KIDS COUNT STATE TRENDS IN CHILD WELL-BEING ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Annie E. Casey Foundation’s KIDS COUNT Data Book could not be produced and distributed without the help of numerous people. The publication was produced under the general direction of Laura Speer and Florencia Gutierrez. Other Casey staff who contributed to this report include Sue Lin Chong, Ryan Fox, Lisa Hamilton, John Hodgins, Michael Laracy, Norris West and Mollie Willis. Nancy Cauthen provided writing and research support. The Population Reference Bureau was instrumental in the development of the KIDS COUNT index and in the collection and organization of data presented in this book. We are especially grateful to Jean D’Amico and Kelvin Pollard. Special thanks are also due the staff at KINETIK, for design and production services; the staff at Fenton, for helping to promote the Data Book; and The 2015 KIDS COUNT Data Book can be viewed, downloaded or ordered at: www.aecf.org/2015db To learn more about the Annie E. Casey Foundation’s 2015 KIDS COUNT Outreach Partners, please visit: www.aecf.org/outreachpartners Jayson Hait of eye4detail, for proofreading and copyediting. Finally, we would like to thank the state KIDS COUNT projects (see page 50), for making the Data Book available to national, state and local leaders across the country. Permission to copy, disseminate or otherwise use information from this Data Book is granted as long as appropriate acknowledgment is given. Outreach Partners The Annie E. Casey Foundation wishes to thank our outreach partners for their support and assistance in promoting and disseminating the 2015 KIDS COUNT Data Book. With the help of our partners, data on the status and well-being of kids and families are shared with policymakers, advocates, practitioners and citizens to help enrich local, state and national discussions on ways to improve outcomes for America’s most vulnerable children. CONTENTS 4 FOREWORD 11 TRENDS 16 Overall Child Well-Being 18 Economic Well-Being 22 Education 26 Health 30 Family and Community 34 CONCLUSION 38 KIDS COUNT DATA CENTER 40 APPENDICES 46 About the Index 47 Definitions and Data Sources 50 Primary Contacts for State KIDS COUNT Projects 53 About the Annie E. Casey Foundation and KIDS COUNT 2015 KIDS COUNT DATA BOOK After numerous years of depressing economic news, many positive trends signal that the economy is finally recovering from the deep recession. Job growth and consumer spending are up, while unemployment is down. Nonetheless, there are warning signs that the recovery may be leaving the lowest-income families behind, disproportionately affecting workers of color and their children. We know from research that low family income can have negative effects on children. When very young children experience poverty, particularly if that poverty is deep and persistent, they are at high risk of encountering difficulties later in life — having poor adolescent health, becoming teen mothers, dropping out of school and facing poor employment outcomes. STATE TRENDS IN CHILD WELL-BEING The Annie E. Casey Foundation www.aecf.org 5 It is imperative for the long-term success of our nation that we collectively work toward solutions — at all levels of government, in the private sector and in our individual communities — to reduce disparities and expand opportunities for the next generation. Let’s start with the good news. With 2.95 million jobs created, 2014 was the best year of job growth in the United States since 1999.1 For 12 consecutive months, from March 2014 through February 2015, the economy added more than 200,000 jobs per month.2 Although there was a drop in jobs created in March 2015, the numbers have since rebounded.3 At 5.4 percent, April’s national unemployment rate was at its lowest level since April 2008.4 But there are some worrisome economic indicators for families in the bottom half of the income scale, particularly African Americans and Latinos. Although new job growth has occurred at all wage levels, it has been disproportionate in low-wage sectors, such as retail and food services, and in some of the lower-wage positions within health care and home care.5 And, a stagnating federal minimum wage has exacerbated low wages. During the last three months of 2014, the unemployment rate for whites and Asian Americans was roughly 4.5 percent, compared with a devastating 11 percent for African Americans and 6.7 percent for Latinos. Unemployment rates for whites, Latinos and Asian Americans were nearly back down to their pre-recession levels, while unemployment among blacks was still 2.4 percentage points higher than it was before the downturn.6 As of April 2015, 17.6 percent of African-American workers and 14.4 percent of Latino workers were jobless or working only part time when they wanted full-time work.7 And, rates of longterm unemployment remain high: Nearly 30 percent of unemployed workers have been jobless for more than six months.8 These negative economic trends directly affect children. In 2013, nearly a third of children (31 percent) were living in families where no parent had full-time, year-round employment. The child poverty rate has remained stubbornly high. At 22 percent in 2013, it was still several percentage points higher than before the recession. When the data for 2014 are available, we assume that they will show some improvement. But even if the child poverty rate is currently 20 percent or even 18 percent, these are unacceptably high levels of economic hardship, given what we know about family income, child development and future opportunity. The federal poverty level is widely acknowledged to be an inadequate measure of even a minimally decent standard of living. For 2015, the Department of Health and Human Services poverty guideline is only $24,250 for a family of four.9 Researchers who have quantified basic living expenses in specific localities across the country find that, at a minimum, families need an income of at least twice the federal poverty level to cover basic expenses for housing, food, transportation, health care and child care.10 One of the most troubling trends for child well-being is that the percentage of children living in concentrated poverty continues to increase. In 2000, 9 percent of children lived in census tracts where the poverty rate of the total population was 30 percent or more. That figure rose to 14 percent for the period from 2009 to 2013.11 The Annie E. Casey Foundation is dedicated to improving the futures of children whose socioeconomic and familial circumstances put them at risk, and these recent trends concern us greatly. As we describe below, the evidence is clear: Low family income, low levels of parental education and inadequate housing in a high-poverty neighborhood pose risks to children and are associated with diminished prospects later in life. The Annie E. Casey Foundation www.aecf.org 2015 kids count data book An Uneven Recovery for Low-Income Families The child poverty rate has remained stubbornly high. At 22 percent in 2013, it was still several percentage points higher than before the recession. 6 How Parental Income and Education Affect Children Research tells us that there are multiple mechanisms through which low family income places children at risk, particularly very young children. In fact, the risks start before birth. Pregnant women with inadequate nutrition and chronic health conditions associated with poverty, such as obesity, high blood pressure and diabetes, are at risk of delivering babies with low birthweight.12 Low birthweight can lead to health and developmental problems and is a leading cause of infant mortality.13 Young children raised in low-income households may get insufficient food and nutrients, which can negatively impact physical development. When children go to school hungry, they are unable to focus their full attention on learning. Inadequate housing can expose children to toxins and other health hazards. Juggling work, child care and transportation is challenging for all parents. The added stress of struggling to pay the bills puts low-income parents at higher risk of depression, substance abuse and domestic violence than higher-income parents. Furthermore, all of these factors can negatively impact parenting and, in turn, children’s well-being, particularly their social and emotional development. Children raised in low-income families have less access than their higher-income peers to enriching early experiences, such as high-quality preschool, books and a rich language environment at home. Research also indicates that boosting low family income, especially early in a child’s life, can have lasting positive effects on cognitive development, health, academic achievement and even adult work hours and earnings.14 Neuroscience provides evidence of why the earliest years are so critical: Early brain development plays a key role in establishing the neural functions and structures that shape future cognitive, social, emotional and health outcomes.15 One study found that for families with annual incomes below $25,000, providing them with an additional $3,000 during a child’s preschool years was associated with a 17 percent increase in their earnings as adults.16 Increasing parents’ education and training is one way to increase family income by helping parents qualify for higherpaying jobs. More highly educated women are more likely to use contraceptives and STATE TRENDS IN CHILD WELL-BEING The Annie E. Casey Foundation www.aecf.org 7 It is encouraging that the rate of children living with a parent who lacks a high school diploma decreased from 16 percent to 14 percent in the years since the recession. 8 to have fewer children.17 And, parents with more education are more likely to engage in healthy behaviors and lifestyles for themselves and their children.18 It is encouraging that the rate of children living with a parent who lacks a high school diploma decreased from 16 percent to 14 percent in the years since the recession. While that’s good news, the majority of jobs that pay family-supporting wages now require some amount of postsecondary education, training or certification. This means that we need to do much more to increase educational attainment among today’s youth. Low-income young people have high educational aspirations and are enrolling in community colleges in larger numbers than ever before. But the escalation of college costs combined with limited amounts of need-based aid often lead students to enroll part time, instead of full time, so that they can work. The multiple challenges of working, studying, paying for school and managing family obligations derail the hopes of many young community college students: Only two in five complete a degree of any kind within six years of starting their studies.19 A Two-Generation Approach to the Challenges Ahead The Annie E. Casey Foundation www.aecf.org 2015 kids count data book The Casey Foundation has long promoted two-generation strategies for helping children to thrive and succeed as they meet life’s challenges. Research confirms what is grounded in common sense: The best way to facilitate optimal outcomes for today’s children is to address their needs, while providing tools and assistance to their parents. Last fall, the Foundation released a report, Creating Opportunity for Families: A Two-Generation Approach, which outlined three critical strategies for strengthening whole families: –– Provide parents with multiple pathways to get family-supporting jobs and achieve financial stability. –– Ensure access to high-quality early childhood education and enriching elementary school experiences. –– Equip parents to better support their children socially and emotionally and to advocate for their kids’ education.20 The reality is, however, that the postrecession economy poses serious obstacles to making progress on the first strategy because of a dearth of family-supporting jobs. During the past 40 years, wages have declined for workers without higher education as many U.S. manufacturing jobs moved offshore and were replaced by lower-paying, non-union jobs at home. Only the most highly educated and highly paid workers have seen their wages grow, while inflation-adjusted wages for the lowest-income workers have slowly but gradually fallen, and those for middleincome workers have remained flat.21 There are few jobs available that pay family-sustaining wages to workers without at least an associate degree. Even if every low-wage worker were to obtain an associate degree, there simply would not be enough well-paying jobs to go around. State and federal programs that boost income, including the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), help individual families a great deal. But ultimately, we cannot sustain a healthy national economy without more jobs that pay higher wages. Compounding this issue, low-wage hourly jobs are increasingly subject to unpredictable and irregular schedules, which makes it difficult for parents to arrange child care and transportation; erratic schedules also lead to volatile incomes.22 Exacerbating these challenges is the fact that the majority of workers in low-wage jobs lack paid time off when they are sick, have a sick child, give birth, have an extended illness or need to care for a family member who is elderly or has a chronic illness. The United States is alone among economically advanced nations in lacking such provisions. The challenge is as clear as it is urgent. We must renew our commitment to one of our nation’s primary values: Individuals who are willing to work hard should be able to provide for their families. We