Is Iowa Good or Bad for Kids? Safety Studies Conflict

Two recent studies, both judging the state’s ability to provide children a safe environment, have Iowa listed at opposite ends of the spectrum. The discrepancy has some parents questioning the long-held belief that Iowa is a great place to raise a family. Are current state policies doing enough to keep children living in our state safe? Is it an argument of parents versus policy?

Readers of Parents magazine learned this month that editors ranked Iowa 43rd in the nation while assessing potential child safety in each of the 50 states. A separate study pioneered by the Washington D.C.-based nonprofit Every Child Matters Education Fund, however, drew immediate praise from Gov. Chet Culver when it placed Iowa as the No. 1 Midwestern state in terms of child well-being, and seventh nationwide.

“This report proves that in Iowa we are doing things right,” said Culver. “Iowa’s children hold the keys to our future, and this is why the Culver/Judge Administration has worked hard to give our children a brighter future. I am committed to building upon the progress we have made so that every Iowa child can reach their fullest potential.”

The report that ranked Iowa high looked at 10 child well-being indicators such as infant mortality rates, the numbers of child and teen deaths, access to prenatal care, and number of uninsured children.

In contrast, the editors of Parents analyzed state-level data on more than 30 criteria that impact a child’s safety, including bike helmet and booster seat laws, sex-offender tracking and the number of emergency services providers per capita. The Parents study judged each state on all criteria, the final score being based half on accident prevention and half on violence prevention.

“I’m not sure what to believe or what is really being assessed by these studies,” said Amy Relanote, an Iowa mom to 8-year-old twin boys and a 5-year-old girl. “I think the Parents study took many more statistics into account, but much of what they viewed could fall under ‘nanny’ government. Is it the government’s responsibility to make sure that my boys are wearing their bicycle helmets or is it mine? I think it’s the state’s responsibility to watch out for my children in ways that I cannot. The rest is up to me.”

Karen Cicero, editor of the piece for Parents, said that she can see both sides of that issue.

“Some parents really appreciate the booster seat and bicycle helmet laws because it makes those instances a nonissue in their household,” she said. “Parents feel it gives them both more power and, in a way, removes pressure from them. A statement like, ‘No, this is the law,’ makes the issue a nondebatable one.”

Cicero also points out that while parents have control over what happens in their own vehicles and in their homes, such controls are removed when children move into public spaces.

“[Parents] don’t have control over the installation of seat belts in school buses,” she said. “The seat belts have to be there for the kids to use them — parents, obviously, can instruct their kids about the importance of using them.”

Cicero said that because state laws are constantly changing, she doesn’t see the study reported in the magazine as a snapshot in time. She also said that she didn’t see the findings as political in nature, despite the fact that the statistics often took into account state laws and policies regarding safety issues.

“I don’t see this as a political issue at all,” Cicero said when asked if the magazine’s assessment included information relating to the political or gender make-up of state legislatures. “This is a safety issue. This is a chance for parents to see what their state has done, what other states have done and decide if there are things that could be done in their state that will result in a safer environment for their children.”

While Parents magazine preached to its choir (the nation’s parents), the study from Every Child Matters preached to its predominantly politically charged base by calling for congressional hearings, policy positions from presidential candidates and disparity examinations at all levels of government and in the private sector.

“As Americans, we need to ask ourselves: ‘Does every child in the U.S. deserve an equal opportunity to be healthy and survive to adulthood?’” said Michael Petit, author of the study and founder of Every Child Matters. “Is there a floor below which no American child should fall, regardless of the accident of geography that accounts for where they are born and raised? It should no longer be politically acceptable to permit — or simply ignore — the vast differences in life chances that exist for children today.”