KIDS
COUNT

2015

DATA BOOKSTATE TRENDS IN CHILD WELL-BEING

KIDS
COUNT

2015

DATA BOOKSTATE 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 developmentof the KIDS COUNT index andin the collection and organization ofdata presented in this book. We areespecially grateful to Jean D’Amicoand Kelvin Pollard.
Special thanks are also due thestaff at KINETIK, for design and production services; the staff at Fenton, forhelping to promote the Data Book; andThe 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 thestate KIDS COUNT projects (see page 50),for making the Data Book available tonational, state and local leaders across thecountry. Permission to copy, disseminate
or otherwise use information from thisData Book is granted as long as appropriate
acknowledgment is given.

Outreach Partners

The Annie E. Casey Foundation wishes
to thank our outreach partners for theirsupport and assistance in promoting anddisseminating 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 outcomesfor America’s most vulnerable children.

CONTENTS
4FOREWORD

11

TRENDS

16

Overall Child Well-Being

18

Economic Well-Being

22

Education

26

Health30

Family and Community

34

CONCLUSION38KIDS COUNT DATA CENTER

40

APPENDICES

46

About the Index

47

Definitions andData Sources

50

Primary Contacts forState KIDS COUNT Projects

53

About the Annie E. Casey
Foundation and KIDS COUNTFOREWORD

2015 KIDS COUNT DATA BOOK

After numerous years of depressing economic news, many
positive trends signal that the economy is finally recoveringfrom 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 fromresearch 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 areat high risk of encountering difficulties later in life — having
poor adolescent health, becoming teen mothers, droppingout 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 successof our nation that we collectively work
toward solutions — at all levels ofgovernment, 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 yearof job growth in the United States since1999.1 For 12 consecutive months, fromMarch 2014 through February 2015, theeconomy 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 halfof 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 andAsian 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 nearlyback 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 theywanted full-time work.7 And, rates of longterm unemployment remain high: Nearly

30 percent of unemployed workers havebeen jobless for more than six months.8
These negative economic trends directly
affect children. In 2013, nearly a third ofchildren (31 percent) were living in families
where no parent had full-time, year-roundemployment. The child poverty rate hasremained stubbornly high. At 22 percent in2013, it was still several percentage points
higher than before the recession. When thedata for 2014 are available, we assume thatthey 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 measureof even a minimally decent standard of living. For 2015, the Department of Health andHuman 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 atleast twice the federal poverty level to coverbasic expenses for housing, food, transportation, health care and child care.10
One of the most troubling trends forchild well-being is that the percentage ofchildren living in concentrated poverty
continues to increase. In 2000, 9 percent
of children lived in census tracts where thepoverty 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 isdedicated to improving the futures ofchildren whose socioeconomic and familial
circumstances put them at risk, and theserecent trends concern us greatly. As we
describe below, the evidence is clear:
Low family income, low levels of parental
education and inadequate housing in ahigh-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 in2013, 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 withinadequate nutrition and chronic healthconditions 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 tohealth and developmental problems and isa leading cause of infant mortality.13
Young children raised in low-income
households may get insufficient food andnutrients, 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 andother health hazards.
Juggling work, child care and transportation is challenging for all parents.
The added stress of struggling to pay thebills puts low-income parents at higher
risk of depression, substance abuse anddomestic violence than higher-income
parents. Furthermore, all of these factors

can negatively impact parenting and, inturn, 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, suchas high-quality preschool, books and a richlanguage environment at home.
Research also indicates that boosting
low family income, especially early in achild’s life, can have lasting positive effects
on cognitive development, health, academic
achievement and even adult work hours andearnings.14 Neuroscience provides evidenceof why the earliest years are so critical: Early
brain development plays a key role in establishing the neural functions and structuresthat shape future cognitive, social, emotional and health outcomes.15 One study
found that for families with annual incomes
below $25,000, providing them with anadditional $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 womenare more likely to use contraceptives andSTATE TRENDS IN CHILD WELL-BEING

The Annie E. Casey Foundation | www.aecf.org

7

It is encouraging thatthe rate of children livingwith 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 withmore education are more likely to engage
in healthy behaviors and lifestyles forthemselves and their children.18
It is encouraging that the rate of children living with a parent who lacks a highschool diploma decreased from 16 percent
to 14 percent in the years since the recession. While that’s good news, the majorityof 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 andare enrolling in community colleges inlarger numbers than ever before. But theescalation of college costs combined withlimited amounts of need-based aid often
lead students to enroll part time, insteadof 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 Approachto 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 groundedin common sense: The best way to facilitate
optimal outcomes for today’s children is toaddress 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 andachieve financial stability.
 Ensure access to high-quality earlychildhood education and enrichingelementary school experiences.
 Equip parents to better support theirchildren socially and emotionally and toadvocate 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. manufacturingjobs moved offshore and were replaced bylower-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 thelowest-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 associatedegree, there simply would not be enoughwell-paying jobs to go around. State andfederal programs that boost income, including the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC)
and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program (SNAP), help individual families agreat deal. But ultimately, we cannot sustaina healthy national economy without morejobs that pay higher wages.
Compounding this issue, low-wagehourly jobs are increasingly subject to unpredictable and irregular schedules, whichmakes it difficult for parents to arrange childcare and transportation; erratic schedules
also lead to volatile incomes.22 Exacerbatingthese challenges is the fact that the majorityof workers in low-wage jobs lack paid time
off when they are sick, have a sick child, givebirth, have an extended illness or need tocare for a family member who is elderly or
has a chronic illness. The United States isalone among economically advanced nations
in lacking such provisions.
The challenge is as clear as it is urgent.
We must renew our commitment to oneof 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 proliferationof 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 offactors that impact children, from family income andthe 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 beeconomically 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) livingin 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 SCHOOLChildren 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 faceconsiderable 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 ofparental income and opportunities for advancement is criticalto moving children out of poverty.
But having a job, even one that pays enough to support afamily, is only part of the solution. Working parents need accessto paid time off to adequately care for themselves and theirchildren. Access to affordable, high-quality, flexible child careis critical for all working parents with young children, but theneed 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 numberof 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 bypaying higher wages, providing benefits
and giving workers greater control overtheir schedules and more autonomy andtraining than offered by their competitors.
Combined with smart operational choices,
these businesses and others have managed tocreate 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 havepassed paid sick leave laws to ensure thateven low-wage workers have a minimum
number of paid days to use when they aresick or have a sick child; three states havepassed paid family leave legislation.28 Overtime, states have been gradually modernizing the eligibility provisions of their
Unemployment Insurance (UI) programs
to expand access to those who weretraditionally excluded, such as part-timeand 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-termjoblessness 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 inthe lives of workers and their children byboosting family income, reducing parental
stress and increasing parents’ capacity toinvest in their kids. Creating more goodjobs is key to widening the pathways outof 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TRENDSSTATE TRENDS IN CHILD WELL-BEING

The Annie E. Casey Foundation | www.aecf.org

11

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 andtrend data for all 16
indicators are availableat www.aecf.org/2015db.
National and state data
are also available inAppendix 2, on page 42.

