This very dangerous road divides us

The health hazard posed by traffic is invisible. The safety hazard is all too obvious, especially here.

Nearly 8,000 U.S. public schools sit close to busy roads, and in some cases, students must cross those lanes to get to class. In Burlington, northeast of Philadelphia, hundreds of students walk across a road the nonprofit Tri-State Transportation Campaign calls the most treacherous for pedestrians in all of New Jersey.

A four-year-old on the way home from after-school care was killed in 2008 on the road, the six-lane Route 130. A 12-year-old was badly injured in 2012 while riding his bike across it. And last May, a 17-year-old sophomore who didn’t even have a foot on the road was fatally struck by a driver who ran off the pavement.

“Our students are walking across this road to get to not only our schools but almost everywhere they need to go in Burlington City,” said Burlington City High School Principal Jim Flynn, whose office looks out onto Route 130. “This very dangerous road divides us.”

Now, it’s mobilized them. Horrified about the death of sophomore Antwan Timbers Jr., his classmates have campaigned all school year for drivers to slow down, inspiring a state senator to propose a lower speed limit and other safety-minded changes.

It’s a local piece of a nationwide transportation challenge. About 100 children are killed every year while walking or biking during the times of day kids typically go to and from school, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

Nine years ago, New Jersey enacted a law to try to stop schools being built near highway ramps, and vice versa, after the death of an 8-year-old boy outside his Newark elementary school in 1997. But it’s arterials — roads like Route 130 — that are the most deadly for walkers, in New Jersey and nationwide.

Lowering speeds around schools is one way to reduce crashes and deaths throughout the day, not just immediately before and after class, the Safe Routes to School National Partnership says.

In Burlington, an enclave of 10,000 that gets more than three times as much traffic on its main route, students and teachers want the speed limit permanently lowered from 40 miles per hour to 25. That’s the speed motorists are supposed drive for a few hours in the morning and afternoon when kids are most likely to be walking to and from school, but the temporary limit isn’t working.

When a group of students and staff clocked speeds with a radar gun one morning last fall, “nobody was going 25,” said junior Jesseca Lamont, 16. “Some people were going 50, 60 miles per hour.”

Students are also coming and going from the high school after hours and on weekends, when the crossing guards aren’t out and the 40 mph limit applies. Flynn said fifth- and sixth-graders cross Route 130 to get to football practice in late afternoons, and he routinely sees kids walking across the road in the dark.

The route is divided as it cuts past the Burlington schools, with stores tucked between the north- and southbound lanes. It’s as if students must navigate two roads rather than one, with twice the opportunities for harm.

Students have held a rally, made a presentation at City Hall, researched the life-and-death implications of crashes at different speeds and produced a safety video. In January they testified at a hearing on state Sen. Diane Allen’s legislation.

“If you would go to any student in any grade, they would be like, ‘Oh, Antwan, he’s an amazing friend,’ ” said Jesseca, who knew him well as a fellow cadet in the school’s Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps, and who is best friends with the young man injured on the road in 2012. “We don’t want another tragic incident.”

— source by Jamie Smith Hopkins

How investigated schools near sources of traffic pollution nationwide

We’re all exposed to unhealthy traffic pollutants, but people who spend a lot of time on or very near higher-traffic roads get more. The Center for Public Integrity and Reveal from The Center for Investigative Reporting teamed up to look at the schools across the country that sit within 500 feet of busy roads.

We picked that distance because, in general, studies suggest that the biggest daytime exposures are within the first 500 feet from the road (though some studies have found elevated levels farther out, such as roughly 900 to 1,000 feet). California’s school-siting law, which aims to keep new schools away from freeways and other major routes, uses 500 feet as the area of concern.

The California law focuses on very heavily traveled roads, but there’s no true dividing line between bad and OK. Some studies have found health effects among people near roads with at least 10,000 vehicles a day, which includes routes with a tiny fraction of the traffic on an L.A. freeway. In fact, because steady speeds produce less pollution than acceleration, vehicles on highways that aren’t plagued by stop-by-go congestion are cleaner than they are on lower-speed roads with traffic lights and stop signs. And a road that draws diesel trucks, particularly old trucks, could be worse than a higher-traffic route with only cars.