don’t need to accept the current proliferation of low-quality jobs as inevitable. States, localities and businesses are increasingly experimenting with innovative strategies to turn low-quality into high-quality jobs. STATE TRENDS IN CHILD WELL-BEING FIGURE 1 Impact of Family Structure and Parental Education on Children Parents’ education level influences a wide range of factors that impact children, from family income and the likelihood of growing up in poverty to the child’s own educational attainment. However, during the past several decades, education has increasingly influenced the likelihood of marriage, which can be a major protective factor for children.23 Today, single-parent families are likely to be economically stressed for two key reasons: There are fewer potential adult earners in the household, and single parents are less likely to have the higher education often necessary to earn a family-supporting income. Three out of four children (77 percent) living in two-parent households have at least one parent with a degree beyond high school, compared with 54 percent of children living with a single parent.24 PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLDS WHERE AT LEAST ONE PARENT HAS A DEGREE BEYOND HIGH SCHOOL Children Living in Single-Parent Households Children Living in Two-Parent Households 54% 77% SOURCE Population Reference Bureau's analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau, 2013 American Community Survey, Public-Use Microdata Sample (PUMS). The Annie E. Casey Foundation www.aecf.org 9 FIGURE 2 Impact of Family Economic Well-Being on Children Millions of low-income U.S. families with children face considerable daily obstacles that can threaten the entire family’s stability and lead to lifelong difficulties for their kids. A family-supporting job that provides a steady source of parental income and opportunities for advancement is critical to moving children out of poverty. But having a job, even one that pays enough to support a family, is only part of the solution. Working parents need access to paid time off to adequately care for themselves and their children. Access to affordable, high-quality, flexible child care is critical for all working parents with young children, but the need is especially great for those parents working in low-paying jobs with irregular, often erratic work hours.25 Even several years after the recession ended, the number of children living in low-income working families continues to increase. In 2013, one in four children, 18.7 million, lived in a low-income working family in the United States. This is 1.7 million more than in 2008. And, 27 percent of children in low-income working families are younger than age 6.26 CHILDREN LIVING IN LOW-INCOME WORKING FAMILIES 2008 17.0 MILLION CHILDREN 2013 18.7 MILLION CHILDREN + 1.7 million children Patrick T. McCarthy President and CEO The Annie E. Casey Foundation SOURCE U.S. Census Bureau, 2008 and 2013 American Community Surveys. 10 For example, retailers such as Costco and QuikTrip invest in their employees by paying higher wages, providing benefits and giving workers greater control over their schedules and more autonomy and training than offered by their competitors. Combined with smart operational choices, these businesses and others have managed to create loyal, seasoned workforces, while producing high levels of customer satisfaction and remaining profitable for shareholders.27 During the past few years, a handful of states and numerous cities have passed paid sick leave laws to ensure that even low-wage workers have a minimum number of paid days to use when they are sick or have a sick child; three states have passed paid family leave legislation.28 Over time, states have been gradually modernizing the eligibility provisions of their Unemployment Insurance (UI) programs to expand access to those who were traditionally excluded, such as part-time and low-wage workers, as well as those who leave a job for compelling family reasons.29 Providing temporary support for unemployed workers increases labor force attachment, protects against long-term joblessness and lifts consumer spending when unemployment is widespread. Higher pay, paid sick and family leave, employee input into scheduling and UI benefits during temporary spells of unemployment can make a world of difference in the lives of workers and their children by boosting family income, reducing parental stress and increasing parents’ capacity to invest in their kids. Creating more good jobs is key to widening the pathways out of poverty, laying the foundation for the next generation and producing a healthy and productive national economy for the decades ahead. We must find the political will to take on these challenges. The Annie E. Casey Foundation www.aecf.org 2015 kids count data book s- . STATUS OF CHILDREN Since 1990, KIDS COUNT has ranked states annually on overall child well-being using an index of key indicators. Profile Pages Online National and state profiles providing current and trend data for all 16 indicators are available at www.aecf.org/2015db. National and state data are also available in Appendix 2, on page 42. 12 Four domains comprise the KIDS COUNT index to capture what children need most to thrive: (1) Economic WellBeing, (2) Education, (3) Health and (4) Family and Community. Each domain includes four indicators, for a total of 16. These indicators represent the best available data to measure the status of child wellbeing at the state and national levels. (For a more thorough description of the KIDS COUNT index, visit www.aecf.org/2015db.) This year’s Data Book presents both current data and five-year trends, comparing data from 2008 with those from 2013, which are often the most recent available. They allow us to assess how the country’s children have fared in the aftermath of the economic crisis. State rankings focus only on the most recent data. Comparing data during the past five years reveals positive and negative developments in child well-being nationally (see Figure 3). Broadly speaking, children experienced gains in the Education and Health domains, but setbacks in the Economic Well-Being and Family and Community domains. Two of the four Economic Well-Being indicators got worse, showing that families with children have not fully recovered from the deep recession, despite being several years into the recovery. Although still not back up to their pre-recession rates, most economic indicators have improved since 2010. Of particular significance, after increasing every year since 2008, the child poverty rate finally declined slightly in 2013, to 22 percent. It’s important to note that in 2013, the year of our most recent data, the national unemployment rate was 7.4 percent, but has since dropped to 5.4 percent.30 Given these latest gains in employment, one of the key factors to improving the economic wellbeing of families, we expect to see continued progress in the Economic Well-Being domain in the data for 2014 and 2015. In contrast, three of the four Education indicators — which cover preschool to high school graduation — showed some The Annie E. Casey Foundation www.aecf.org 2015 kids count data book National Trends in Child Well-Being FIGURE 3 National Trends in 16 Key Indicators of Child Well-Being by Domain ECONOMIC WELL- BEING Children in poverty Children whose parents lack secure employment Children living in households with a high housing cost burden Teens not in school and not working 2013 2013 2013 2013 22% 31% 36% 8% 16,087,000 CHILDREN 22,837,000 CHILDREN 26,339,000 CHILDREN 1,347,000 TEENS WORSENED WORSENED IMPROVED UNCHANGED 2008 EDUCATION 18% 2008 39% 2008 8% Fourth graders not proficient in reading Eighth graders not proficient in math High school students not graduating on time 2011–13 2013 2013 2011/12 54% 66% 66% 19% 4,428,000 CHILDREN N.A. N.A. N.A. WORSENED IMPROVED IMPROVED IMPROVED 2007 68% 2007 69% 2007/08 25% Low-birthweight babies Children without health insurance Child and teen deaths per 100,000 Teens who abuse alcohol or drugs 2013 2013 2013 2012–13 8.0% 7% 24 6% 315,099 BABIES 5,234,000 CHILDREN 18,888 DEATHS 1,410,000 TEENS IMPROVED IMPROVED IMPROVED IMPROVED 2008 FAMILY AND COMMUNITY 27% Children not attending preschool 2007–09 53% HEALTH 2008 8.2% 2008 10% 2008 29 2007–08 8% Children in single-parent families Children in families where the household head lacks a high school diploma Children living in high-poverty areas Teen births per 1,000 2013 2013 2009–13 2013 35% 14% 14% 26 24,647,000 CHILDREN 10,533,000 CHILDREN 10,067,000 CHILDREN 273,105 BIRTHS WORSENED IMPROVED WORSENED IMPROVED 2008 32% 2008 16% 2006–10 11% 2008 40 N.A. NOT AVAILABLE STATE TRENDS IN CHILD WELL-BEING The Annie E. Casey Foundation www.aecf.org 13 Notably, with 81 percent of high school students graduating on time in 2011/12, the U.S. high school graduation rate is at an all-time high. steady improvement during the past five years. Notably, with 81 percent of high school students graduating on time in 2011/12, the U.S. high school graduation rate is at an all-time high. Although more children are attending preschool today than 10 years ago, the most recent data show a slight drop in the preschool attendance rate at the national level. Similarly, child health continued to improve, with gains in all four indicators. Despite higher unemployment and a decline in employer-sponsored health insurance coverage during the past several years, fewer children lacked access to health insurance coverage in 2013 than before the recession. Trends in the Family and Community domain were mixed. The teen birth rate continued its dramatic decline, reaching a new all-time low. And, a smaller percentage of children were living with parents who lack a high school diploma. However, the percentage of children living in single-parent families was higher in 2013 than in 2008. Especially troubling is the steady increase in the likelihood of children growing up in a high-poverty neighborhood. At the national level, 14 percent of children lived in areas where poverty rates were higher than 30 percent in 2009–13. This is a significant increase from 11 percent in 2006–10 and 9 percent in 2000. Overall, developments in child well-being during the past five years demonstrated important progress in some areas, while highlighting the substantial work that remains to improve the prospects for the next generation. Perhaps the most striking finding is that despite tremendous gains during recent decades for children of all races and income levels, inequities among children remain deep and stubbornly persistent (see Figure 4). On nearly all of the measures that we track, African-American, American Indian and Latino children continued to experience negative outcomes at rates that were higher than the national average. There are a few notable exceptions. African-American children were more likely to have health insurance coverage, to attend preschool and to live in families where the household head has a high school diploma than the national average. American Indian families with children were less likely to have a high housing cost burden, and both American Indian and Latino children were more likely to be born at a healthy birthweight. Latino children and teens also had a lower death rate than the national average. However, on many indicators, children of color continued to face steep barriers to success. African-American children were twice as likely as the average child to live in high-poverty neighborhoods and to live in single-parent families. American Indian children were twice as likely to lack health insurance coverage, and Latino children were the most likely to live with a household head who does not have a high school diploma. In April 2014, the Foundation released Race for Results: Building a Path to Opportunity for All Children,31 which explores what it takes for all children to become successful adults and the barriers to opportunity that continue to exist for many children of color. This KIDS COUNT Policy Report features the new Race for Results Index, which compares how children are progressing on key milestones across racial and ethnic groups at the national and state levels. For more information, access the report at www.aecf.org/race4results. The Annie E. Casey Foundation www.aecf.org 2015 kids count data book Racial Gaps in Child Well-Being 14 FIGURE 4 National Key Indicators by Race and Hispanic Origin National Average ECONOMIC WELL-BEING African American American Indian Asian and Pacific Islander Hispanic Non-Hispanic White Two or More Races Children in poverty 2013 22% 39% 37% 14% 33% 14% 23% Children whose parents lack secure employment 2013 31% 48% 50% 23% 37% 24% 36% Children living in households with a high housing cost burden 2013 36% 50% 32% 34% 47% 27% 38% Teens not in school and not working 2013 8% 12% 15% 5% 10% 6% 7% National Average EDUCATION African American American Indian Asian and Pacific Islander Hispanic Non-Hispanic White Two or More Races 2011–13 54% 52% 59% 48% 63% 51% 53% Fourth graders not proficient in reading 2013 66% 83%* 78%* 49%* 81% 55% 61%* Eighth graders not proficient in math 2013 66% 86%* 79%* 40%* 79% 56% 63%* 2011/12 19% 32%* 32%* 7%* 24% 15% N.A. Children not attending preschool High school students not graduating on time HEALTH National Average African American American Indian Asian and Pacific Islander Hispanic Non-Hispanic White Two or More Races Low-birthweight babies 2013 8.0% 12.8% 7.5% 8.3% 7.1% 7.0% N.A. Children without health insurance 2013 7% 6% 16% 7% 12% 5% 6% Child and teen deaths per 100,000 2013 24 33 26 15 19 23 N.A. Teens who abuse alcohol or drugs 2013   5% 5%* 7%* 2%* + 5% 6% 4%* Asian and Pacific Islander Hispanic ^ National Average FAMILY AND COMMUNITY African American American Indian Non-Hispanic White Two or More Races Children in single-parent families 2013 35% 67% 52% 16% 42% 25% 43% Children in families where the household head lacks a high school diploma 2013 14% 13% 19% 11% 35% 6% 9% 2009–13 14% 32% 30% 8% 24% 5% 12% 2013 26 39 31 9 42 18 N.A. Children living in high-poverty areas Teen births per 1,000 *Data are for non-Hispanics. ^ These are single-year race data for 2013. Data in index are 2012–13 multiyear data. STATE TRENDS IN CHILD WELL-BEING +Data results do not include Native Hawaiians/Pacific Islanders. The Annie E. Casey Foundation www.aecf.org N.A. Data not available. 