Kids Count 2012 Data Book Full Report

7/31/2019 Kids Count 2012 Data Book Full Report

1/60

KIDSCOUNTdata book

Te Annie E. Casey Foundation

state trends in child ell-being


2/60


3/60

KIDSCOUNTdata book

Te Annie E. Casey Foundation

2012

state trends in child ell-being


4/60

Te Annie E. Casey Foundations KIDSCOUN Data Bookcould not be producedand distributed without the help o numer-ous people. Te publication was assembledand produced under the general direction

o Laura Speer. Other Casey sta whocontributed to this report include DennisCampa, Sue Lin Chong, Arin Gencer,Florencia Gutierrez, Lisa Hamilton, JohnHodgins, Jann Jackson, Michael Laracyand Norris West. Nancy Cauthen provided

writing and research support.Te Population Reerence Bureau

was instrumental in the development othe new KIDS COUN index and inthe collection and organization o datapresented in this book. We are especially

grateul to Jean DAmico, GenevieveDupuis, Linda Jacobsen, Mark Matherand Kelvin Pollard.

Special thanks are also due the sta atKINEIK Communication Graphics, Inc.,or design and production services; the staat Hager Sharp, or helping to promote anddisseminate the Data Book; Connie Dykstrao Te Hatcher Group, or managingproduction; and Jayson Hait o eye4detail,or prooreading and copyediting.

Finally, we would like to thank the stateKIDS COUN projects (see page 53), ormaking the Data Bookavailable to national,state and local leaders across the country.

Permission to copy, disseminate or

otherwise use inormation rom this DataBookis granted as long as appropriateacknowledgment is given.

Te 2012 KIDS COUN Data Bookcan be viewed, downloaded or orderedon the Internet atwww.kidscount.org.

Outreach PartnersTe Annie E. Casey Foundation wishesto thank our Outreach Partners or theirsupport and assistance in promoting anddisseminating the 2012 KIDS COUN

Data Book. With the help o our partners,data on the status and well-being o kidsand amilies are shared with policymakers,advocates, practitioners and citizens tohelp enrich local, state and nationaldiscussions on ways to improve outcomesor Americas most vulnerable children.

o learn more about the Annie E. CaseyFoundations 2012 KIDS COUN OutreachPartners, please visit datacenter.kidscount.org/DataBook/2012/OutreachPartners.aspx.

ACKNOwDNTS
http://www.kidscount.org/http://datacenter.kidscount.org/DataBook/2012/OutreachPartners.aspxhttp://datacenter.kidscount.org/DataBook/2012/OutreachPartners.aspxhttp://datacenter.kidscount.org/DataBook/2012/OutreachPartners.aspxhttp://datacenter.kidscount.org/DataBook/2012/OutreachPartners.aspxhttp://www.kidscount.org/


5/60

CONTNTS

4 FOwOD

10 INDx

16 TNDS

20 Overall Child well-Being

22 conomic well-Being

28 ducation

32 Health

36 Family and Community

40 CONCUSION

43 KIDS COUNT DATA CNT

44 APPNDICS

50 Defnitions andData Sources

53 Primary Contacts orState KIDS COUNT Projects

56 About the Annie . CaseyFoundation and KIDS COUNT


6/60

FOwOD


7/60

5The Annie . Casey Foundation | aec.orgState trendS in child well-being

While we continue to manage theallout rom the downturn, as conditionsimprove, we should reocus our attentionon strengthening our economy, com-munities and amilies or the uture.

Beore turning to the current state o

child well-being in the United States, Iencourage you to take a particularly closelook at this years Data Bookbecause wevemade some important changes. o takeadvantage o the tremendous growth inresearch and data about child development,

we developed a more comprehensive indexto measure child well-being and rank states.Te new KIDS COUN index includes

child-level indicators across our domains:(1) Economic Well-Being, (2) Education,(3) Health and (4) Family and Commu-nity. Domain-specic data allow or morene-grained analysis o child well-being ineach state, especially in cases where a state

excels in one or two areas but lags behindin others. Tis more sophisticated, domain-based approach is the most signicantchange to the KIDS COUN Data Booksince we began tracking child well-beingmore than two decades ago. We hopeyoull nd it provides you with a more use-ul picture o the status o children in eacho the states and our nation as a whole.

ach year, the Annie . Casey Foundation publishes the

KIDS COUNT Data Book, hich tracks the ell-being o our

nations children, state by state. As e release this years

Data Book, our 23rd, Americas children and amilies ace

a crossroad. Ater the orst economic crisis since the

reat Depression, our economy has begun to sloly recover.

Unemployment has declined and state revenues are trending

upard. But the recovery is ragile. any amilies are still

coping ith hardship caused by a long and deep recession,

and states and localities still ace serious fscal challenges.

2012 KIDS COUNT DATA BOOK
http://www.aecf.org/http://www.aecf.org/


8/60

6 The Annie . Casey Foundation | aec.org 2012 kids count data book

A ied Picture or Childrenin the United States

As our ndings and other data reveal,many aspects o child well-being have

improved considerably over time, whileadvances in other areas have eroded. Insome domains, such as Education, wideinequities among children temperedprogress or all. Despite perennial hand-

wringing about a crisis in education,high school graduation rates and nationalmath and reading scores or students oall races and income levels are higher thanever.1 Although theres plenty o room orimprovement, the overall trend is positive.However, we continue to see deep dispari-

ties in educational achievement by race andespecially by income.A recent Stanord study ound that the

gap in standardized test scores betweenauent and low-income students hasgrown by about 40 percent since the 1960sand is now double the testing gap between

Arican Americans and non-Hispanicwhites, which declined over the sameperiod.2 Comprehensive early childhoodprograms and high-quality preschool canhelp improve school readiness amonglow-income children, and access to such

programs has increased. But only a smallpercentage o poor children participate inprograms o sucient quality and intensityto overcome the developmental decitsassociated with chronic economic hardshipand low levels o parental education.

Over the past couple o decades, manychild health and saety outcomes havesignicantly improved. Mortality rates

have allen or children o all ages as aresult o medical advances and increasedvigilance about saety, such as more wide-spread seat belt and car seat use. Te rate ohealth insurance coverage among children

has improved slightly despite declines inemployer-sponsored coverage; public healthinsurance has more than lled the gap.On the fip side, obesity poses a growinghealth threat, especially to low-income andminority children. Te prevalence o child-hood obesity has tripled during the past30 years. Obesity increases the risk o highblood pressure and cholesterol, which, ilet untreated, raise the risk o cardiovascu-lar disease in adulthood.3

Unlike the domains o Education and

Health, where children are beneting romlong-term progress overall, the EconomicWell-Being o children and amilies hasplummeted because o the recession. Aterdeclining signicantly in the late 1990s,child poverty began to rise even beore theeconomic crisis. In 2000, the ocial childpoverty rate, which is a conservative mea-sure o economic hardship, was 17 percent.From 2000 to 2010, the number o childrenliving in poverty jumped rom 12.2 millionto 15.7 million, an increase o nearly 30percent. Te additional 3.5 million children

living in poverty is nearly equivalent to theentire population o the city o Los Angeles.

Stubbornly high unemployment andpervasive underemployment continue tothreaten the nancial status o middle-classamilies while creating deeper hardship orlow-income amilies and communities. Teoreclosure crisis, which has already createdresidential instability or an estimated

Unlike the domains oducation and Health,here children arebenefting rom long-term progress overall,the conomic well-Being

o children and amilieshas plummeted becauseo the recession.


9/60


5 million to 6 million children, is ar romover. Arican-American and Latino com-munities have sustained the greatest losses,

widening the already enormous racial andethnic gap in homeownership.4 Perhaps the

most devastating economic eect o therecession and oreclosure crisis or amilieshas been the massive loss o home equity,savings and other assets that parents workso hard to accumulate in the hopes obuilding a better uture or their children.

Nonetheless, there are reasons to becautiously optimistic about the prospects orimproving outcomes or children. Now thatthe recovery is underway, we can begin toshit gears. As we move orward, we mustcontinue to protect the most vulnerable and

those hardest hit by the recession. And, wemust also ensure that vulnerable childrenand their amilies have access to pragmatic,evidence-based services and supports to getamilies back on a path toward economicsuccess and to improve the health and well-being o our nations children.

The conomic and Political andscapeor Improving Child well-Being

Economic and job growth have been unevenin 2012. At the end o April, the unem-

ployment rate was at its lowest level sinceJanuary 2009. However, in May, there wasa slight uptick in the jobless rate. Whateverthe short-term fuctuations, economistscaution that it will take several more yearsbeore the unemployment rate in the UnitedStates returns to prerecession levels.

