which state child welfare systems are right for kids? · 2016-09-06 · holistically rate the child...

2012RightforKidsRanking|FoundationforGovernmentAccountability 1

Which State Child Welfare Systems Are Right for Kids?

R A N K I N G

2012

PublishedbytheFoundationforGovernmentAccountability

F O U N D A T I O N F O R GOVERNMENTACCOUNTABILITY

TarrenBragdonChiefExecutiveOfficer

Which State Child Welfare Systems Are Right for Kids?

R A N K I N G

2012

4 2012RightforKidsRanking|FoundationforGovernmentAccountability 2012RightforKidsRanking|FoundationforGovernmentAccountability 5

R I G H T F O R K I D S R A N K I N G


2012R I G H T F O R K I D S R A N K I N G

CONTeNTSExecutiveSummary..................................................................................................6

DoingRightForKids–GoodSocialPolicy,GoodEconomicPolicy..................... 7

FiveKeyFindingsFromThe2012RightForKidsRanking........................................ 8

TheBestAndWorst–WhichStatesAreRightForKids?......................................... 9

WhatIfAllStatesPerformedLikeTheTop10RightForKidsStates?................... 10

2012RightForKidsRanking................................................................................... 11

2006vs.2012RightForKidsRanking..................................................................... 12

SubRankings–TheBestAndWorstStatesForEachOfThe11OutcomeAreas.... 13

Outcome1-ReduceAbuse.................................................................................. 14

Outcome2-ReduceAbuseInFosterCare........................................................ 15

Outcome3-PermanentFamilies,SafeHomes................................................... 16

Outcome4-ReturnHomeQuicklyAndSafely................................................... 17

Outcome5-ForeverFamiliesASAP.................................................................... 18

Outcome6-HereToday...AndTomorrow....................................................... 19

Outcome7-HopeAndHomesForTeens............................................................ 20

Outcome8-FosteringAGoodEducation.......................................................... 21

Outcome9-FewerFosterKids............................................................................. 22

Outcome10-RapidResponse............................................................................. 23

Outcome11-MoreForeverFamilies.................................................................... 24

RankingMethodology........................................................................................... 25

DetailedOutcomesSummaryTable.................................................................... 26

SpendingVersusPerformance-IsMoneyTheAnswer?..................................... 28

FosterCareSpendingPerState............................................................................ 29

StrengthsAndLimitations...................................................................................... 30

NewOpportunitiesForStatesAndKids................................................................ 31

AboutTheFoundationForGovernmentAccountability.................................... 32

AboutTheAuthor–TarrenBragdon..................................................................... 33

References............................................................................................................. 34


Eachstate’schildwelfaresystemtypicallyoperatesoutofthepubliceyeunlessatragedy,oftenthedeathachild,pullsthesystemfromtheshadowstothefrontpage.Itshouldnotbethisway.Protectingchildrenfromabuseandneglectisafundamentalresponsibilityofacivilsociety.

Yet,theaverageAmerican,andevenmostpolicymakersandmembersofthemedia,haslittleunderstandingofhowtheirstate’schildwelfaresystemperforms.TheannualRIGHTFORKIDSRANKINGprovidesthehardfactsabouthowwellstatesareservingvulnerablekids.TheRIGHTFORKIDSRANKINGandthecompanionRightForKids.orgWebsiteanswersbasicquestionslike:

• Whichstatesaredoingthebestjoboverallinservingchildrenwhoareabusedandneglected?

Andmorefocusedquestionslike:

• Whichstatesarebestservingteenagersinfostercarebyhelpingthemmoveontopermanencyandstability?

The2012RIGHTFORKIDSRANKINGshowswhichstatesarebestandworstatthistoughbutcriticaljob,usingamethodologythatscoresallstatesin11keyoutcomeareasand41differentdatameasures.Thiscomprehensivelististhefirstofitskind.