We tried to account for these complexities with our traffic thresholds. We ended up defining a “busy road” as one with average daily traffic of at least 30,000 vehicles, or 500 or more trucks and at least 10,000 total vehicles.

We used schools data tracked by the National Center for Education Statistics, part of the U.S. Department of Education. It includes latitude and longitude for every school, along with information ranging from the type of school to the demographic details on the student body. The most recent full dataset from the NCES is for the 2014-15 school year.

Our traffic data came from the Federal Highway Administration, which has average daily traffic figures for total vehicles as well as trucks on roads across the country — not just highways, but also local roads. We used 2014 traffic data for every state except Iowa. Highway administration data wasn’t available in 2014 for that state, so we used 2015 data instead.

Staffers at both agencies answered a lot of questions for us, from how the school geocoding was done (the NCES tries to put the coordinates on top of a school building whenever possible) to how the FHWA distinguishes trucks from cars (sensors in the roads, manual counts, estimates from the states).

We also received help from numerous academic researchers. People who conducted studies of schools near major routes and shared their expertise include Sergey Grinshpun with the University of Cincinnati, Gregory Wellenius of Brown University and Ryan Allen at Simon Fraser University.

Other academics who offered advice on a wide range of related issues include Julian Marshall and Matthew Bechle at the University of Washington, Steve Hankey at Virginia Tech, Dr. Janet Phoenix at the George Washington University, Nicky Sheats at Thomas Edison State University, Andrea Ferro at Clarkson University, Marc Serre at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Jonathan Buonocore at Harvard University, Julia Heck at UCLA and Stuart Batterman at the University of Michigan.

Some news organizations have covered this issue in their regions, including InvestigateWest’s excellent Exhausted at School series in Seattle, but we came across none that crunched the data nationally. Here’s why: It’s a headache. You can individually verify that the school locations are accurate and each record in the database is in fact a school when you’re looking at hundreds of sites in a city. You can’t do it one by one when you’re working with a dataset of just over 100,000 entries.

If a school’s coordinates are off by even a few dozen yards, it could appear to be within 500 feet of a road that it actually isn’t, or farther away than it actually is. The location for each school is the equivalent of the pinpoint on a Google map, rather than the boundaries encompassing the entire property, so there’s not a lot of wiggle room.

The NCES dataset also includes entries that wouldn’t make sense for us to count in a story about K-12 schools educating kids close to traffic: online-only, adult ed, a host of programs that we’re not certain why school districts recorded as schools.

Reveal’s Eric Sagara and the Center’s Jamie Smith Hopkins and Chris Zubak-Skees spent several months verifying the data. Here’s what we did to improve its accuracy:

● We checked a random sample of schools showing up within 500 feet of busy roads and a random sample of schools geocoded a bit farther away, to see whether geocoding issues would lead to over- or undercounting of higher-traffic schools. (Justin Scoggins, a data-verification expert who is data manager at the University of Southern California’s Program for Environmental and Regional Equity, recommended this step.) What this suggested: More than 90 percent of schools that are supposedly within 500 feet of busy roads really are. Meanwhile, schools that are closer to those roads than they appear — that is, they seem to be more than 500 feet away but are actually less than 500 feet — outnumber the schools that are farther than they appear. That gave us confidence that we’re not overstating the problem.

● All told, we eyeballed the locations of hundreds of schools, which allowed us to make fixes where necessary and gave us an understanding of the issues on the ground. When adjusting a school’s coordinates, we put them on a building rather than, say, the playground, to be consistent with what NCES tries to do.

● Sometimes NCES is better at locating a school, and sometimes Google is. By comparing locations with the California School Campus Database, which provides mostly-accurate school boundaries in that state, we found that using Google’s geocoding service to locate a school’s address, and then using Google’s coordinates when those were available with so-called rooftop accuracy, improved the location accuracy for many schools. That’s what we ultimately did for the entire country. (The Center’s Zubak-Skees, who worked through this issue, also conducted the geospatial analysis of schools and roads in the first place to determine what’s close to what.)