Te economic crisis caused the largestdecline in state revenues on record. Ater

bottoming out in 2010, revenues havebegun to grow again; but at the end o2011, state revenues were still 7 percentbelow prerecession levels.5 Ater multipleyears o budget shortalls, states have ewer

options or closing current gaps. Moststates have already made deep cuts inservices and exhausted any reserves. Emer-gency ederal aid largely expired a yearago, and looming ederal cuts will likelyexacerbate states already precarious scalcondition. As policymakers seek to restorescal health to their states, we urge them torerain rom making urther cuts to healthcare, education and programs that assistvulnerable children and amilies.

Beyond the constraints posed by a

nascent but ragile economic recovery andtight state budgets, the persistent paralysiso our current political culture is anotherpotential obstacle to improving policiesor children and amilies. It is critical that

we nd ways to come together on com-mon ground. We need to make smartinvestments to restore what has been lostand to move orward to help children andamilies. Tese should be goals on whichpolitical partisans can agree, and we hopethat our elected ocials at the state andederal levels will rise to the occasion.

The Challenge Ahead

In a recent study o 31 developed coun-tries, the United States ranked 27th inmeasures o equal opportunity, whichpredict whether children will have thelie chances necessary or them to thriveand mature into contributors to a uture


10/60


that sustains the American Dream. Testudy examined several areas, includingpoverty, unemployment, income inequal-ity, education, health and social mobility.6Te investments that we make in children

greatly aect most o these measures.We know what it takes or children to

thrive and to become successul adults. Wehave reams o research and data identiy-ing the best predictors o success: gettinga healthy start at birth and maintaininghealthy development in the early years;being raised by two married parents;having adequate amily income; doing wellin school, graduating high school and com-pleting postsecondary education or training;avoiding teen pregnancy and substance

abuse; staying out o trouble; and becomingconnected to work and opportunity.At the Annie E. Casey Foundation, we

ocus on three actors that can positivelyor negatively infuence child well-being.First, we know that amily economicopportunity and security are critical tochild well-being. Growing up in povertyis strongly associated with bad outcomesor children. On almost every measure,children who experience chronic or deeppoverty, especially when they are young,ace tougher developmental and social

barriers to success. Even brie experi-ences o poverty in early childhood canhave lasting eects on health, educa-tion, employment and earning power.Te most eective way to ensure thatevery child has opportunities to succeedis through a two-generation strategythat simultaneously strengthens parents

work attachment, income and assets while

investing in their childrens healthy devel-opment and educational success.

Second, we know that a strong, nurtur-ing two-parent amily can protect childrenrom economic hardship and other risks.

Children who have a permanent sense oconnection to their amilies are muchbetter on average, even i they experiencepoverty, when compared to children whoare removed rom their amilies because oabuse, neglect or criminal behavior or whogrow up disconnected rom one or bothparents. We need proven, evidence-basedinnovations within public systems to keepchildren connected to their amilies orother caring adults, especially when ami-lies encounter a crisis and when youth get

into trouble with the law.Tird, where a child grows up can makea huge dierence. A low-income childliving in a fourishing communitywithgood schools, sae streets, strong civicinstitutions, positive role models and con-nections to opportunitiesis more likelyto thrive and succeed. Tat same childliving in a community o concentratedpovertywith high crime, poor schoolsand environmental hazardsis ar morelikely to get o track in school, becomeinvolved with gangs or other negative peer

infuences and ail to transition to success-ul employment. Community investmentsthat ocus on the social and economic

well-being o neighborhoods can provide aoundation or childrens utures.

Finally, we must acknowledge andconront the enormous racial and ethnicdisparities that impact childrens chanceso success. Arican-American children are

we must come togetherand commit ourselvesto investing in today'syoung amilies to improvethe uture or children,the net generation

and our nation.


11/60


nine times as likely as non-Hispanic whitechildren to live in high-poverty censustracts. For Latino children, the risk is morethan six times that o white children.7

Arican-American and Latino children are

ar more likely than white children to livein poor amilies, regardless o whether theylive in high-poverty neighborhoods. In2010, the poverty rate or Arican-Ameri-can children (38 percent) was nearly threetimes the rate or their white peers (13percent); the child poverty rate or Latinos(32 percent) was two and a hal times thator white children (see Figure 1).8

As the data in the pages ahead willshow, millions o American children aregrowing up with risk actors that predict

that they will not succeed in the worldthey will inherit. And, i they dontsucceed, this country will become increas-ingly less able to compete and thrive inthe global economy, thereby aecting thestandard o living and the strength o ournation or all o us.

We are all responsible or ndingsolutions to the challenges we ace. Techoice is ours. We can choose to watch thepromise o the American Dream slip away.Or, we can choose to come together as anation, in a spirit o shared responsibility

and shared sacrice, and commit ourselvesto investing in todays young amilies toimprove the uture or children, the nextgeneration and our nation.

Patrick T. cCarthyPresident and COThe Annie . Casey Foundation

Children in Poverty by Raceand Hispanic Origin: 2010

FIU 1

SOUC U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 American Community Survey.

NOT Data or Arican Americans, American Indians and Asians and Pacifc Islandersalso include those ho are Hispanic.

%38%35

%32

%22

%13

%14

Naona Aag

African American

American Indian

Asian and Pacific Islander

Hispanic

Non-Hispanic White


12/60

INDx


13/60


A Nw KIDS COUNT INDx

In this years Data Book, weve updated ourindex to take advantage o these advancesin knowledge and the availability o newstate-level data to create a more robust toolto better serve the needs o the eld.

A recent review o the literature revealsthat while there is no consensus on thebest model to track child well-being, thereis growing agreement that measuremento child well-being should do the ollowing:Acknowledge that childrens lives areaected by both positive/protective andnegative/risk actors;

Recognize that children are aectedby the environment in which theylive, including their amily, peerrelationships, communities, institutionsand cultural infuences;Capture both basic survival (suchas mortality and basic health) andquality o lie (such as lie skills andchildrens happiness);

Include multiple domains (such as health,education and material well-being) that

have a signicant infuence on a childs lie;Incorporate the developmental stageso childhood; andInclude indicators o current child well-being as well as actors that aect utureoutcomes as children move into adulthood.9

Keeping these basic concepts in mind,we decided to revisit our index. Weconsulted with a wide range o contentand statistical experts and conducted an

extensive review o the latest research onchild development. We reviewed the useo domains across similar studies world-

wide as well as the implications o addingdomains to the Data Bookmethodology.

As we identied indicators most connectedto long-term success, we then attemptedto nd comparably collected, state-leveldata to track them. Ater analyzing

Since 1990, KIDS COUNT has ranked states annually on

overall child ell-being using an inde o 10 indicators. Over

time, e changed some o the indicators to replace eaker

measures ith stronger ones, but the overall scope o the list

remained consistent. During the to decades that e have

produced the KIDS COUNT Data Book, research on child

development and ell-being has prolierated.


14/60


available data, we selected 16 indicatorsthat refect a wide range o actors aect-ing child well-being and that are collectedor all states on at least a biannual basis.o avoid redundancy, indicators that were

too closely related were replaced with indi-cators that tracked dierent critical areaso child well-being. (For a more thoroughdescription o the KIDS COUN indexreview and revision process, please visitdatacenter.kidscount.org/databook/2012.)

Understanding the evised Inde

Four Key Domains o Child well-BeingTe most signicant change to the indexis the creation o our content domains

that capture what children need mostto thrive: (1) Economic Well-Being, (2)Education, (3) Health and (4) Family andCommunity. Four indicators composeeach o the our domains or a total o16. For a list o indicators by domain, seeFigure 2, New KIDS COUN Index.

Organizing the index into domainsallows or a more nuanced characterizationo child well-being in each state thatcan inorm policy solutions by helpingpolicymakers and advocates betteridentiy areas o strength and weakness.

For example, a state may rank wellabove average in overall child well-being

while showing need or improvementin education. Domain-specic data willstrengthen decision-making eorts byproviding multiple data points relevantto specic policy areas.

Te new index possesses a numbero important attributes. It refects child

health and education outcomes as wellas risk and protective actors, such as eco-nomic well-being, amily structure andcommunity context. Te index incorporatesa developmental perspective on childhood

and includes experiences across lie stages,rom birth through early adulthood. Teindicators are consistently and regularlymeasured, which allows or legitimatecomparisons across states and over time.

Ho the Inde Is CalculatedTe new KIDS COUN index was con-structed by rst converting the raw dataor each o the 16 indicators into standardscores. Standardization is necessary becausethe distributions vary across dierent

measures. For example, the percentageo children without health insurance rangesrom 2 percent in Massachusetts andVermont to 17 percent in Nevada. Te teenbirth rate ranges rom 16 births per 1,000emale teens in New Hampshire to 64births per 1,000 emale teens in Mississippiand New Mexico. By standardizing thesemeasures, we make sure that each indicatoris given equal weight in the index.