Thefivemajorfindingsfromthisyear’sRIGHTFORKIDSRANKINGare:

1.Only11stateshavea24-hourrapidresponsetoinvestigateclaimsofabuseorneglect.

2.Only12statesvisitthevastmajorityoffosterkidsmonthly.

3.Only9statesquicklyandsafelyreturnfosterchildrenhometotheirbiologicalfamilieswhenpossible.

4.Only9statesensureshortandstablestaysinfostercareasgeneralpractice.

5.Only11stateshelpfindforeverfamiliesASAPforalargeshareoffosterchildren.

Americans,mostimportantlyabusedandneglectedkids,payasignificantpriceasaresultofsomestatesdoingamuchworsejobthanothers.WhatifallstatesperformedattheleveloftheTop10RightforKidsStates?Ifthathappened:

1.Therewouldbe72,000fewerkidsinfostercare(17%fewer).

2.Therewouldbealmost19,000moreadoptionsfromfostercareeachyear(36%more).

Helpingkids isnot justgoodsocialpolicy. It isgoodeconomicpolicyaswell. Childabuseandneglectcostsmorethan$100billioneveryyearindirect($33billion)andindirect($71billion)costs.

This annual ranking is a reality check on how well each state is serving the most vulnerable children, andcelebratestopperformingstatesoverallandinspecificoutcomeareas.Thesebrightspotscanleadbyexample,andhighlightsuccessfulpublicpolicies,fundingstructures,andleadershiptobestservekids.Understandingwhyastaterankswhereitdoesisthefirststeptowardpositive,pro-activereforms.LearnmoreabouthowyourstateperformsbyreadingthisreportandstatespecificprofilesatRightForKids.org

E x E C U T I V E S UMMAR Y


DO ING R IGH T FOR K I D S –GOOD SOC IA L POL ICY ,GOOD ECONOM IC POL ICY

Ithappens.ChildreninAmericadiefromabuseandneglect.Ithappens1,770timesayear–almostfivetimeseveryday.1Whenthesetragediesoccurquestionsareaskedandfingersarepointed.Thestate’schildwelfaresystembecomesfrontpagenews.Suchtragediesrightlyforcethemedia,policymakersandthepublictoasktoughquestionsabouthowwellastate’schildwelfaresystemprotectskids, reducesabuse,supportsfamilies,andmovesabusedkidstosafeandpermanentfamiliesandultimatelytowardabetterlife.

Achildshouldnothavetodietoforcethesequestions.

Policymakers,childadvocates,themediaandthepublichavearighttoknow:

• Whichstatesaredoingthebestjoboverallinservingchildrenwhoareabusedandneglected?

• Whichstatesarequickesttoinvestigateallegationsofabuse?

• Whichstatesarebestatreducingtheamountoftimechildrenspendinfostercare?

• Whichstateshaveincreasedthenumberofchildrenmovingfromfostercaretoadoptivefamilies?

• Whichstatesarebestatsupportingfosterchildrensafelyreturningbacktotheirbiologicalfamilies?

• Whichstatesarebestatservingteenagersincarebyhelpingthemmoveontopermanencyandstability?

• Whichstatesarereducingthenumberoffosterhomesthatkidsinfostercareareplacedinto?

• Whichstatesarereducingtherateofchildabuseandneglect?

Simplyput,atopperformingchildwelfaresystemshouldrespondquicklytoallegationsofabuse,ensurethatkidswhoareabusedaretransitionedtoasafeandpermanenthomeasquicklyaspossible(whetherthroughsuccessful reunification or adoption), guarantee that children in out-of-home placements are in safe andsupportivehome-likesettings(fostercareorkinshipcare)withasfewplacementsaspossible,andreducetheoverallincidenceofabuseand,subsequently,thenumberofchildreninneedoffostercare.