● We set to work figuring out which schools (and non-schools masquerading as schools) should not be counted. Online-only schools are supposed to flag themselves as such, but some don’t, so we ultimately excluded schools with “online,” “virtual” and “distance” in their names in addition to those that properly identified themselves as not teaching kids on site. Also kicked out: pre-K-only sites, adult-education sites, schools flagged as “future” or “closed” or “inactive,” locations with “program” in their names (other than a handful that our verification efforts showed really were schools), homeschool-support sites and homebound programs for ill students. We also didn’t count schools with fewer than 20 total students — smaller than the average size of a single classroom — as a way of further weeding out sites that really aren’t schools at all.

● It’s not unusual for districts to build several schools on the same property, but we were concerned that some of those clusters might not accurately reflect where the schools are located. We checked larger clusters across the country to verify whether the schools are there, as well as whether the coordinates reflect where on the property they sit. We cast a particularly close eye on clusters whose addresses matched their district headquarters address.

We didn’t exclude schools for not fully filling out their demographic data — giving the number of students in certain racial categories (say, white and black) but not the number of students in others (say, Pacific Islander). NCES staffers told us that it should be safe to consider these missing data points as “zero.” They don’t have a reason to believe there’s something fundamentally wrong with the numbers reported for those schools that would require invalidating them.

Our checks eliminated a little over 10,000 schools from our tally, bringing the total to roughly 90,000. And you know what? After all our efforts, the trends we found were the same ones that popped up with the raw data. Comforting and annoying.

Reveal’s Sagara then conducted a regression analysis to get a better understanding of what makes a school more likely to be near a busy road. Bottom line: Being in a big city. That might seem obvious, but there are plenty of schools near substantial traffic that aren’t in big cities, so this analysis was important for zeroing in on the key reason that predominantly minority schools are near these roads at a markedly higher rate than predominately white schools. (Why people live where they do, and how much traffic they’re exposed to, continues to be influenced by decades-old decisions about which neighborhoods to lend in and which to cut through when building major routes, as our story describes.)

If you’re wondering whether your child’s school falls within 500 feet of a busy road, check out our interactive data tool. You can enter any address, school or not, and see if it’s by a road that meets our traffic threshold.

— source by Jamie Smith Hopkins

Questions and answers about schools and traffic pollution

How close is too close, and how much traffic is too much traffic?

Traffic pollutants travel, but they’re higher on and close to roads. In general, studies suggest that the biggest daytime exposures are within 500 feet of the road, though some studies have found elevated levels farther out, such as roughly 900 to 1,000 feet. California’s school-siting law, which aims to keep new schools away from freeways and other major routes, uses 500 feet as the area of concern.

California’s law focuses on very heavily traveled roads, but there’s no true dividing line between bad and OK. Some studies have found health effects among people near roads with at least 10,000 vehicles a day, which includes routes with a tiny fraction of the traffic on an L.A. freeway. In fact, because steady speeds produce less pollution than acceleration, vehicles on highways that aren’t plagued by stop-by-go congestion are cleaner than they are on lower-speed roads with traffic lights and stop signs. And a road that draws diesel trucks, particularly old ones, could be worse than a higher-traffic route with only cars.

“As people are looking more and more at traffic pollution, they’re finding effects with less vehicles and they’re finding effects farther away as well,” said Barbara Weller, a toxicology expert who works at California’s Air Resources Board as supervisor for the population studies section of the health and exposure assessment branch.

To try to account for some of these complexities, the Center for Public Integrity and Reveal from The Center for Investigative Reporting focused on roads with average traffic of at least 30,000 vehicles a day, as well as roads with at least 500 trucks and 10,000 total vehicles a day.

What are the health implications of putting a school near a busy road?