Once standardized, the scores or eachindicator are summed to create a total stan-dard score or each state. Tese totals are

ordered rom highest to lowest and thentranslated into rankings with 1 being the beston overall child well-being and 50 the worst.Each indicator is given equal weight in theindividual domain indices, and each domainis given equal weight in the overall index.For a detailed description o the methodologyused to calculate the index, visit datacenter.kidscount.org/databook/2012.

Organizing the indeinto domains allosor a more nuancedcharacterization o childell-being in each statethat can inorm policy

solutions by helpingpolicymakers andadvocates better identiyareas o strengthand eakness.
http://www.aecf.org/http://datacenter.kidscount.org/databook/2012http://datacenter.kidscount.org/databook/2012http://datacenter.kidscount.org/databook/2012http://datacenter.kidscount.org/databook/2012http://datacenter.kidscount.org/databook/2012http://datacenter.kidscount.org/databook/2012http://www.aecf.org/


15/60

New KIDS COUNT Index


FIU 2

FAI AND COUNIT

EDUCATION

Fourth graders notproficient in reading

Children not attendingpreschool

Eighth graders notproficient in math

High school studentsnot graduating on time

Children in families wherethe household head lacks

a high school diploma

Children in single-parentfamilies

Children livingin high-poverty areas

Teen births per 1,000

HEATH

ECONOIC WE- BEIN

Children withouthealth insurance

ow-birthweight babies Child and teen deathsper 100,000 Teens who abusealcohol or drugs

Children whose parentslack secure employment

Children in poverty Children living inhouseholds with a highhousing cost burden

Teens not in schooland not working


16/60


About the DataTe 16 indicators o child well-being arederived rom ederal government statisticalagencies and refect the best availablestate and national data or tracking yearly

changes. For a complete description othe denitions and the data sources oreach indicator, see page 50. It is importantto recognize that many o the indicatorsare derived rom samples, and like allsample data, they contain some randomerror. Other measures (such as thechild and teen death rate) are basedon relatively small numbers o eventsin some states and may exhibit somerandom fuctuation rom year to year.

We urge readers to ocus on relatively

large dierences across states as smalldierences may simply refect randomfuctuations, rather than real changesin the well-being o children. Assessingtrends by looking at changes over a longerperiod o time is more reliable. State-leveldata or past years are available at theKIDS COUN Data Center (datacenter.kidscount.org).

Te KIDS COUN Data Bookuti-lizes rates and percentages because thatis the best way to compare states to oneanother and to assess changes over time

within a state. However, our ocus onrates and percentages may mask the mag-nitude o some o the problems examinedin the report. Tereore, data on theactual number o children or events areprovided inAppendix 2 and at the KIDSCOUN Data Center.

We include data or the District oColumbia and some data or Puerto Rico

in the Data Book, but not in our staterankings. Because they are signicantlydierent rom any state, the comparisonsare not instructive. It is more useul tolook at changes or these geographies over

time or to compare the District with otherlarge cities. Data or many child well-beingindicators or the 50 largest cities (includ-ing the District o Columbia) are availableat the KIDS COUN Data Center. Addi-tionally, the Data Center contains somedata or children and amilies residing inthe U.S. Virgin Islands.

whats cludedWe excluded a wide range o additional vari-ables rom our new child well-being index

or a couple o reasons. First, we wanted tolimit the number o indicators to keep theindex manageable and easy to understand.

We considered quite a ew indicators thatwere ultimately discarded because they werehighly correlated with other importantvariables we already had selected. For exam-ple, ood insecurity is a common measureo economic well-being, but it is so stronglyrelated to poverty that it would have addedlittle to the Economic Well-Being domain.

We determined that it was more useul toinclude other dimensions, such as having

a high housing cost burden.Second, our selection o indicators was

limited by data availability. Although datacollection has prolierated and improved,and this is refected in some o the indica-tors we added, there are some variablesthat aect child well-being or whichcomparable, consistently collected state-level data dont exist. Arguably, the

By epanding the indeand dividing the indicatorsinto our equally eighteddomains, there is a greateremphasis on educationand amily and community

actors. And, the healthindicators ocus moreon health status andless on mortality.
http://www.aecf.org/http://datacenter.kidscount.org/http://datacenter.kidscount.org/http://datacenter.kidscount.org/http://datacenter.kidscount.org/http://www.aecf.org/


17/60

How Does the New Index Compare With Previous ears?


indicator that is most glaring in itsabsence is some measure o childhoodobesity. National estimates indicate thatthe percent o children who are over-

weight or obese has skyrocketed over the

past 20 years, with negative consequencesor child health. However, no consistent

state-level data are currently available.Additionally, reliable state-level measureso childhood mental health, juvenile justiceinvolvement and child maltreatment areeither not regularly collected or are not

collected in a suciently comparable ormor inclusion in the index.

Si o the 10 indicators rom

last years KIDS COUNT Data

Bookare included in the neinde. To othersthe death

rate among children ages 1 to

14 and the death rate or teens

15 to 19have been combined

into a single mortality rate or

children and youth. One previous

indicator, percent o teens not

in school and not high school

graduates, has been replaced

ith percent o high school

students not graduating on time.

In addition, inant mortality as

eliminated because it is closelyrelated to the percent o babies

born ith a lo birtheight,

hich remains in the ne inde.

By epanding the inde and

dividing the indicators into our

equally eighted domains, there

is a greater emphasis on educa-

tion and amily and community

actors. And, the health indica-

tors ocus more on health status

and less on mortality. Thereore,

a state like Caliornia, here

children tend to have relativelygood health outcomes but lag

behind the rest o the country

in areas such as education and

economic ell-being, dropped

signifcantly in the overall

rankings this year compared

to previous Data Bookrankings.

But even ith this years changes,

the correlation beteen

the overall state rankings or

2012 (using the ne inde) and

or 2011 (using the previous

inde) is quite high (0.9). Inother ords, despite changes in

the inde, most states ended up

in roughly the same place in the

rankings as they did last year.

Note that data or indica-

tors included in the previous

inde but not in the ne one

are still available at the KIDS

COUNT Data Center (datacente

kidscount.org).
http://www.aecf.org/http://datacenter.kidscount.org/http://datacenter.kidscount.org/http://datacenter.kidscount.org/http://datacenter.kidscount.org/http://www.aecf.org/


18/60

TNDS


19/60


STATUS OF CHIDN

The olloing pages present a detailed portrait o the ell-being

o Americas children. At the national level, this years Data Book

presents the most recent trends, starting rom roughly 2005 and

ending ith the most recent year available, depending on the data

availability or each indicator. with these data, e are able to

compare ho the nations children ere aring mid-decade, prior

to the economic crisis, ith ho they are doing in its atermath.

ankings at the state level are ocused on the most recent data.

Prole Pages Online

National and state profles

providing current and trend data

or all 16 indicators are available

at datacenter.kidscount.org/

databook/2012/profles.

National and state data are

also available in Appendi 2

on page 46.
http://www.aecf.org/http://datacenter.kidscount.org/databook/2012/profileshttp://datacenter.kidscount.org/databook/2012/profileshttp://datacenter.kidscount.org/databook/2012/profileshttp://datacenter.kidscount.org/databook/2012/profileshttp://www.aecf.org/


20/60

National Trends in 16 Key Indicators of Child Well-Being by Domain

FIU 3

Key Indicators

ECONOIC WE- BEIN

National Trend

Children whose parents

lack secure employment

Children in poverty

Children living in

households with a highhousing cost burden

Teens not in school

and not working

Key Indicators

EDUCATION

National Trend

Fourth graders not

proficient in reading

Children not attending

preschool

Eighth graders notproficient in math

High school students

not graduating on time

Key Indicators

HEATH

National Trend

Children without

health insurance

ow-birthweight babies

Child and teen deaths

per 100,000

Teens who abuse

alcohol or drugs

Key Indicators

FAI AND COUNIT

National Trend

Children in families where

the household head lacks

a high school diploma

Children in single-parent

families

Children living in

high-poverty areas

Teen births per 1,000


2010

2005

2010

2005

200610

2000

2009

2005

2009

2005

2010

2008

2009

2005

200809

200506

2010

2005

2010

2008

2010

2005

2010

2008

200810

200507

2011

2005

2011

2005

2008/09

2005/06

16%

0%

22%

-20%

11%

-16%

13%

-13%

22%

19%

8.2%

8.2%

33%

27%

8%

10%

41%37%

27

32

9%

8%

7%

8%

-5%

6%

-3%

-6%

-8%

22%

-11%

-3%

53%

56%

34%

32%

68%

70%

15%

16%

66%72%

11%

9%

24%

27%

39

40

GettinG

worse

GettinG

better

no

chanGe

PCNT CHANO TI


21/60

National Key Indicators by Race and Hispanic Origin

FIU 4


Overall Trends in Child well-Being

Comparing the data rom pre- and post-recession time rames reveals both positiveand negative developments in child well-being nationally (see Figure 3). Broadlyspeaking, children experienced gains inthe Education and Health domains butsetbacks in the Economic Well-Being andFamily and Community domains.