TheFoundationforGovernmentAccountabilitypublishestheRIGHTFORKIDSRANKINGtocomprehensivelyandholisticallyratethechildwelfaresystemsofall50statesandtheDistrictofColumbia.Thisannualrankingisthefirstofitskind.Itmeasureseachstate’sjobperformanceinservingthemostvulnerablekids,andidentifiestheleaderstateswecanlooktoforinspirationandadvice.

Helpingkids isnot justgoodsocialpolicy. It isgoodeconomicpolicyaswell. Childabuseandneglectcostsmorethan$100billioneveryyearindirect($33billion)andindirect($71billion)costs.2Accordingtonumerousstudies,abusedandneglectedchildrenaremore likely toexperiencethefollowingduringtheir lifetime:poorphysicalhealth,pooremotionalhealth,socialdifficulties,cognitivedysfunction,high-riskhealthbehaviors,andbehavioralproblems.

Thedirectcostsofchildabuseandneglectaremoreobvious:hospitalizationfromabuse($6.6billion),mentalhealth services ($1billion), childwelfare services ($25.4billion), and lawenforcement ($33million). But therearealsoseveralindirectcostsofchildabuseandneglect:specialeducation($2.4billion),juveniledelinquency($7.2billion),mentalhealthandhealthcare($67million),adultcriminal justicespending($28billion),andlostproductivity ($33 billion). This total cost is eight times greater than the total $12.6 billion reported state andfederalTitleIV-EspendingforFosterCare($8.4billion)andAdoptionAssistance($4.1billion)infiscalyear2010.3

Whatisimmeasurableisthecosttothelifeoftheabusedchild.Asasociety,weneedtoreducetheincidenceofchildabuseandneglectandimproveoutcomesinstatechildwelfaresystems–notbecauseitisgoodfiscalpolicy,butfirstandforemostbecauseitistherightandjustthingtodoinacivilsociety.


1. Only 11 states have a 24-hour rapid response to investigate claims of abuse or neglect.Theaveragetimebetweenreceivingareportofabuseorneglectandlaunchinganinvestigationislessthan24hoursinthefollowing11states:Colorado,DistrictofColumbia,Florida,Illinois,Iowa,Nevada,NewHampshire,NewJersey,NewYork,TennesseeandWyoming.Unbelievably,13statestakelongerthan120hours(5days)torespond.Foravulnerablechild,thiscouldmeananotherfivedaysofabusebecauseofbureaucraticdelay.Itcouldalsomeanthedifferencebetweenlifeanddeath.

2. Only 12 states visit the vast majority of foster kids monthly.Caseworkervisitsarecriticaltoensurethesafetyofthechildinfostercareandtosupportthefosterparentsservingthechild.12statesprioritizefosterfamilyaccountabilityandsafetywithmonthlyvisitstoatleast85%offosterchildren.They are: Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana,Maine, NewMexico, Pennsylvania, South Carolina,SouthDakota,andUtah.

3. Only 9 states quickly and safely return foster children home to their biological families when possible.• Just13states,onaverage,reunifyfosterchildrenwiththeirbiologicalfamilieswithin12months.Toomanystatestaketoolongtoreunify,eventhoughreunificationisinthebestinterestofthechildren.Inthesestateskidslanguishinfostercarelikelylongerthantheyneed.

• 38states,onaverage,havefewerthan15%(about1 in7)ofreunifiedfosterchildrenre-enterfostercarewithin12months(presumablybecauseofcontinuedabuseandneglect).Mostreunificationsaresuccessful.

• Only9statesaccomplishboth–fewerthan12monthsonaveragetoreunifywithan85%+successrate.Thesestatesare:Arkansas,Florida,Idaho,Indiana,Mississippi,Nebraska,Tennessee,Utah,andWyoming.

4. Only 9 states ensure short and stable stays in foster care as a general practice. • Only14stateshavechildrenremaininfostercare12monthsorless,onaverage.

• 27stateshave85%ormoreofchildreninfostercarelessthan12monthsandinamaximumoftwodifferentfosterhomes(orplacements).Suchmovescanbetraumaticforthechild,oftenforcingachangeofschoolandleavingfriendsandcommunitysupport.