12Four domains comprise the KIDSCOUNT 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. (Fora more thorough description of the KIDSCOUNT index, visit www.aecf.org/2015db.)
This year’s Data Book presents bothcurrent 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 theeconomic 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 andCommunity domains.
Two of the four Economic Well-Being
indicators got worse, showing that families
with children have not fully recoveredfrom 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, thechild poverty rate finally declined slightly
in 2013, to 22 percent.
It’s important to note that in 2013, theyear of our most recent data, the national
unemployment rate was 7.4 percent, but has
since dropped to 5.4 percent.30 Given theselatest 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 tohigh 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 inhouseholds with a highhousing cost burden

Teens not in schooland 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 TEENSWORSENEDWORSENED

IMPROVEDUNCHANGED2008

EDUCATIONHEALTH

27%

2008

39%

2008

8%

2008

Children notattending preschool

Fourth graders notproficient in reading

Eighth graders notproficient in mathHigh 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

IMPROVEDIMPROVEDIMPROVED

2007–09 53%

2007

68%

69%

2007

2007/08 25%

Low-birthweight babies

Children without
health insuranceChild 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 TEENSIMPROVEDIMPROVEDIMPROVEDIMPROVED2008

FAMILY AND
COMMUNITY

18%

8.2%

2008

10%

2008

29

2007–088%

Children insingle-parent families

Children in families where
the household head lacks
a high school diplomaChildren 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 BIRTHSWORSENED

IMPROVEDWORSENED

IMPROVED

2006–10 11%

2008

2008

32%

2008

16%

40

N.A. NOT AVAILABLESTATE 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 in2011/12, the U.S. highschool graduation rate
is at an all-time high.

steady improvement during the past five
years. Notably, with 81 percent of highschool students graduating on time in2011/12, the U.S. high school graduation
rate is at an all-time high. Although morechildren 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 anda decline in employer-sponsored healthinsurance coverage during the past several years, fewer children lacked access tohealth insurance coverage in 2013 than
before the recession.
Trends in the Family and Community
domain were mixed. The teen birthrate continued its dramatic decline, reaching a new all-time low. And, a smaller
percentage of children were living withparents 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 steadyincrease in the likelihood of children
growing up in a high-poverty neighborhood. At the national level, 14 percent ofchildren 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 childwell-being during the past five years
demonstrated important progress in someareas, 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 andincome 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 thenational average. There are a few notable
exceptions. African-American children
were more likely to have health insurance
coverage, to attend preschool and to livein families where the household head has
a high school diploma than the national
average. American Indian families withchildren were less likely to have a highhousing 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 averagechild 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 ofcolor. This KIDS COUNT Policy Reportfeatures the new Race for Results Index,
which compares how children are progressing on key milestones across racialand ethnic groups at the national andstate levels. For more information, accessthe 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
ECONOMIC WELL-BEING

National
AverageAfricanAmericanAmericanIndianAsian and
Pacific Islander

Hispanic

Non-HispanicWhite

Two orMore Races

Children in poverty

2013

22%

39%

37%

14%

33%

14%

23%

Children whose parents lacksecure employment

2013

31%

48%

50%

23%

37%

24%

36%

Children living in households witha 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
AverageAfricanAmericanAmericanIndianAsian and
Pacific Islander

Hispanic

Non-HispanicWhite

Two orMore RacesEDUCATION

Children not attending preschool

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%*

High school students notgraduating on time

2011/12

19%

32%*

32%*

7%*

24%

15%

N.A.

National
AverageAfricanAmericanAmericanIndianAsian and
Pacific Islander

Hispanic

Non-HispanicWhite

Two orMore Races

HEALTH

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%*

National
AverageAfricanAmericanAmericanIndianAsian and
Pacific Islander

Hispanic

Non-HispanicWhite

Two orMore Races^

FAMILY AND COMMUNITY

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. +Data results do not include Native Hawaiians/Pacific Islanders. N.A. Data not available.
STATE TRENDS IN CHILD WELL-BEING

The Annie E. Casey Foundation | www.aecf.org

15

OVERALL CHILD WELL-BEING

16

National data mask a great deal of stateby-state and regional variations in childwell-being. A state-level examinationof the data reveals a hard truth: A child’s
chances of thriving depend not juston individual, familial and community
characteristics, but also on the statein which she or he is born and raised.
States vary considerably in their amountof wealth and other resources. State
policy choices also strongly influencechildren’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 statesfor 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 wereLouisiana, New Mexico and Mississippi.
The map on page 17 shows the distinct
regional patterns that emerged from thestate rankings. All of the northeasternstates were in the top 10 in terms ofoverall child well-being, apart from
Maine, Pennsylvania, New York andRhode 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, whichwere in the top 10.
States in the Southeast, Southwest
and Appalachia — where the poorest states
are located — populated the bottom of theoverall rankings. In fact, with the exceptionof California, the 15 lowest-ranked states
were located in these regions. States in
the Southwest occupied three of the fivelowest rankings for child well-being.
Although they are not ranked against
states, children in the District of Columbia
and Puerto Rico experienced some of theworst outcomes on many of the indicators
we track. When available, the data for theDistrict of Columbia and Puerto Rico areincluded in Appendix 2.
As will be explored in the sections
that follow, the overall rankings obscuresome important variations within states.
Although most states’ rankings did not vary
dramatically across domains, there werea 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 wasamong the worst 10 states for Health. For allstates, the index identifies bright spots androom 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 childwell-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 Minnesota
2 New Hampshire
3 Massachusetts
4 Iowa
5 Vermont
6 Connecticut
7 North Dakota
8 New Jersey
9 Utah10 Nebraska
11 Maryland
12 Maine
13 Wisconsin
14 Virginia
15 Kansas
16 Wyoming
17 Pennsylvania
18 South Dakota
19 Washington
20 Illinois
21 Colorado
22 Idaho
23 Ohio
24 Hawaii
25 Delaware
26 Missouri
27 Alaska
28 New York29 Oregon
30 Montana
31 Rhode Island
32 Indiana
33 Michigan
34 Kentucky
35 North Carolina
36 Tennessee
37 Florida
38 California
39 Oklahoma
40 Georgia
41 Texas
42 South Carolina
43 West Virginia
44 Arkansas
45 Alabama
46 Arizona
47 Nevada48 Louisiana
49 New Mexico
50 Mississippi

17

ECONOMIC WELL-BEING

18

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, cancompromise parenting.32 The negative effects of poverty on children also
increase the chances of poor outcomes for youth and young adults, suchas 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 North Dakota
2 Wyoming
3 Nebraska
4 Iowa5 Minnesota
6 South Dakota
7 New Hampshire
8 Utah9 Kansas
10 Wisconsin
11 Vermont
12 Maryland
13 Colorado
14 Virginia
15 Connecticut
16 Idaho
17 Massachusetts
18 Maine
19 Pennsylvania
20 Montana
21 Delaware
22 Alaska
23 Indiana
24 Missouri
25 Ohio
26 New Jersey
27 Washington
28 Illinois
29 Hawaii
30 Oklahoma
31 Texas
32 Kentucky
33 Michigan
34 North Carolina
35 Oregon
36 Rhode Island
37 New York38 Tennessee
39 South Carolina
40 West Virginia
41 Alabama
42 Arizona
43 Georgia
44 Arkansas
45 Florida
46 Nevada
47 Louisiana
48 New Mexico
49 California
50 Mississippi

19

PERCENTAGE OF CHILDREN IN POVERTYBY RACE AND HISPANIC ORIGIN: 201322%

National Average

39 %
37%

African American
American Indian
Asian and PacificIslander14 %Hispanic
Non-Hispanic White
Two or More Races

14

33 %

%

23 %

SOURCE U.S. Census Bureau, 2013 American Community Survey.