All our Economic Well-Being indica-tors got substantially worse, which is notsurprising, given the depth and severity othe economic crisis and continued highrates o unemployment. Conversely, all ourEducation indicatorswhich cover pre-school to high school graduationshowedsome improvement over the ve-yearperiod. Child health continued to improve,

with gains in childrens health insurancecoverage and reductions in child and teenmortality and teen substance abuse. Te

percent o low-birthweight babies, however,remained unchanged.rends in the Family and Community

domain were mixed. Tere were smalldeclines in both the percent o childrenliving with parents without a high schooldiploma and in the teen birth rate. Butthe percent o children living in single-parent amilies increased, and morechildren are living in high-poverty areas.

Overall, developments in child well-beingover the past several years suggest thatprogress has been made in some areas but

that a lot o work remains to be done toimprove the prospects or the next generation.

Perhaps the most striking nding is thatdespite tremendous gains over recent decadesor children o all races and income levels,inequities among children remain deep andstubbornly persistent (see Figure 4). Terecession exacerbated some socioeconomicinequities that were already on the rise withpotential negative consequences or the uture.

ECONOIC WE-BEIN

Children in poverty: 2010

Children hose parents lacksecure employment: 2010

Children living in households itha high housing cost burden: 2010

Teens not in school andnot orking: 2010

EDUCATION

Children not attendingpreschool: 200810

Fourth graders not proicientin reading: 2011

ighth graders not proicientin math: 2011

High school students notgraduating on time:2008/09

HEATH

o-birtheight babies: 2009

Children ithout healthinsurance: 2010

Child and teen deathsper100,000:2009

Teens ho abuse alcoholor drugs:2009^

FAI AND COUNIT

Children in single-parentamilies:2010

Children in amilies here the householdhead lacks a high school diploma: 2010

Children living in high-povertyareas:200610

Teen births per1,000:2009

National

Average

AricanAmerican

AmericanIndian

Asian andPaciic Islander Hispanic

Non-Hiwh

22% 38% 35% 14% 32% 13%

33% 49% 49% 23% 40% 25%

41% 53% 36% 42% 52% 32%

9% 13% 16% 5% 11% 7%

53% 50% 59% 48% 63% 50%

68% 84%* 81%* 51%* 82% 58%

66% 87%* 83%* 45%* 80% 57%

24% 37%* 35%* 8%* 34% 18

8.2% 13.3% 7.3% 8.3% 6.9% 7.2

8% 7% 18% 8% 14% 6%

27 39 41 16 25 25

7% 4%* 14%* 4%*+ 9% 7%

34% 66% 52% 16% 41% 24%

15% 15% 20% 12% 37% 7%

11% 27% 24% 6% 19% 3%

39 59 55 15 70 25

*Data or Arican Americans, American Indians and Asians and Pacifc Islanders are or non-Hispanics in each respective group.All other rates or these racial groups include both Hispanics and non-Hispanics.

^ These are single-year race data or 2009. Data in inde are 200809 multiyear data.+Data results do not include Native Haaiians/Pacifc Islanders.


22/60


1 Ne Hampshire

2 assachusetts

3 ermont

4 Ne Jersey

5 innesota6 North Dakota

7 Connecticut

8 Ioa

9 Nebraska

10 aryland

11 Utah

12 irginia

13 aine

14 Pennsylvania

15 wisconsin

16 Kansas

17 South Dakota

18 washington19 wyoming

20 Idaho

21 Illinois

22 Colorado

23 Delaare

24 Haaii

25 hode Island

26 issouri

27 Ohio

28 ontana

29 Ne York

30 Alaska

31 Indiana

32 ichigan

33 Oregon

34 North Carolina

35 Kentucky

36 Tennessee

37 eorgia

38 Florida

39 west irginia

40 Oklahoma

41 Caliornia

42 Arkansas

43 South Carolina

44 Teas

45 Alabama

46 Arizona

47 ouisiana

48 Nevada

49 Ne eico

50 ississippi

National data mask a great deal o state-by-state and regional variations in child ell-being.

A state-level eamination o the data reveals a

hard truth: A childs chances o thriving depend

not just on individual, amilial and community

characteristics but also on the state in hich she

is born and raised. States vary considerably in

the amount o ealth and other resources they

possess. State policy choices also strongly inu-

ence childrens chances or success.

we derive a composite inde o overall child ell-

being or each state by combining data across

the our domains: (1) conomic well-Being,

(2) ducation, (3) Health and (4) Family and

Community. These composite scores are then

translated into a single state ranking or child

ell-being. The three highest ranked states are

Ne Hampshire, assachusetts and ermont;

the three loest ranked states are Nevada, Ne

eico and ississippi (see bo, "Overall ank").

As is apparent in Figure 5, distinct regional

patterns emerge rom the state rankings. All

o the northeastern states rank in the top 15 in

terms o overall child ell-being ecept or hodeIsland and Ne York, both o hich all in the

middle. States in the industrial idest rank in

the middle on overall child ell-being, hile some

o the states arther estinnesota, North

Dakota, Ioa and Nebraskaare in the top 10.

States in the Southeast, Southest and

Appalachiahere the poorest states are

locatedpopulate the bottom o the overall

rankings. In act, ith the eception o

Caliornia, the 17 loest ranked states in terms

o child ell-being are located in these regions.

Hoever, as is obvious in Figure 5, overall state

rankings obscure some important ithin-state

variations. The graphic highlights states ranking

best overall and in each domain (represented

by concentric circles) in darker colors and those

ranking orse in lighter colors. Although more

than hal the states (26) ranked either in the

top 25 or bottom 25 across all our domains,

the remaining states ere somehat mied.

For all states, the inde illuminates bright spots

and room or improvement.

OA CHID w-BIN

Overall Rank


23/60

Overall Child Well-Being by State

we derive a composite inde o overall child ell-being or each state

by combining data across the our domains: (1) conomic well-Being,

(2) ducation, (3) Health and (4) Family and Community. To see ho

each state ranked overall and by domain, see Appendi 1.

FIU 5

OERA RANK

ECONOIC WE- BEIN

EDUCATION

HEATH

FAI AND COUNIT 3850

2637

1425

113


SOUTH

WEST

NORTHEAST

IDWEST

MIKS

IA

IN

IL

WY

WA

UT

OR

NM

NV

MT

ID

HI

CO

CA

AZ

AK

WV

VA

TX

TN

SCOK

NC MSMD

LA

KY

GA

FL

DE

AR

AL

VT

RI

PA

NY

NJ

NH

MA

ME

CT

WI

SD

OH

ND

NEMO

MN

idest

Northeast

South

west

ie an interactive version

on the Data Center at:

datacenter/kidscount.org/

databook/2012/
http://www.aecf.org/http://datacenter.kidscount.org/databook/2012http://datacenter.kidscount.org/databook/2012http://datacenter.kidscount.org/databook/2012http://datacenter.kidscount.org/databook/2012http://www.aecf.org/


24/60


To help children gro into successul, productive adults, their parentsneed good jobs ith good incomes, access to aordable housing and

services and enough assets to build a better uture. when parents

are unemployed or their incomes are lo, they may struggle to meet

their childrens most basic needs or ood, sae housing, medical care

and quality child care. They may be unable to provide books, toys and

activities that are developmentally enriching. Inadequate amily income

and economic uncertainty also increase parental stress, hich, in turn,can cause depression and aniety and increase the risk o substance

abuse and domestic violenceall o hich can compromise parenting.10

while the negative eects o poverty on children are troubling in their

on right, they also increase the chances o poor outcomes or youth

and young adults, such as teen pregnancy, not graduating rom high

school, poor health and lack o secure employment.11

CONOIC w-BIN

Economic Well-BeingDomain Rank

1 North Dakota

2 Nebraska

3 Ioa

4 South Dakota

5 wyoming6 Ne Hampshire

7 innesota

8 Kansas

9 irginia

10 Connecticut

11 assachusetts

12 ermont

13 Utah

14 aryland

15 wisconsin

16 Colorado

17 Pennsylvania

18 aine19 Ne Jersey

20 ontana

21 issouri

22 Alaska

23 Delaare

24 Indiana

25 hode Island

26 Idaho

27 Illinois

28 washington

29 Oklahoma

30 Ohio

31 Haaii

32 Ne York

33 Teas

34 South Carolina

35 North Carolina

36 ichigan

37 Kentucky

38 Tennessee

39 Arkansas

40 west irginia

41 Oregon

42 Alabama

43 eorgia

44 Florida

45 Caliornia

46 Arizona

47 ouisiana

48 Ne eico

49 Nevada

50 ississippi


25/60


KY FINDINS IN CONOIC w-BIN

Four out o 10 children in the

United States live in householdsith high housing cost burdens.