15 OVERALL CHILD WELL-BEING 16 National data mask a great deal of stateby-state and regional variations in child well-being. A state-level examination of the data reveals a hard truth: A child’s chances of thriving depend not just on individual, familial and community characteristics, but also on the state in which she or he is born and raised. States vary considerably in their amount of wealth and other resources. State policy choices also strongly influence children’s chances for success. We derive a composite index of overall child well-being for each state by combining data across the four domains: (1) Economic Well-Being, (2) Education, (3) Health and (4) Family and Community. These composite scores are then translated into a single state ranking for child well-being. Minnesota ranked first among states for overall child well-being, followed by New Hampshire and Massachusetts. Minnesota’s number one ranking marks the first time in nearly a decade that a New England state did not hold the top spot for child well-being in our report. The three lowest-ranked states were Louisiana, New Mexico and Mississippi. The map on page 17 shows the distinct regional patterns that emerged from the state rankings. All of the northeastern states were in the top 10 in terms of overall child well-being, apart from Maine, Pennsylvania, New York and Rhode Island. Most of the states in the Midwest and Mountain regions ranked in the middle on overall child well-being, with the exception of Minnesota, Iowa, North Dakota, Utah and Nebraska, which were in the top 10. States in the Southeast, Southwest and Appalachia — where the poorest states are located — populated the bottom of the overall rankings. In fact, with the exception of California, the 15 lowest-ranked states were located in these regions. States in the Southwest occupied three of the five lowest rankings for child well-being. Although they are not ranked against states, children in the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico experienced some of the worst outcomes on many of the indicators we track. When available, the data for the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico are included in Appendix 2. As will be explored in the sections that follow, the overall rankings obscure some important variations within states. Although most states’ rankings did not vary dramatically across domains, there were a few exceptions. For example, Colorado ranked among the top 10 states in the Education domain, but placed 44th in the Health of its children. Wyoming ranked second for Economic Well-Being, but was among the worst 10 states for Health. For all states, the index identifies bright spots and room for improvement. The Annie E. Casey Foundation www.aecf.org 2015 kids count data book DOMAIN RANKINGS Overall Rank: 2015 Overall Child Well-Being by State: 2015 The map below illustrates how states ranked on overall child well-being by state. The overall rank is a composite index derived from the combined data across the four domains: (1) Economic Well-Being, (2) Education, (3) Health and (4) Family and Community. States ranked 1–13 States ranked 14–25 States ranked 26–37 States ranked 38–50 STATE TRENDS IN CHILD WELL-BEING The Annie E. Casey Foundation www.aecf.org 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 Minnesota New Hampshire Massachusetts Iowa Vermont Connecticut North Dakota New Jersey Utah Nebraska Maryland Maine Wisconsin Virginia Kansas Wyoming Pennsylvania South Dakota Washington Illinois Colorado Idaho Ohio Hawaii Delaware Missouri Alaska New York Oregon Montana Rhode Island Indiana Michigan Kentucky North Carolina Tennessee Florida California Oklahoma Georgia Texas South Carolina West Virginia Arkansas Alabama Arizona Nevada Louisiana New Mexico Mississippi 17 DOMAIN RANKINGS A State-to-State Comparison of Economic Well-Being: 2015 To help children grow into successful, productive adults, their parents need well-paying jobs, affordable housing and the ability to invest in their children’s future. When parents are unemployed or earn low wages, they may struggle to meet their children’s most basic needs. Economic uncertainty also increases parental stress, which, in turn, can compromise parenting.32 The negative effects of poverty on children also increase the chances of poor outcomes for youth and young adults, such as teen pregnancy and failure to graduate from high school.33 States ranked 1–13 States ranked 14–25 States ranked 26–37 States ranked 38–50 STATE TRENDS IN CHILD WELL-BEING The Annie E. Casey Foundation www.aecf.org Economic Well-Being Domain Rank: 2015 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 North Dakota Wyoming Nebraska Iowa Minnesota South Dakota New Hampshire Utah Kansas Wisconsin Vermont Maryland Colorado Virginia Connecticut Idaho Massachusetts Maine Pennsylvania Montana Delaware Alaska Indiana Missouri Ohio New Jersey Washington Illinois Hawaii Oklahoma Texas Kentucky Michigan North Carolina Oregon Rhode Island New York Tennessee South Carolina West Virginia Alabama Arizona Georgia Arkansas Florida Nevada Louisiana New Mexico California Mississippi 19 ECONOMIC WELL-BEING Children in poverty PERCENTAGE OF CHILDREN IN POVERTY BY RACE AND HISPANIC ORIGIN: 2013 22% National Average 39 % 37% African American American Indian Asian and Pacific Islander 14 % Hispanic Non-Hispanic White Two or More Races 14 33 % % 23 % SOURCE U.S. Census Bureau, 2013 American Community Survey. Growing up in poverty is one of the greatest threats to healthy child development. Already high compared with other developed nations, the child poverty rate in the United States increased dramatically as a result of the economic crisis. The official poverty line in 2013 was $23,624 for a family of two adults and two children. Poverty and financial stress can impede children’s cognitive development and their ability to learn. It can contribute to behavioral, social and emotional problems and poor health. The risks posed by economic hardship are greatest among children who experience poverty when they are young and among those who experience persistent and deep poverty.34 DATA HIGHLIGHTS –– Nationally, 22 percent of children (16.1 million) lived in families with incomes below the poverty line in 2013, up from 18 percent in 2008 (13.2 million), representing nearly 3 million more children in poverty. After climbing for several years, the child poverty rate dropped between 2012 and 2013 for the first time since the start of the recession. –– The rate of child poverty for 2013 ranged from a low of 10 percent in New Hampshire, to a high of 34 percent in Mississippi. –– The child poverty rate among African Americans (39 percent) was more than double the rate for non-Hispanic whites (14 percent) in 2013. 20 The Annie E. Casey Foundation www.aecf.org ECONOMIC WELL-BEING Children whose parents lack secure employment Without at least one parent employed full time, children are more likely to fall into poverty. Yet, too many parents lack the education and skills needed to secure a good full-time job and are forced to piece together part-time or temporary work that does not provide sufficient or stable income. The recession exacerbated both unemployment and underemployment. Even a full-time job at a low wage does not necessarily lift a family out of poverty. Without access to benefits and tax credits, a single parent with two children would need to earn $9.39 per hour — $2.14 more than the current federal minimum wage — working 40 hours per week for 50 weeks per year just to reach the poverty line. DATA HIGHLIGHTS –– In 2013, three in 10 children (22.8 million) lived in families where no parent had full-time, year-round employment. Since 2008, the number of such children climbed by nearly 2.7 million. –– North Dakota had the lowest percentage of children in families without secure parental employment in 2013 (20 percent). Mississippi had the highest rate, at 39 percent. –– Roughly half of all American Indian children (50 percent) and African-American children (48 percent) had no parent with full-time, year-round employment in 2013, compared with 37 percent of Latino children, 24 percent of non-Hispanic white children and 23 percent of Asian and Pacific Islander children. 2015 kids count data book ECONOMIC WELL-BEING Children living in households with a high housing cost burden Family income is only one component of financial security; the cost of basic expenses also matters. Housing is typically one of the largest expenses that families face. This measure identifies the proportion of children living in households that spend more than 30 percent of their pretax income on housing, whether they are renters or homeowners. Low-income families, in particular, are unlikely to be able to meet all of their basic needs if housing consumes one-third or more of their income. DATA HIGHLIGHTS –– Across the nation, 36 percent of children (26.3 million) lived in households with a high housing cost burden in 2013, compared with 39 percent in 2008 (29.2 million). The rate of families with disproportionately high housing costs has increased dramatically since 1990. It peaked in 2010, at the height of the recent housing crisis, when 41 percent of children lived in families with a high housing cost burden. The rate has steadily declined since then. –– In 2013, California had the highest percentage of children — 48 percent — living in households that spent more than 30 percent of income on housing. North Dakota had the lowest, at 19 percent. –– Roughly half of African-American children (50 percent) and Hispanic children (47 percent) lived in households with a high housing cost burden in 2013, compared with 27 percent of non-Hispanic white children. STATE TRENDS IN CHILD WELL-BEING ECONOMIC WELL-BEING Teens not in school and not working Teens who leave school and do not become part of the workforce are at high risk of experiencing negative outcomes as they transition to adulthood. The percentage of teens not in school and not working (sometimes referred to as “opportunity” or “disconnected” youth) includes young people ages 16 to 19 who are not engaged in school or the workforce. While those who have dropped out of school are clearly vulnerable, many young people who have finished school but are not working are also at a disadvantage in terms of achieving economic success in adulthood. DATA HIGHLIGHTS –– Nationally, 8 percent of youth were disconnected from both work and school in 2013. About 1.3 million teens between the ages of 16 and 19 were neither enrolled in school nor employed. This indicator has not changed dramatically over time, but in 2013, more young people were not in school and not working than in 1990.35 PERCENTAGE OF CHILDREN LIVING IN HOUSEHOLDS WITH A HIGH HOUSING COST BURDEN: 2013 North Dakota California 19% 48% SOURCE U.S. Census Bureau, 2013 American Community Survey. –– At 3 percent, Nebraska had the lowest rate of teens not in school and not working in 2013. In contrast, Mississippi and Louisiana had the highest rate, at 12 percent. –– American Indian, African-American and Latino teens had considerably higher rates of neither being in school nor working than their non-Hispanic white and Asian and Pacific Islander counterparts. The Annie E. Casey Foundation www.aecf.org 21 sf EDUCATION DOMAIN RANKINGS A State-to-State Comparison of Education: 2015 Establishing the conditions that promote successful educational achievement for children begins with quality prenatal care and continues into the early elementary school years. With a strong and healthy beginning, children can more easily stay on track to remain in school and graduate, pursue postsecondary education and training and successfully transition to adulthood. Yet the United States continues to have significant gaps in educational achievement by race and income.36 Addressing the achievement gap will be key to our future workforce competing on a global scale. States ranked 1–13 States ranked 14–25 States ranked 26–37 States ranked 38–50 STATE TRENDS IN CHILD WELL-BEING The Annie E. Casey Foundation www.aecf.org Education Domain Rank: 2015 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 Massachusetts New Jersey New Hampshire Vermont Connecticut Minnesota Pennsylvania Maryland Colorado Virginia Nebraska Kansas Iowa Ohio Wisconsin Maine Illinois North Dakota New York Washington Wyoming Montana Missouri Rhode Island Indiana Delaware Florida North Carolina Utah Kentucky Hawaii South Dakota Texas Idaho Oregon Tennessee Michigan California Arkansas Georgia Alaska Oklahoma South Carolina Arizona Alabama West Virginia Louisiana Mississippi New Mexico Nevada 23 EDUCATION PERCENTAGE OF 4TH GRADERS WHO SCORED BELOW PROFICIENT READING LEVEL National Average 71 66% 1998 2013 % Low Income 87% 1998 80% 2013 Moderate/High Income 61% 1998 49% 2013 SOURCE U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1998 and 2013 National Assessments of Educational Progress. 