A few years ago, a United Nations study quantified an astounding truth – a truth so dramatic it deserved space on the front page of papers around the world, and with implications so stunning it demanded that we re-consider the way we are combating extreme poverty.


But, instead, the study quietly faded into the background.

The explosive truth that most of the world missed in that study is that a stunning four billion people are not protected by their own justice systems.

To put that into perspective: More than half the world’s population, including most of the world’s poorest people, aren’t safe.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZRMXkyRd7Q

Throughout the developing world, justice systems – law enforcement, court systems, social services – have corroded and collapsed into utter dysfunction. Under-resourced, under-trained and potentially corrupt law enforcement cannot or will not arrest and charge criminals or gather evidence. Trials move at a glacial pace, files are lost, no efforts are made to mitigate trauma during the court process for survivors of violence, and hearings are often conducted entirely in official languages the poor can’t understand, among other systemic absurdities. In fact, not only do the poorest not seek protection through their police and court systems, but they often actively avoid them because of the abuse they expect to experience from them.

When their justice systems do not work, nothing shields the poorest from violent people. As a result, the threat of being raped, robbed, assaulted and exploited is constant. According to World Bank data, for example, women and girls between the ages of 15 and 44 are more at risk of being killed or disabled by gender violence than by cancer, car accidents, malaria and war combined. In surveys, the poor frequently name violence as their “greatest fear” or “main problem.” For them, vulnerability to violence is just as much a part of being poor as illness, malnutrition, dirty drinking water or inadequate education.

This overwhelming vulnerability to everyday violence doesn’t just destroy lives, it also blocks the road out of poverty and undermines development. Consider what happens to efforts to overcome poverty when violence is an everyday threat. According to the World Health Organization, school is the most common place for sexual violence for massive populations of poor girls in the developing world, eroding the opportunity of education. Likewise, a micro-loan can’t significantly change life for an impoverished woman if the proceeds of her farmland can just be stolen away by a more powerful neighbor or if she is one of the millions of women chased from her home each year, nor can a medical clinic help build the healthy foundations families need to succeed if those families are among the nearly 30 million people swept up into forced labor slavery in our world. This is not to say that these development efforts are unimportant; rather, they are so important that they must be safeguarded from being laid to waste by violence.

The urgent truth is this: It will be impossible for the poorest to thrive if we do not eradicate the plague of everyday violence that blocks the road out of poverty and undermines the world’s efforts to help the poor thrive.

Fortunately, there is a sustainable way to protect the poor from the onslaught of everyday violence, and it is the solution most of us in developed countries depend upon every day: functioning, effective justice systems, including law enforcement. It’s exactly what that UN study found that four billion people don’t get today.

But when the world came together to create the UN’s Millennium Development Goals – the global blueprint guiding the fight against poverty – violence against the poor and the development of the functioning justice systems were not even mentioned. You can join your voice with the growing movement calling for the inclusion of the issue of violence on the 2015 update to the goals now being drafted. My organization has launched a petition to General Ban Ki Moon, urging him to make this a priority. Adding your name is a crucial first step to help end the plague of violence. Let’s not let this urgent reality fade into the background again.

Buy The Locust Effect February 2-8 and for every copy sold in the U.S. (both physical books & e-books), a generous donor will give $20 to IJM*. (*up to $80,000 – enough to cover the cost of 17 rescue operations.)

All author royalties from your purchase of this book will go to International Justice Mission to help fight violence against the poor. Learn more about IJM’s work.

  • What a roommate can save you in 100 US cities: 2026 study
    Two persons petting a cat while unpacking boxes in their new room.

    Jaclyn DeJohn, CFP for SmartAsset

    What a roommate can save you in 100 US cities: 2026 study

    New college grads, transplants from other cities, and others might find myriad advantages in including a roommate in their housing plan — one of those being cost savings. Particularly in high cost-of-living areas, an extra cushion in the budget could make a big difference in discretionary spending, paying off debt, or investing for the future. Across large U.S. cities, splitting a two-bedroom apartment with a roommate versus living alone in a one-bedroom apartment could save the average renter about $541 per month, or nearly $6,500 per year. In many cities, the average savings climb much higher.

    With this in mind, SmartAsset ranked 100 of the largest U.S. cities based on the percentage of monthly rent saved by sharing an apartment with a roommate.