The child poverty rate increased rom19 to 22 percent beteen 2005 and2010, representing an increase o

2.4 million children.

+2.4 IION CHIDREN 1OUT OF3CHIDREN

Nationally, about 1.6 million teens beteen

the ages o 16 and 19 (9 percent) ereneither in school nor orking in 2010,

up rom 1.4 million in 2008.

One out o three children lives in a amilyithout securely employed parents.

1IN11 TEENS


26/60

CONOIC w-BIN


Children in poverty

Growing up in poverty is one o the great-est threats to healthy child development.Poverty and nancial stress can impedechildrens cognitive development and theirability to learn. It can contribute to behav-

ioral, social and emotional problems andpoor health. Te risks posed by economichardship are greatest among children whoexperience poverty when they are youngand among children who experiencepersistent and deep poverty.12 Already highcompared with other developed nations,the child poverty rate in the United Statesincreased dramatically as a result o theeconomic crisis. Te ocial poverty linein 2010 was $22,113 or a amily o twoadults and two children.

Nationally, 22 percent o children (15.7 million)

lived in poor amilies in 2010, up rom 20 percent

in 2009 (14.7 million). This means that the

number o poor children increased by roughly

1 million in a single year, ater the recession

as ofcially over. From 2005 to 2010, the child

poverty rate increased rom 19 to 22 percent,

representing an increase o 2.4 million children.

The rate o child poverty or 2010 ranged

rom a lo o 10 percent in Ne Hampshire

to a high o 33 percent in ississippi.

The child poverty rate among Arican

Americans (38 percent) as nearly three

times the rate or non-Hispanic hites

(13 percent) in 2010.

On average, families need an income ofroughly twice the ofcial poverty level to meettheir basic needs, including housing, food,transportation, health care and child care.


One out o fve children(22 percent) livedbelo poverty in theUnited States in 2010.

ore than to out o fve(44 percent) childrenlived in lo-income amiliesin the United States in 2010.

1OUT OF

5 2OUT OF

5

200% OFU.S. POERTTHRESHOD

100% OFU.S. POERTTHRESHOD

$44,226

$22,113

SIHT ORE THAN ORE THAN


27/60

A Better easure of Poverty and the Role of the Social Safety Net


The revamped KIDS COUNT Data Bookcontinues

to use the ofcial ederal poverty measure or

state-level child poverty rates. Hoever, this sta-tistic measures only the cashincome available to

amilies, ithout accounting or many saety net

supports that a amily might receive, such as ed-

eral ta credits, child care and housing vouchers,

and ood aid through the Supplemental Nutrition

Assistance Program (ormerly Food Stamps).

The ofcial measure also ails to adequately

reect the ays in hich costslike housing and

child carevary rom region to region and have

changed dramatically over the past hal-century.

In act, researchers have quantifed basic living

epenses in specifc localities and ound that

on average, amilies need an income o roughly

tice the ederal poverty level to cover basic

epenses or housing, ood, transportation,

health care and child care.13 In 2010, 44 percent

(32.2 million) o U.S. children lived in amilies

ith incomes belo 200 percent o the ederal

poverty level ($44,226 or a amily o our).

To better understand ho amilies are aring, the

U.S. Census Bureau recently created a Supple-

mental Poverty easure (SP), hich measures

the impact o social programs and accounts orrising costs, among other changes. while the

Census Bureau does not yet have sufcient data

(or unding) to calculate the SP at the state

level, this ne national measure is an important

advancement in understanding child poverty andthe eects o saety net programs and ta policies

on amily economic ell-being.

evised poverty measures sho that in 2010,

our eisting social saety net lited many Ameri-

cans out o poverty. According to the Center on

Budget and Policy Priorities, hen key saety net

programs ere included in a poverty measure,

some 40 million people in 2010 rose above

the poverty line. In act, the signifcant, but

temporary, policy changes enacted as part o the

2009 American ecovery and einvestment Act

(AA) kept 6.9 million people out o poverty,

including 2.5 million children, making this one o

the most eective pieces o anti-poverty legisla-

tion in our nations history.14

while these eorts clearly did not go ar enough

in preventing all children rom eperiencing

poverty during this economic crisis, using

a more inclusive measure o poverty shos

that our nations social saety net can and does

succeed in helping amilies in times o need.

Though the SP ill continue to be refned

over time, it is an important step in betterunderstanding the economic ell-being o the

nations children and amilies.

To better understand hoamilies are aring, the U.S.Census Bureau recentlycreated a SupplementalPoverty easure, hichmeasures the impact

o social programs andaccounts or rising costs.


28/60

CONOIC w-BIN


Children living in amilies that lack secureparental employment, dened as thoseamilies where no parent has ull-time,year-round employment, are particularlyvulnerable. Without at least one parent

employed ull time, children are more likelyto all into poverty. Yet too many parents

who want ull-time work are orced to piecetogether part-time or temporary jobs thatdo not provide sucient or stable income;some lack the education and skills needed tosecure a good job. Te recession exacerbatedboth unemployment and underemploy-ment. Even a ull-time job at low wages doesnot necessarily lit a amily out o poverty.

Without access to benets and tax credits,one adult in a two-parent amily with two

children would need to earn $11.06 anhour$3.81 above the ederal minimumwageworking 40 hours a week or 50weeks a year just to reach the poverty line.

In 2010, a third o all children in the U.S.

(24.2 million) lived in amilies here no parent

had ull-time, year-round employment. Since

2008, the number o such children climbed by

4 million, rom 27 to 33 percent.

At the state level, North Dakota had the

loest percentage o children in amilies

ithout secure parental employment in 2010(22 percent), olloed closely by South Dakota

and wyoming at 23 percent. ississippi had

the highest rate at 39 percent.

Children hose parentslack secure employment

Among Asian and Pacic Islander families, 23percent of children had no parent with full-time,year-round employment in 2010, compared tomore than twice that, 49 percent, for African-American and American Indian children.

PCNT OF CHIDN wHOS PANTS ACK SCUPOYNT BY AC AND HISPANIC OIIN: 2010

Naona Aag

African American

American Indian

Asian and Pacific Islander

Hispanic

Non-Hispanic White

%33%49%49

%23

%25

%40


NOT Data or Arican Americans, American Indians and Asians and Pacifc Islandersalso include those ho are Hispanic.


29/60

CONOIC w-BIN CONOIC w-BIN


Teens not in schooland not orking

Children living in

households ith a highhousing cost burden

Family income is only one part o nancialsecurity; the cost o basic expenses alsomatters. Housing is typically one o thelargest expenses that amilies ace. Tismeasure identies the proportion o chil-

dren living in households that spend morethan 30 percent o their pretax incomeon housing, whether they are renters orhomeowners. Low-income amilies, inparticular, are unlikely to be able to meetall o their basic needs i housing consumesnearly a third or more o their income.

Across the nation, 41 percent o children

lived in households ith a high housing cost

burden in 2010, compared to 37 percent in

2005, an 11 percent increase. That represents

an increase rom 27.4 million children to

30.1 million over fve years.

In 2010, Caliornia had the highest percentage

o childrena startling 54 percentliving in

households spending more than 30 percent o

income or housing, hereas North Dakota had

the loest, 19 percent. ven in North Dakota,

nearly one in fve children lived in a amily

burdened by housing epenses.

In 36 states and the Distr ict o Columbia, the

percentage o children living in households ith a

high housing cost burden as 33 percent or more.

eens who leave school and do not becomepart o the workorce are at risk o experi-encing negative outcomes as they transitionto adulthood. Te percent o teens not inschool and not working (sometimes reerred

to as disconnected youth or idle teens)refects young people ages 16 to 19 who arenot engaged in school or the workorce.

While those who have dropped out oschool are clearly vulnerable, many youngpersons who have nished school but are not

working are also at a disadvantage in achiev-ing economic success in adulthood.

Nationally, 9 percent o youth ere

disconnected rom both ork and school in

2010. About 1.6 million teens beteen the ages

o 16 and 19 ere neither enrolled in school

nor orking, up rom 1.4 million in 2008.

Nebraska and ermont had the loest rate

o teens not in school and not orking, 4 percent,

hile Nevada had the highest rate, 15 percent.

American Indian, Arican-American and

atino teens ere considerably more likely to

be neither in school nor orking than their hite

and Asian and Pacifc Islander counterparts.