“The closer anybody is to a major road – school, home, business, whatever – the more they’re going to be exposed to air pollution from vehicles that are traveling on that road,” said Dr. Jerome Paulson, professor emeritus in pediatrics and environmental and occupational health at the George Washington University.

It’s not just about the time spent outdoors.

“There’s sort of this myth that when we close our windows and shut our doors, we’re completely protected, but that is not true,” said Frederica Perera, director of the Columbia Center for Children’s Environmental Health at Columbia University. “Fine particles, ultrafine particles and gases, vapors, are able to come into the indoor environment. They penetrate very readily.”

That matters, because traffic pollution can stunt lung growth in children. The difference isn’t enough for immediate symptoms — though traffic exposure can also cause wheezing and worsen asthma symptoms, not everyone will feel those effects — but lung size could have implications later in life. Adults lose a bit of their lung function each year. Researchers worry that starting adulthood with smaller lungs could increase the odds of future health problems.

Newer research has also linked traffic pollution to the development (not just the worsening) of asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cognitive and learning problems, heart disease and dementia. Some research has also linked traffic pollution to cancer; diesel exhaust from older trucks and certain chemicals emitted by gasoline-powered vehicles are known carcinogens. So the health concerns aren’t limited to children.

In Detroit, where the asthma hospitalization rate for kids is nearly three times the statewide rate, the head of the city’s health department is concerned about the long-term effects of traffic proximity.

“We built highways well into the heart of Detroit,” said Dr. Abdul El-Sayed, executive director of the Detroit Health Department. The city has lots of schools near significant traffic, and “we’re only now starting to appreciate that maybe these aren’t the best places to put our kids,” he said.

What factors affect exposure near roads?

Wind direction, for one. If the wind tends to blow from the road to your nearby location, you’ll get more exposure overall than someone on the other side of the pavement.

Elevated highways tend to be worse for people near them. Cut-section highways — roads lower than the land around them — are somewhat better. Sound barriers can help reduce exposure for people very close to the highway, though they might increase it for people a bit farther away (and can definitely do so for the drivers on the road, because more of it sticks around). An EPA paper you can download here sums up some of these issues.

The EPA thinks vegetation can help trap pollution as well, so a school separated from a road by a thick buffer of trees is likely better off — but this research is still developing. And location could matter. Some scientists have found that trees don’t help in urban areas because their ability to remove pollutants isn’t as strong as their ability to block airflow, keeping pollutants from escaping and getting diluted.

So what can schools near roads do about their air quality?

Closing a school’s doors and windows won’t keep traffic pollutants out (though that helps). Heavy-duty air filters — higher quality than the typical filters in schools — can substantially reduce what gets into the air the kids and teachers are breathing inside.

Filters rated MERV 16, characterized as surgery-grade, have been installed in dozens of Southern California schools. In the Los Angeles Unified School District alone, more than 40 schools have high-grade filters to improve air in areas near highways, ports and other pollution sources.

Measurements by the South Coast Air Quality Management District — a local air-pollution control agency — found that MERV 16 filters in schools catch approximately 90 percent of fine and ultrafine particles, pollutants that are a key part of what makes traffic pollution a health risk. A much lower 20 to 50 percent of the particles were caught by the measured schools’ earlier efforts, which at best had involved air filters with a rating of MERV 7.

MERV 16 filters aren’t high price. You can buy them for less than $100 apiece. Schools with central air conditioning and heating — an HVAC system — should be able to use them, but it might take some retrofitting. IQAir, a company that’s installed high-grade filtration in hundreds of schools, most in California, says schools with a central system usually don’t need to spend much on alterations.

The big cost is for schools without HVAC. They’re left with two expensive options: pony up for HVAC, or pay for stand-alone air purification systems that are much pricier than air filters.

The South Coast air district offered a rough estimate of around $2,500 per classroom to install high-quality filters — averaging between schools that don’t need to do much and those staring down big-ticket HVAC costs.