• Only9statesaccomplishboth–havefosterchildrenremainincareayearorlessandensuretheydonotexperiencethetraumaofmultiplemoves. Thesestatesare:Arizona,Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa,Minnesota,Nebraska,WestVirginia,andWyoming.

5. Only 11 states help find forever families ASAP for a large share of foster children.• Whenafosterchildissuccessfullyadoptedintoaforeverfamily,heorshehasoftenbeeninthechildwelfaresystemalongtime.Just28states,onaverage,takelessthan30monthstomoveachildfromanabusivebiologicalhomethroughthefostercaresystemandintoasafe,permanentadoptivefamily.Thismeansjustoverhalfthestatestakelessthantwoandonehalfyearstomoveachildfromabuseanduncertaintytosafetyandstability.Onlyfourstatesaccomplishthisinlessthan24months:Colorado,Iowa,Utah,andVermont.

• Just18states,in2010,had15%offosterchildren(about1in7)adopted.

• Only11statesaccomplishboth–lessthan30monthsonaveragetomoveafosterchildtoanadoptivehome,andalargenumberofadoptionsasashareofthenumberofkidsinfostercare.Thesestatesare:Arizona,Arkansas,Florida,Idaho,Maine,NewMexico,NorthCarolina,Texas,Utah,Vermont,andWyoming.

F I V E K E Y F I N D I NG SF ROM T H E 2 0 1 2 R I G H T

F O R K I D S R AN K I NG


T H E B E S T A ND WOR S T –WH I C H S T A T E S A R E R I G H T F O R K I D S ?

TOP 10 Right FOR KIDS STATeS (withscore,outof110points)

1.Idaho(78.9)

2.NewHampshire(73.6)

3.NorthCarolina(73.1)

4.Florida(70.9)

5.NewJersey(70.7)

6.Arizona(70.3)

7.Colorado(69.6)

8.NorthDakota(68.9)

9.Hawaii(68.2)

10.Tennessee(66.7)

BOTTOm 10 WRong FOR KIDS STATeS (withscore,outof110points)

42.SouthCarolina(55.3)

43.Mississippi(55.3)

44.Nebraska(53.5)

45.NewYork(53.4)

46.Montana(52.6)

47.SouthDakota(51)

48.Illinois(50)

49.Oregon(48.9)

50.Massachusetts(42.3)

51.DistrictofColumbia(40.9)

Whichstatesaretheleadersandwhichfallshortwhenitcomestohelpingchildrenwhoareabusedorneglected?Belowisthelistingofthe10Bestand10Worststatesforkids.

Lookcloselyatthelist.Thereisnoapparentsize,geography,relativewealth,orethnicprofileofatopperformingstate.Thelistisdiverse.Whatmattersisnotthephysicalcharacteristicsofastate,buthowstatesactandwhatprogramsandpoliciestheyhave.

Anystatecanbeatopperformer.That’sgoodnewsforpolicymakersandgreatnewsforkidswhoareabusedandneglected.


WHAT I F AL L S TATESPERFORMED L I KE THE TOP

10 R IGHT FOR K IDS S TATES?

Thenotionofall stateshavingahigh-performingchildwelfaresystem isnotpolicyutopia. In fact,asdata inthisreportandonRightForKids.orgshows,overarelativelyshortperiodoftimestatescananddodramaticallyimproveorworsentheirperformanceinprotectingandservingkidswhoareabusedandneglected.

SowhatwoulditmeanifallstatesweretoperformaswellastheTop10RightForKidsStates?Whatiftherestofthestateshad,onaverage,thesameoutcomesastheTop10states?