Nebraska and ermont had the lowerate of teens not in school andnot working, 4 percent, while Nevadahad the highest rate, 15 percent.

PCNT OF TNS NOT IN SCHOOAND NOT wOKIN: 2010


15%

4

%

4%

ermont

NebraskaNevada


30/60


stablishing the conditions that promote successul educationalachievement or children begins ith quality prenatal care and

continues into the early elementary school years. with a strong

and healthy beginning, it is much easier to keep children on track

to stay in school and graduate, pursue postsecondary education

and training and successully transition to adulthood. Yet, the

United States continues to have signifcant gaps in educational

achievement by race and income. Although the achievement gapbeteen black and hite students has narroed considerably

over the past our decades, the achievement gap by income has

steadily increased.15 Addressing this gap ill be key to ensuring that

our uture orkorce can compete on a global scale, given that

most o the ne jobs that ill be created over the net decade ill

require some postsecondary education, training or certifcation.

DUCATION

EducationDomain Rank

1 assachusetts

2 Ne Jersey

3 ermont

4 Ne Hampshire

5 Connecticut6 aryland

7 innesota

8 Pennsylvania

9 Colorado

10 wisconsin

11 irginia

12 Kansas

13 ontana

14 Ioa

15 Nebraska

16 North Dakota

17 Illinois

18 Ohio19 Ne York

20 hode Island

21 South Dakota

22 Delaare

23 aine

24 issouri

25 North Carolina

26 washington

27 Utah

28 Kentucky

29 wyoming

30 Idaho

31 Haaii

32 Teas

33 ichigan

34 Arkansas

35 Florida

36 Indiana

37 Oregon

38 eorgia

39 Oklahoma

40 South Carolina

41 Alaska

42 Tennessee

43 Caliornia

44 Alabama

45 ouisiana

46 Arizona

47 west irginia

48 ississippi

49 Ne eico

50 Nevada


31/60


KY FINDINS IN DUCATION

The rate o eighth graders not profcient

in math ranges rom a lo o 49 percentin assachusetts to a high o 81 percent

in ississippi.

ore than hal (53 percent) o three-and our-year-olds ere not enrolled

in preschool in 200810.

Although the rate is improving nationally, one

out o our (24 percent) high school studentsdid not graduate on time in 2008/09.

ore than to-thirds (68 percent) oourth graders in public school ere not

reading profciently in 2011, a slightimprovement rom 2005 hen the

fgure as 70 percent.

1IN 4 HIH SCHOO STUDENTS

2 IN 3 4TH RADERS

4981 OF 8TH RADERS

81% 49%assachusetts

ississippi


32/60

DUCATION DUCATION


Fourth graders notprofcient in readingChildren not attendingpreschool

High-quality prekindergarten programsor three- and our-year-olds can improveschool readiness, with the greatest gainsaccruing to the highest-risk children.Head Start and the expansion o state-

unded programs since the 1990s havegreatly increased access to preschool.16But many children, especially three-year-olds, continue to be let out, exacerbatingsocioeconomic dierences in educationalachievement. Because o small samplesizes in some states, we used data collectedover a three-year period or this measure.

From 2008 to 2010, more than 4.2 million

three- and our-year-olds ere not enrolled

in preschool, representing more than hal

(53 percent) o all children in that age group.

This is a slight improvement over 200507,

hen nearly 4.7 million children (56 percent)

did not participate in a pre-K program.

Ne Jersey and Connecticut, at 36 percent

and 38 percent, respectively, had the loest

percentages o three- and our-year-olds not

enrolled in preschool. The states ith the

highest percentages o children not enrolled

in 200810 ere Nevada (71 percent), Arizona

(68 percent) and North Dakota (67 percent).

Hal o Arican-American and hite three-

and our-year-olds ere not in pre-K programs;

the percentage as nearly the same or Asian

and Pacifc Islander children (48 percent).

The rates ere noticeably higher or atinos

(63 percent) and American Indians (59 percent).

Prociency in reading by the end othird grade is a crucial marker in a childseducational development. In the earlyyears, learning to read is a critical compo-nent o childrens education. But beginning

in the ourth grade, children use readingto learn other subjects, and thereore,mastery o reading becomes a criticalcomponent in their ability to keep upacademically. Children who reach ourthgrade without being able to read procientlyare more likely to drop out o high school,reducing their earning potential andchances or success.17

A stunning 68 percent o ourth graders in

public school ere reading belo profcient levels

in 2011, a slight improvement rom 2005, hen

the fgure as 70 percent.

State dierences in ourth grade reading

levels among public school students are ide.

In 2011, assachusetts had the loest percentage

o public school ourth graders not profcient

in reading, 50 percent, compared to a high o

79 percent in Ne eico.

ore than 80 percent o Arican-American,

American Indian and atino ourth graders ere

not profcient in reading, compared to 58 percent

o non-Hispanic hites.

Children who reach fourth gradewithout being able to read procientlyare more likely to drop out of highschool, reducing their earningpotential and chances for success.

Naona Aag

African American

American Indian

Asian and PacificIslander

Hispanic

Non-Hispanic White

SOUC U.S. Department o ducation, National Center orducation Statistics, 2011 National Assessment o ducational Progress.

NOT Data or Arican Americans, American Indians and Asians andPacifc Islanders do NOT include those ho are Hispanic.

%68

%58

%

84

%51

%81

%82

PCNT OF FOUTH ADS NOT POFICINTIN ADIN BY AC AND HISPANIC OIIN: 2011


33/60

DUCATION DUCATION


High school studentsnot graduating on timeighth graders notprofcient in math

Competence in mathematics is essential orsuccess in the workplace, which increasinglyrequires higher-level technical skills. Teinfuence o high school students math pro-ciency on later earnings has grown steadily

over time. Students who take advanced mathand science courses that require a strong mas-tery o math undamentals are more likelyto attend and to complete college.18 But evenor young people who do not attend college,basic math skills improve employability.

Among public school students, math

profciency levels in eighth grade and reading

profciency levels in ourth grade ere quite

similar in 2011, but there as greater improvement

in eighth grade math achievement. Nationide,

to-thirds (66 percent) o public school eighth

graders scored belo profcient math levels in

2011, compared to 72 percent in 2005.

At 49 percent, assachusetts had the loest

percentage o public school eighth graders

not profcient in math in 2011. The state ith

the highest rate, 81 percent, as ississippi.

acial and ethnic disparities in math

profciencies are ide: 57 percent o non-

Hispanic hite eighth graders ere belo

profcient, compared to 80 percent o atinos,

83 percent o American Indians and 87 percento Arican Americans.

Students who graduate rom high schoolon time are more likely to continue topostsecondary education and training; theyhave higher earnings and are more employ-able than students who ail to graduate.19

In 2010, median annual earnings orsomeone without a high school diploma($18,400) were 70 percent o those o a highschool graduate ($26,300) and 39 percento the median earnings o someone with abachelors degree ($47,400).20 High schoolgraduates have better health outcomes,make healthier choices and are less likelyto engage in risky behavior.21

Nationally, or the 2008/09 school year,

roughly 985,000 high school students (24

percent) did not graduate on time. Hoever, this

is an improvement o three percentage points

rom 2005/06 hen 27 percent did not graduate

in our years.

Among the states, the percentage o high

school students not graduating rom high school

in our years ranged rom a lo o 9 percent

in wisconsin to a high o 44 percent in Nevada

or 2008/09.

In 2008/09, 18 percent o non-Hispanic

hite students did not graduate rom high

school on time. The rate or Arican Americansas tice as high.

Students who don't take advancedmath and science courses thatrequire a strong mastery of mathfundamentals are less likely toattend and to complete college.

Naona Aag

African American

American Indian


Hispanic

Non-Hispanic White

%66

%57

%83

%80

%

87

%45

SOUC U.S. Department o ducation, National Center or ducationStatistics, 2011 National Assessment o ducational Progress.

NOT Data or Arican Americans, American Indians and Asians andPacifc Islanders do NOT include those ho are Hispanic.

PCNT OF IHTH ADS NOT POFICINTIN ATH BY AC AND HISPANIC OIIN: 2011


34/60


Childrens health is the oundation o their overall development,and ensuring that they are born healthy is the frst step toard

increasing the lie chances o disadvantaged children. Poverty, poor

nutrition, lack o preventive health care, substance abuse, maternal

depression and amily violence put childrens health at risk. Poor

health in childhood impacts other critical aspects o a child's lie,

such as school readiness and attendance, and can have lasting

consequences on their uture health and ell-being.

