119

Edited, as every site I found in my search last night gave me sites that all say the same thing:

The perception is that the world is a really dangerous place for children these days

But the statistics I seem to find online seem to imply that despite the media hype around kidnapping, serial killers, child trafficking rings etc, relative to the population, children are safer than ever before.

So why is this? Are kids safer, or are the media just making up scare stories to sell newspapers etc (surely not)

Rory Alsop
  • 6,237
  • 3
  • 35
  • 49
  • 14
    The "examiner" example talks about "unsafe" stuff, as for example seeing married couple share a bed, talking about good old times when *"You never saw Mr. and Mrs Cleaver in bed together. Why, RIcky and Lucy even had seperate beds."* I'm not really sure that's what understood as "unsafe" by most normal parents nowadays. – vartec Feb 14 '12 at 15:21
  • 1
    @vartec I believe the answer to that lies in the title attributed to the author of the article: "Televangelism & Pop Christianity Examiner". Definitely not a mainstream perspective. – Beofett Feb 14 '12 at 16:34
  • I think the only way this would be answerable, if the scope would be limited to physical safety. – vartec Feb 14 '12 at 16:57
  • The 'Netmums' doesn't seem to include a claim that things are more dangerous today. They mostly want to let their kids play outside and are lamenting the passing of that time without anyone expressing the idea that things are more dangerous. – DJClayworth Feb 14 '12 at 17:39
  • 1
    The examiner article also isn't claiming that things are more dangerous, it complains about exposure to 'adult' imagaery. – DJClayworth Feb 14 '12 at 17:40
  • 3
    I would vote to close this question as not providing a notable example of the claim, if I didn't know that such claims did exist. Please find one or we will be unable to respond to this. – DJClayworth Feb 14 '12 at 17:41
  • 2
    Is this about children in the US, worldwide, in the Irak? Today, compared with which time? The 80ies, the 60ies, the 40ies, the middle age? – user unknown Feb 14 '12 at 23:41
  • 1
    The simples answer I can think of would be survival rate. The higher the survival rate // expected age of a child, the less danger it is in. Those numbers shouldn't be hard to find but they'll give you a (start of) a measurable, definite answer. – Nanne Feb 14 '12 at 21:18
  • I'm with @DJClayworth: the netmums article doesn't claim it is more dangerous now; just it is perceived as such. The examiner example is limited to "everyday violence against our children gets worse", which isn't much of a claim in the middle of an advert. – Oddthinking Feb 15 '12 at 02:33
  • 6
    This issue often comes up in a parenting context (sell all Free-Range Kids) where the claim is sometime that kids to day must be kept on a shorter leash that their parents were because the world in a much more dangerous place. Anecdotal evidence is often advanced to support it, usually from the news. Hard data is sparse on the ground, but I believe that US federal crime statistics argue the other way (i.e. that today's kids are safer from violence and kidnapping than their parents were). – dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten Feb 15 '12 at 20:45
  • 6
    @DJClayworth: According to the BBC article, mums in the UK appear to be making the same choices in raising children in statistically observable numbers. That alone makes this question relevent I think, and while you might have trouble finding actual claims in articles on the internet, it's an exceedingly common belief. When I tell people that I let my 5 year old son play outside unsupervised, I get similar reactions. – Ernie Mar 02 '12 at 22:23
  • 1
    I don't believe so. Similar to what [this article](http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=110&dat=19910612&id=_wxQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=o1UDAAAAIBAJ&pg=2358,5710119) says, I believe that people tend to want to believe that it used to be safer. It seems almost identical to when a teenager tells their parent "You don't understand me, you didn't grow up the same way I did." People wish to believe it, but often it is simply not true. If anything, I would say that kids are in fact safer. Because of all the media, people are looking out for it. In addition, I don't believe that their are actually more kidnap – Ephraim Apr 01 '12 at 06:56
  • 2
    What about child labor in early factories? For the "ick" factor, what of the Marquis de Sade's writings of priests and young children? – Paul Apr 13 '12 at 10:55
  • @Nanne: not really, children survival rate is increasing because of better medical treatments, it has nothing to do with the safety of the society they live in. – nico May 16 '12 at 16:13
  • Meaningless without a timeframe. A lot of "Good old days" proclaimers have a 1950s idyll in their mind when social control was tight, gays were in the closet (and other deviants like trans didn't exist), adultery and premarital sex didn't exist, families gathered around the 'wireless' and listened to sagacious dad pontificating with a pipe in hand. But you'll find few datasets go that far back. Also, if you google it, the 1970s are considered to be a peak of crime, presumably linked to lead from car fuel causing developmental damage; so you expect declines if you start from there. – user3445853 Oct 29 '19 at 14:16