24 EDUCATION Children not attending preschool Fourth graders not proficient in reading High-quality prekindergarten programs for 3- and 4-year-olds play an important role in preparing children for success and lead to higher levels of educational attainment, career advancement and earnings. Head Start and the expansion of state-funded programs since the 1990s have greatly increased access to preschool.37 But many children, especially 3-year-olds, continue to be left out, exacerbating socioeconomic differences in educational achievement. Proficiency in reading by the end of third grade is a crucial marker in a child’s educational development. By fourth grade, children use reading to learn other subjects, and therefore, mastery of reading becomes a critical component in their ability to keep up academically. Children who reach fourth grade without being able to read proficiently are more likely to drop out of high school, reducing their earning potential and chances for success.38 Although improvements in reading proficiency have occurred since the early 1990s, progress has been slow and gaps remain. Since 1998, the percentage point gap between low-income fourth graders and their higher-income peers has actually grown from 26 to 31 percentage points.39 DATA HIGHLIGHTS –– During 2011–13, 4.4 million 3- and 4-year-olds were not attending preschool, representing more than half (54 percent) of all children in that age group. The rate of attendance has remained steady since 2007– 09, when 53 percent of 3- and 4-year-olds did not participate in any pre-K programs. –– In 2011–13, Connecticut and New Jersey, at 37 and 39 percent, respectively, had the lowest percentages of 3- and 4-year-olds not attending preschool. The states with the highest percentages of children not attending preschool in 2011–13 were Nevada (69 percent) and Idaho (68 percent). –– More than half of African-American and non-Hispanic white 3- and 4-year-olds were not in any pre-K programs; the percentage was nearly the same for Asian and Pacific Islander children (48 percent). The rates were noticeably higher for Latinos (63 percent) and American Indians (59 percent). The Annie E. Casey Foundation www.aecf.org DATA HIGHLIGHTS –– An alarming 66 percent of fourth graders in public school were reading below the proficient level in 2013, a slight improvement from 2007, when the figure was 68 percent. –– State differences in fourth-grade reading levels among public school students were wide. In 2013, Massachusetts had the lowest percentage of public school fourth graders not proficient in reading, 53 percent, compared with a high of 79 percent in Mississippi and New Mexico. –– More than 80 percent of AfricanAmerican and Latino fourth graders and 78 percent of American Indian fourth graders were not proficient in reading, compared with 55 percent of non-Hispanic whites and 49 percent of Asian and Pacific Islanders. Although these figures are deeply troubling, fourth-grade reading levels have improved since 2007 for all groups. 2015 kids count data book EDUCATION EDUCATION Eighth graders not proficient in math High school students not graduating on time Competence in mathematics is essential for success in the workplace, which increasingly requires higher-level technical skills. Students who take advanced math and science courses are more likely to graduate from high school, attend and complete college and earn higher incomes.40 Even for young people who do not attend college, basic math skills help with everyday functioning and improve employability. Ensuring that children have early access to high-quality mathematics education is critical for their success in both school and life. Since 1996, the gap in math proficiency between low-income eighth graders and their higher-income peers has grown from 21 to 29 percentage points.41 Students who graduate from high school on time are more likely to continue to postsecondary education and training; they are more employable and have higher incomes than students who fail to graduate.42 In 2013, median annual earnings for someone without a high school diploma ($20,100) were 74 percent of those of a high school graduate ($27,400) and 40 percent of the median earnings of someone with a bachelor’s degree ($50,100).43 High school graduates have better health outcomes, make healthier choices and are less likely to engage in risky behavior.44 DATA HIGHLIGHTS –– Nationwide, two-thirds (66 percent) of public school eighth graders were not proficient in math in 2013, compared with 69 percent in 2007. –– At 45 percent, Massachusetts had the lowest percentage of eighth graders not proficient in math in 2013. Alabama had the highest rate, at 80 percent. Massachusetts was the only state in which more than 50 percent of eighth graders were proficient in math. –– In 2013, 56 percent of non-Hispanic white eighth graders were below the proficient level, compared with 79 percent of Latinos and American Indians and 86 percent of African Americans. But eighth-grade math achievement improved for all racial and ethnic groups from 2007 to 2013, including a 6 percentage point improvement for Latinos. DATA HIGHLIGHTS –– Nationally, one in five (19 percent) high school students did not graduate on time in the 2011/12 school year. Steady improvements have occurred since 2007/08, when 25 percent did not graduate in four years. –– Among the states, the percentage of high school students not graduating from high school in four years ranged from a low of 7 percent in Nebraska and Vermont, to a high of 40 percent in Nevada. –– In 2011/12, 15 percent of non-Hispanic white students did not graduate from high school on time. The rate for African Americans and American Indians was more than twice as high. PERCENTAGE OF 8TH GRADERS WHO SCORED BELOW PROFICIENT MATH LEVEL National Average 77 66% % 1996 2013 Low Income 92% 80% 1996 2013 Moderate/High Income 71% 51% 1996 2013 SOURCE U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 1996 and 2013 National Assessments of Educational Progress. STATE TRENDS IN CHILD WELL-BEING The Annie E. Casey Foundation www.aecf.org 25 I J. "Hal! . {5311. 1 HEALTH DOMAIN RANKINGS A State-to-State Comparison of Health: 2015 Children’s health is the foundation of their overall development, and ensuring that they are born healthy is the first step toward increasing the life chances of disadvantaged children. Poverty, poor nutrition, lack of preventive health care, substance abuse, maternal depression and family violence put children’s health at risk. Poor health in childhood impacts other critical aspects of a child’s life, such as school readiness and attendance, and can have lasting consequences on his or her future health and well-being. States ranked 1–13 States ranked 14–25 States ranked 26–37 States ranked 38–50 STATE TRENDS IN CHILD WELL-BEING The Annie E. Casey Foundation www.aecf.org Health Domain Rank: 2015 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 Iowa Minnesota Massachusetts Connecticut Illinois New Jersey Utah Washington New York Maine Maryland Rhode Island Kansas California Wisconsin New Hampshire Virginia Ohio Oregon South Dakota Pennsylvania Vermont Michigan Kentucky Delaware Nebraska Idaho Hawaii North Dakota Tennessee Alaska North Carolina Missouri Arkansas Indiana South Carolina Georgia Florida Oklahoma Alabama West Virginia Arizona Texas Colorado Wyoming Nevada Montana New Mexico Louisiana Mississippi 27 HEALTH Low-birthweight babies CHILDREN WITHOUT HEALTH INSURANCE: 2013 Massachusetts 2% Nevada Babies born with a low birthweight (less than 5.5 pounds) have a high probability of experiencing developmental problems and short- and long-term disabilities and are at greater risk of dying within the first year of life. Although increases in multiple births during the past two decades have contributed to the rise in rates of lowbirthweight babies, many factors can lead to a low birthweight among single births. Smoking, poor nutrition, poverty, stress, infections and violence can increase the risk of a baby being born with a low birthweight.45 15% DATA HIGHLIGHTS Worst state States at or below 5% Best state SOURCE U.S. Census Bureau, 2013 American Community Survey. –– Nationally, low-birthweight babies represented 8.0 percent of all live births in 2013. After gradually increasing over time, the percentage of low-birthweight babies has remained relatively stable for the past several years and is now slightly below the four-decade high of 8.3 percent reached in 2006.46 –– Alaska had the lowest percentage of low-birthweight babies in 2013 — 5.8 percent of live births — while Mississippi had the highest, 11.5 percent. –– Among racial and ethnic groups, AfricanAmerican babies were most likely to be born with a low birthweight, 12.8 percent of live births in 2013. Although this represents a decline from a high of 13.4 percent in 2008, it is still close to twice the low-birthweight rate for Latinos (7.1 percent) and nonHispanic whites (7.0 percent). 28 The Annie E. Casey Foundation www.aecf.org HEALTH Children without health insurance Children without health insurance coverage are less likely than insured children to have a regular health care provider and to receive care when they need it. They are also more likely to receive treatment after their condition has worsened, putting them at greater risk of hospitalization. Having health insurance can protect families from financial devastation when a child experiences a serious or chronic illness. Although the provision of employersponsored health insurance is declining, and most low-wage and part-time workers lack employer coverage, public health insurance has resulted in increased coverage among children during the past decade. DATA HIGHLIGHTS –– Across the nation, 7 percent of children (5.2 million) lacked health insurance in 2013. That is a 30 percent improvement from 2008, when 10 percent of children were uninsured. –– In 19 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, the percentage of children without health coverage was 5 percent or less in 2013. Massachusetts had the lowest rate, 2 percent, compared with a high of 15 percent in Nevada. –– American Indian (16 percent) and Latino (12 percent) children were far more likely to be uninsured than their Asian and Pacific Islander (7 percent), AfricanAmerican (6 percent) and non-Hispanic white (5 percent) peers. 2015 kids count data book HEALTH HEALTH Child and teen deaths Teens who abuse alcohol or drugs The child and teen death rate (deaths per 100,000 children ages 1 to 19) reflects a broad array of factors: physical and mental health; access to health care; community factors (such as violence and environmental toxins); use of safety practices; and, especially for younger children, the level of adult supervision. Accidents, primarily those involving motor vehicles, were the leading cause of death for children and youth, accounting for 30 percent of all deaths among children ages 1 to 14.47 As children move into their mid- and lateteenage years, they encounter new risks that can be deadly. In 2013, accidents, homicides and suicides accounted for 72 percent of deaths to teens ages 15 to 19.48 Teen alcohol and drug abuse are associated with a variety of potentially harmful behaviors, such as engaging in risky sexual activity, driving under the influence, abusing multiple substances and committing crimes. Alcohol and drug abuse among adolescents can cause both short- and long-term physical and mental health problems and exacerbate existing conditions. Teen substance abuse is also associated with poor academic performance and increased risk of dropping out of school. The negative consequences of teen alcohol and drug abuse can carry over into adulthood. Overall, alcohol and drug use by adolescents have declined during the past decade, although patterns vary by substance. DATA HIGHLIGHTS –– In 2013, 18,888 children and youth ages 1 to 19 died in the United States, which translates into a mortality rate of 24 per 100,000 children and teens. The rate declined dramatically from 1990, when it was 46 per 100,000, resulting in roughly 12,200 fewer deaths in 2013. –– Massachusetts had the lowest rate, 16 deaths per 100,000 children and youth in 2013. Alaska fell at the other end of the spectrum, with a child and teen death rate of 38 per 100,000. CHILD AND TEEN DEATH RATE: 1990–2013 1990 46 2013 24 DATA HIGHLIGHTS –– In 2012–13, 6 percent of teens ages 12 to 17 had abused or were dependent on alcohol or drugs during the past year, declining from 8 percent in 2007–08. 