ECONOMIC WELL-BEING

ECONOMIC WELL-BEING

Children in poverty

Children whose parents
lack secure employment

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 UnitedStates increased dramatically as a resultof the economic crisis. The official poverty
line in 2013 was $23,624 for a family of
two adults and two children. Poverty andfinancial 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 areyoung and among those who experience
persistent and deep poverty.34

Without at least one parent employed fulltime, children are more likely to fall intopoverty. Yet, too many parents lack theeducation and skills needed to secure a goodfull-time job and are forced to piece together
part-time or temporary work that does notprovide sufficient or stable income. The
recession exacerbated both unemployment
and underemployment. Even a full-time job ata low wage does not necessarily lift a family
out of poverty. Without access to benefits
and tax credits, a single parent with twochildren 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 HIGHLIGHTSDATA 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, thechild poverty rate dropped between 2012
and 2013 for the first time since the startof the recession.

 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.

 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 thandouble the rate for non-Hispanic whites(14 percent) in 2013.

20

The Annie E. Casey Foundation | www.aecf.org

 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 Indianchildren (50 percent) and African-American
children (48 percent) had no parent
with full-time, year-round employment in2013, compared with 37 percent of Latino
children, 24 percent of non-Hispanic
white children and 23 percent of Asianand Pacific Islander children.

2015 kids count data book

ECONOMIC WELL-BEING

ECONOMIC WELL-BEING

Children living inhouseholds with a highhousing cost burden

Teens not in schooland not working

Family income is only one component offinancial security; the cost of basic expenses
also matters. Housing is typically one of
the largest expenses that families face.
This measure identifies the proportion ofchildren living in households that spend
more than 30 percent of their pretax income
on housing, whether they are renters or
homeowners. Low-income families, inparticular, are unlikely to be able to meetall of their basic needs if housing consumes
one-third or more of their income.

Teens who leave school and do not become
part of the workforce are at high risk ofexperiencing negative outcomes as theytransition to adulthood. The percentageof 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 engagedin school or the workforce. While those
who have dropped out of school are
clearly vulnerable, many young people
who have finished school but are notworking are also at a disadvantage interms of achieving economic successin adulthood.

DATA HIGHLIGHTSDATA HIGHLIGHTS

 Across the nation, 36 percent ofchildren (26.3 million) lived in householdswith a high housing cost burden in 2013,
compared with 39 percent in 2008(29.2 million). The rate of families withdisproportionately high housing costs has
increased dramatically since 1990. It peakedin 2010, at the height of the recent housingcrisis, when 41 percent of children lived infamilies with a high housing cost burden.
The rate has steadily declined since then.

 Nationally, 8 percent of youth weredisconnected from both work and schoolin 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 notin school and not working than in 1990.35

 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 highhousing cost burden in 2013, compared with
27 percent of non-Hispanic white children.

STATE TRENDS IN CHILD WELL-BEINGPERCENTAGE OF CHILDREN LIVINGIN 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 in2013. In contrast, Mississippi and Louisiana
had the highest rate, at 12 percent.
 American Indian, African-Americanand Latino teens had considerably higher
rates of neither being in school nor working
than their non-Hispanic white and Asianand Pacific Islander counterparts.

The Annie E. Casey Foundation | www.aecf.org

21

EDUCATION

22

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 andcontinues into the early elementary school years. With a strong
and healthy beginning, children can more easily stay on track toremain in school and graduate, pursue postsecondary educationand training and successfully transition to adulthood. Yet theUnited 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 Massachusetts
2 New Jersey
3 New Hampshire
4 Vermont
5 Connecticut
6 Minnesota
7 Pennsylvania
8 Maryland
9 Colorado
10 Virginia
11 Nebraska
12 Kansas
13 Iowa
14 Ohio
15 Wisconsin
16 Maine
17 Illinois
18 North Dakota
19 New York
20 Washington
21 Wyoming
22 Montana
23 Missouri
24 Rhode Island
25 Indiana
26 Delaware
27 Florida
28 North Carolina
29 Utah
30 Kentucky
31 Hawaii
32 South Dakota
33 Texas
34 Idaho
35 Oregon
36 Tennessee
37 Michigan
38 California
39 Arkansas
40 Georgia
41 Alaska
42 Oklahoma
43 South Carolina
44 Arizona
45 Alabama
46 West Virginia
47 Louisiana
48 Mississippi
49 New Mexico
50 Nevada

23

PERCENTAGE OF 4TH GRADERS WHO SCORED
BELOW PROFICIENT READING LEVELNational 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

EDUCATIONEDUCATION

Children notattending preschool

Fourth graders notproficient in reading

High-quality prekindergarten programs for3- and 4-year-olds play an important rolein preparing children for success and leadto 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 becomesa critical component in their ability to keepup 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 inreading proficiency have occurred since theearly 1990s, progress has been slow andgaps remain. Since 1998, the percentage
point gap between low-income fourth graders
and their higher-income peers has actuallygrown from 26 to 31 percentage points.39

DATA HIGHLIGHTSDATA HIGHLIGHTS During 2011–13, 4.4 million 3- and4-year-olds were not attending preschool,
representing more than half (54 percent)of all children in that age group. The rate ofattendance has remained steady since 2007–
09, when 53 percent of 3- and 4-year-olds
did not participate in any pre-K programs.

 An alarming 66 percent of fourth gradersin public school were reading below the
proficient level in 2013, a slight improvementfrom 2007, when the figure was 68 percent.

 In 2011–13, Connecticut and New Jersey,
at 37 and 39 percent, respectively, had thelowest percentages of 3- and 4-year-olds
not attending preschool. The states withthe highest percentages of children notattending preschool in 2011–13 were Nevada(69 percent) and Idaho (68 percent).
 More than half of African-American andnon-Hispanic white 3- and 4-year-olds were
not in any pre-K programs; the percentage
was nearly the same for Asian and PacificIslander children (48 percent). The rates
were noticeably higher for Latinos (63percent) and American Indians (59 percent).

The Annie E. Casey Foundation | www.aecf.org

 State differences in fourth-grade
reading levels among public school students
were wide. In 2013, Massachusetts had thelowest 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 and78 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 PacificIslanders. Although these figures are
deeply troubling, fourth-grade reading levels
have improved since 2007 for all groups.