    Key Findings

    • Adding a roommate gets you the best value in Cleveland, Ohio. Splitting a two-bedroom with another person saves you nearly 48% compared to renting a one-bedroom alone. The average cost of one-bedroom rent in Cleveland currently sits at $1,150, nearly identical to the average two-bedroom rent of $1,200.
    • The average rent for a two-bedroom apartment is only $900 in this city. Shreveport, Louisiana, has the lowest two-bedroom rent out of 100 large cities. With an average one-bedroom price of $790, it ranks 10th overall with a savings of 43% with a roommate, or $340 rent savings per person per month.
    • In NYC, a roommate saves you $1,730 per month. The average one-bedroom rent in New York City is $4,380, while two roommates could split the average $5,300 two-bedroom rent for $2,650 each. Neighboring Jersey City, New Jersey has the second-highest raw monthly dollars saved with a roommate at $1,490 — or 46.7% savings over living alone.
    • A roommate saves you the least in the cities. Relative to local housing costs, sharing your space is least cost effective in Scottsdale, Arizona, where splitting a two-bedroom nets you a 26.0% discount, or a $440 monthly discount. Seattle (28.2% savings; $550 per month) and El Paso, Texas (29.4% savings; $250 per month), also are most budget-friendly to singletons.
    A table ranking U.S. cities based on the saving benefits of having a roommate.

    Top 10 Cities With the Most Savings With a Roommate

    Cities are ranked based on the percent saved in rent between splitting the average two-bedroom apartment with a roommate and living in a one-bedroom apartment alone.

    1. Cleveland, OH
    • Percent savings with a roommate: 47.83%
    • Monthly rent savings with a roommate: $550
    • One-bedroom rent: $1,150
    • Two-bedroom rent: $1,200
    1. Baton Rouge, LA
    • Percent savings with a roommate: 46.88%
    • Monthly rent savings with a roommate: $450
    • One-bedroom rent: $960
    • Two-bedroom rent: $1,020
    1. Jersey City, NJ
    • Percent savings with a roommate: 46.71%
    • Monthly rent savings with a roommate: $1,490
    • One-bedroom rent: $3,190
    • Two-bedroom rent: $3,400
    1. Memphis, TN
    • Percent savings with a roommate: 46.24%
    • Monthly rent savings with a roommate: $430
    • One-bedroom rent: $930
    • Two-bedroom rent: $1,000
    1. Boise, ID
    • Percent savings with a roommate: 45.49%
    • Monthly rent savings with a roommate: $605
    • One-bedroom rent: $1,330
    • Two-bedroom rent: $1,450
    1. Augusta, GA
    • Percent savings with a roommate: 45.00%
    • Monthly rent savings with a roommate: $450
    • One-bedroom rent: $1,000
    • Two-bedroom rent: $1,100
    1. New Haven, CT
    • Percent savings with a roommate: 44.89%
    • Monthly rent savings with a roommate: $835
    • One-bedroom rent: $1,860
    • Two-bedroom rent: $2,050
    1. Chattanooga, TN
    • Percent savings with a roommate: 44.44%
    • Monthly rent savings with a roommate: $520
    • One-bedroom rent: $1,170
    • Two-bedroom rent: $1,300
    1. Virginia Beach, VA
    • Percent savings with a roommate: 43.94%
    • Monthly rent savings with a roommate: $725
    • One-bedroom rent: $1,650
    • Two-bedroom rent: $1,850
    1. Shreveport, LA
    • Percent savings with a roommate: 43.04%
    • Monthly rent savings with a roommate: $340
    • One-bedroom rent: $790
    • Two-bedroom rent: $900

    Top 10 Cities Where It’s Most Cost Effective to Live Alone

    Cities are ranked based on the percent saved in rent between splitting the average two-bedroom apartment with a roommate and living in a one-bedroom apartment alone.