1.Therewouldbe72,000fewerkidsinfostercare(17%fewer)

2.Therewouldbealmost19,000moreadoptionsfromfostercareeachyear(36%more)

The RIGHT FOR KIDS RANKINGmatters. Child advocates, families, voters, policymakers and themediamustencouragestatestoreformtheirchildwelfaresystemsanddevelopachildwelfaresafetynetthatservesabusedandneglectedkidswell. Whenthishappens,acompassionateandpremierchildwelfarenetworkacrossthecountrywillbethereality,notjustanideal.


2 0 1 2 R I G H T F O R K I D SR AN K I NG

The2012RIGHTFORKIDSRANKINGisbasedonthemostrecentdataavailable–mostlyfrom2010–andfactorsastate’schangeinperformanceovertime,from2007to2010.

STATe SCORe RANKAlabama 58.8 33Alaska 56.6 40Arizona 70.3 6Arkansas 57.8 37California 56.4 41Colorado 69.6 7Connecticut 57.9 36Delaware 57.3 38DistrictofColumbia 40.9 51Florida 70.9 4Georgia 66.1 12Hawaii 68.2 9Idaho 78.9 1Illinois 50 48Indiana 62.9 24Iowa 64.6 15Kansas 61.4 30

STATe SCORe RANKKentucky 62.9 23Louisiana 61.5 29Maine 62.7 25Maryland 58.4 34Massachusetts 42.3 50Michigan 63.1 22Minnesota 63.4 21Mississippi 55.3 43Missouri 62.4 26Montana 52.6 46Nebraska 53.5 44Nevada 61.8 28NewHampshire 73.6 2NewJersey 70.7 5NewMexico 64.4 18NewYork 53.4 45NorthCarolina 73.1 3

STATe SCORe RANKNorthDakota 68.9 8Ohio 65.8 13Oklahoma 60.1 31Oregon 48.9 49Pennsylvania 64.5 16RhodeIsland 58 35SouthCarolina 55.3 42SouthDakota 51 47Tennessee 66.7 10Texas 58.9 32Utah 63.9 20Vermont 56.9 39Virginia 62.1 27Washington 64.1 19WestVirginia 65.4 14Wisconsin 64.5 17Wyoming 66.5 11

2012 RANKINGS - AlPHABeTICAl

2012 RANKINGS - BeST TO WORST

STATe SCORe RANKIdaho 78.9 1NewHampshire 73.6 2NorthCarolina 73.1 3Florida 70.9 4NewJersey 70.7 5Arizona 70.3 6Colorado 69.6 7NorthDakota 68.9 8Hawaii 68.2 9Tennessee 66.7 10Wyoming 66.5 11Georgia 66.1 12Ohio 65.8 13WestVirginia 65.4 14Iowa 64.6 15Pennsylvania 64.5 16Wisconsin 64.5 17

STATe SCORe RANKNewMexico 64.4 18Washington 64.1 19Utah 63.9 20Minnesota 63.4 21Michigan 63.1 22Kentucky 62.9 23Indiana 62.9 24Maine 62.7 25Missouri 62.4 26Virginia 62.1 27Nevada 61.8 28Louisiana 61.5 29Kansas 61.4 30Oklahoma 60.1 31Texas 58.9 32Alabama 58.8 33Maryland 58.4 34

STATe SCORe RANKRhodeIsland 58 35Connecticut 57.9 36Arkansas 57.8 37Delaware 57.3 38Vermont 56.9 39Alaska 56.6 40California 56.4 41SouthCarolina 55.3 42Mississippi 55.3 43Nebraska 53.5 44NewYork 53.4 45Montana 52.6 46SouthDakota 51 47Illinois 50 48Oregon 48.9 49Massachusetts 42.3 50DistrictofColumbia 40.9 51


Tobestunderstandhowstateperformancechangedovertime(inthiscasefouryears),acalculationofthe2006Rankingisprovidedforcomparisonwiththe2012RIGHTFORKIDSRANKING.The2006Rankingalsomeasureshowa state’s performance changed from2003to2006.

Whatismosttellingaboutthe2006Rankingscompared to the 2012 Rankings is howmuchstatesmoved.