2015 kids count data book

EDUCATIONEDUCATION

Eighth graders notproficient in mathHigh school students
not graduating on time

Competence in mathematics is essential
for success in the workplace, which
increasingly requires higher-level technicalskills. Students who take advanced mathand science courses are more likely tograduate from high school, attend andcomplete 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 accessto high-quality mathematics education is
critical for their success in both school andlife. Since 1996, the gap in math proficiency
between low-income eighth graders andtheir higher-income peers has grown from21 to 29 percentage points.41

Students who graduate from high schoolon time are more likely to continue topostsecondary education and training;they are more employable and havehigher incomes than students who fail tograduate.42 In 2013, median annual earnings
for someone without a high school diploma($20,100) were 74 percent of those of a highschool graduate ($27,400) and 40 percentof the median earnings of someone with abachelor’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 HIGHLIGHTSDATA HIGHLIGHTS Nationwide, two-thirds (66 percent)of public school eighth graders were notproficient in math in 2013, compared with
69 percent in 2007.

 Nationally, one in five (19 percent) highschool 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.

 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 whichmore than 50 percent of eighth graders
were proficient in math.
 In 2013, 56 percent of non-Hispanic whiteeighth graders were below the proficientlevel, compared with 79 percent of Latinos
and American Indians and 86 percent ofAfrican Americans. But eighth-grade mathachievement improved for all racial andethnic groups from 2007 to 2013, including a
6 percentage point improvement for Latinos.

 Among the states, the percentage
of high school students not graduatingfrom high school in four years ranged froma 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 fromhigh school on time. The rate for African
Americans and American Indians wasmore than twice as high.

PERCENTAGE OF 8TH GRADERS WHO SCORED
BELOW PROFICIENT MATH LEVELNational 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

HEALTH

26

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

HealthDomain Rank: 2015
1 Iowa2 Minnesota
3 Massachusetts
4 Connecticut
5 Illinois
6 New Jersey
7 Utah8 Washington
9 New York
10 Maine
11 Maryland
12 Rhode Island
13 Kansas
14 California
15 Wisconsin
16 New Hampshire
17 Virginia
18 Ohio
19 Oregon
20 South Dakota
21 Pennsylvania
22 Vermont
23 Michigan
24 Kentucky
25 Delaware
26 Nebraska
27 Idaho
28 Hawaii
29 North Dakota
30 Tennessee
31 Alaska
32 North Carolina
33 Missouri
34 Arkansas
35 Indiana
36 South Carolina
37 Georgia
38 Florida
39 Oklahoma
40 Alabama
41 West Virginia
42 Arizona
43 Texas
44 Colorado
45 Wyoming
46 Nevada
47 Montana
48 New Mexico
49 Louisiana
50 Mississippi

27

CHILDREN WITHOUT HEALTH INSURANCE: 2013
Massachusetts
2%

NevadaHEALTHHEALTH

Low-birthweight babies

Children without
health insurance

Babies born with a low birthweight (lessthan 5.5 pounds) have a high probabilityof experiencing developmental problems
and short- and long-term disabilities andare at greater risk of dying within the firstyear of life. Although increases in multiple
births during the past two decades havecontributed to the rise in rates of lowbirthweight babies, many factors can leadto a low birthweight among single births.
Smoking, poor nutrition, poverty, stress,
infections and violence can increase the riskof a baby being born with a low birthweight.45

Children without health insurance coverage
are less likely than insured children tohave a regular health care provider andto 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 whena child experiences a serious or chronic
illness. Although the provision of employersponsored health insurance is declining, andmost low-wage and part-time workers lack
employer coverage, public health insurance
has resulted in increased coverage amongchildren during the past decade.

DATA HIGHLIGHTSDATA HIGHLIGHTS Nationally, low-birthweight babies
represented 8.0 percent of all live births
in 2013. After gradually increasing overtime, the percentage of low-birthweightbabies has remained relatively stable forthe past several years and is now slightly
below the four-decade high of 8.3 percent
reached in 2006.46

 Across the nation, 7 percent of children(5.2 million) lacked health insurance
in 2013. That is a 30 percent improvementfrom 2008, when 10 percent of children
were uninsured.

15%
Worst stateStates at or below 5%Best state
SOURCE U.S. Census Bureau, 2013 American Community Survey.

 Alaska had the lowest percentage of
low-birthweight babies in 2013 — 5.8 percent
of live births — while Mississippi had thehighest, 11.5 percent.
 Among racial and ethnic groups, AfricanAmerican babies were most likely to be bornwith 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-birthweightrate for Latinos (7.1 percent) and nonHispanic whites (7.0 percent).

28

The Annie E. Casey Foundation | www.aecf.org

 In 19 states, the District of Columbia
and Puerto Rico, the percentage of children
without health coverage was 5 percent orless 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 Asianand Pacific Islander (7 percent), AfricanAmerican (6 percent) and non-Hispanic
white (5 percent) peers.

2015 kids count data bookHEALTHHEALTHChild 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 levelof adult supervision. Accidents, primarily
those involving motor vehicles, were theleading cause of death for children andyouth, accounting for 30 percent of alldeaths 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 associatedwith 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 adolescentscan cause both short- and long-term
physical and mental health problems
and exacerbate existing conditions. Teen
substance abuse is also associated withpoor 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 havedeclined during the past decade, althoughpatterns vary by substance.

DATA HIGHLIGHTSDATA HIGHLIGHTS In 2013, 18,888 children and youth ages
1 to 19 died in the United States, whichtranslates 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.

 In 2012–13, 6 percent of teens ages
12 to 17 had abused or were dependenton alcohol or drugs during the past year,
declining from 8 percent in 2007–08.

 Massachusetts had the lowest rate,
16 deaths per 100,000 children and youth
in 2013. Alaska fell at the other end of thespectrum, with a child and teen death rateof 38 per 100,000.

CHILD AND TEEN DEATH RATE: 1990–2013
1990

46
2013

24

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

SOURCE Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Centerfor Health Statistics, 1990–2013 Vital Statistics.

 There is little variability in the substanceabuse rates across states. Rates range
from a low of 5 percent in 16 states toa high of 7 percent in seven states.
 Among racial and ethnic groups, Asian
teens were the least likely (2 percent) toabuse or be dependent on alcohol or drugs.