    1. Scottsdale, AZ
    • Percent savings with a roommate: 26.04%
    • Monthly rent savings with a roommate: $440
    • One-bedroom rent: $1,690
    • Two-bedroom rent: $2,500
    1. Seattle, WA
    • Percent savings with a roommate: 28.21%
    • Monthly rent savings with a roommate: $550
    • One-bedroom rent: $1,950
    • Two-bedroom rent: $2,800
    1. El Paso, TX
    • Percent savings with a roommate: 29.41%
    • Monthly rent savings with a roommate: $250
    • One-bedroom rent: $850
    • Two-bedroom rent: $1,200
    1. Albuquerque, NM
    • Percent savings with a roommate: 29.47%
    • Monthly rent savings with a roommate: $280
    • One-bedroom rent: $950
    • Two-bedroom rent: $1,340
    1. Denver, CO
    • Percent savings with a roommate: 29.69%
    • Monthly rent savings with a roommate: $475
    • One-bedroom rent: $1,600
    • Two-bedroom rent: $2,250
    1. St Louis, MO
    • Percent savings with a roommate: 30.11%
    • Monthly rent savings with a roommate: $280
    • One-bedroom rent: $930
    • Two-bedroom rent: $1,300
    1. Dallas, TX
    • Percent savings with a roommate: 30.28%
    • Monthly rent savings with a roommate: $430
    • One-bedroom rent: $1,420
    • Two-bedroom rent: $1,980
    1. San Francisco, CA
    • Percent savings with a roommate: 30.47%
    • Monthly rent savings with a roommate: $1,155
    • One-bedroom rent: $3,790
    • Two-bedroom rent: $5,270
    1. Fort Lauderdale, FL
    • Percent savings with a roommate: 30.85%
    • Monthly rent savings with a roommate: $580
    • One-bedroom rent: $1,880
    • Two-bedroom rent: $2,600
    1. St Petersburg, FL
    • Percent savings with a roommate: 31.33%
    • Monthly rent savings with a roommate: $470
    • One-bedroom rent: $1,500
    • Two-bedroom rent: $2,060

    Data and Methodology

    This study examined data from 100 U.S. cities, comparing the average rents for one-bedroom and two-bedroom apartments between March 2025 and March 2026 based on data from Zumper. Specifically, the cost of a one-bedroom was compared with half the cost of a two-bedroom for each city, assuming each roommate pays equal rent.

    This story was produced by SmartAsset and reviewed and distributed by Stacker.

  • Parents trust report cards more than test scores, with consequences for kids
    A school report card showing straight A's.

    Jill Barshay for The Hechinger Report

    Parents trust report cards more than test scores, with consequences for kids

    Most parents want to help their children succeed. We check report cards, ask about homework and try to help our kids study. When that fails, we sometimes hire tutors. But in an era of rising grades, it’s easy to be misled.

    A new study reviewed by The Hechinger Report found that parents often assume everything is fine when their child’s report card shows mostly A’s, even when standardized test scores slide. That assumption may underestimate the help and guidance their child needs.

    In an online experiment, researchers at Oregon State University and the University of Chicago created hypothetical fifth graders, whom they called Stacey and Robert, and asked more than 2,000 parents how they would advise the children’s parents to respond to different scenarios of grades and test scores. Test scores were expressed as percentile ranks on standardized tests, such as the annual state tests that public school children take each spring, so that parents could compare Stacey and Robert with those of other children nationwide. And study participants were given an imaginary $100 per week to “spend” however they wished. Options included enrolling the child in an after-school program, hiring a tutor or saving the money for a vacation or bills. They could also invest their own time, such as helping with homework or reading together.

    Parents advised increasing time and money spent when both grades and test scores were low. Parents were less likely to provide extra help or resources when grades were high and only test scores were low. The researchers found that parents were more likely to step in when grades were low but test scores were higher.

    More than 70% of the parents said they trust grades more than tests for making decisions about their own child, and fewer than 9% said they had more confidence in tests.

    The findings appear in a draft paper that has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal and may still be revised. It was publicly circulated by the Becker Friedman Institute for Economics at the University of Chicago this month.

    As test scores have fallen nationwide while grades have risen, the researchers believe that parents may be underinvesting in their children. “Parents are the key to children’s success,” said Ariel Kalil of the University of Chicago. “What you need is for parents to be making investments in their kids’ skill development, and you need that parental effort to be happening early and often. Anything that depresses parent investment is a problem.”

    Kalil is concerned that this underinvestment in children is more pronounced in low-income communities, where, she said, high grades are often issued for below-grade-level skills. After the COVID-19 pandemic, schools struggled to persuade families to enroll in free tutoring and summer programs to make up for months of disrupted instruction. Many report cards showed solid grades, reducing the urgency for parents to act.

