As the population of the U.S. has grown over the past century, the House of Representatives has gotten worse at being representative of the people it serves. That doesn’t have to happen – and it wasn’t always the case.

The House is the one segment of the federal government that was created from the beginning to directly channel the views of the people to Washington, D.C. But over the past century, the ability of any individual members of the House to truly represent their constituents has been diluted.

When the nation was founded, there were 65 members of the House, representing 3.9 million people in 13 states. On average, that’s one House member for every 60,450 people.

Today, there are 435 members representing 331 million people in 50 states – or one House member for every 761,169 people.

This means American democracy is less representative, and not all citizens are politically equal.

Changing sizes

Since 1913, the number of House seats has remained constant. But in the early years of the United States, the size of the House grew as the nation expanded. From 1791 to 1913, the House passed laws adding more seats in ways that reflected the admission of new states and the growing population. During the Civil War, when some Southern states seceded, the House actually shrank in size – and then resumed expanding as those states rejoined the Union and others were added.

The Congress that began in 1913 was the first to have 435 seats, representing just over 97 million people in 46 states – an average of 223,505 people per member of the House.

The number of seats in the House was fixed at 435 by law in 1929. But it is not a constitutional provision. It is a federal law, so it can be repealed or amended just like any other.

Since that time the country’s population has more than tripled.

Potential solutions

Any changes would require a new law expanding the House, determining how many seats each state would get and drawing new districts based on U.S. Census Bureau data to achieve relatively equal representation.

It might not be widely popular to send even more politicians to Washington, D.C. A larger House would also cost more to operate: The total cost for the House now averages US$3.4 million per member. But an improvement in democratic representation might be worth the effort.

If the House had kept pace with population growth since 1913, I calculate that there would be 1,560 seats now.

Comparative political analysts have identified a general mathematical principle about the size of a properly representative national legislature, called the “cube root law”: Many legislatures around the world have, by various processes, ended up with a number of seats roughly equal to the cube root of the population they represent. That is the number which, when cubed, or multiplied by itself and itself again, equals the population. That would put the U.S. House size at 692, with each seat representing an average of 478,480 people.

The Wyoming Rule

Another way to consider expanding the House would be to use what is known as the “Wyoming Rule.” It ensures the least populated state – currently Wyoming – would receive one House seat and uses its population as the basis for House districts in the other states. Each state’s House delegation would change in size over time, to remain roughly proportional to its population even as the nation grew and its people moved from state to state.

According to the 2020 census, that would mean each House district would represent approximately 577,719 people. There are several technical methods for assigning districts to the states, because no other state’s population is evenly divisible by 577,719. But using a very basic method would produce a House with 571 seats.

California, the most populous state, has roughly 68 times as many people as Wyoming does. Under the current House size, it will have 52 seats in the Congress that begins in 2023. But under a simple version of the Wyoming Rule, it would have 69.

This would ensure all U.S. residents have roughly equal representation in the House, and it would better balance the Electoral College, though less populous states would continue to have an advantage because each voter has a larger influence on the two electoral votes from their senators. While the Electoral College will always disproportionately favor states with small populations, the more seats in the House means more electors to distribute, and the more electors there are the more fair the relative voting strength of each state.

Some states would be slightly over- or underrepresented, even under the Wyoming Rule, because state boundaries don’t line up evenly with population locations. But the disparity would be less than under the current 435-seat cap.

And it’s worth noting that this method would not address the fact that 670,000 Americans live in Washington, D.C.; 3.2 million live in Puerto Rico; and about 340,000 live in the other U.S. island territories of Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa and the U.S. Virgin Islands. None of them have ever been represented by full voting members of the House.

Steven L. Taylor, Dean, College of Arts & Sciences; Professor of Political Science, Troy University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, an independent panel of experts in primary care and prevention, issued a final recommendation on Oct. 11, 2022, published in the journal JAMA, stating that all children and adolescents between the ages of 8 and 18 should be screened for anxiety, regardless of whether they have symptoms. The recommendation follows a systematic review that evaluated the potential harms and benefits of screening.

The Conversation asked Elana Bernstein, a school psychologist who researches child and adolescent anxiety, to explain the task force’s recommendations and what they might mean for kids, parents and providers.

1. Why is the task force recommending young kids be screened?

Nearly 80% of chronic mental health conditions emerge in childhood, and when help is eventually sought, it is often years after the problem’s onset. In general, recommendations to screen for mental health disorders are based on research demonstrating that youths do not typically seek help independently, and that parents and teachers are not always skilled at correctly identifying problems or knowing how to respond.

Anxiety is the most common mental health problem affecting children and adolescents. Epidemiological studies indicate that 7.1% of children are diagnosed with anxiety disorders. However, studies also estimate that upwards of 10% to 21% of children and adolescents struggle with an anxiety disorder and as many as 30% of children experience moderate anxiety that interferes with their daily functioning at some time in their life.