 The 2013 mortality rates for AfricanAmerican and American Indian children andteens (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

FAMILY AND COMMUNITY

30

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 stressand depression, which can interfere with effective parenting. Thesefindings underscore the importance of two-generation strategies thatstrengthen families by mitigating their underlying economic distressand addressing the well-being of both parents and children. Wherefamilies 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 New Hampshire
2 Utah
3 Vermont
4 Minnesota
5 Maine6 North Dakota
7 Wyoming
8 Massachusetts
9 Iowa10 Connecticut
11 Hawaii
12 New Jersey
13 Idaho
14 Virginia
15 Wisconsin
16 Alaska
17 Maryland
18 Washington
19 Montana
20 Nebraska
21 Oregon
22 Colorado
23 South Dakota
24 Kansas
25 Pennsylvania
26 Missouri
27 Illinois
28 Delaware
29 Michigan
30 Ohio
31 Indiana
32 New York33 Rhode Island
34 Florida
35 West Virginia
36 North Carolina
37 Tennessee
38 Kentucky
39 South Carolina
40 Georgia
41 Oklahoma
42 California
43 Nevada
44 Alabama
45 Arkansas
46 Arizona
47 Texas
48 Louisiana
49 New Mexico
50 Mississippi

31

SUPPLEMENTAL CHILD POVERTY RATEBY FAMILY STRUCTURE: 2013
60%

34 %

40%

20%

0%

SingleFAMILY AND COMMUNITY

Children in single-parent
families

Children in families where
the household head lacks
a high school diplomaChildren 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 ofmarried couples with children.49 Comparedwith children in married-couple families,
children raised in female-headed households
are more likely to drop out of school, to haveor cause a teen pregnancy and to experiencea divorce in adulthood.50

Higher levels of parental education arestrongly associated with better outcomes forchildren. Children whose parents have notgraduated from high school are at greaterrisk of being born with a low birthweightand having health problems, and they are
more likely to smoke and binge drink when
they are older. Their school readiness andeducational 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 HIGHLIGHTSDATA HIGHLIGHTS

 The percentage of children living insingle-parent families rose from 32 percent
in 2008 to 35 percent in 2013, representing
an increase of nearly 2 million children.

 In 2013, 14 percent of children lived inhouseholds headed by an adult without ahigh school diploma. While the indicator
improved only slightly since 2008, there
has been substantial improvement since
1990, when 22 percent of children lived withparents who lacked a high school diploma.52

26 %

11%
MarriedFAMILY AND COMMUNITY

Cohabiting

SOURCE Population Reference Bureau's analysis of Supplemental
Poverty Measure data from IPUMS-CPS, University of Minnesota,
www.ipums.org.

 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 ofchildren 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 (52percent) 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 Islanderchildren lived in single-parent households.

32

The Annie E. Casey Foundation | www.aecf.org

 In New Hampshire, only 4 percent ofchildren lived in families not headed by ahigh 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 COMMUNITYFAMILY AND COMMUNITY

Children living in
high-poverty areas

Teen births

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 crimeand violence, unemployment and otherproblems. 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.

Teenage childbearing can have long-term
negative effects for both the mother andnewborn. 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 andeconomic resources, which function as
barriers to future success.55 Although theteen birth rate is now at a historic low, theteen 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 HIGHLIGHTSDATA HIGHLIGHTS During the period from 2009 through2013, 14 percent of children lived inhigh-poverty areas nationwide, a totalof 10.1 million children. Between 1990 and
2000, the likelihood that a child wouldgrow 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. Thattranslates into a birth rate of 26 births per
1,000 teens, which is less than half therate 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 thehighest across major racial and ethnic
groups. Although it remained high, the2013 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 Indianand Latino children were much more likely
to live in high-poverty areas than werechildren from other racial and ethnic groups.
Their rates were 32 percent, 30 percent and24 percent, respectively.

STATE TRENDS IN CHILD WELL-BEING

The Annie E. Casey Foundation | www.aecf.org

33

CONCLUSION

CONCLUSION

This year’s KIDS COUNT Data Book provides some hopefulsigns. The latest data show continued incremental improvementin 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 inchildren growing up in high-poverty neighborhoods is troubling. The gulf continues
to widen between children growing up instrong, economically secure families thatare embedded in thriving communities andchildren who are not. And, while AfricanAmerican and Latino children continue tofall disproportionately into the latter group,
large numbers of children of all racial andethnic groups are facing economic conditions that can impede long-term success.
The recession dealt a heavy blow tofamily economic security, creating risks forchildren. The job market has been slow torecover, particularly for the least-educatedworkers, and new employment opportunities have been disproportionately focusedon 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 manyothers from falling into poverty — the weaklabor market for workers without a college
degree remains one of the primary obstacles
to further reducing economic hardshipamong 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-educatedworkforce, then we must act. With the rightinvestments, we can provide all families andchildren with the opportunity to reach theirfull 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 fromwww.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 andwages 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, fromhttp://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 ofearly 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 toneighborhoods: The science of earlychildhood 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 fromwww.demos.org/sites/default/files/
publications/WorkLessStudyMore_
Demos.pdf
20. The Annie E. Casey Foundation.
(2014). Creating opportunity forfamilies: 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, byincome group, 1947–2013 (The Stateof 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’sanalysis of data from the U.S.
Census Bureau, 2013 American
Community Survey.

25. The Annie E. Casey Foundation.
(2014). Creating opportunity forfamilies: 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 affectthe number and composition of eligible
workers? Washington, DC: The
Urban Institute. Retrieved fromwww.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 thecivilian noninstitutional population,
1944 to date (Table). Retrieved fromhttp://stats.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat01.
pdf. And, U.S. Department ofLabor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
(2015, May). Databases, tables andcalculators 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 apath 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 mattersfor 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, adolescentand family development: A handbookof 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’sanalysis 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? Risinginequality, 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 ofyoung children: State-level initiatives.
New York, NY: National Centerfor 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 onChildren 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 Assessmentof 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’sanalysis 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’sanalysis 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 fromwww.childtrends.org/?indicators=
mathematics-proficiency

48. Population Reference Bureau’sanalysis 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 Assessmentof Educational Progress (NAEP)
Mathematics Assessment.
Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/
nationsreportcard/mathematics

49. Population Reference Bureau’sanalysis 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 costof high school dropouts: What thenation pays for inadequate highschools. 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 andwealthier: 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 changeon 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: Indicatorson children and youth. Bethesda,
MD: Author. Retrieved May 2015
from www.childtrends.org/?
indicators=parental+education

54. Population Reference Bureau’sanalysis of data from the following
sources: U.S. Census Bureau,
1990 and 2000 Census ofPopulation and Housing, Summary
Files; 2006–10 through 2008–12
American Community Surveys,
5-Year Estimates.
55. Child Trends Databank.
(2013, July). Teen births: Indicatorson 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’sanalysis of teen birth rate data fromthe Centers for Disease Control andPrevention, 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’sanalyses of data from the following
sources: U.S. Census Bureau,
1990 Census of Population andHousing, 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 childwell-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 yourmobile 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 toencourage policies and support smart
decisions for children and families.