HATH

Health Domain Rank

1 ermont

2 assachusetts

3 aine

4 washington

5 Ne Jersey6 Connecticut

7 innesota

8 Pennsylvania

9 Ioa

10 Ne Hampshire

11 aryland

12 Nebraska

13 Utah

14 Illinois

15 Ne York

16 Tennessee

17 irginia

18 wisconsin19 hode Island

20 Oregon

21 Haaii

22 ichigan

23 Caliornia

24 Ohio

25 Kentucky

26 North Carolina

27 North Dakota

28 Idaho

29 Delaare

30 eorgia

31 west irginia

32 Kansas

33 issouri

34 Indiana

35 Alaska

36 Arizona

37 Arkansas

38 Florida

39 ouisiana

40 South Carolina

41 Alabama

42 Teas

43 South Dakota

44 Oklahoma

45 Colorado

46 Nevada

47 wyoming

48 ississippi

49 Ne eico

50 ontana


35/60


KY FINDINS IN HATH

Beteen 2005 and 2009, the child and

teen death rate declined by 16 percent rom32 to 27 per 100,000 youth ages 1 to 19.

Ater increasing or decades, the percento lo-birtheight babies has remained

stable or the past several years at8.2 percent o all live births.

Nationally, 7 percent o teens ages

12 to 17 abused or ere dependenton alcohol or drugs in 200809.

Across the nation, 5.9 million children(8 percent) lacked health insurance in 2010.Thats a 20 percent improvement rom 2008.

8.2 OF BIRTHS 1IN12 CHIDREN

ORE THAN1 IN14 TEENS27PER100,000CHIDREN

-16


36/60

HATH HATH


Te birth o a baby reminds us o thepotential that exists in every new genera-tion. Yet, some newborns ace stier oddsthan other babies to thrive. Babies whoare born with a low birthweight (less than

about 5.5 pounds) have a high probabilityo experiencing developmental problemsand short- and long-term disabilities andare at greater risk o dying within the rstyear o lie. Although recent increases inmultiple births have strongly infuencedthe rise in rates o low-birthweight babies,rates have also been higher among single-ton deliveries. Smoking, poor nutrition,poverty, stress, inections and violencecan increase the risk o a baby being born

with a low birthweight.22

Nationally, lo-birtheight babies

represented 8.2 percent o all live births in

2009, unchanged rom 2005. Ater gradually

increasing over time, the percent o lo-

birtheight babies has remained relatively

stable or the past several years, slightly

belo the three-decade high reached in

2006 o 8.3 percent.23

South Dakota had the loest percentage

o lo-birtheight babies in 2009, 5.8 percent

o live births, hile ississippi had the highest,

12.2 percent.

Among racial and ethnic groups, Arican-

American babies are the most likely to be born

ith a lo birtheight, at a rate o 13.3 percent

o live births in 2009. Although this represents

a slight decline rom a high o 13.6 in 2007,

it is still close to tice the lo-birtheight

rate or non-Hispanic hites.

Children without health insurance coverageare less likely than insured children tohave a regular health care provider and toreceive care when they need it. Tey arealso more likely to receive treatment ater

their condition has worsened, puttingthem at greater risk or hospitalization.Having health insurance can protectamilies rom nancial devastation

when their child experiences a seriousor chronic illness. Although the provisiono employer-sponsored health insuranceis declining and most low-wage andpart-time workers lack employer coverage,public health insurance has resultedin a modest increase in health coverageamong children over the last decade.

Across the nation, 8 percent o children

(5.9 million) lacked health insurance in 2010.

Thats a 20 percent improvement rom 2008

hen 10 percent o children ere uninsured.

In 16 states, the percent o children lacking

health coverage as 5 percent or less in 2010.

assachusetts and ermont had the loest

rate, 2 percent, compared to a high o 17 percent

in Nevada and 14 percent in Teas.

American Indian (18 percent) and atino

children (14 percent) are ar more likely to beuninsured than non-Hispanic hite (6 percent),

Arican-American (7 percent) and Asian and

Pacifc Islander (8 percent) children.

Children ithouthealth insuranceo-birtheight babies

In 16 states, the percentage ofchildren lacking health coveragewas 5 percent or less in 2010.assachusetts and ermont hadthe lowest rate, 2 percent, comparedto a high of 17 percent in Nevada.

17%ermont

assachusetts

Nevada2%


PCNT OF CHIDN wITHOUTHATH INSUANC: 2010


37/60

HATH HATH


Teens ho abusealcohol or drugsChild and teen deaths

Te child and teen death rate (deaths per100,000 children ages 1 to 19) refects a broadarray o actors: physical and mental health,access to health care, community actors (suchas violence and environmental toxins), use o

saety practices and, especially or youngerchildren, the level o adult supervision. Acci-dents, primarily motor vehicle accidents, arethe leading cause o death among children andyouth, accounting or 31 percent o all deathsamong children ages 1 to 14 and 42 percent oall deaths among teens ages 15 to 19 in 2009.24

As children move into their middle and lateteenage years, they encounter new risks thatcan be deadly. In 2009, accidents, homicidesand suicides accounted or nearly 73 percento deaths to teens ages 15 to 19. Death rates

or children o all age groups have declinedconsiderably in recent decades.

ore than 21,600 children and youth ages

1 to 19 died in 2009 in the United States, hich

translates into a mortality rate o 27 per 100,000

children and teens. The rate declined rom 2005,

hen it as 32 per 100,000, resulting in roughly

3,400 eer child and teen deaths in 2009

compared to our years prior.

Considerable variation in the child and

teen mortality rate eists among the states.

assachusetts had the loest rate, 17 deaths per100,000 children and youth in 2009. ississippi

and wyoming ell at the other end o the spectrum,

ith a child and teen death rate o 47 per 100,000.

American Indian and Arican-American

children and teens have mortality rates (41 and

39 per 100,000, respectively) that are ar higher

than the national average.

een alcohol and drug abuse are associ-ated with a variety o potentially harmulbehaviors, such as engaging in risky sexualactivity, driving under the infuence o drugsor alcohol, abusing multiple substances and

committing crimes. Alcohol and drug abuseamong adolescents can cause both short-and long-term physical and mental healthproblems and exacerbate existing conditions.een substance abuse is also associated withpoor academic perormance and increasedrisk or dropping out o school. Te negativeconsequences o teen alcohol and drugabuse can carry into adulthood. Overall,alcohol and drug use by adolescents hasdeclined over the past decade, althoughpatterns vary by substance.

In 200809, 7 percent o teens ages 12 to 17

had abused or ere dependent on alcohol

or drugs during the past year, declining rom

8 percent in 200506.

ates o substance abuse among teens at

the state level varied rom a lo o 5 percent in

Tennessee in 200809 to 11 percent in ontana.

Among racial and ethnic groups, Arican-

American and Asian teens ere least likely

(4 percent) to abuse or be dependent on

alcohol or drugs.

6.4 PER 1,000 live births

18 PER 100,000 childreN

53PER

100,000teeNs

Inant mortality rate

Death rate or children ages 1 to 14

Death rate or teens ages 15 to 19

SOUC U.S. Centers or Disease Control and Prevention, NationalCenter or Health Statistics, 2009 ital Statistics.

NOT State-level data or these indicators are available atdatacenter.kidscount.org .

INFANT OTAITY, CHID DATHSAND TN DATHS: 2009
http://www.aecf.org/http://datacenter.kidscount.org/http://datacenter.kidscount.org/http://www.aecf.org/


38/60


when children are nurtured and ell cared or, especially duringtheir early years, they have better social-emotional, language and

learning outcomes. These, in turn, lead to more positive behavior

and academic achievement in later years. But single parents,

especially those struggling ith fnancial hardship, are more

prone to stress, aniety and depression, hich can interere

ith eective parenting. These fndings underscore the

importance o to-generation strategies that strengthen amiliesby mitigating a amilys underlying economic distress and

addressing the ell-being o both parents and children. Families

eist in and are aected by neighborhoods and communities.

when communities have strong social and cultural institutions;

good role models or children; and the resources to provide saety,

good schools and quality support services, amilies and their

children are more likely to thrive.

FAIY AND COUNITY

Family and CommunityDomain Rank

1 Ne Hampshire

2 ermont

3 Utah

4 North Dakota

5 innesota6 wyoming

7 aine

8 Ioa

9 Ne Jersey

10 assachusetts

11 Idaho

12 Connecticut

13 ontana

14 Haaii

15 Nebraska

16 irginia

17 washington

18 wisconsin19 aryland

20 Alaska

21 South Dakota

22 Oregon

23 Pennsylvania

24 Kansas

25 Colorado

26 Delaare

27 issouri

28 Illinois

29 ichigan

30 hode Island

31 Indiana

32 Ohio

33 west irginia

34 Ne York

35 Florida

36 North Carolina

37 eorgia

38 Kentucky

39 Tennessee

40 Oklahoma

41 Nevada

42 Caliornia

43 South Carolina

44 Alabama

45 Arkansas

46 Arizona

47 Teas

48 ouisiana

49 Ne eico

50 ississippi


39/60


KY FINDINS IN FAIY AND COUNITY

An estimated 11 percent o children lived

in high-poverty areas nationide during200610. This represents an increase o

1.6 million children since 2000, henthe rate as 9 percent.