1 Answers1

188

"Were children safer in the good old days?"

We have four definition problems here:

  • What age are included when talking about "children"?
  • What risks are included and excluded in "safe"?
  • When were the "good old days"?
  • What geographic regions are included? Just the US? UK? Western-style cultures? The globe?

Interpretation #1: Children under 5 years, all mortality risks, 50 years ago, western countries.

Then the answer is provided by World Bank data, extracted by Google:

Graph of Declining Infant mortality

(I chose USA and UK, because the claims were from there, plus Australia, because that's where I am based, and to show the trends aren't limited.)

Broad summary: Infant mortality has decreased greatly in the past 50 years.

But perhaps they didn't mean to include the fact we have vaccinations and other health improvements, and meant to talk about violent crime?

Intepretation #2: Youths 12-17, victims of violent crime, 30 years ago, USA.

ChildStats.gov has the data:

Graph of Declining Violent Crime Youth Victims

Broad summary: Youths are less likely to be victims of violent crime.

No, no, maybe they meant to include all the risks of car-accidents and injuries playing sport?

Intepretation #3: Aged 1-4 and 5-14, deaths due to injury, 30 years ago, USA.

Again, ChildStats.gov has the data (with a warning to treat the 2008/09 figures as preliminary):

Graph of declining death-by-injury rates in young US children

Broad summary: Children younger than 15 are less likely to die of injuries.

Interpretation #4: Any ages, kidnapping, >15 years ago, USA.

But what about kidnapping?

It is difficult to give a detailed answer here, as it was only recently (e.g. since 1997) that kidnapping has been tracked:

Until recently, the nature and scope of the problem have been unclear because existing crime data collection systems—such as the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) system and OJJDP's National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children—do not collect law enforcement data on kidnaping.

Fortunately, that is about to change. In partnership with the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the FBI is supplanting the UCR with the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS). This will enhance our understanding of youth abduction and create a comprehensive picture of kidnaping offenses.

Fortunately, kidnapping is very rare.

Data indicate that kidnaping of juveniles is a relatively rare crime in NIBRS jurisdictions. It constitutes only one-tenth of 1 percent of all the crimes against individuals, 1 percent of all crimes against juveniles, and 1.5 percent of all violent crimes against juveniles recorded in the database. Kidnaping is dwarfed by the much more common crimes of simple and aggravated assault, larceny, and sex offenses, which make up most of the crimes against juveniles

Kidnapping by a stranger (presumably the relevant subset) is rarer still (a little over a quarter of the offenders, according to the same source).

When we talk about dangers being faced by children, being kidnapped by strangers on the street doesn't contribute much to a child's overall risks.

Intepretation #5: Various ages, child abuse, 15 years ago, USA.

This is where the picture gets less rosy. According to Child Help, deaths due to child-abuse have been on the rise recently:

Graph of child abuse increase

Note: The y-axis on the graph does not extend to zero, which serves to exaggerate the rise for people unfamiliar with the technique. Also, these are absolute figures, not per capita figures, so the growth should be tempered by the approximately 10% population increase over that period.

Child abuse includes a number of sub-categories:

Pie-chart showing different types of child abuse

Without wishing to dismiss the seriousness of this issue, this problem does not seem to fall into the type of issues that the original claims expressed concern about - the dangers of letting their children play on the street.

Conclusion:

Without clearer definitions, it is impossible to give a precise answer, but it seems under a number of different measures, these are the good days when it comes to child safety.