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 SOURCE Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, 1990–2013 Vital Statistics. –– There is little variability in the substance abuse rates across states. Rates range from a low of 5 percent in 16 states to a high of 7 percent in seven states. –– Among racial and ethnic groups, Asian teens were the least likely (2 percent) to abuse or be dependent on alcohol or drugs. –– The 2013 mortality rates for AfricanAmerican and American Indian children and teens (33 and 26 per 100,000, respectively) were higher than the death rates for children and youth of other racial and ethnic groups. STATE TRENDS IN CHILD WELL-BEING The Annie E. Casey Foundation www.aecf.org 29 DOMAIN RANKINGS A State-to-State Comparison of Family and Community: 2015 Children who live in nurturing families and are part of supportive communities have better social-emotional and learning outcomes. Parents struggling with financial hardship are more prone to stress and depression, which can interfere with effective parenting. These findings underscore the importance of two-generation strategies that strengthen families by mitigating their underlying economic distress and addressing the well-being of both parents and children. Where families live also matters. When communities have strong institutions and the resources to provide safety, good schools and quality support services, families and their children are more likely to thrive. States ranked 1–13 States ranked 14–25 States ranked 26–37 States ranked 38–50 STATE TRENDS IN CHILD WELL-BEING The Annie E. Casey Foundation www.aecf.org Family and Community Domain Rank: 2015 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 New Hampshire Utah Vermont Minnesota Maine North Dakota Wyoming Massachusetts Iowa Connecticut Hawaii New Jersey Idaho Virginia Wisconsin Alaska Maryland Washington Montana Nebraska Oregon Colorado South Dakota Kansas Pennsylvania Missouri Illinois Delaware Michigan Ohio Indiana New York Rhode Island Florida West Virginia North Carolina Tennessee Kentucky South Carolina Georgia Oklahoma California Nevada Alabama Arkansas Arizona Texas Louisiana New Mexico Mississippi 31 FAMILY AND COMMUNITY Children in single-parent families Children growing up in single-parent families typically have access to fewer economic or emotional resources than children in two-parent families. In 2013, 34 percent of single-parent families had incomes below the poverty line, compared with 11 percent of married couples with children.49 Compared with children in married-couple families, children raised in female-headed households are more likely to drop out of school, to have or cause a teen pregnancy and to experience a divorce in adulthood.50 SUPPLEMENTAL CHILD POVERTY RATE BY FAMILY STRUCTURE: 2013 60 % 34 % 40 % 20 % 0 % 26 % 11% Married DATA HIGHLIGHTS Single Cohabiting SOURCE Population Reference Bureau's analysis of Supplemental Poverty Measure data from IPUMS-CPS, University of Minnesota, www.ipums.org. –– The percentage of children living in single-parent families rose from 32 percent in 2008 to 35 percent in 2013, representing an increase of nearly 2 million children. –– Nearly one in four of the 24.6 million children living with an unmarried parent in 2013 was living with cohabiting domestic partners, compared with only 16 percent in 1990. –– At the state level, the percentage of children living in single-parent families in 2013 ranged from a low of 19 percent in Utah, to a high of 48 percent in Mississippi. –– Two-thirds (67 percent) of AfricanAmerican children, more than half (52 percent) of American Indian children and 42 percent of Latino children lived in singleparent families in 2013. By comparison, 25 percent of non-Hispanic white children and 16 percent of Asian and Pacific Islander children lived in single-parent households. 32 The Annie E. Casey Foundation www.aecf.org FAMILY AND COMMUNITY Children in families where the household head lacks a high school diploma Higher levels of parental education are strongly associated with better outcomes for children. Children whose parents have not graduated from high school are at greater risk of being born with a low birthweight and having health problems, and they are more likely to smoke and binge drink when they are older. Their school readiness and educational achievement are also at risk.51 More highly educated parents are better able to provide their children with economic stability and security, which, in turn, enhances child development. During the past several decades, parental education levels have steadily increased. DATA HIGHLIGHTS –– In 2013, 14 percent of children lived in households headed by an adult without a high school diploma. While the indicator improved only slightly since 2008, there has been substantial improvement since 1990, when 22 percent of children lived with parents who lacked a high school diploma.52 –– In New Hampshire, only 4 percent of children lived in families not headed by a high school graduate, the lowest percentage in the country. At 23 percent, California had the highest rate. –– More than one-third (35 percent) of Latino children lived in households headed by someone without a high school diploma. That is more than two and a half times the rate for African-American children (13 percent) and nearly six times the rate for non-Hispanic white children (6 percent). 2015 kids count data book FAMILY AND COMMUNITY Children living in high-poverty areas Concentrated poverty puts whole neighborhoods at risk. High-poverty neighborhoods are much more likely than moderate- and upper-income communities to have high rates of crime and violence, unemployment and other problems. Concentrated neighborhood poverty negatively affects poor children, as well as those who are better off.53 Highpoverty areas are defined here as census tracts where the poverty rates of the total population are 30 percent or more. FAMILY AND COMMUNITY Teen births Teenage childbearing can have long-term negative effects for both the mother and newborn. Teens are at higher risk of bearing low-birthweight and preterm babies. And, their babies are far more likely to be born into families with limited educational and economic resources, which function as barriers to future success.55 Although the teen birth rate is now at a historic low, the teen birth rate in the United States remains the highest among all affluent countries.56 CHILDREN LIVING IN HIGH-POVERTY AREAS 2000 2009–2013 6.3  MILLION CHILDREN 10.1  MILLION CHILDREN + 3.8 million children DATA HIGHLIGHTS DATA HIGHLIGHTS –– During the period from 2009 through 2013, 14 percent of children lived in high-poverty areas nationwide, a total of 10.1 million children. Between 1990 and 2000, the likelihood that a child would grow up in an area of concentrated poverty declined from 11 percent to 9 percent.54 The rate increased over the next decade, with the biggest increases occurring after the recession. –– In 2013, there were more than 273,000 babies born to females ages 15 to 19. That translates into a birth rate of 26 births per 1,000 teens, which is less than half the rate in 1990, 60 births per 1,000 teens.57 –– Variation among the states was wide: Only 1 percent of children in Vermont lived in areas of concentrated poverty, while 27 percent of Mississippi’s children lived in high-poverty areas. –– At 42 births per 1,000 teenage girls, the teen birth rate for Latinos was the highest across major racial and ethnic groups. Although it remained high, the 2013 rate for births to Latino teens was the lowest rate on record.58 SOURCE U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Decennial Census and 2009–2013 American Community Survey. –– Among the states, the teen birth rate for 2013 ranged from a low of 12 births per 1,000 teens ages 15 to 19 in Massachusetts, to a high of 44 per 1,000 in Arkansas. –– African-American, American Indian and Latino children were much more likely to live in high-poverty areas than were children from other racial and ethnic groups. Their rates were 32 percent, 30 percent and 24 percent, respectively. STATE TRENDS IN CHILD WELL-BEING The Annie E. Casey Foundation www.aecf.org 33 CONCLUSION This year’s KIDS COUNT Data Book provides some hopeful signs. The latest data show continued incremental improvement in educational achievement and child health and safety, as well as a record low level of teen births. After continuing to climb since 2008, child poverty finally decreased slightly in 2013; hopefully, the data for 2014 will show a further decline. At the same time, the steady increase in children growing up in high-poverty neighborhoods is troubling. The gulf continues to widen between children growing up in strong, economically secure families that are embedded in thriving communities and children who are not. And, while AfricanAmerican and Latino children continue to fall disproportionately into the latter group, large numbers of children of all racial and ethnic groups are facing economic conditions that can impede long-term success. The recession dealt a heavy blow to family economic security, creating risks for children. The job market has been slow to recover, particularly for the least-educated workers, and new employment opportunities have been disproportionately focused on low-wage and insecure jobs. While workrelated benefits for low-income families and food assistance continue to lift many children out of poverty — and keep many others from falling into poverty — the weak labor market for workers without a college degree remains one of the primary obstacles to further reducing economic hardship among children and families. If we want to ensure that the next generation is prepared to effectively compete in a global economy that is increasingly technology driven and dependent on a well-educated workforce, then we must act. With the right investments, we can provide all families and children with the opportunity to reach their full potential and, in the process, strengthen both our economy and our nation. STATE TRENDS IN CHILD WELL-BEING The Annie E. Casey Foundation www.aecf.org 35 ENDNOTES 1. Egan, M., & Long, H. (2015, January 9). 2014 was America’s best year of job growth since 1999. CNNMoney. Retrieved from http:// money.cnn.com/2015/01/09/news/ economy/december-jobs-reportunemployment/index.html 2. Harlan, C. (2015, April 3). Hiring slowed in March, with 126k jobs added; unemployment rate at 5.5 percent (Wonkblog). The Washington Post. Retrieved from www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ wonkblog/wp/2015/04/03/jobs/ 3. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2015, June 5). The employment situation — May 2015 (Press Release). Retrieved June 12, 2015, from www.bls.gov/ news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf 4. National Conference of State Legislatures. (2015, June 5). Unemployment up to 5.5 percent in May 2015 (National Employment Monthly Update). Retrieved June 12, 2015, from www.ncsl.org/ research/labor-and-employment/ national-employment-monthlyupdate.aspx 5. National Employment Law Project. (2014, April). The low-wage recovery: Industry employment and wages four years into the recovery (Data Brief). New York, NY: Author. Retrieved from www.nelp.org/ content/uploads/2015/03/Low-WageRecovery-Industry-EmploymentWages-2014-Report.pdf 6. Unemployment rates include only those jobless workers who are actively seeking work. Wilson, V. (2015, March 26). Projected decline in unemployment in 2015 won’t lift blacks out of the recessioncarved crater. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute. Retrieved from www.epi.org/publication/ projected-decline-in-unemploymentin-2015-wont-lift-blacks-out-of-therecession-carved-crater/ 36 7. Economic Policy Institute. Underemployment rate of workers age 16 and older by race and ethnicity, 2000–2015 (The State of Working America). Retrieved May 12, 2015, from www.stateofworkingamerica. org/charts/underemployment-byrace-and-ethnicity/ 8. Economic Policy Institute. Longterm unemployment rate, 1948–2015 (The State of Working America). Retrieved May 12, 2015, from http://stateofworkingamerica.org/ charts/long-term-unemployment/ 9. National Center for Children in Poverty. Income converter. Retrieved May 13, 2015, from www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/01/22/ 2015-01120/annual-update-of-thehhs-poverty-guidelines#t-1 10. Economic Policy Institute. Family budget calculator. Retrieved May 13, 2015, from www.epi.org/ resources/budget/ 11. Trend data on children who live in areas of concentrated poverty are from the Population Reference Bureau’s analyses of data from the U.S. Census Bureau, 2009–2013 American Community Survey. 12. The Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2009, July). Preventing low birthweight (KIDS COUNT Indicator Brief). Baltimore, MD: Author. Retrieved from http://files.eric. ed.gov/fulltext/ED507776.pdf 13. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Infant mortality. Atlanta, GA: Author. Retrieved May 22, 2015, from www.cdc.gov/ reproductivehealth/maternal infanthealth/infantmortality.htm 14. Duncan, G. J., & Magnuson, K. (2011, Winter). The long reach of early childhood poverty. Pathways, 22–27. Retrieved from http://web. stanford.edu/group/scspi/_media/ pdf/pathways/winter_2011/ PathwaysWinter11_Duncan.pdf 15. Shonkoff, J. P., & Phillips, D. A. (Eds.). (2000). From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of early childhood development. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. The Annie E. Casey Foundation www.aecf.org 16. Duncan, G. J., & Magnuson, K. (2011, Winter). 17. Kaushal, N. (2014, Spring). Intergenerational payoffs of education. The Future of Children, 24(1), 61–78. Retrieved from www. princeton.edu/futureofchildren/ publications/docs/24_01_03.pdf 18. Kaushal, N. (2014, Spring). 19. This figure refers to students under age 24. Orozco, V., & Cauthen, N. K. (2009, September). Work less, study more and succeed: How financial supports can improve postsecondary success. New York, NY: Dēmos. Retrieved from www.demos.org/sites/default/files/ publications/WorkLessStudyMore_ Demos.pdf 20. The Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2014). Creating opportunity for families: A two-generation approach. Baltimore, MD: Author. Retrieved from www.aecf.org/m/resourcedoc/ aecf-CreatingOpportunityfor Families-2014.pdf 21. Economic Policy Institute. Average family income growth, by income group, 1947–2013 (The State of Working America). Retrieved May 12, 2015, from www. stateofworkingamerica.org/chart/ swa-income-figure-2c-averagefamily-income/ 22. Cauthen, N. K. (2011, March). Scheduling hourly workers: How last-minute, “ just-in-time” scheduling practices are bad for workers, families and business. New York, NY: Dēmos. Retrieved from www. demos.org/sites/default/files/ publications/Scheduling_Hourly_ Workers_Demos.pdf 23. Putnam, R. D. (2015, March 10). Our kids: The American Dream in crisis. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. 24. Population Reference Bureau’s analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau, 2013 American Community Survey. 25. The Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2014). Creating opportunity for families: A two-generation approach (KIDS COUNT Policy Report). 26. The Annie E. Casey Foundation, KIDS COUNT Data Center. Children in low-income working families by age group (Table). Retrieved from http://datacenter.kidscount. org/data/tables/5048-children-inlow-income-working-families-byage-group?loc=1&loct=2#detailed/1/ any/false/36,868,867,133,38/34,35, 36/11455,11456 27. Ton, Z. (2014). The good jobs strategy: How the smartest companies invest in employees to lower costs and boost profits. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. 28. National Partnership for Women and Families. (2015, March). Understanding worker leave policies: An overview (Fact Sheet). Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from www.nationalpartnership.org/ research-library/work-family/ understanding-worker-leavepolicies.pdf 29. Lindner, S., & Nichols, A. (2012, May). How do Unemployment Insurance modernization laws affect the number and composition of eligible workers? Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Retrieved from www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/ 412582-How-Do-unemploymentInsurance-ModernizationLaws-Affect-the-Number-andComposition-of-Eligible.pdf 30. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2015, May). Employment status of the civilian noninstitutional population, 1944 to date (Table). Retrieved from http://stats.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat01. pdf. And, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2015, May). Databases, tables and calculators by subject: Labor force statistics from the Current Population Survey, unemployment rates (Table). Retrieved from http://data.bls.gov/ timeseries/LNS14000000. And, data on the unemployment rates for the year 2013 and for April 2015 can be retrieved from www.bls.gov/ 2015 kids count data book 31. The Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2014). Race for Results: Building a path to opportunity for all children (KIDS COUNT Policy Report). Baltimore, MD: Author. Retrieved from www.aecf.org/race4results 32. Yeung, W. J., Linver, M. R., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2002, November/ December). How money matters for young children’s development: Parental investment and family processes. Child Development, 73(6), 1861–1879. 33. For a summary of this literature, see Gershoff, E. T., Aber, J. L., & Raver, C. C. (2003). Child poverty in the U.S.: An evidence-based conceptual framework for programs and policies. In R. M. Lerner, F. Jacobs, & D. Wertlieb (Eds.), Promoting positive child, adolescent and family development: A handbook of program and policy innovations (pp. 81–136). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. 34. Gershoff, E. T., Aber, J. L., & Raver, C. C. (2003). 35. Population Reference Bureau’s analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Basic Monthly Survey Microdata. 36. Reardon, S. F. (2011). The widening academic achievement gap between the rich and the poor: New evidence and possible explanations. In G. J. Duncan & R. J. Murnane (Eds.). Whither opportunity? Rising inequality, schools and children’s life chances (pp. 91–116). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation Press. Retrieved from www.russellsage.org/ publications/whither-opportunity 37. Higgins, L. B., Stagman, S., & Smith, S. (2010, September). Improving supports for parents of young children: State-level initiatives. New York, NY: National Center for Children in Poverty, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University. Retrieved from www. nccp.org/publications/pub_966. html. And, Gormley, Jr., W., Gayer, T., Phillips, D., & Dawson, B. (2004, November). The effects of Oklahoma’s universal pre-kindergarten program on school readiness: An executive summary. Washington, DC: Center for Research on Children in the United States, Georgetown University. Retrieved from https://georgetown.app.box. com/s/hxy0bp4dr3xrjyuqbimi STATE TRENDS IN CHILD WELL-BEING 38. The Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2010, January 1). Early warning! Why reading by the end of third grade matters (KIDS COUNT Special Report). Baltimore, MD: Author. Retrieved from www.aecf.org/ resources/early-warning-why-readingby-the-end-of-third-grade-matters/ 39. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Reading Assessment. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/ nationsreportcard/reading/ 45. The Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2009, July). 46. Population Reference Bureau’s analysis of data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, 1990–2011 Vital Statistics, Public Use Data File. 47. Population Reference Bureau’s analysis of data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, Mortality Data File 2013. Retrieved from http://webappa.cdc.gov/ sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus10_us.html 40. Child Trends Databank. (2013, February). Mathematics proficiency: Indicators on children and youth. Bethesda, MD: Author. Retrieved March 2015 from www.childtrends.org/?indicators= mathematics-proficiency 48. Population Reference Bureau’s analysis of data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, Mortality Data File 2013. Retrieved from http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ ncipc/leadcaus10_us.html 41. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Mathematics Assessment. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/ nationsreportcard/mathematics 49. Population Reference Bureau’s analysis of Supplemental Poverty Measure data from IPUMS-CPS, University of Minnesota. Retrieved from www.ipums.org 42. Alliance for Excellent Education. (2011, November 1). The high cost of high school dropouts: What the nation pays for inadequate high schools. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from www.all4ed.org/ files/HighCost.pdf 43. U.S. Census Bureau. (2013, September 19). The American Community Survey 1-year estimates (Summary Table S2001). Retrieved March 2015 from http://factfinder2. census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/ pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_ 12_1YR_S2001&prodType=table 44. Alliance for Excellent Education. (2006, November 1). Healthier and wealthier: Decreasing health care costs by increasing educational attainment (Issue Brief). Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http:// all4ed.org/reports-factsheets/ healthier-and-wealthier-decreasinghealth-care-costs-by-increasingeducational-attainment/ 50. Amato, P. R. (2005, Fall). The impact of family formation change on the cognitive, social and emotional well-being of the next generation. The Future of Children, 15(2), 75–96. 51. Child Trends Databank. (2014, July). Parental education: Indicators on children and youth. Bethesda, MD: Author. Retrieved May 2015 from www.childtrends.org/? indicators=parental+education 54. Population Reference Bureau’s analysis of data from the following sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990 and 2000 Census of Population and Housing, Summary Files; 2006–10 through 2008–12 American Community Surveys, 5-Year Estimates. 55. Child Trends Databank. (2013, July). Teen births: Indicators on children and youth. Bethesda, MD: Author. Retrieved May 2015 from www.childtrends. org/?indicators=teen+births 56. Adamson, P. (2013, April). Child well-being in rich countries: A comparative overview (Innocenti Report Card 11). Florence, IT: UNICEF Office of Research. Retrieved from www.unicef-irc.org/ publications/pdf/rc11_eng.pdf 57. Population Reference Bureau’s analysis of teen birth rate data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, 1990–2013 Vital Statistics, Public Use Data File. 58. Martin, J. A., Hamilton, B. E., Osterman, M. J. K., Curtin, S. C., & Mathews, T. J. (2015, January 15). Births: Final data for 2013. National Vital Statistics Reports, 64(1), Table A. Retrieved May 2015 from www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/ nvsr64/nvsr64_01.pdf 52. Population Reference Bureau’s analyses of data from the following sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990 Census of Population and Housing, Public Use Microdata Samples; 2000 and 2001 Census Supplementary Survey 1-Year Microdata Files; and 2002–2013 American Community Surveys. 53. The Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2012, February 1). Children living in America’s high-poverty communities (KIDS COUNT Data Snapshot on High-Poverty Communities). Baltimore, MD: Author. Retrieved from www.aecf. org/resources/data-snapshot-onhigh-poverty-communities/ The Annie E. Casey Foundation www.aecf.org 37 KIDS COUNT DATA CENTER Access Data on Child Well-Being Through the KIDS COUNT Data Center The Annie E. Casey Foundation’s KIDS COUNT Data Center provides access to hundreds of child well-being indicators related to education, employment and income, health, poverty and youth risk factors. Data are available for the nation and for states, as well as for cities, counties and congressional districts. Site features include powerful search options; attractive and easy to create tables, maps and graphs; and ways to share information through social media on how children are faring. datacenter.kidscount.org Mobile Site All indicators currently found on the KIDS COUNT Data Center can be accessed quickly and easily anytime, anywhere on your mobile device at: mobile.kidscount.org 38 The Annie E. Casey Foundation www.aecf.org 2015 kids count data book datacenter.kidscount.org Hundreds of child well-being indicators at your fingertips to encourage policies and support smart decisions for children and families. 2 1 3 Enter any location, topic or keyword into the powerful search engine to find the statistics most relevant to your community. Create custom profiles Post data visualizations on Facebook, add custom graphics to Tumblr and tweet about how the well-being of your state's children compares with the region and nation. Create line graphs STATE TRENDS IN CHILD WELL-BEING Create maps Create bar charts The Annie E. Casey Foundation www.aecf.org 39 APPENDIX 1 Child Well-Being Rankings Overall Rank Economic Well-Being Rank Education Rank Health Rank Family and Community Rank State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming 45 27 46 44 38 21 6 25 N.R. 37 40 24 22 20 32 4 15 34 48 12 11 3 33 1 50 26 30 10 47 2 8 49 28 35 7 23 39 29 17 N.R. 31 42 18 36 41 9 5 14 19 43 13 16 41 22 42 44 49 13 15 21 N.R. 45 43 29 16 28 23 4 9 32 47 18 12 17 33 5 50 24 20 3 46 7 26 48 37 34 1 25 30 35 19 N.R. 36 39 6 38 31 8 11 14 27 40 10 2 45 41 44 39 38 9 5 26 N.R. 27 40 31 34 17 25 13 12 30 47 16 8 1 37 6 48 23 22 11 50 3 2 49 19 28 18 14 42 35 7 N.R. 24 43 32 36 33 29 4 10 20 46 15 21 40 31 42 34 14 44 4 25 N.R. 38 37 28 27 5 35 1 13 24 49 10 11 3 23 2 50 33 47 26 46 16 6 48 9 32 29 18 39 19 21 N.R. 12 36 20 30 43 7 22 17 8 41 15 45 44 16 46 45 42 22 10 28 N.R. 34 40 11 13 27 31 9 24 38 48 5 17 8 29 4 50 26 19 20 43 1 12 49 32 36 6 30 41 21 25 N.R. 33 39 23 37 47 2 3 14 18 35 15 7 N.R. Not Ranked. STATE TRENDS IN CHILD WELL-BEING The Annie E. Casey Foundation www.aecf.org 41 APPENDIX 2: DATA FOR 16 INDICATORS OF CHILD WELL-BEING ECONOMIC WELL- BEING INDICATORS Children in poverty: 2013 42 State United States Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming 16,087,000 22 298,000 27 22,000 12 421,000 26 202,000 29 2,121,000 23 207,000 17 113,000 15 36,000 18 30,000 27 969,000 24 651,000 27 40,000 13 81,000 19 616,000 21 345,000 22 115,000 16 132,000 19 251,000 25 304,000 28 45,000 18 180,000 14 223,000 16 524,000 24 177,000 14 246,000 34 304,000 22 47,000 21 81,000 18 148,000 23 27,000 10 333,000 17 157,000 31 950,000 23 566,000 25 19,000 12 591,000 23 223,000 24 182,000 22 516,000 19 463,000 57 45,000 22 292,000 27 38,000 19 390,000 27 1,741,000 25 130,000 15 19,000 15 288,000 16 295,000 19 100,000 27 237,000 18 18,000 13 Number Percent Children living in households with a high housing cost burden: 2013 Children whose parents lack secure employment: 2013 Number Percent 22,837,000 31 381,000 34 66,000 35 520,000 32 245,000 34 3,159,000 34 333,000 27 229,000 29 63,000 31 47,000 42 1,327,000 33 814,000 33 83,000 27 109,000 26 914,000 30 475,000 30 165,000 23 175,000 24 346,000 34 382,000 34 83,000 32 348,000 26 428,000 31 751,000 33 314,000 24 286,000 39 427,000 30 70,000 31 100,000 22 224,000 34 69,000 25 559,000 28 176,000 35 1,367,000 32 743,000 32 33,000 20 843,000 32 284,000 30 283,000 33 822,000 30 446,000 55 73,000 34 376,000 35 53,000 25 506,000 34 2,073,000 29 186,000 21 37,000 29 480,000 26 489,000 31 144,000 38 343,000 26 32,000 23 The Annie E. Casey Foundation www.aecf.org Number Teens not in school and not working: 2013 Percent 26,339,000 36 339,000 31 51,000 27 573,000 35 211,000 30 4,438,000 48 418,000 34 300,000 38 72,000 35 45,000 40 1,707,000 42 908,000 36 131,000 43 121,000 28 1,080,000 36 437,000 28 158,000 22 191,000 27 277,000 27 346,000 31 80,000 31 478,000 35 502,000 36 713,000 32 332,000 26 240,000 33 417,000 30 59,000 26 119,000 26 261,000 39 95,000 35 