2
1
3Enter any location,
topic or keyword into
the powerful searchengine to find thestatistics 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 ofyour state's children compareswith 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

APPENDICESAPPENDIX 1

Child Well-Being Rankings

Overall Rank

Economic
Well-Being
Rank

Education
Rank

Health Rank

Family andCommunity
Rank

State

Alabama
AlaskaArizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
DelawareDistrict of Columbia
FloridaGeorgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
KansasKentuckyLouisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
MichiganMinnesota
Mississippi
MissouriMontana
Nebraska
NevadaNew Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
OregonPennsylvania
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 INDICATORSChildren in poverty: 2013
State

United States
Alabama
AlaskaArizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
DelawareDistrict of Columbia
FloridaGeorgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
KansasKentuckyLouisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
MichiganMinnesota
Mississippi
MissouriMontana
Nebraska
NevadaNew Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
OregonPennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

42

Children living inhouseholds witha high housing
cost burden: 2013Children whoseparents lack secure
employment: 2013

Teens not in schooland not working: 2013

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

16,087,000
298,000
22,000421,000
202,000
2,121,000
207,000
113,000
36,00030,000969,000
651,000
40,00081,000616,000
345,000
115,000
132,000
251,000
304,000
45,000180,000
223,000
524,000
177,000
246,000
304,000
47,00081,000148,000
27,000333,000
157,000
950,000
566,000
19,000591,000
223,000
182,000
516,000
463,000
45,000292,000
38,000390,000
1,741,000
130,000
19,000288,000
295,000
100,000
237,000
18,000

22
27
12
26
29
23
17
15
18
27
24
27
13
19
21
22
16
19
25
28
18
14
16
24
14
34
22
21
18
23
10
17
31
23
25
12
23
24
22
19
57
22
27
19
27
25
15
15
16
19
27
18
13

22,837,000
381,000
66,000520,000
245,000
3,159,000
333,000
229,000
63,00047,0001,327,000
814,000
83,000109,000
914,000
475,000
165,000
175,000
346,000
382,000
83,000348,000
428,000
751,000
314,000
286,000
427,000
70,000100,000
224,000
69,000559,000
176,000
1,367,000
743,000
33,000843,000
284,000
283,000
822,000
446,000
73,000376,000
53,000506,000
2,073,000
186,000
37,000480,000
489,000
144,000
343,000
32,000

31
34
35
32
34
34
27
29
31
42
33
33
27
26
30
30
23
24
34
34
32
26
31
33
24
39
30
31
22
34
25
28
35
32
32
20
32
30
33
30
55
34
35
25
34
29
21
29
26
31
38
26
23

26,339,000
339,000
51,000573,000
211,000
4,438,000
418,000
300,000
72,00045,0001,707,000
908,000
131,000
121,000
1,080,000
437,000
158,000
191,000
277,000
346,000
80,000478,000
502,000
713,000
332,000
240,000
417,000
59,000119,000
261,000
95,000891,000
169,000
1,858,000
752,000
31,000794,000
264,000
332,000
866,000
274,000
92,000349,000
42,000481,000
2,268,000
272,000
40,000639,000
578,000
97,000393,000
29,000

36
31
27
35
30
48
34
38
35
40
42
36
43
28
36
28
22
27
27
31
31
35
36
32
26
33
30
26
26
39
35
44
33
44
33
19
30
28
39
32
34
43
32
20
32
32
30
32
34
36
25
30
20

1,347,000
26,0004,000
36,00017,000175,000
17,00010,0003,000
3,000
86,00056,000
6,000
7,000
50,00026,0008,000
10,00020,00029,0004,000
22,00018,00044,00014,00022,00024,0004,000
4,000
16,0004,000
30,00012,00078,00047,0002,000
42,00020,00017,00044,00036,0004,000
22,0003,000
31,000133,000
12,0002,000
33,00026,0009,000
16,000
1,000

8
10
8
10
10
8
6
5
6
11
9
10
10
8
7
7
5
6
8
12
6
7
5
8
5
12
7
7
3
11
5
6
10
7
9
5
7
10
8
6
16
6
8
6
9
9
7
5
7
7
10
5
5

The Annie E. Casey Foundation | www.aecf.org

2015 kids count data book

APPENDIX 2: DATA FOR 16 INDICATORS OF CHILD WELL-BEINGEDUCATION INDICATORS

Fourth graders
not proficient
in reading: 2013Children not attending
preschool: 2011–13
State

United States
Alabama
AlaskaArizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
DelawareDistrict of Columbia
FloridaGeorgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
KansasKentuckyLouisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
MichiganMinnesota
Mississippi
MissouriMontana
Nebraska
NevadaNew Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
OregonPennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

Eighth graders notproficient in math: 2013

High school students
not graduating on time:
2011/12

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

4,428,000
73,00013,000120,000
44,000547,000
70,00030,00012,0003,000
226,000
146,000
18,00033,000
158,000
108,000
43,00046,00067,00064,00016,00079,00062,000127,000
78,00044,00088,00015,00029,00053,00013,00084,00035,000203,000
148,000
12,000160,000
63,00058,000157,000
37,00012,00071,00016,000101,000
475,000
64,0006,000
110,000
110,000
27,00083,000
9,000

54
59
63
67
55
54
51
37
54
25
51
52
51
68
47
61
53
56
58
50
58
52
42
54
55
52
56
62
55
69
46
39
62
45
58
62
55
59
60
53
44
53
59
65
61
60
60
51
54
60
64
61
56

N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.

66
69
73
72
68
73
59
57
62
77
61
66
70
67
66
62
62
62
64
77
63
55
53
69
59
79
65
65
63
73
55
58
79
63
65
66
63
70
67
60
N.A.
62
72
68
66
72
63
58
57
60
73
65
63

N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.

66
80
67
69
72
72
58
63
67
81
69
71
68
64
64
62
64
60
70
79
60
63
45
70
53
79
67
60
64
72
53
51
77
68
64
59
60
75
66
58
N.A.
64
69
62
72
62
64
53
62
58
76
60
62

N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.

19
25
21
23
22
18
18
14
23
29
25
30
22
16
18
20
11
11
18
28
13
16
14
23
12
32
14
14
7
40
13
13
26
22
21
9
16
21
22
12
38
24
28
17
17
18
22
7
16
21
20
8
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-BEINGHEALTH INDICATORS

Low-birthweightbabies: 2013Children without
health insurance: 2013Child and teen deaths
per 100,000: 2013

Teens who abuse alcoholor drugs: 2012–13

State

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

NumberRate

Number

Percent

United States
Alabama
AlaskaArizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
DelawareDistrict of Columbia
FloridaGeorgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
KansasKentuckyLouisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
MichiganMinnesota
Mississippi
MissouriMontana
Nebraska
NevadaNew Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
OregonPennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

315,099
5,805
658
5,897
3,312
33,753
5,718
2,820
900
875
18,346
12,064
1,562
1,545
12,898
6,569
2,561
2,721
4,845
6,901
911
6,088
5,505
9,331
4,398
4,458
6,033
913
1,682
2,810
841
8,469
2,333
18,847
10,432679
11,808
4,297
2,841
11,219
3,846
746
5,496
766
7,307
32,159
3,567
401
8,182
5,547
1,955
4,668
660

8.0
10.0
5.8
6.9
8.8
6.8
8.8
7.8
8.3
9.4
8.5
9.5
8.2
6.9
8.2
7.9
6.6
7.0
8.7
10.9
7.1
8.5
7.7
8.2
6.4
11.5
8.0
7.4
6.4
8.0
6.8
8.3
8.9
8.0
8.8
6.4
8.5
8.1
6.3
8.0
10.5
6.9
9.7
6.3
9.1
8.3
7.0
6.7
8.0
6.4
9.4
7.0
8.6

