deahts since the early 80’s in the UK and most Western countries, the exception being the USA.
Paper [3] is related to positive impact of the social work services in a comparison of two disadvantaged groups- ordinarly former Looked-After-Children (LAC) outcomes are compared against `ordinary/average children, who by defintion do not have the disadvantages that led to LAC youngsters going into care in the first place- hence an attmept to compare reasonable like-with-like and intervention versus non-intervention.
Hope this is helpful
1] Pritchard C & Sharples A (2008) Violent deaths of children in England & Wales compared to the Major Developed Countries 1974-2002: Possible evidence for improving child protection? Child Abuse Review. 17, 297-312
2]Pritchard C & Williams R (2010) Comparing Possible ‘Child-Abuse-
Related-Deaths’ in England and Wales with the Major Developed Countries
1974–2006: Signs of Progress?. British Journal of Social Work. Advanced publication.
3]Pritchard C & Williams R (2009) Does Social Work Make a Difference? A Controlled study of Former Looked-After-Children and Excluded-from-School Adolescents Now Men Aged 16-24: Subsequent Offences, Being Victims of Crime and Suicide. Journal of Social Work 9, 285-307.
Welcome Prof. Pritchard
My link to your paper 1 (Deposited at Bournemouth Uni Jan 2009)
Pritchard, C. and Sharples, A., 2008. ‘Violent’ deaths of children in England and Wales and the major developed countries 1974-2002: possible evidence of improving child protection? Child Abuse Review, 17 (5), pp. 297-312.
appears not to get to there now.Try this
http://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/9223/
If in 2002 there were 61 deaths per million yet now we are stating 84 does that not suggest an overall increase or are you formulating in a different way ? Is it that in Jan 2009 when it was deposited that the paper was innaccurate ?
Is it not the case as in the NSPCC research that deaths actually fluctuate yearly and there is no real evidence of a downturn ? That the comparison from the 70`s is unfavourable due to changes in how the data is collected ? That comparison by country is also unfavourable due to differing data collection and how the law is defined in those countries ?
” This research is not uncontested, though. Enver Solomon, Barnardo’s assistant director for policy and research, argues that “the figures do not take into account more recent and accurate data from Ofsted and the Department for Children, Schools and Families, which show worryingly high numbers of children still dying as a result of abuse or neglect.
“The number of child deaths in the UK due to abuse or neglect remains far too high – at least two a week,” Solomon continues. “Every day, social workers intervene to protect many children from harm, but evidence suggests that [historically] there has been a reluctance to take decisive action, and a tendency to give parents the benefit of the doubt. The rise in care applications since the death of Peter Connolly constitutes an important step change in awareness, which suggests the long-established tendency to give parents the benefit of the doubt may have temporarily stopped. It must not return.”
Pritchard stands by his figures, but also has strong views about how non-vehicle-related child deaths can be prevented. He recently undertook an analysis of all the child murders that occurred over a decade in two counties (equivalent to 4% of the population of England and Wales), to attempt to establish what kind of person tended to be the most frequent child killer. He isolates two distinct groups: the most frequent killer is the mentally ill mother (who often kills herself at the same time), but the most dangerous potential killer is identified as a non-family member; someone who is likely to have a number of previous convictions, is known to be violent and to have been previously involved in sex crimes against children. Pritchard’s research suggests that the mentally-ill mother kills at a rate of 100 per million, while the second category of violent male child sex-offender (of whom there are many fewer) kills at a rate of 80,000 per million.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/mar/04/childprotection-bulger
“the second category of violent male child sex-offender (of whom there are many fewer) kills at a rate of 80,000 per million.””
There are many fewer offenders but far more deaths, but that figure can not be right!!!!
Think again! Even the 100 per million for the deranged mother is very high. 1 in 10,000?
Statistics doh!
The man who had been given a false name and identity, would have been known to the police almost as soon as it was given to him.
Fate is not kind in adult life, least of all to the convicted child criminal, and he is subject to it more, almost than any other person might be.
Nothing would have been easier than the copper with high ideals about crime, to use his knowledge of the secret identity of such a man, and set him up for a crime similar to the one he committed as a child, or one completely different; all for the policeman’s promotion prospects.
Not much hope for a child criminal in adult life really. Had he gone to south America, he would have fared much better, possibly Australia, but then his training, by the state, would not have allowed such a possibility to ferment in the young mind
“He isolates two distinct groups: the most frequent killer is the mentally ill mother (who often kills herself at the same time), but the most dang”
Matricide, killing of a child by its mother, is such a permanent part of our society, and would be, even of a primitive society, that it would only be a change in the definition of the meaning of killing, that would effect the statistics of it.
They do say that a Mother has the RIGHT to kill a new born child, especially if she can see it is handicapped. She may do so once.
If she does so twice then there are rarely extenuating circumstances, which would allow her not to be charged with murder for the second offence; a third time and the conviction is certain.
CDS (Cot Death Syndrome) is a tricky subject to discuss; the mother, in that case, may not be mentally ill, at all, but have her wits very much about her. CDS is an acknowledged set of problems, relating to the accidental death of babes, in the cot.
When a father takes the responsibility for a babe’s death, then the consequences are more serious for him, than they would be if he had persuaded his wife to do the deed, even the first time.