891,000 44 169,000 33 1,858,000 44 752,000 33 31,000 19 794,000 30 264,000 28 332,000 39 866,000 32 274,000 34 92,000 43 349,000 32 42,000 20 481,000 32 2,268,000 32 272,000 30 40,000 32 639,000 34 578,000 36 97,000 25 393,000 30 29,000 20 Number Percent 1,347,000 8 26,000 10 4,000 8 36,000 10 17,000 10 175,000 8 17,000 6 10,000 5 3,000 6 3,000 11 86,000 9 56,000 10 6,000 10 7,000 8 50,000 7 26,000 7 8,000 5 10,000 6 20,000 8 29,000 12 4,000 6 22,000 7 18,000 5 44,000 8 14,000 5 22,000 12 24,000 7 4,000 7 4,000 3 16,000 11 4,000 5 30,000 6 12,000 10 78,000 7 47,000 9 2,000 5 42,000 7 20,000 10 17,000 8 44,000 6 36,000 16 4,000 6 22,000 8 3,000 6 31,000 9 133,000 9 12,000 7 2,000 5 33,000 7 26,000 7 9,000 10 16,000 5 1,000 5 2015 kids count data book APPENDIX 2: DATA FOR 16 INDICATORS OF CHILD WELL-BEING EDUCATION INDICATORS Fourth graders not proficient in reading: 2013 Children not attending preschool: 2011–13 State United States Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming 4,428,000 54 73,000 59 13,000 63 120,000 67 44,000 55 547,000 54 70,000 51 30,000 37 12,000 54 3,000 25 226,000 51 146,000 52 18,000 51 33,000 68 158,000 47 108,000 61 43,000 53 46,000 56 67,000 58 64,000 50 16,000 58 79,000 52 62,000 42 127,000 54 78,000 55 44,000 52 88,000 56 15,000 62 29,000 55 53,000 69 13,000 46 84,000 39 35,000 62 203,000 45 148,000 58 12,000 62 160,000 55 63,000 59 58,000 60 157,000 53 37,000 44 12,000 53 71,000 59 16,000 65 101,000 61 475,000 60 64,000 60 6,000 51 110,000 54 110,000 60 27,000 64 83,000 61 9,000 56 Number Percent Number High school students not graduating on time: 2011/12 Eighth graders not proficient in math: 2013 Percent N.A. 66 N.A. 69 N.A. 73 N.A. 72 N.A. 68 N.A. 73 N.A. 59 N.A. 57 N.A. 62 N.A. 77 N.A. 61 N.A. 66 N.A. 70 N.A. 67 N.A. 66 N.A. 62 N.A. 62 N.A. 62 N.A. 64 N.A. 77 N.A. 63 N.A. 55 N.A. 53 N.A. 69 N.A. 59 N.A. 79 N.A. 65 N.A. 65 N.A. 63 N.A. 73 N.A. 55 N.A. 58 N.A. 79 N.A. 63 N.A. 65 N.A. 66 N.A. 63 N.A. 70 N.A. 67 N.A. 60 N.A. N.A. N.A. 62 N.A. 72 N.A. 68 N.A. 66 N.A. 72 N.A. 63 N.A. 58 N.A. 57 N.A. 60 N.A. 73 N.A. 65 N.A. 63 Number Percent N.A. 66 N.A. 80 N.A. 67 N.A. 69 N.A. 72 N.A. 72 N.A. 58 N.A. 63 N.A. 67 N.A. 81 N.A. 69 N.A. 71 N.A. 68 N.A. 64 N.A. 64 N.A. 62 N.A. 64 N.A. 60 N.A. 70 N.A. 79 N.A. 60 N.A. 63 N.A. 45 N.A. 70 N.A. 53 N.A. 79 N.A. 67 N.A. 60 N.A. 64 N.A. 72 N.A. 53 N.A. 51 N.A. 77 N.A. 68 N.A. 64 N.A. 59 N.A. 60 N.A. 75 N.A. 66 N.A. 58 N.A. N.A. N.A. 64 N.A. 69 N.A. 62 N.A. 72 N.A. 62 N.A. 64 N.A. 53 N.A. 62 N.A. 58 N.A. 76 N.A. 60 N.A. 62 Number Percent N.A. 19 N.A. 25 N.A. 21 N.A. 23 N.A. 22 N.A. 18 N.A. 18 N.A. 14 N.A. 23 N.A. 29 N.A. 25 N.A. 30 N.A. 22 N.A. 16 N.A. 18 N.A. 20 N.A. 11 N.A. 11 N.A. 18 N.A. 28 N.A. 13 N.A. 16 N.A. 14 N.A. 23 N.A. 12 N.A. 32 N.A. 14 N.A. 14 N.A. 7 N.A. 40 N.A. 13 N.A. 13 N.A. 26 N.A. 22 N.A. 21 N.A. 9 N.A. 16 N.A. 21 N.A. 22 N.A. 12 N.A. 38 N.A. 24 N.A. 28 N.A. 17 N.A. 17 N.A. 18 N.A. 22 N.A. 7 N.A. 16 N.A. 21 N.A. 20 N.A. 8 N.A. 20 N.A. Not Available. STATE TRENDS IN CHILD WELL-BEING The Annie E. Casey Foundation www.aecf.org 43 APPENDIX 2: DATA FOR 16 INDICATORS OF CHILD WELL-BEING HEALTH INDICATORS Low-birthweight babies: 2013 Number Children without health insurance: 2013 State United States Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming 315,099 8.0 5,805 10.0 658 5.8 5,897 6.9 3,312 8.8 33,753 6.8 5,718 8.8 2,820 7.8 900 8.3 875 9.4 18,346 8.5 12,064 9.5 1,562 8.2 1,545 6.9 12,898 8.2 6,569 7.9 2,561 6.6 2,721 7.0 4,845 8.7 6,901 10.9 911 7.1 6,088 8.5 5,505 7.7 9,331 8.2 4,398 6.4 4,458 11.5 6,033 8.0 913 7.4 1,682 6.4 2,810 8.0 841 6.8 8,469 8.3 2,333 8.9 18,847 8.0 10,432 8.8 679 6.4 11,808 8.5 4,297 8.1 2,841 6.3 11,219 8.0 3,846 10.5 746 6.9 5,496 9.7 766 6.3 7,307 9.1 32,159 8.3 3,567 7.0 401 6.7 8,182 8.0 5,547 6.4 1,955 9.4 4,668 7.0 660 8.6 Percent Number Percent 5,234,000 7 48,000 4 22,000 12 192,000 12 39,000 6 673,000 7 102,000 8 34,000 4 9,000 4 3,000 2 445,000 11 238,000 10 9,000 3 38,000 9 125,000 4 130,000 8 30,000 4 44,000 6 60,000 6 63,000 6 15,000 6 59,000 4 21,000 2 90,000 4 72,000 6 56,000 8 98,000 7 22,000 10 25,000 5 99,000 15 10,000 4 112,000 6 43,000 9 171,000 4 144,000 6 13,000 8 141,000 5 95,000 10 50,000 6 147,000 5 27,000 3 12,000 5 73,000 7 13,000 6 85,000 6 888,000 13 85,000 9 4,000 3 101,000 5 95,000 6 20,000 5 61,000 5 8,000 6 Child and teen deaths per 100,000: 2013 Number Teens who abuse alcohol or drugs: 2012–13 Rate 18,888 24 389 33 75 38 473 28 249 33 1,927 20 339 26 148 17 57 26 28 22 1,061 25 741 28 73 23 109 24 765 24 505 30 171 22 216 28 270 25 432 37 71 25 320 22 243 16 592 25 258 19 281 36 428 29 82 34 129 26 164 24 57 19 373 17 151 28 871 19 624 26 53 30 678 24 368 37 197 22 680 23 225 25 40 17 306 26 77 35 455 29 1,878 25 202 22 37 27 419 21 345 21 140 34 294 21 47 32 Number N.A. Not Available. 44 The Annie E. Casey Foundation www.aecf.org Percent 1,410,000 6 22,000 6 3,000 5 34,000 6 13,000 6 182,000 6 27,000 7 15,000 5 4,000 6 2,000 6 79,000 6 43,000 5 7,000 7 8,000 6 50,000 5 32,000 6 11,000 5 12,000 5 17,000 5 22,000 6 5,000 5 24,000 5 27,000 6 47,000 6 21,000 5 14,000 6 27,000 6 5,000 7 10,000 6 13,000 6 7,000 7 36,000 5 12,000 7 85,000 6 45,000 6 3,000 6 48,000 5 15,000 5 19,000 6 55,000 6 N.A. N.A. 5,000 6 21,000 6 3,000 5 26,000 5 134,000 6 13,000 5 3,000 7 35,000 6 31,000 6 7,000 6 28,000 6 3,000 7 2015 kids count data book APPENDIX 2: DATA FOR 16 INDICATORS OF CHILD WELL-BEING FAMILY AND COMMUNITY INDICATORS Children in families where the household head lacks a high school diploma: 2013 Children in single-parent families: 2013 State United States Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming 24,647,000 35 427,000 41 54,000 30 570,000 37 253,000 38 3,030,000 35 359,000 30 250,000 33 76,000 40 57,000 55 1,517,000 40 933,000 40 86,000 30 107,000 26 976,000 34 520,000 35 211,000 30 207,000 30 337,000 36 479,000 46 84,000 34 467,000 36 433,000 32 767,000 36 356,000 29 326,000 48 455,000 35 70,000 33 131,000 30 235,000 37 79,000 30 602,000 31 210,000 43 1,449,000 36 823,000 38 43,000 28 918,000 37 316,000 36 253,000 31 901,000 35 437,000 56 83,000 41 420,000 42 64,000 33 532,000 38 2,383,000 36 168,000 19 39,000 33 569,000 32 461,000 30 131,000 37 393,000 31 38,000 29 STATE TRENDS IN CHILD WELL-BEING Number Percent Number Percent 10,533,000 14 150,000 13 16,000 9 303,000 19 102,000 14 2,146,000 23 162,000 13 64,000 8 30,000 14 16,000 14 510,000 13 359,000 14 22,000 7 50,000 12 398,000 13 187,000 12 56,000 8 85,000 12 119,000 12 168,000 15 13,000 5 132,000 10 110,000 8 215,000 10 101,000 8 108,000 15 138,000 10 15,000 7 55,000 12 130,000 20 11,000 4 203,000 10 90,000 18 639,000 15 327,000 14 8,000 5 262,000 10 136,000 14 111,000 13 279,000 10 139,000 17 30,000 14 138,000 13 15,000 7 180,000 12 1,520,000 22 74,000 8 6,000 5 179,000 10 202,000 13 43,000 11 115,000 9 8,000 6 The Annie E. Casey Foundation www.aecf.org Children living in high-poverty areas: 2009–13 Number Percent 10,067,000 14 188,000 17 6,000 3 382,000 24 123,000 17 1,485,000 16 103,000 8 71,000 9 8,000 4 35,000 33 564,000 14 418,000 17 18,000 6 21,000 5 371,000 12 198,000 12 31,000 4 64,000 9 165,000 16 210,000 19 11,000 4 52,000 4 123,000 9 393,000 17 76,000 6 198,000 27 139,000 10 17,000 7 37,000 8 91,000 14 6,000 2 172,000 8 125,000 24 772,000 18 324,000 14 11,000 7 388,000 14 131,000 14 62,000 7 313,000 11 731,000 84 31,000 14 161,000 15 21,000 10 235,000 16 1,332,000 19 32,000 4 1,000 1 91,000 5 99,000 6 35,000 9 122,000 9 5,000 3 Teen births per 1,000: 2013 Number Rate 273,105 26 5,392 34 708 30 7,232 33 4,155 44 30,505 24 3,834 23 1,606 13 728 25 637 32 13,962 25 10,322 30 976 25 1,425 26 10,525 25 6,742 30 2,289 22 2,869 30 5,410 39 5,811 39 697 17 3,690 19 2,734 12 7,872 24 2,950 17 4,347 43 5,814 30 855 28 1,552 25 2,604 30 560 13 4,188 15 2,959 43 11,128 18 9,020 28 563 24 10,352 27 5,310 43 2,594 22 8,657 21 5,706 45 659 18 4,763 32 812 29 7,105 35 37,525 41 2,254 21 317 15 5,300 20 4,386 21 2,178 40 3,692 20 540 30 45 About the Index The KIDS COUNT index reflects child health and education outcomes as well as risk and protective factors, such as economic well-being, family structure and community context. The index incorporates a developmental perspective on childhood and includes experiences across life stages, from birth through early adulthood. The indicators are consistently and regularly measured, which allows for legitimate comparisons across states and over time. We urge readers to focus on relatively large differences across states, as small differences may simply reflect small fluctuations, rather than real changes in the well-being of children. Assessing trends by looking at changes over a longer period of time is more reliable. State data for past years are available at the KIDS COUNT Data Center (datacenter.kidscount.org). The KIDS COUNT Data Book utilizes rates and percentages because that is the best way to compare states to one another and to assess changes over time within a state. However, our focus on rates and percentages may mask the magnitude of some of the problems examined in this report. Therefore, data on the actual number of children or events are provided in Appendix 2 and at the KIDS COUNT Data Center. Organizing the index into domains provides a more nuanced assessment of child well-being in each state that can inform policy solutions by helping policymakers and advocates better identify areas of strength and weakness. For example, a state may rank well above average in overall child well-being, while showing the need for improvement in one or more domains. Domain-specific data can strengthen decision-making efforts by providing multiple data We include data for the District of Columbia points relevant to specific policy areas. and some data for Puerto Rico in the appendices of the Data Book, but not in our state rankings. The 16 indicators of child well-being are derived Because they are significantly different from from federal government statistical agencies any state, the comparisons are not instructive. and reflect the best available state and national It is more useful to look at changes for these data for tracking yearly changes. Many of the geographies over time or to compare the indicators are derived from samples, and like District with other large cities. Data for many all sample data, they contain some random error. child well-being indicators for the 50 largest Other measures (such as the child and teen cities (including the District of Columbia) death rate) are based on relatively small numbers are available at the Data Center, which also of events in some states and may exhibit some contains some data for children and families random fluctuation from year to year. in the U.S. Virgin Islands. 46 The Annie E. Casey Foundation www.aecf.org 2015 kids count data book Definitions and Data Sources Domain Rank for each state was obtained in the following manner. First, we converted the state numerical values for the most recent year for each of the four key indicators within each domain into standard scores. We summed those standard scores in each domain to get a total standard score for each state. Finally, we ranked the states on the basis of their total standard score by domain in sequential order from highest/best (1) to lowest/worst (50). Standard scores were derived by subtracting the mean score from the observed score and dividing the amount by the standard deviation for that distribution of scores. All measures were given the same weight in calculating the domain standard score. Overall Rank for each state was obtained in the following manner. First, we converted the state numerical values for the most recent year for each of the 16 key indicators into standard scores. We summed those standard scores within their domains to create a domain standard score for each of the 50 states. We then summed the four domain standard scores to get a total standard score for each state. Finally, we ranked the states on the basis of their total standard score in sequential order from highest/best (1) to lowest/worst (50). Standard scores were derived by subtracting the mean score from the observed score and dividing the amount by the standard deviation for that distribution of scores. All measures were given the same weight in calculating the total standard score. base year. To calculate percent change, we subtracted the rate for the most recent year from the rate for the base year and then divided that quantity by the rate for the base year. The results are multiplied by 100 for readability. The percent change was calculated on rounded data, and the “percent change” figure has been rounded to the nearest whole number. Economic Well-Being Indicators Children in poverty is the percentage of children under age 18 who live in families with incomes below 100 percent of the U.S. poverty threshold, as issued each year by the U.S. Census Bureau. In calendar year 2013, a family of two adults and two children fell in the “poverty” category if their annual income fell below $23,624. Poverty status is not determined for people living in group quarters, such as military barracks, prisons and other institutional quarters, or for unrelated individuals under age 15 (such as foster children). The data are based on income received in the 12 months prior to the survey. SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey. Percent Change Over Time Analysis was computed by comparing the most recent year’s data for 16 key indicators with the data for the Children whose parents lack secure employment is the share of all children under age 18 living in families where no parent has regular, full-time, year-round