5,234,000
48,00022,000
192,000
39,000673,000
102,000
34,0009,000
3,000
445,000
238,000
9,000
38,000125,000
130,000
30,00044,00060,00063,00015,00059,00021,00090,00072,00056,00098,00022,00025,00099,00010,000112,000
43,000171,000
144,000
13,000141,000
95,00050,000147,000
27,00012,00073,00013,00085,000888,000
85,0004,000
101,000
95,00020,00061,000
8,000

7
4
12
12
6
7
8
4
4
2
11
10
3
9
4
8
4
6
6
6
6
4
2
4
6
8
7
10
5
15
4
6
9
4
6
8
5
10
6
5
3
5
7
6
6
13
9
3
5
6
5
5
6

18,888
389
75
473
249
1,927
339
148
57
28
1,061
741
73
109
765
505
171
216
270
432
71
320
243
592
258
281
428
82
129
164
57
373
151
871
624
53
678
368
197
680
225
40
306
77
455
1,878
202
37
419
345
140
294
47

24
33
38
28
33
20
26
17
26
22
25
28
23
24
24
30
22
28
25
37
25
22
16
25
19
36
29
34
26
24
19
17
28
19
26
30
24
37
22
23
25
17
26
35
29
25
22
27
21
21
34
21
32

1,410,000
22,0003,000
34,00013,000
182,000
27,00015,0004,000
2,000
79,00043,0007,000
8,000
50,00032,00011,00012,00017,00022,0005,000
24,00027,00047,00021,00014,00027,0005,000
10,00013,0007,000
36,00012,00085,00045,0003,000
48,00015,00019,00055,000N.A.
5,000
21,0003,000
26,000134,000
13,0003,000
35,00031,0007,000
28,000
3,000

6
6
5
6
6
6
7
5
6
6
6
5
7
6
5
6
5
5
5
6
5
5
6
6
5
6
6
7
6
6
7
5
7
6
6
6
5
5
6
6
N.A.
6
6
5
5
6
5
7
6
6
6
6
7

N.A. Not Available.

44

The Annie E. Casey Foundation | www.aecf.org

2015 kids count data book

APPENDIX 2: DATA FOR 16 INDICATORS OF CHILD WELL-BEING

FAMILY AND COMMUNITY INDICATORSChildren in single-parent
families: 2013
State

United States
Alabama
AlaskaArizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
DelawareDistrict of Columbia
FloridaGeorgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
KansasKentuckyLouisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
MichiganMinnesota
Mississippi
MissouriMontana
Nebraska
NevadaNew Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
OregonPennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

STATE TRENDS IN CHILD WELL-BEING

Children in families
where the household
head lacks a highschool diploma: 2013Children living in
high-poverty areas:
2009–13

Teen births per 1,000:
2013

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

Number

Percent

NumberRate

24,647,000
427,000
54,000570,000
253,000
3,030,000
359,000
250,000
76,00057,0001,517,000
933,000
86,000107,000
976,000
520,000
211,000
207,000
337,000
479,000
84,000467,000
433,000
767,000
356,000
326,000
455,000
70,000131,000
235,000
79,000602,000
210,000
1,449,000
823,000
43,000918,000
316,000
253,000
901,000
437,000
83,000420,000
64,000532,000
2,383,000
168,000
39,000569,000
461,000
131,000
393,000
38,000

35
41
30
37
38
35
30
33
40
55
40
40
30
26
34
35
30
30
36
46
34
36
32
36
29
48
35
33
30
37
30
31
43
36
38
28
37
36
31
35
56
41
42
33
38
36
19
33
32
30
37
31
29

10,533,000
150,000
16,000303,000
102,000
2,146,000
162,000
64,00030,00016,000510,000
359,000
22,00050,000398,000
187,000
56,00085,000119,000
168,000
13,000132,000
110,000
215,000
101,000
108,000
138,000
15,00055,000130,000
11,000203,000
90,000639,000
327,000
8,000
262,000
136,000
111,000
279,000
139,000
30,000138,000
15,000180,000
1,520,000
74,0006,000
179,000
202,000
43,000115,000
8,000

14
13
9
19
14
23
13
8
14
14
13
14
7
12
13
12
8
12
12
15
5
10
8
10
8
15
10
7
12
20
4
10
18
15
14
5
10
14
13
10
17
14
13
7
12
22
8
5
10
13
11
9
6

10,067,000
188,000
6,000
382,000
123,000
1,485,000
103,000
71,0008,000
35,000564,000
418,000
18,00021,000371,000
198,000
31,00064,000165,000
210,000
11,00052,000123,000
393,000
76,000198,000
139,000
17,00037,00091,0006,000
172,000
125,000
772,000
324,000
11,000388,000
131,000
62,000313,000
731,000
31,000161,000
21,000235,000
1,332,000
32,0001,000
91,00099,00035,000122,000
5,000

14
17
3
24
17
16
8
9
4
33
14
17
6
5
12
12
4
9
16
19
4
4
9
17
6
27
10
7
8
14
2
8
24
18
14
7
14
14
7
11
84
14
15
10
16
19
4
1
5
6
9
9
3

273,105
5,392
708
7,232
4,155
30,505
3,834
1,606
728
637
13,962
10,322976
1,425
10,525
6,742
2,289
2,869
5,410
5,811
697
3,690
2,734
7,872
2,950
4,347
5,814
855
1,552
2,604
560
4,188
2,959
11,1289,020
563
10,352
5,310
2,594
8,657
5,706
659
4,763
812
7,105
37,525
2,254
317
5,300
4,386
2,178
3,692
540

26
34
30
33
44
24
23
13
25
32
25
30
25
26
25
30
22
30
39
39
17
19
12
24
17
43
30
28
25
30
13
15
43
18
28
24
27
43
22
21
45
18
32
29
35
41
21
15
20
21
40
20
30

The Annie E. Casey Foundation | www.aecf.org

45

About the Index

The KIDS COUNT index reflects child healthand education outcomes as well as risk andprotective factors, such as economic well-being,
family structure and community context. The
index incorporates a developmental perspective
on childhood and includes experiences acrosslife 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 alonger period of time is more reliable. State datafor past years are available at the KIDS COUNT
Data Center (datacenter.kidscount.org).
The KIDS COUNT Data Book utilizes rates andpercentages because that is the best way tocompare states to one another and to assesschanges over time within a state. However, ourfocus on rates and percentages may mask themagnitude of some of the problems examinedin this report. Therefore, data on the actual
number of children or events are provided inAppendix 2 and at the KIDS COUNT Data Center.