Community
  • 1
Oddthinking
  • 140,378
  • 46
  • 548
  • 638
  • 11
    Some really good graphical indicators there - I like this answer a lot, as the definitions are as woolly and undefined as you mentioned. – Rory Alsop May 16 '12 at 14:22
  • 1
    What about kidnapping or domestic violence? – nico May 16 '12 at 16:14
  • 1
    @nico alternatively, what about slavery? Anecdotally, we hear kidnapping, torture and domestic violence may have been rife, but evidence would be hard to come by. – Rory Alsop May 16 '12 at 16:23
  • 8
    @nico: Looking at kidnapping, there are two issues to consider. (1) There [weren't good statistics gathered in the USA before 1997](https://www.ncjrs.gov/html/ojjdp/2000_6_2/contents.html) making it difficult to answer here. (2) [Kidnapping is very rare](https://www.ncjrs.gov/html/ojjdp/2000_6_2/page2.html). Kidnapping *by a stranger* (presumably the relevant subset) is rarer still. It doesn't contribute much to a child's overall risks. – Oddthinking May 16 '12 at 16:31
  • 1
    @nico: Looking at child abuse numbers (which includes physical abuse in 10-11% of cases), the picture is not as happy with an increase over the past 13 years that the stats were collected. [[Source](http://www.childhelp.org/pages/statistics) - note axes on graph exaggerate effect]. However, this seems out of the scope of the question - which seems to be more about whether children are safe riding their bikes on the street. – Oddthinking May 16 '12 at 16:39
  • 1
    One thing which seems missing to me in this: if we consider death due to injury only, and if there are fewer deaths, it is still possible number of injuries is higher then before, only the medicine/first aid system is more advanced and more often prevents the death. If this would be the case, one might argue the "world" is less safe (depending on your definition of safety). – Suma May 16 '12 at 18:46
  • 15
    Another possibility of a different explanation: the number of children deaths (or even injuries) might be reduced not because the "world" is safer now, but because children are less exposed to it (spending more time at home or under protection of their parents) - this depends on what you mean by "the world". – Suma May 16 '12 at 18:49
  • 2
    @Suma: Two good points, and I cannot see how they can be addressed. Further, if you model "stranger kidnappings" as being a constant number of prowlers looking for the first child they can find (Note: I have no reason to support this model), then the more children are taken off the street, the more dangerous it becomes for each one remaining. – Oddthinking May 17 '12 at 02:39
  • @Oddthinking - I would include what you mentioned about [kidnapping](http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8033/were-children-safer-in-the-good-old-days/9469#comment-38173) and [abuse](http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8033/were-children-safer-in-the-good-old-days/9469#comment-38174) in the answer, as I know many people may be wondering that, and won't end up looking at the comments. Probably better as part of the answer. – Ephraim May 17 '12 at 06:00
  • @Ephraim: I have done so, thank you for the suggestion. – Oddthinking May 17 '12 at 09:03
  • 1
    These charts are very telling, especially since I expect it's getting easier than before to report even the most minor incidents - if the actual rates were constant, I would expect the reported rates to increase over time. – Alain May 19 '12 at 15:57
  • 1
    Here's my interpretation of the term, and perhaps it might help you come up with some world statistics to show for it. "The world is a dangerous place" (because of war, crime, etc), "So, we must keep our children safe." Your statistics try to show that children, especially in the western world, are safer today than in "the good ol' days", but lacks information to point to why people think the world is less safe overall and, as such, must protect our children from it. I think you should add a chart that compares death and violence from war and insurrection for the past 100-200 years. – Kevin Peno Jun 06 '12 at 17:48
  • 1
    I'd suspect that we will see a rise recently, but will inevitably find that we are still living in the safest period of time in at least the past few hundred years. Great answer btw. – Kevin Peno Jun 06 '12 at 17:49
  • 9
    Note that all the "good" graphs depict percentages. If you convert to absolute numbers, the trend would be upwards due to population increase. Hence the number of stories for media to choose to report about has increased. – mpiktas Jun 07 '12 at 03:56
  • 5