employment. For children living in single-parent families, this means that the resident parent did not work at least 35 hours per week, at least 50 weeks in the 12 months prior to the survey. For children living in married-couple families, this means that neither parent worked at least 35 hours per week, at least 50 weeks in the 12 months prior to the survey. Children living with neither parent are also listed as not having secure parental employment because those STATE TRENDS IN CHILD WELL-BEING The Annie E. Casey Foundation www.aecf.org 47 Definitions and Data Sources children are likely to be economically vulnerable. The 2013 estimate for this measure should not be compared with estimates prior to 2008 because of substantial changes made to the 2008 American Community Survey questions on labor force participation and number of weeks worked. SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey. Children living in households with a high housing cost burden is the percentage of children under age 18 who live in households where more than 30 percent of monthly household pretax income is spent on housing-related expenses, including rent, mortgage payments, taxes and insurance. SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey. Teens not in school and not working is the percentage of teenagers between ages 16 and 19 who are not enrolled in school (full or part time) and not employed (full or part time). This measure is sometimes referred to as “opportunity” or “disconnected" youth. The 2013 estimate for this measure should not be compared with estimates prior to 2008 because of substantial changes made to the 2008 American Community Survey questions on labor force participation and number of weeks worked. SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey. Fourth graders not proficient in reading is the percentage of fourth-grade public school students who did not reach the proficient level in reading as measured by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Public schools include charter schools and exclude Bureau of Indian Education schools and Department of Defense Education Activity schools. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress. Eighth graders not proficient in math is the percentage of eighth-grade public school students who did not reach the proficient level in math as measured by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Public schools include charter schools and exclude Bureau of Indian Education schools and Department of Defense Education Activity schools. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress. Children not attending preschool is the percentage of children ages 3 and 4 who were not enrolled in nursery school or preschool during the previous two months. Children enrolled in kindergarten are excluded from this analysis. Due to small sample size, the three-year High school students not graduating on time is the estimated percentage of an entering freshman class not graduating in four years. The measure is derived from the Averaged Freshman Graduation Rate (AFGR), which uses aggregate student enrollment data to estimate the size of an incoming freshman class and aggregate counts of the number of regular diplomas awarded four years later. SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD). The Annie E. Casey Foundation www.aecf.org 2015 kids count data book Education Indicators 48 American Community Survey was used to increase accuracy of the estimates. SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey. Health Indicators Low-birthweight babies is the percentage of live births weighing less than 2,500 grams (5.5 pounds). The data reflect the mother’s place of residence, not the place where the birth occurred. SOURCE: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, Vital Statistics. Children without health insurance is the percentage of children under age 18 not covered by any health insurance. The data are based on health insurance coverage at the time of the survey; interviews are conducted throughout the calendar year. SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey. Child and teen deaths is the number of deaths, from all causes, to children between ages 1 and 19 per 100,000 children in this age range. The data are reported by the place of residence, not the place where the death occurred. SOURCES: Death Statistics: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, Vital Statistics. Population Statistics: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates. Family and Community Indicators Children in single-parent families is the percentage of children under age 18 who live with their own unmarried parent, either in a family or subfamily. In this definition, single-parent families may include cohabiting couples. Children living with married stepparents are not considered to be in a single-parent family. SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey. Children in families where the household head lacks a high school diploma is the percentage of children under age 18 living in households where the household head does not have a high school diploma or equivalent. SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey. Children living in high-poverty areas is the percentage of children under age 18 who live in census tracts where the poverty rates of the total population are 30 percent or more. In calendar year 2013, a family of two adults and two children fell in the “poverty” category if their annual income fell below $23,624. The data are based on income received in the 12 months prior to the survey. The census tract level data used in this analysis are only available in the five-year American Community Survey. SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey. Teens who abuse alcohol or drugs is the percentage of teens ages 12 to 17 reporting dependence on or abuse of either illicit drugs or alcohol in the past year. Illicit drugs include marijuana, cocaine, heroin, hallucinogens, inhalants or prescription drugs used nonmedically. These data are based on a two-year average of survey responses. SOURCE: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, National Survey on Drug Use and Health. Teen births is the number of births to teenagers between ages 15 and 19 per 1,000 females in this age group. Data reflect the mother’s place of residence, rather than the place of the birth. SOURCES: Birth Statistics: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, Vital Statistics. Population Statistics: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates. STATE TRENDS IN CHILD WELL-BEING The Annie E. Casey Foundation www.aecf.org 49 Primary Contacts for State KIDS COUNT Projects The Annie E. Casey Foundation provides funding and technical assistance for a national network of KIDS COUNT projects in every state, the District of Columbia, the U.S. Virgin Islands and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. These projects, listed on the following pages, measure and report on the status of children at the state and local levels. They use the data to inform public debates and encourage public action to improve the lives of children. The state KIDS COUNT projects publish a range of data-driven materials — state data books, special reports, issue briefs and fact sheets — that help policymakers and citizens identify the needs of children and families and develop appropriate responses to address these needs. Much of the local-level data collected by the state KIDS COUNT grantees are available at: datacenter.kidscount.org State Grantees For more information about the network of state KIDS COUNT grantees, including mailing addresses, please visit: www.kidscount.org 50 The Annie E. Casey Foundation www.aecf.org 2015 kids count data book Alabama Delaware Indiana Massachusetts VOICES for Alabama’s Children www.alavoices.org 334.213.2410 University of Delaware www.dekidscount.org 302.831.3462 The Indiana Youth Institute www.iyi.org 317.396.2700 Alaska District of Columbia Iowa Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center www.massbudget.org 617.426.1228 KIDS COUNT Alaska http://kidscount.alaska.edu 907.786.5431 DC Action for Children www.dcactionforchildren.org 202.234.9404 Child & Family Policy Center www.cfpciowa.org 515.280.9027 Arizona Florida Kansas Children’s Action Alliance www.azchildren.org 602.266.0707 Florida KIDS COUNT University of South Florida www.floridakidscount.org 813.974.7411 Kansas Action for Children www.kac.org 785.232.0550 Georgia Kentucky Youth Advocates www.kyyouth.org 502.895.8167 Arkansas Arkansas Advocates for Children & Families www.aradvocates.org 501.371.9678 California Children Now www.childrennow.org 510.763.2444 Colorado Colorado Children’s Campaign www.coloradokids.org 303.839.1580 Connecticut Connecticut Association for Human Services www.cahs.org 860.951.2212 STATE TRENDS IN CHILD WELL-BEING Georgia Family Connection Partnership, Inc. www.gafcp.org 404.527.7394 Hawaii University of Hawaii Center on the Family www.uhfamily.hawaii.edu 808.956.3760 Idaho Jannus www.idahokidscount.org 208.388.1014 Illinois Kentucky Louisiana Agenda for Children www.agendaforchildren.org 504.586.8509 Maine Maine Children’s Alliance www.mekids.org 207.623.1868 Maryland Advocates for Children and Youth www.acy.org 410.547.9200 Michigan Michigan League for Public Policy www.mlpp.org 517.487.5436 Minnesota Children’s Defense Fund — Minnesota www.cdf-mn.org 651.227.6121 Mississippi Social Science Research Center http://kidscount.ssrc.msstate.edu 662.325.8079 Missouri Family and Community Trust www.mokidscount.org 573.526.3581 Montana Montana KIDS COUNT University of Montana www.montanakidscount.org 406.243.5113 Voices for Illinois Children www.voices4kids.org 312.456.0600 The Annie E. Casey Foundation www.aecf.org 51 Primary Contacts for State KIDS COUNT Projects Nebraska North Dakota Rhode Island Utah Voices for Children in Nebraska www.voicesforchildren.com 402.597.3100 North Dakota State University www.ndkidscount.org 701.231.5931 Rhode Island KIDS COUNT www.rikidscount.org 401.351.9400 Voices for Utah Children www.utahchildren.org 801.364.1182 Nevada Ohio South Carolina Vermont Center for Business and Economic Research — UNLV http://kidscount.unlv.edu 702.895.3191 Children’s Defense Fund — Ohio www.cdfohio.org 614.221.2244 Children’s Trust of South Carolina www.scchildren.org 803.733.5430 Voices for Vermont’s Children www.voicesforvtkids.org 802.229.6377 New Hampshire Oklahoma South Dakota Virginia New Hampshire Kids Count http://nhkidscount.org 603.225.2264 Oklahoma Institute for Child Advocacy www.oica.org 405.236.5437 South Dakota KIDS COUNT www.usd.edu/sdkidscount 605.677.6432 Voices for Virginia’s Children www.vakids.org 804.649.0184 New Jersey Oregon Tennessee Washington Advocates for Children of New Jersey www.acnj.org 973.643.3876 Children First for Oregon www.cffo.org 503.236.9754 Tennessee Commission on Children and Youth www.tn.gov/tccy 615.741.2633 KIDS COUNT in Washington www.kidscountwa.org 206.324.0340 New Mexico Pennsylvania Texas New Mexico Voices for Children www.nmvoices.org 505.244.9505 Pennsylvania Partnerships for Children www.papartnerships.org 717.236.5680 Center for Public Policy Priorities http://cppp.org/kidscount 512.823.2871 West Virginia KIDS COUNT www.wvkidscount.org 304.345.2101 New York Puerto Rico New York State Council on Children & Families www.ccf.ny.gov 518.473.3652 Institute for Youth Development (Instituto del Desarrollo de la Juventud) http://juventudpr.org/en 787.728.3939 Community Foundation of the Virgin Islands www.cfvi.net 340.774.6031 North Carolina NC Child www.ncchild.org 919.834.6623 52 The Annie E. Casey Foundation www.aecf.org U.S. Virgin Islands West Virginia Wisconsin Wisconsin Council on Children & Families www.wccf.org 608.284.0580 Wyoming Wyoming Community Foundation www.wycf.org 307.721.8300 2015 kids count data book ABOUT THE ANNIE E. CASEY FOUNDATION AND KIDS COUNT The Annie E. Casey Foundation is a private philanthropy that creates a brighter future for the nation’s children by developing solutions to strengthen families, build paths to economic opportunity and transform struggling communities into safer and healthier places to live, work and grow. KIDS COUNT®, a project of the Annie E. Casey Foundation, is a national and state-by-state effort to track the status of children in the United States. By providing policymakers and citizens with benchmarks of child well-being, KIDS COUNT seeks to enrich local, state and national discussions concerning ways to secure better futures for all children. At the national level, the initiative develops and distributes reports on key areas of well-being, including the annual KIDS COUNT Data Book. The initiative also maintains the KIDS COUNT Data Center (datacenter.kidscount.org), which uses the best available data to measure the educational, social, economic and physical wellbeing of children. Additionally, the Foundation funds a nationwide network of state-level KIDS COUNT projects that provide a more detailed, communityby-community picture of the condition of children. © 2015 The Annie E. Casey Foundation 701 St. Paul Street Baltimore, MD 21202 www.aecf.org KIDS COUNT ® is a registered trademark of the Annie E. Casey Foundation. Permission to copy, disseminate or otherwise use information from this Data Book is granted as long as appropriate acknowledgment is given. Printed and bound in the United States of America on recycled paper using soy-based inks. ISSN 1060-9814 Designed by KINETIK www.kinetikcom.com Photography © Jason Miczek and Cynthia Sambro-Rier Data compiled by Population Reference Bureau www.prb.org