    Paired with other recent research on long-term academic and economic consequences, this study strengthens the case that grade inflation isn’t harmless. Inflated grades may feel encouraging, but they can send false signals both to students, who may study less, and to parents, who may see less reason to step in. Ultimately, it not only hurts individuals but also American labor force skills and future economic growth, the researchers argue.

    Kalil, a behavioral scientist, believes that parents have more confidence in grades because they are familiar and easier to understand. Meanwhile, score reports are complicated, and even many well-educated parents are confused about scaled scores and percentile rankings.

    A survey that accompanied the online experiment revealed that a sizable share of parents don’t trust standardized tests. Forty percent of the parents in the study said that tests were biased. Almost 30% thought student scores were a reflection of family income. Fewer than 20% of parents thought tests captured their children’s skills.

    Kalil says there’s another psychological phenomenon at play even for parents who understand and value standardized tests: the tendency to ignore bad news when it is paired with good news. “If the report card is all A’s, there’s a cognitive bias towards sticking your head in the sand and rejecting the bad information,” said Kalil.

    There were hints in the data that Hispanic families were most trusting of grades and least trusting of test scores, while Asian families were more willing to heed test results. But few Hispanic and Asian parents participated in the survey, so these patterns were not statistically significant. (Almost 70% of the respondents were white and 20% Black.) Parents with at least a bachelor’s degree also paid more attention to standardized exams.

    Solving the problem won’t be easy. The researchers say schools can do more to explain what test scores measure and how to interpret them, but better communication alone may not shift parents’ instincts. Reversing grade inflation would be the most direct solution, but that would require a broader shift across schools — something that is unlikely to happen quickly.

    In the meantime, the burden is on parents to read report cards with a critical eye. When grades and test scores don’t align, it’s worth asking why. A strong report card can be reassuring, but it may not always tell the full story of what a child knows — or what help they might need.

    This storywas produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education, and reviewed and distributed by Stacker.

  • Is baby talk bad? Why ‘parentese’ actually helps babies learn language
    Photo credit: MoMo Productions/DigitalVision via Getty ImagesEmphasizing the sounds of certain words to young children can help them retain language, not confuse them about speaking properly.

    Many parents have heard the warning: Don’t use baby talk with babies and toddlers. Instead, caregivers are often encouraged to speak properly and use adultlike language, out of concern that simplified speech could confuse children or delay language development.

    But my research, which I highlighted in in my new book, “Beyond Words,” suggests the opposite is true. The sing-song voice many adults instinctively use with infants, sometimes called “baby talk” but more accurately known as “parentese” or infant-directed speech, actually helps children learn language.

    Far from confusing babies, exaggerating phrases like “Loooook at the doggie!” capture their attention, help them detect patterns in speech and strengthen social bonding.

    And the funny mistakes children make along the way, such as saying “goed,” instead of “went,” or “mouses” instead of “mice,” are not signs that children are learning language incorrectly. They are evidence that children are actively working out the rules of language for themselves.

    A man holds his hands away from his face and leans over a small baby lying on a bed and smiles.
    Speaking ‘parentese’ to a child doesn’t involve nonsense words. BjelicaS/E+ via Getty Images

    What parentese really is

    When many people think of baby talk, they imagine nonsense phrases like “goo goo ga ga” or made-up words like “num nums.” But that’s not what linguists and developmental psychologists mean by parentese.

    Parentese uses real words and grammatically correct sentences, but with exaggerated intonation, a higher pitch, stretched-out vowels and a slower rhythm. Think of the way a caregiver might naturally say: “Hi, baaaaby! Are you huuungry?”

    There is little evidence that occasional playful nonsense words harm children’s language development. But studies suggest that parentese in particular helps babies pay attention to speech, recognize patterns and engage socially.

    Adults across cultures tend to speak this way to infants instinctively. Even people who swear they never use baby talk often slip into it around babies.

    Researchers have found that infants actually prefer listening to parentese over regular adult speech. The exaggerated sounds and slower pacing make language easier to process. Babies are better able to pick out individual sounds, notice word boundaries and recognize patterns. In other words, parentese helps tune babies into language.

    It also strengthens emotional connection. Language learning does not happen in isolation. Babies learn through warm, responsive interaction with caregivers during feeding, play, bath time and everyday routines.

    Interestingly, humans are not the only ones who respond to this style of communication. Studies have even shown that cats react more positively when people use a baby-talk voice with them.