Fromthe2006tothe2012Rankings,19statesmovedmorethan10places(upordown).Infact,14statesmovedatleast15places.

Whatdoes thismean? Statescananddosignificantly change how well they serveabusedandneglected kids ina very shortamount of time. A childwelfare system isnot an immovable bureaucracy. It is adynamic system and its performance canquicklyanddramaticallychange.

On theother hand, thisalso indicates thattopperforming statesmustbevigilantandpro-activetopreservetheirgoodstanding.In fact, only Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii,Idaho, and North Carolina were Top 10Statesinboth2012and2006.

Other states saw dramatic improvement,including Florida (+12 places), Georgia(+18),Iowa(+23),Maryland(+17),Michigan(+18),NewJersey(+26),NorthDakota(+28),andWestVirginia(+23).

Some statesperformedpoorly in 2006andstill performed poorly years later, like theDistrict ofColumbia, Illinois,Massachusetts,Nebraska,andOregon.

Performance between 2006 and 2012plummeted in Alabama (-28 places),California (-14), Delaware (-34, the largestdrop), Mississippi (-17), Missouri (-19),Montana(-27),andUtah(-19).

RightForKids.orgshowswhichoutcomeareasdrove a state’s change in performance,andprovidesstatespecificoverviewsofallkeydatapoints.

2 0 0 6 V S . 2 0 1 2 R I G H TF O R K I D S R AN K I NG

2012 2006 mOveD 2006 TO

2012 STATe SCORe RANK SCORe RANKAlabama 58.8 33 68.6 5 -28Alaska 56.6 40 53.2 45 5Arizona 70.3 6 66.5 9 3Arkansas 57.8 37 57.2 32 -5California 56.4 41 59 27 -14Colorado 69.6 7 70.3 3 -4Connecticut 57.9 36 60.1 24 -12Delaware 57.3 38 69.4 4 -34DistrictofColumbia 40.9 51 52.2 46 -5Florida 70.9 4 63.1 16 12Georgia 66.1 12 57.5 30 18Hawaii 68.2 9 72.3 2 -7Idaho 78.9 1 68.2 6 5Illinois 50 48 51.4 47 -1Indiana 62.9 24 64.2 14 -10Iowa 64.6 15 55.4 38 23Kansas 61.4 30 56.6 33 3Kentucky 62.9 23 63.3 15 -8Louisiana 61.5 29 58.8 28 -1Maine 62.7 25 55.4 39 14Maryland 58.4 34 43.8 51 17Massachusetts 42.3 50 53.6 44 -6Michigan 63.1 22 55.3 40 18Minnesota 63.4 21 64.9 11 -10Mississippi 55.3 43 59.8 26 -17Missouri 62.4 26 67.8 7 -19Montana 52.6 46 62.2 19 -27Nebraska 53.5 44 54.6 42 -2Nevada 61.8 28 61.8 20 -8NewHampshire 73.6 2 64.4 12 10NewJersey 70.7 5 57.3 31 26NewMexico 64.4 18 62.5 17 -1NewYork 53.4 45 55.8 35 -10NorthCarolina 73.1 3 67.1 8 5NorthDakota 68.9 8 55.7 36 28Ohio 65.8 13 64.4 12 -1Oklahoma 60.1 31 49.6 48 17Oregon 48.9 49 49.5 49 0Pennsylvania 64.5 16 61.3 22 6RhodeIsland 58 35 54.4 43 8SouthCarolina 55.3 42 56.5 34 -8SouthDakota 51 47 54.8 41 -6Tennessee 66.7 10 62.2 18 8Texas 58.9 32 58.8 29 -3Utah 63.9 20 72.5 1 -19Vermont 56.9 39 48.4 50 11Virginia 62.1 27 61.6 21 -6Washington 64.1 19 61.1 23 4WestVirginia 65.4 14 55.5 37 23Wisconsin 64.5 17 59.9 25 8Wyoming 66.5 11 65.1 10 -1