At El Marino Language School in Culver City, California, officials retrofitted the heating system to get the filters in — that work cost about $500,000 — and plan to spend an additional $2 million installing air conditioning this summer so teachers can keep the doors and windows closed, allowing the filters to do their work.

How have schools paid for indoor-air fixes?

Dozens of schools in Southern California have received high-grade air filters paid for by the South Coast air district, which has funded the work with a pool of money that includes penalties assessed on polluting companies.

Not all schools near major roads in that region qualify, though. So the freeway-adjacent El Marino Language School got funding after the Culver City Unified School District in California proposed an ultimately successful bond measure, some of which was earmarked for work there. The lack of air conditioning at El Marino meant a higher price tag for effective filtration. The school could (and ultimately did) install filters by retrofitting the heating system, but it really needed to add AC, too, so unfiltered air wouldn’t flow in through doors open directly to the outdoors.

In Utah, meanwhile, the state Department of Transportation is paying for higher-quality air filters at five schools within about 1,600 feet of a highway under construction. That’s part of a deal struck after parents, environmentalists and doctors mobilized during the planning stages nearly a decade ago, modeled after a settlement over a highway-widening project in Las Vegas. Funding allotted for the Utah school upgrades and 30 years of future maintenance: $1.1 million, the equivalent of about $7,300 per school per year.

My school has air filters. That’s good enough, right?

School filtration and ventilation is often subpar, according to researchers who have documented conditions in the West and Midwest. Years ago, when he was at the California Air Resources Board, Thomas J. Phillips was part of a study of school classrooms and found air filters that “hadn’t been changed in quite a while — maybe the life of the school.”

Phillips, now principal scientist at Healthy Building Research in California, points out that school budgets are usually crunched.

“Things like air sealing and better air filtration will help,” he said. “But the devil’s in the details. How do you make sure it’s done right? How do you fund it? How do you maintain it?”

Being vigilant about maintenance is a good start. But the EPA also recommends that schools with traffic-pollution challenges install the highest-grade air filters they can. (For more details on that, see the answer above to “So what can schools near roads do about their air quality?”)

What can I do if my district is building a school near a highway or other significant road?

You could start a conversation if it’s not a done deal: Does your school district realize the health implications of nearby traffic? (Many don’t.) Are there other viable sites farther from busy roads?

Traffic isn’t the only environmental-health hazard, and the EPA cautions that building schools in far-off locations to avoid traffic just forces kids and staff to spend more time on roads to get there, breathing those pollutants while sitting in buses and cars. If a school must be built near significant traffic, experts recommend designing the site to improve air quality.

An effective HVAC system with high-grade air filters will substantially reduce the traffic particles getting to the classrooms, as schools in freeway-heavy Southern California have found. It’s also a good idea to put outdoor-activity areas, such as playgrounds and athletic fields, farther from the road while earmarking the closest spots for uses such as parking and storage, the EPA says. Other measures, such as placing the air intake away from the fumes of the road and the school loading dock, can also help.

The state plans to build a big road near my child’s school. Now what?

That’s happening in Utah. After parents, environmentalists and doctors joined forces to object, the state Department of Transportation agreed to pay for air monitoring and higher-quality air filters at five schools near the incoming Mountain View Corridor highway project.

“We’ve come a long way just to understand there is a problem out there,” said Linda Hansen, a member of the Utah State Board of Education and a former PTA leader in the affected school district. “We’re hoping once we get the data … from this project, we’ll be able to use it in other projects and get districts to see they really need to put some mitigation into those schools they have near roadways, because it’s hard on kids.”

This is why she thinks the advocacy effort paid off: “Groups that usually don’t work together on issues all came together.”

Reed Soper, environmental manager on the Mountain View Corridor project for a Department of Transportation contractor, sees the outcome as a win, too. “Everyone was willing to roll up their sleeves and come up with a solution that didn’t involve a lawsuit,” he said.

A big increase in truck traffic is coming near my child’s school. What can I do?