The rate o children living in single-parentamilies varies dramatically across the states,

rom a lo o 19 percent in Utah to a higho 46 percent in ississippi.

In 2009, the rate o births to teens

reached a historic lo o 39 births per1,000 emales ages 15 to 19.

In 2010, 15 percent o children lived inhouseholds headed by an adult ithout a

high school diploma, a decline since 2005.

1946 OF CHIDREN 15 OF CHIDREN

39BIRTHS PER1,000 TEENS+1.6 IION CHIDREN

46%19%Utah

ississippi


40/60

FAIY AND COUNITY FAIY AND COUNITY


Children growing up in single-parent ami-lies typically do not have the same economicor human resources available as those grow-ing up in two-parent amilies. In 2010,36 percent o single-parent amilies had

incomes below the poverty line, comparedto 8 percent o married-couple amilies withchildren. Only about 31 percent o emale-headed amilies reported receiving any childsupport payments in 2009. Compared withchildren in married-couple amilies, chil-dren raised in emale-headed households aremore likely to drop out o school, to have orcause a teen pregnancy and to experiencea divorce in adulthood.25 Te U.S. CensusBureau denes single-parent amilies asthose amilies headed by an unmarried

adult. A child living with cohabiting parentsis counted as living in a single-parent amily.

The percentage o children living in single-

parent amilies increased rom 32 percent in

2005 to 34 percent in 2010, representing an

increase o 2.6 million children.

At the state level, the percentage o children

living in single-parent amilies in 2010 ranged

rom a lo o 19 percent in Utah to a high o 46

percent in ississippi. This is one o the larger

ranges in state variation among the indicators.

To-thirds (66 percent) o Arican-American

children lived in single-parent amilies in 2010,

compared to just over hal o American Indian

children (52 percent) and to out o fve

(41 percent) atino children. By comparison, a

ourth (24 percent) o non-Hispanic hite and

one-sith (16 percent) o Asian and Pacifc

Islander children lived in single-parent households.

Higher levels o parental education arestrongly associated with better outcomesor children. Children whose parents havenot graduated rom high school are atgreater risk or being born with a low birth-

weight and having health problems, andthey are more likely to smoke and bingedrink when they are older. Teir schoolreadiness and educational achievement arealso at risk.26 More highly educated parentsare better able to provide their children

with economic stability and security, which,in turn, enhances child development. Overthe past several decades, parental educationlevels have steadily increased.

In 2010, 15 percent o children lived in

households headed by an adult ithout a high

school diploma. This represents 11.3 million

children compared to 12 million in 2005, hich

is a 6 percent decline.

In North Dakota and ermont, only 4 percent

o children lived in amilies not headed by a high

school graduate in 2010, the loest percentage

in the country. At 26 percent, Caliornia had the

highest rate o children living ithout a high-

school-educated head o household.

About 37 percent o atino children lived in

households headed by someone ithout a highschool diploma. Thats to and a hal times the

rate or Arican-American children (15 percent)

and more than fve times the rate or non-Hispanic

hite children (7 percent).

Children in amilies here

the household head lacksa high school diplomaChildren in single-parentamilies

Nationally, about 24.3 million childrenlived in single-parent families in 2010.Of these children, 4.8 million lived incohabiting couple families.

CHIDN BY HOUSHODIIN AANNT: 2010


74.2 Million TOTA CHIDPOPUATION

IED IN OTHER IINARRANEENTS

3.6 Million

4.8 IION IEDIN COHABITINCOUPE FAIIES

IED IN SINE-PARENT FAIIES

24.3 Million

IED IN ARRIED-COUPE FAIIES

46.3 Million


41/60

FAIY AND COUNITY FAIY AND COUNITY


Concentrated poverty puts whole neigh-borhoods and people living there at risk.High-poverty neighborhoods are muchmore likely than other neighborhoods to havehigh rates o crime and violence, physical

and mental health problems, unemploymentand other problems. Concentrated neighbor-hood poverty negatively aects poor childrenas well as those who are better o.27 High-poverty areas are dened here as those censustracts where the poverty rates o the totalpopulation are 30 percent or more.

During the period rom 2006 to 2010, 11 percent

o children lived in high-poverty areas nationide,

or a total o 7.9 million. This represents an

increase o 1.6 million children since 2000, hen

the rate as 9 percent.

ariation among the states is ide: Feer than

hal o one percent o children in wyoming lived in

areas o concentrated poverty, hereas 23 percent

o children lived in high-poverty areas in ississippi.

The rate as 20 percent in Ne eico.

Arican-American, American Indian and atino

children ere much more likely to live in high-poverty

areas than children o other racial and ethnic

groups. The rates ere 27 percent, 24 percent

and 19 percent, respectively.

eenage childbearing can have long-termnegative eects or both the mother andnewborn. Babies born to teen mothersare at higher risk o being low-birthweightand preterm. Tey are also ar more likely

to be born into amilies with limitededucational and economic resources,

which unction as barriers to uture suc-cess.28 In 2006, the United States sawthe rst increase in the teen birth rate inmore than a decade, a rise that continuedthrough 2007. But ater the two-yearincrease, the teen birth rate declined in2008 and 2009 to a historic low.

In 2009, there ere nearly 410,000 babies

born to emales ages 15 to 19. That translates into

a birth rate o 39 births per 1,000 teens, hich

represents a slight decrease rom 2005 hen

the rate as 40 births per 1,000 teens.

Among the states, the teen birth rate or 2009

ranged rom a lo o 16 births per 1,000 teens

ages 15 to 19 in Ne Hampshire to a high o

64 per 1,000 in ississippi and Ne eico.

At 70 births per 1,000 teenage girls, the teen

birth rate or atinos as the highest across

major racial and ethnic groups. Although it

remained high, the 2009 rate or births to atino

teens as the loest rate on record.29

Teen birthsChildren living inhigh-poverty areas

African-American, American Indianand atino children were muchmore likely to live in high-povertyareas than children of other racialand ethnic groups.

Naona Aag

African American

American Indian


Hispanic

Non-Hispanic White

%11

%6

%3

%19

%24

%

27


NOT Data or Arican Americans, American Indians and Asians andPacifc Islanders also include those ho are Hispanic.

PCNT OF CHIDN IIN IN HIH-POTYAAS BY AC AND HISPANIC OIIN: 200610


42/60


43/60


At the same time, some hard-won gains areslipping away. We are particularly concernedabout the severe declines in economic well-being or amilies and their children causedby the recession. While the economy isslowly improving, change cant come soonenough or the children whose exposure toeconomic hardship has deepened or beenprolonged. As we know, such conditions canhave lasting consequences that reduce thechances o uture success.

I we want to ensure that the nextgeneration is prepared to eectivelycompete in a global economy that isincreasingly technology driven anddependent on a well-educated workorce,then we must act.

With the right investments, we canprovide all amilies and children withthe opportunity to reach their ull poten-tial and, in the process, strengthen oureconomy and our nation.

Over the past e decades, e have made tremendous progress

in some areas o child ell-being and reduced some o the most

egregious disparities associated ith dierences in income and

ealth, and race and ethnicity. As the fndings in this years KIDS

COUNT Data Bookreveal, some aspects o child ell-being, such as

education and health, continued to sho some improvement, despite

the orst economic catastrophe since the reat Depression.

CONCUSION


44/60


NDNOTS

1. Ravitch, D. ( June 7, 2012). Do ourpublic schools threaten national secu-rity? New York Review o Books. www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/

jun/07/do-our-public-schools-threaten-national-security/?page=1#n-*

2. Reardon, S. F. (2011). Te wideningacademic achievement gap betweenthe rich and the poor: New evidenceand possible explanations. In R.Murnane & G. Duncan (Eds.),Whither opportunity? Rising inequalityand the uncertain lie chances o low-income children. New York, NY:Russell Sage Foundation Press.

3. Centers or Disease Control and Pre-vention. (June 2012). Childhood obesity

acts.www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/obesity/acts.htm

4. Weller, C. E., Fields, J., & Agbede, F.

(January 2011). Te state o communitieso color in the U.S. economy: A snapshotas we enter 2011. Washington, DC:Center or American Progress.www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/01/pd/comm_o_color.pd

5. McNichol, E., Oli, P., & Johnson,N. (May 24, 2012).States continue to

eel recessions impact. Washington, DC:Center on Budget and Policy Pr

Documents

Kids Count 2012 Data Book Full Report