SUBRANKINGS–THEBESTANDWORSTSTATESFOREACHOFTHE11OUTCOMEAREAS

Families,policymakers,themedia,andthepublicneedtounderstandwhichstatesareleadingineachspecificoutcomearea.Eachoutcomeareawasspecificallychosenaspartoftheassessmentofstates’childwelfaresystemsbecause theywereeither identifiedby the federalAdministration forChildrenand Families (ACF)asbeingacoreareaofchildwelfaresystemperformanceor identifiedbyrelevant researchasbeingcoretoawell-performingchildwelfaresystem.

Thesubrankingsforeachoutcomeareashowthosetopperformersthatmayhavepolicyorprogramstrategiesworthyofreplicationinother,lowerperformingstates.TheRightForKids.orgWebsiteallowsuserstoseetheentiresubrankingsforeachoutcomearea. Thesesubrankingsarehelpful tochildadvocatesandpolicymakerstoguidewherereformsshouldbetargetedandwhatoutcomemeasuresshouldbemonitoredassuchreformsareimplemented.

Thefollowingsectionprovidesinformationoneachofthe11outcomeareas,andeachstate’sscoreandrankforeachoftheoutcomeareas.Thehighestpossiblescoreforeachoutcomeareais10points.

Outcome 1 – Reduce Abuse

Outcome 2 – Reduce Abuse in Foster Care

Outcome 3 – Permanent Families, Safe Homes

Outcome 4 – Return Home Quickly and Safely

Outcome 5 – Forever Families ASAP

Outcome 6 – Here Today… and Tomorrow

Outcome 7 – Hope and Homes for Teens

Outcome 8 – Fostering A Good education

Outcome 9 – Fewer Foster Kids

Outcome 10 – Rapid Response

Outcome 11 – more Forever Families

2012RightforKidsRanking|FoundationforGovernmentAccountability


O U T COME 1

R E D UC E A B U S E

meASuRING SuCCeSS• Whichstatesdothebestjobatstoppingthecycleofabuseandneglect,asevidencedbychildrennotrepeatedlyenteringthechildwelfaresystemforpersistentabuseandneglect?

• Whichstatesachievetheultimateoutcomeofreducingtherateofabuseandneglectoverall?

Theultimategoalofawell-functioningchildwelfaresystemistoreducethechanceofachildbeingabusedonceorrepeatedly.

Infact, themost recentFourthFederalNational IncidenceStudy on Child Maltreatment (NIS 4) “highlight[s] animportant and potentially meaningful drop in the rateof violence toward children. The trend overall suggeststhat comprehensive prevention strategies, high-qualityclinicalinterventions,andholdingthosewhoharmchildrenaccountable for their actions have the capacity to keepchildren safe.” Sadly, even with this drop the rates ofmaltreatment are still above their reported levels in 1986and1980.4

Key ReSulTS• Percent of children without a recurrence of maltreatment (abuse orneglect)within6months(2010data)

• Rateofmaltreatmentvictimsper100,000children(2010)

• Change in the rate of maltreatment victims per 100,000 children from2007to2010

STATe SCORe RANKAlabama 6.6 18Alaska 3.8 43Arizona 6.4 19Arkansas 2.8 49California 5.3 30Colorado 5.5 29Connecticut 3.9 42Delaware 5.8 26DistrictofColumbia 2.9 48Florida 4.1 41Georgia 8.2 1Hawaii 7 12Idaho 6.9 14Illinois 5 34Indiana 3.3 45Iowa 3.1 47Kansas 7.5 4

STATe SCORe RANKKentucky 4.2 38Louisiana 6 23Maine 5.1 32Maryland 4.9 35Massachusetts 5.3 30Michigan 2.8 49Minnesota 6.8 16Mississippi 4.6 37Missouri 7.3 5Montana 6.9 14Nebraska 3.7 44Nevada 5.8 26NewHampshire 7.1 8NewJersey 5.7 28NewMexico 4.2 38NewYork 1.4 51NorthCarolina 6.3 21

