Analyze

 In 1991, the Public Health Service articulated a vision for primary prevention in Strategic Plan for the Elimination of Childhood Lead Poisoning, a departure from previous federal policy focused on finding and treating lead-poisoned children. This publication detailed a 15-year strategy for primary prevention and offered a cost-benefit analysis to demonstrate the monetized benefits of this approach. A strong national effort to follow this strategy developed but was eventually abandoned.

The organized campaign against universal screening began in California, where letters questioning the reported prevalence of elevated BLL began appearing in pediatric journals and newspapers. These letters acknowledged receiving editorial assistance from Kaiser Permanente Foundation Hospitals and argued that money spent on screening, treatment and abatement would be harmful to more worthy public health efforts. The AAP president took up this attack on universal screening as well, and efforts for universal screening were gradually eroded. 

Needleman identifies racism and the belief that lead poisoning “is a product of poor mothering, not of environmental pollution” as a driving factor shaping lead detection and prevention efforts (or the lack thereof) … “this weighting of personal choice or behavior over environment is a tool used to shift responsibility away from health authorities or polluters and onto the victim” (1875).

In the article, the authors used data from the 2011-2015 American Community 5-Year Estimates by the U.S. Census, 2010 U.S Census, and George C. Galster, “The Mechanism(s) of Neighborhood Effects: Theory, Evidence, and Policy Implications.”. They looked at data follwing children under 18,  and followed poverty trends such as census tracts for concentrated areas of high poverty. They used the number of children in Essex County Cities and compared it to the the amount of children in poverty in those cities, for the years of 2000 and 2015. Henceforth, they created an arguement stating that Child Poverty rates have risen within those 15 years, and even by 50% in some areas. The only issue I have with some of this data is that in some cities, we see a decrease in child population - and while there is an increase in child poverty in those areas, I feel like the reduced number of children in that area plays a big part in the so called "Increased Child Poverty Rates".

The main argument in this artical is children poverty in newark has  increased by 19 percent  in the last 15 years. In newark over 40% of chlidren live in poverty. 

Vulnerability and resilience in this artifact are defined by the high concentration of child poverty in Essex County. They are measured using the Census from 2000 and 2015 which show how there is a trend in the percentage of children who expereince poverty within the county. Majority of the children living in poverty are currently living in heavilyu concentrated poverty neighborhoods like Newark, Irvington, and the Oranges. Although the affluent town of Milburn is nearby, it is unclear how these children continue to live below the poverty line in Newark even though the towns are only 6 miles apart. 

As a sesearch from the Rotgers University, the students or researchers support:

- The child poverty in becoming more concentrated. With the numbers next to us, we can say that a 52.5% of the poorest childs live in census were the concentration is above a 40%

- Inner-ring suburbs of Orange, East Orange, and Irvington have seen the largest increases in child poverty.

- Essex County’s smallest municipalities have very low child poverty, although many have seen their child poverty rates increase by more than 50 percent since 2000