    Babies are not passive learners

    Children do not learn language simply by copying adults word for word. They actively test hypotheses about how language works. That is why toddlers make predictable and surprisingly logical mistakes.

    One common example is overgeneralization. A child learns that people form the past tense of many verbs by adding “-ed,” so they produce forms like “goed,” “eated” or “comed.”

    These are not random errors. In fact, they show that the child has understood a grammatical rule and is trying to apply it consistently. The problem is simply that English is full of irregular exceptions. The same thing happens with plurals. Children may say “foots” instead of “feet” or “mouses” instead of “mice.” Again, the logic behind these errors is sound.

    Linguists sometimes say that children are little scientists, constantly testing patterns and revising their understanding as they receive more input from the world around them.

    Why toddlers call everything a ‘dog’

    Young children also make predictable mistakes with meaning.

    A toddler might learn the word “dog” and then use it for every four-legged animal they encounter. Linguists call this overextension. On the flip side, some children use words too narrowly. A child may use “dog” only for the family pet and not recognize that other dogs belong in the same category. Linguists call this tendency underextension.

    These mistakes reveal how children organize and categorize the world around them. They are gradually mapping words onto objects, people and experiences.

    Pronouns are another tricky area. Small children often confuse “me” and “you” because these words constantly shift depending on who is speaking. If a parent says, “I’ll pick you up,” the child hears themselves called “you.” But when they try to repeat the sentence, they may not yet understand that the labels switch from speaker to speaker.

    This is why toddlers sometimes say things that sound unintentionally cute or confusing. But beneath the confusion is a sophisticated learning process.

    Even the Cookie Monster gets it wrong

    Children’s speech errors are so recognizable that they often appear in popular culture. Sesame Street’s character Cookie Monster famously says things like “Me want cookie,” while Elmo often refers to himself in the third person: “Elmo wants this.” These speech patterns mirror real stages of child language development. Young children commonly confuse pronouns or refer to themselves by name before mastering forms like “I,” “me” and “mine.”

    Despite occasional complaints from adults, there is no evidence that hearing this kind of speech harms children’s language development. If anything, it reflects the natural experimentation children go through.

    A Cookie Monster puppet stands near a black tarp with its mouth open and holds a cookie.
    The Cookie Monster saying ‘Me want cookie’ won’t teach babies and young kids to speak incorrectly. Brian Killian/WireImage via Getty Images

    ‘Pasketti’ and ‘wabbit’

    Pronunciation develops gradually too. Young children often simplify difficult sounds and groups of consonants. “Spaghetti” becomes “pasketti,” “rabbit” becomes “wabbit” and “yellow” may come out as “lellow.”

    Speech-language specialists call these simplifications phonological processes. They are a normal part of development because some sounds are physically harder to produce than others. Sounds such as r, th, sh and ch tend to develop later because they require more precise control of the tongue and mouth.

    Most children naturally outgrow these pronunciation patterns as their speech matures. However, persistent difficulties can sometimes signal a speech or language disorder, which may require professional support.

    A graphic image shows a young child's head with various colorful thought bubbles inside.
    Children don’t learn language by copying adults word for word. They learn through interaction, experimentation and repetition. DrAfter123/DigitalVision Vectors via Getty Images

    Mistakes are part of learning

    Parents are often under enormous pressure to do everything right, including helping their children learn to speak a language. But children do not learn language by avoiding mistakes. They learn through interaction, experimentation and repetition.

    Parentese helps babies focus on speech and engage socially. The funny mistakes toddlers make reveal that they are actively piecing together the complex system of language and are often signs of normal development. Language acquisition is messy, creative and remarkably sophisticated.

    Speaking in an exaggerated sing-song voice to a baby is not something parents and caregivers need to feel embarrassed about.

    Far from harming language acquisition, it may help lay the foundation for it.

    This article originally appeared on The Conversation. You can read it here.

Explore More Stories

Public Good

Spanish town shaded from punishing summer heat thanks to senior knitters and their colorful blankets

Health

People who dread working out are trying ‘micro walks,’ and the results feel great

Science

How does your brain decide between the road not taken or the same old route? Resolving conflicting memories is key to navigation

Health

Most people don’t know what they don’t know, but think they do – correcting your metaknowledge can make you a better teacher and learner