If it’s temporary, see if the traffic can be timed to avoid school days. Residents in Mars, Pennsylvania, convinced an energy company to wait until summer to hydraulically fracture gas wells there so schools wouldn’t be in session during the ensuing spike in truck volumes on the road passing by them, said Patrice Tomcik, the western Pennsylvania field organizer for Moms Clean Air Force. State environmental protection officials acted as mediators between residents and the company.

“I just want other communities to realize they have options,” she said.

If it’s not temporary, talk to transportation officials. Could other roads handle the traffic instead? What would be the implications of rerouting it? Or talk to the company behind the increase, if there’s a single employer involved.

In Chicago, the Little Village Environmental Justice Organization has pressed a manufacturer to use newer, less-polluting trucks as it prepares for hundreds more trips a day on a site next to an elementary school. The group’s leaders say they’re encouraged by the ongoing conversation.

“That’s not to say we don’t want the jobs, or that this growth isn’t important. It is,” said Kim Wasserman, executive director of the group. “But not at the cost of the truck drivers” — who breathe air tainted with their exhaust — “or the communities where these trucks are going.”

My kid’s school isn’t near any major roads, but what about the diesel school buses that idle outside? Isn’t that a problem?

Yes. Getting bus drivers (and parents) to turn off their engines while waiting to pick up kids really can make a difference. Pat Ryan, an associate professor of pediatrics at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, led a study that found significant drops in air pollutants following an anti-idling campaign at a Cincinnati school with a lot of buses.

Just putting up a no-idling sign isn’t enough, Ryan said: “You have to be a little more active, at least until — hopefully — it becomes a habit.” There’s an assumption among some drivers that they’ll burn up more fuel turning their engine off and back on again than if they idle, but that’s not true, he said.

The EPA has also helped school districts replace old diesel buses with grants from its Diesel Emissions Reduction Act program. But the future of that funding is unclear.

I’m not in a big city. This stuff doesn’t apply to my area, right?

Schools near busy roads are a particular problem in big cities, but thousands of these cases are in suburbs, smaller cities and rural communities.

School districts in areas with more undeveloped land do have options a heavily urbanized district doesn’t, as long as the issue is on their radar. Consider the suburban Blue Valley district in Overland Park, Kansas. Officials there try to get new schools into the plans for future subdivisions while there’s still time for that — and to build their campuses as far from major roads as they can.

“Safety is one [reason], but the impact of pollutants on those major roads is another one,” said Dave Hill, executive director of facilities and operations for Blue Valley, which helps mentor other school districts on indoor-air quality.

How many vehicles are on the road near my child’s school? How can I find out exactly what’s in the air there?

To see if a school falls within 500 feet of a busy road, check out our interactive data tool above. You can enter any address, school or not, and see if it’s by a road that meets our traffic threshold.

Determining what’s in the air isn’t so easy. The odds are low that a government air-pollution monitor is located in your exact area of interest. But that’s not your only option these days.

“There are a lot of emerging technologies — low-cost sensors — out there that communities can use themselves to measure some air pollutants,” said Sacoby Wilson, an assistant professor with the Maryland Institute for Applied Environmental Health at the University of Maryland.

That’s particularly true of fine particles (particulate matter that’s 2.5 micrometers or less in diameter, or PM2.5 — far, far smaller than a grain of sand). The South Coast air district reviews those sensors here and here. Such sensors aren’t as accurate as high-cost government equipment yet, so use with caution, but you can get an idea of how the pollutants range in different locations and at different times of day. The EPA has a guide for how to do this type of “citizen science” air monitoring.

Unfortunately, sensors priced at a couple hundred dollars won’t help you track some key road pollutants, such as ultrafine particles — the even smaller specks that spike near roads — and diesel-emitted black carbon. That type of equipment is much more expensive, though it is possible to rent a black-carbon monitor rather than shell out thousands of dollars to buy it.

One strategy: Ask for help. A parent at the El Marino Language School in California borrowed air-monitoring equipment from a university to measure ultrafine particles at the near-highway site. She documented that ocean breezes weren’t ameliorating the problem, as some had hoped, and parents convinced the school district to install air filtration.