Organizing the index into domains provides a morenuanced assessment of child well-being in eachstate that can inform policy solutions by helping
policymakers and advocates better identify areasof 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 ormore 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 appendicesof the Data Book, but not in our state rankings.
The 16 indicators of child well-being are derived
Because they are significantly different fromfrom 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 thesedata for tracking yearly changes. Many of thegeographies over time or to compare theindicators 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 alsoof events in some states and may exhibit somecontains 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 thestate numerical values for the most recent year
for each of the four key indicators within eachdomain into standard scores. We summed
those standard scores in each domain to geta total standard score for each state. Finally,
we ranked the states on the basis of their total
standard score by domain in sequential orderfrom highest/best (1) to lowest/worst (50).
Standard scores were derived by subtracting
the mean score from the observed score anddividing the amount by the standard deviation
for that distribution of scores. All measures
were given the same weight in calculating thedomain standard score.
Overall Rank for each state was obtained in
the following manner. First, we converted thestate 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 scoresto get a total standard score for each state.
Finally, we ranked the states on the basis of
their total standard score in sequential orderfrom highest/best (1) to lowest/worst (50).
Standard scores were derived by subtracting
the mean score from the observed score anddividing the amount by the standard deviation
for that distribution of scores. All measures
were given the same weight in calculating thetotal 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 beenrounded 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 andtwo children fell in the “poverty” category if theirannual income fell below $23,624. Poverty status is not determined for people living in groupquarters, such as military barracks, prisons andother 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 theChildren whose parents lack secure employment
is the share of all children under age 18 living infamilies where no parent has regular, full-time,
year-round employment. For children living insingle-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 livingwith 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 the2008 American Community Survey questions onlabor 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 morethan 30 percent of monthly household pretax
income is spent on housing-related expenses,
including rent, mortgage payments, taxes andinsurance. SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey.
Teens not in school and not working is thepercentage 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 withestimates prior to 2008 because of substantialchanges made to the 2008 American Community
Survey questions on labor force participationand number of weeks worked. SOURCE: U.S. Census
Bureau, American Community Survey.

Fourth graders not proficient in reading is thepercentage of fourth-grade public school
students who did not reach the proficient levelin reading as measured by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Publicschools 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 thepercentage of eighth-grade public school
students who did not reach the proficient levelin math as measured by the National Assessmentof Educational Progress (NAEP). Public schools
include charter schools and exclude Bureau
of Indian Education schools and Departmentof 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 notenrolled in nursery school or preschool during
the previous two months. Children enrolled inkindergarten are excluded from this analysis.
Due to small sample size, the three-year

High school students not graduating on timeis 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 sizeof an incoming freshman class and aggregate
counts of the number of regular diplomas
awarded four years later. SOURCE: U.S. Departmentof 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 toincrease accuracy of the estimates. SOURCE: U.S.
Census Bureau, American Community Survey.

Health Indicators

Family and Community Indicators

Low-birthweight babies is the percentage oflive births weighing less than 2,500 grams(5.5 pounds). The data reflect the mother’splace of residence, not the place where the birthoccurred. SOURCE: Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention, National Center for Health
Statistics, Vital Statistics.

Children in single-parent families is the percentage of children under age 18 who live with theirown unmarried parent, either in a family or subfamily. In this definition, single-parent families
may include cohabiting couples. Children livingwith married stepparents are not considered to
be in a single-parent family. SOURCE: U.S. Census
Bureau, American Community Survey.

Children without health insurance is the percentage of children under age 18 not covered byany health insurance. The data are based onhealth insurance coverage at the time of thesurvey; interviews are conducted throughout
the calendar year. SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau,
American Community Survey.
Child and teen deaths is the number ofdeaths, 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 ofresidence, not the place where the deathoccurred. SOURCES: Death Statistics: Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention, National
Center for Health Statistics, Vital Statistics.
Population Statistics: U.S. Census Bureau,
Population Estimates.

Children in families where the household headlacks a high school diploma is the percentage
of children under age 18 living in households
where the household head does not have a highschool diploma or equivalent. SOURCE: U.S. Census
Bureau, American Community Survey.
Children living in high-poverty areas is thepercentage of children under age 18 who livein census tracts where the poverty rates of
the total population are 30 percent or more. In
calendar year 2013, a family of two adults andtwo children fell in the “poverty” category if theirannual 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 usedin 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 dependenceon or abuse of either illicit drugs or alcohol in
the past year. Illicit drugs include marijuana,
cocaine, heroin, hallucinogens, inhalants orprescription 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 thisage group. Data reflect the mother’s place of residence, rather than the place of the birth. SOURCES:
Birth Statistics: Centers for Disease Control andPrevention, 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 technicalassistance for a national network of KIDS COUNT projects in every
state, the District of Columbia, the U.S. Virgin Islands and theCommonwealth of Puerto Rico. These projects, listed on the following
pages, measure and report on the status of children at the state andlocal 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 needsof children and families and develop appropriate responses toaddress these needs. Much of the local-level data collected by thestate KIDS COUNT grantees are available at: datacenter.kidscount.org

State Grantees
For more information about the network ofstate KIDS COUNT grantees, including mailingaddresses, please visit: www.kidscount.org

50

The Annie E. Casey Foundation | www.aecf.org

2015 kids count data bookAlabama

DelawareIndiana

Massachusetts

VOICES for Alabama’s Children
www.alavoices.org
334.213.2410

University of Delaware
www.dekidscount.org
302.831.3462

The Indiana Youth Institutewww.iyi.org
317.396.2700

AlaskaDistrict 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

FloridaKansasChildren’s Action Alliancewww.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 Advocateswww.kyyouth.org
502.895.8167

Arkansas
Arkansas Advocatesfor 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 Associationfor 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

HawaiiUniversity of Hawaii
Center on the Family
www.uhfamily.hawaii.edu
808.956.3760

Idaho
Jannuswww.idahokidscount.org
208.388.1014

Illinois

KentuckyLouisiana
Agenda for Children
www.agendaforchildren.org
504.586.8509

Maine
Maine Children’s Alliancewww.mekids.org
207.623.1868

Maryland
Advocates for Children and Youthwww.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

NevadaOhio

South Carolina

Vermont

Center for Business andEconomic 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

OklahomaSouth Dakota

Virginia

New Hampshire Kids Count
http://nhkidscount.org
603.225.2264

Oklahoma Institutefor Child Advocacy
www.oica.org
405.236.5437

South Dakota KIDS COUNT
www.usd.edu/sdkidscount605.677.6432

Voices for Virginia’s Children
www.vakids.org
804.649.0184

New Jersey

OregonTennessee

Washington

Advocates for Childrenof New Jersey
www.acnj.org
973.643.3876

Children First for Oregon
www.cffo.org
503.236.9754

Tennessee Commission
on Children and Youthwww.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 Desarrollode la Juventud)
http://juventudpr.org/en
787.728.3939

Community Foundationof 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 onChildren & Families
www.wccf.org
608.284.0580

Wyoming
Wyoming Community Foundationwww.wycf.org
307.721.8300

2015 kids count data book

ABOUT THE
ANNIE E. CASEY
FOUNDATIONAND KIDS COUNTThe Annie E. Casey Foundation is a private
philanthropy that creates a brighter future forthe nation’s children by developing solutions tostrengthen 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 benchmarksof child well-being, KIDS COUNT seeks to enrich local,
state and national discussions concerning ways tosecure better futures for all children.
At the national level, the initiative develops anddistributes 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), whichuses the best available data to measure theeducational, 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 trademarkof the Annie E. Casey Foundation.
Permission to copy, disseminate orotherwise use information from thisData Book is granted as long as
appropriate acknowledgment is given.
Printed and bound in the UnitedStates 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

701 ST. PAUL STREETBALTIMORE, MD 21202
410.547.6600
WWW.AECF.ORG