    @mpiktas: That's an interesting point. I would add that communications have meant news reports can come from further afield, and the growing availability of cameras has mean TV's bias towards news with video has been opened up. – Oddthinking Jun 07 '12 at 06:12
  • 15
    Very late to the party but.... these graphs don't tell us anything without data on the amount of time children spend outside as opposed to indoors. e.g if kids spend only half as much time outdoors today than they did 20 years ago then the Risk-per-minute today is much greater than it was 20 years ago.... – Ian Dec 14 '12 at 11:12
  • Agree with Ian, but still a very nice answer – Zonata May 22 '13 at 06:29
  • Regarding interpretation 6, the absolute number of child death raised, but the total number of children have raised as well. So what about the ratio? It probably still have grown? –  Jul 27 '13 at 04:02
  • 2
    @mezhang: Good point. There's been about 15% increase in [world population since 1998](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population_estimates), but a 56% increase in deaths due to child abuse. So, yeah, still an increase in the ratio. – Oddthinking Jul 27 '13 at 04:41
  • 1
    In conclusion, once again, the "good old days" most explicitly *weren't*. – Shadur Nov 23 '13 at 13:37
  • 4
    For child abuse maybe it's more taken seriously now than even 15 years before, hence the difference. – Nikko Feb 06 '15 at 08:46
  • "Youths are less likely to be victims of violent crime." – does that include being killed by a cop? – vartec Feb 08 '15 at 04:23
  • These stats only compare now with the 1980s. Who *ever* considered the 80s to be the "good ol' days"? I think most people considered the ideal bygone era to be the 1950s and before. – LCIII May 19 '15 at 14:53
  • 2
    @LCIII: Who considered the 80s to be the Good Ol' Days? People who grew up in the 80s and have kids now! *shrug* It was one of the parameters I explained was ill-defined. – Oddthinking May 19 '15 at 15:22
  • 7
    Reported child abuse rates may also be rising due to the changing *zeitgeist* in many Western countries, similar to the increase in diagnoses of autism. This can be seen in the recent [jailing of a Malaysian in Sweden for corporal punishment](http://www.thelocal.se/20140328/malaysians-face-prison-for-child-abuse). The punishment is not considered child abuse in Malaysia, nor would it be considered child abuse 200 years ago in Europe. – March Ho Aug 29 '15 at 12:35
  • 3
    @vartec: Probably, yes. Police brutality has come to the fore over recent years thanks to the high proportion of people who now carry movie cameras around with them. Previously it was always the case that the cop's word trumped any number of citizens (especially if those citizens were black). But film trumps the cop. Hard evidence is not available, but I'll bet that the "good old days" had a lot more police brutality, not less. – Paul Johnson Apr 19 '16 at 12:13
  • Unfortunately the effect of different parenting approaches isn't considered. If parents stop letting their children play in the streets there are fewer opportunities for children to become victims. I suspect this effect would be difficult to tease out of any change in actual desire to commit these crimes. I grew up in the late '70s and '80s in rural West Virginia and used to be out all day by myself or with friends. But I'm raising my children in a Southern California suburb where I see reports of averted abductions/suspicious behavior in my and nearby neighborhoods several times a year. – CramerTV Jan 15 '19 at 00:11
  • 1
    @CramerTV: *Reports* of *averted* abductions, and *suspicious* behavior. Ask yourself: How do you *get* these reports? Were these channels available in the 70's / 80's? (Social media echo chambers...) How many of these reports and suspicions are self-fulfilling prophecies of exactly the kind posited in the question (confirmation bias of parents thinking their kids are in oh so much danger)? How many of these averted situations were *averted* because kids *are* safer today -- because they carry smartphones, are better informed, and the adults around them are more sensitive? – DevSolar Jan 15 '19 at 12:02
  • (ctd.) Also, if situations are suspected, or averted, does that mean the kid was unsafe? After all, the actual thing feared did not happen, did it? – DevSolar Jan 15 '19 at 12:03
  • @DevSolar, Exactly. We don't know if, all things being equal, kids are safer nowadays. It could be exactly what you said, that kids are safer now *because* of the PSAs and *because* parents are more sensitive - as opposed to the OPs assertion that it is all media hype and them making up scare stories. – CramerTV Jan 15 '19 at 18:09