You could also encourage your community to conduct more air monitoring. The Array of Things project is installing all sorts of sensors, some measuring air pollution, across Chicago.

Does it make sense to pay for better air filters in thousands of schools, let alone other buildings near big roads? Isn’t it more efficient to just do something about the pollution?

High-grade air filters are a stop-gap measure. No-emission roads are likely a long ways off, and kids — as well as adults — have to keep breathing in the meantime.

But plenty of public-health advocates think that less traffic pollution should be the priority, because that would help air quality overall.

The good news: The trend’s heading in the right direction. New vehicles are much cleaner than old ones. The bad news: Diesel engines last a long time, so there are still a lot of old trucks in use. Besides California, no states have requirements to phase out old truck engines over time.

The Diesel Emissions Reduction Act has helped replace or retrofit tens of thousands of old diesel engines to speed up slow turnover, but this could be the last year of that funding. (The program technically lapsed already but received some money this year because the continuing-resolution budget measure extended prior-year levels of funding through April.)

Where can I go for more information?

The EPA put out a guide in 2015 to help schools deal with traffic pollution. It also has a broader 2011 guide about schools and environmental health, including traffic-pollution issues.

The Healthy Schools Network focuses on environmental health in schools. Here’s the group’s Towards Healthy Schools 2015 report.

The Reducing Outdoor Contaminants in Indoor Spaces site has resources about indoor-air quality.

The South Coast air district has studied better air filtration in schools as well as the effectiveness of low-cost air pollution sensors.

And don’t forget our interactive data tool, which lets you type in an address and see if it falls within 500 feet of a busy road.

— source by Jamie Smith Hopkins

Start looking at children as equal citizens

It is often mentioned that children are the future of the world, of every country. What we need to think is, however, that children are also very much the present of the world. They are equal citizens of any country. And thus, any transformation starts with children. Whenever a child’s potential goes unrealised, it turns into an area of growth missed by a country.

Over the past decade and a half, the Indian government has shown impressive intent in formulating various policies for children and committing to international ratifications, including the UNCRC (United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child). It would seem that our government, too, is keen on investing in the population under the age of 18, if keenness is measured by the variety of laws and policies.

The reality, however, is markedly different.

Fight against child labour far from over

The pace of change for children has been dismally slow in our country with a lot of development targets unmet. In a country of 472 million children, the child sex ratio is at its lowest at 908 girls for every 1000 boys. Eighty million children are out of school still and child labour has only reduced by 2.2 per cent from 2001 to 2011, with the country now home to 33 million children in labour. Every five minutes, there a crime is committed against a child in this country

To say that there are many gaps inherent in the designs of the policies for children seems only rational when one sees the situation of 40 per cent of our population. Government intent needs to be reflected in designing programmes and policies for children as well as in the robust implementation backed with adequate ground-level staff. Child labour is an issue of concern in our country. Rescuing and rehabilitating children in labour is just one of the 33 labour laws that the labour inspector is responsible for. It is not shocking that the rate of conviction in cases related to child labour is abysmally low.

The prevention of a deep-rooted and complex social taboo like child marriage is just another additional responsibility for the Sub-Divisional Magistrate or a Child Development Project officer, under the Child Marriage Law. Often, the five honorary members of the Child Welfare Committee, who decide the fate of abused and traumatised children under the Juvenile Justice Law, are not even trained adequately, leave aside comprehending vulnerability of these children.

Policy implementation not inclusive

In order to see the transformatory change in the lives of the children, the implementation on ground needs to be drastically changed. One of the ways it is possible is through provisioning of adequate staff. The budgetary investment in personnel across the laws has remained minimal. The Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS), considered one of the most comprehensive in the world to be able to provide education, nutrition and care to the young children, is one of those struggling for sufficient resources.