This tells us that many kids experience anxiety at a level that interferes with their daily functioning, even if they are never formally diagnosed. Additionally, there is a well-established evidence base for treating childhood anxiety.

The task force evaluated the best available research and concluded that, while there are gaps in the evidence base, the benefits of screening are clear. Untreated anxiety disorders in children result in added burdens to the public health system. So from a cost-benefit perspective, the cost-effectiveness of screening for anxiety and providing preventive treatment is favorable, while, as the task force pointed out, the harms are negligible.

The task force recommendation to screen kids as young as age 8 is driven by the research literature. Anxiety disorders are most likely to first show up during the elementary school years. And the typical age of onset for anxiety is among the earliest of all childhood mental health diagnoses. The panel also pointed to a lack of accurate screening instruments available to detect anxiety among younger children; as a result, it concluded that there is not sufficient evidence to recommend screening children age 7 or younger.

Anxiety disorders can persist into adulthood, particularly those disorders with early onsets and those that are left untreated. Individuals who experience anxiety in childhood are more likely to deal with it in adulthood, too, along with other mental health disorders like depression and an overall diminished quality of life. The task force considered these long-term impacts in making its recommendations, noting that screening in children as young as 8 may alleviate a preventable burden for families.

2. How can care providers identify anxiety in young kids?

In general, it is easier to accurately identify anxiety when the child’s symptoms are behavioral in nature, such as refusing to go to school or avoiding social situations. While the task force recommended that screening take place in primary care settings – such as a pediatrician’s office – the research literature also supports in-school screening for mental health problems, including anxiety.

Fortunately, in the past three decades, considerable advances have been made in mental health screening tools, including for anxiety. The evidence-based strategies for identifying anxiety in children and adolescents are centered on collecting observations from multiple perspectives, including the child, parent and teacher, to provide a complete picture of the child’s functioning in school, at home and in the community.

Anxiety is what’s called an internalizing trait, meaning that the symptoms may not be observable to those around the person. This makes accurate identification more challenging, though certainly possible. Therefore, psychologists recommend including the child in the screening process to the degree possible based on age and development.

Among the youths who are actually treated for mental health problems, nearly two-thirds receive those services at school, making school-based screening a logical practice.

3. How would the screening be carried out?

Universal screening for all children, including those with no symptoms or diagnoses, is a preventive approach to identifying youths who are at risk. This includes those who may need further diagnostic evaluation or those would benefit from early intervention.

In both cases, the aim is to reduce symptoms and to prevent lifelong chronic mental health problems. But it is important to note that a screening does not equate to a diagnosis, something that the task force highlighted in its recommendation statement.

Diagnostic assessment is more in-depth and costs more, while screening is intended to be brief, efficient and cost-effective. Screening for anxiety in a primary-care setting may involve completion of short questionnaires by the child and/or parent, similar to how pediatricians frequently screen kids for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, or ADHD.

The task force did not recommend a single method or tool, nor a particular time interval, for screening. Instead, care providers were advised to consider the evidence in the task force’s recommendation and apply it to the particular child or situation. The task force did point to multiple available screening tools such as the Screen for Child Anxiety Related Emotional Disorders and the Patient Health Questionnaire Screeners for generalized anxiety disorder, which accurately identify anxiety. These assess general emotional and behavioral health, including questions specific to anxiety. Both are available at no cost.

4. What are care providers looking for when screening for anxiety?

A child’s symptoms can vary depending on the type of anxiety they have. For instance, social anxiety disorder involves fear and anxiety in social situations, while specific phobias involve fear of a particular stimulus, such as vomiting or thunderstorms. However, many anxiety disorders share symptoms, and children typically do not fit neatly into one category.

But psychologists typically observe some common patterns when it comes to anxiety. These include negative self-talk such as “I’m going to fail my math test” or “Everyone will laugh at me,” and emotion regulation difficulties, like increased tantrums, anger or sensitivity to criticism. Other typical patterns include behavioral avoidance, such as reluctance or refusal to participate in activities or interact with others.

Anxiety can also show up as physical symptoms that lack a root physiological cause. For example, a child may complain of stomachaches or headaches or general malaise. In fact, studies suggest that spotting youths with anxiety in pediatric settings may simply occur through identification of children with medically unexplained physical symptoms.

The distinction we are aiming for in screening is identifying the magnitude of symptoms and their impact. In other words, how much do the symptoms interfere with the child’s daily functioning? Some anxiety is normal and, in fact, necessary and helpful.

5. What are the recommendations for supporting kids with anxiety?

The key to an effective screening process is that it be connected to evidence-based care.

The good news is that we now have decades of high-quality research demonstrating how to effectively intervene to reduce symptoms and to help anxious youth cope and function better. These include both medications or therapeutic approaches like cognitive behavioral therapy, which studies show to be safe and effective.

This is an updated version of an article originally published on May 13, 2022.

Elana Bernstein, Assistant Professor of School Psychology, University of Dayton

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.