The role of the Anganwadi workers is of utmost criticality to ensure the right start to the lives of children below six years, and in few states in India she earns a meagre salary as an honorarium. That there would be a second worker to look after pre-school education seems to be a distant dream even after the ICDS was restructured. As on March 2015, positions for 14,673 Anganwadi supervisors, 62,970 Anganwadi workers and 118,609 Anganwadi helpers were vacant. With such high number of positions vacant, a large number of children are devoid of the ICDS services and even quality of service also tends to suffer.

Crime, poor nutrition dwarf future of children in India

It has been long proven that lack of nutrition, care and education during the growing up years can be critical to the overall development of the child. Even then, the ICDS scheme, supposedly universal in nature, reaches only 50 per cent of 164.5 million children. Financial allocation is a clear indication of the scale of implementation, and targeted approach always limits the coverage. Only 200 select districts receive the Rajiv Gandhi Scheme for the empowerment of adolescent girls. Considering the fact that 56 per cent of the adolescent girls in India are anaemic and 47 per cent are underweight, leaving other marginalised girls behind does not seem to be the right way to go.

Moving our focus to the mechanism of delivery of school education, teaching positions in 900,000 elementary schools and 100,000 secondary schools (a million!) still remain vacant out of the six million teaching positions in government schools nationwide. With 20 per cent untrained teachers and over 100,000 of government schools having only a single teacher, our children are struggling to receive quality education through their schooling years. We cannot rule out the possibility that by 2020, India will have the world’s largest working population–869 million—and probably largest number of child working population as well.

This is a country where the rate of crime against children has grown by 15 times in the past decade. Even then, the framework of the child protection scheme remains largely urban in its nature and has very limited reach in the rural areas. The different departments neither have a clear area of convergence, nor is there any obligation to fulfill a shared duty. As an example, while the Ministry of Women and Child Development holds the budget for POCSO (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act), it has no control over the budget to train doctors and health professionals dealing with these children, and convergence is a very translucent area. In such a scenario, the dream of giving every single child the access to every right they deserve will remain far-fetched unless there is adequate investment into it.

While the Finance Minister has, in the recent pre-budget consultation, duly emphasised the importance of inclusive growth and the subsequent need to increase the resources available to the social sector, especially for the vulnerable sections, including children, the Union Budget 2017-18 must reflect the investment plans for the 472 million children of India. Clearly, a meagre four per cent of the financial investment into nearly 40 per cent of the population is not only unjustified, but also insufficient for creating any lasting change in their lives. To achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) that India is committed to, to fulfil its national and international obligations and to turn intent into action, we cannot be content with the incremental change the lives of our children have seen. To create a better tomorrow, a paradigm shift in the perspective is required. We must start looking at children as equal citizens of today. And we must start investing adequately in our present in order to build a strong foundation for the future we want it to turn into.

— source By Komal Ganotra

Children Make Up Half the World’s Refugees

Children refugees have increased to 50 million children worldwide with over 75% of them from ten countries. Syria and Afghanistan alone contribute to half of all children refugees under the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees according to UNICEF. Over 70% of children in Syria alone show signs of toxic stress due to conflict-related exposures, contributing to the tragedy of what will become a lost generation of Syrians. Refugee children are at high risk for recruitment, work abuse, violence, sexual abuse, trafficking, and lives of poverty. UNICEF is calling for the international community to uphold the Convention of the Rights of the Child in assisting the migrant child crisis.

— source

USA has no right to talk about Terrorism

Accidental shootings kill a child every other day

Using information collected by the Gun Violence Archive, a nonpartisan research group, news reports and public sources, the media outlets spent six months analyzing the circumstances of every death and injury from accidental shootings involving children ages 17 and younger from Jan. 1, 2014, to June 30 of this year — more than 1,000 incidents in all.

— source

No other country kills their own kids in this scale.

1 in 5 young people lose sleep over social media

1 in 5 young people regularly wake up in the night to send or check messages on social media, according to new research published today in the Journal of Youth Studies. This night-time activity is making teenagers three times more likely to feel constantly tired at school than their peers who do not log on at night, and could be affecting their happiness and wellbeing. girls much more likely to access their social media accounts during the night than boys.

— source