STATe SCORe RANKNorthDakota 7.1 8Ohio 4.8 36Oklahoma 7.1 8Oregon 5.1 32Pennsylvania 7.3 7RhodeIsland 3.3 45SouthCarolina 5.9 24SouthDakota 6 22Tennessee 7.9 2Texas 6.4 19Utah 4.2 38Vermont 7.3 5Virginia 7 12Washington 5.8 25WestVirginia 7.7 3Wisconsin 6.7 17Wyoming 7 11

DID yOu KNOW…•31 states reduced the rate of confirmedabuseorneglectvictimsfrom2007to2010.Sadly,intheother20statestheconfirmedrateofabuseandneglectincreased.

Top 10 states Bottom 10 states


O U T COME 2

R E D UC E A B U S E I N F O S T E R CA R E

meASuRING SuCCeSS• Whichstatesprotectkidsfrombeingabusedorneglectedwhileinafosterhome?

• Whichstatesensurechildren’ssafetywhileinfostercarebyconductingmonthlyin-homevisitswithalmostallfosterchildren?

• Which stateshavea shortaverage lengthof stay forchildren in fostercarebefore returning themhomeor toanadoptivefamily?

Ifachildmustberemovedfromhisorherbiologicalhome,statesmustensurethatchildisnotabusedagaininafosterhomebythefosterparents,byotherchildreninthehomeorbysomeotherpersonwithinthathome.Statescandothatbyvisitingchildrenmonthly,atthefosterhome,toensurethefosterfamilyisprovidingasafe

andnurturingenvironment,andtoprovidesupporttohardworkingfosterparents.

Fostercareshouldbeatemporarytransition,notadestination.Byreducingtheaverageamountoftimeachildremainsinfostercare,thestatecanreducethechancethatchildwillbeabusedwhileinthesystem.Shorterstaysandaccountabilitythroughmonthlyvisitsprotectkids.

Key ReSulTS•Percent of children maltreatedwhileinfostercare(2010data)

•Percent of children in foster carereceivingmonthlyvisits(2010)

•Percent of children in foster carereceivinghomevisits(2010)

•Medianlengthofstayinfostercare(months) forchildren in fostercareonSeptember30,2010

DID yOu KNOW…•In 9 states, less than half ofall foster children are visitedeach month. These states are:Alaska, Arkansas, Hawaii, Iowa,Massachusetts, Oregon, RhodeIsland, Tennessee (did not reportatall),andVermont.

•Foster children in the District ofColumbia and Illinois spend thelongest time in foster care–amedian of 30 and 29 months,respectively. These kids spendmoretimeinfostercarethentheywillspendatschoolforfirstgrade,second grade and third gradecombined.

STATe SCORe RANKAlabama 7.7 30Alaska 6.2 46Arizona 8.4 13Arkansas 7.4 35California 7.3 36Colorado 8.1 23Connecticut 7.1 37Delaware 7.6 31DistrictofColumbia 6.4 44Florida 9 2Georgia 7.1 37Hawaii 6 47Idaho 9 2Illinois 6 47Indiana 8.7 8Iowa 7.7 28Kansas 8.7 8

STATe SCORe RANKKentucky 8.4 13Louisiana 8.8 6Maine 8.2 19Maryland 7 40Massachusetts 6.6 43Michigan 7.4 34Minnesota 8.2 19Mississippi 7.5 33Missouri 8.6 10Montana 8.4 13Nebraska 7.9 26Nevada 7.1 37NewHampshire 8.4 13NewJersey 8.4 13NewMexico 9 2NewYork 5.1 50NorthCarolina 8.1 23

STATe SCORe RANKNorthDakota 7.9 27Ohio 8.4 13Oklahoma 8 25Oregon 6.7 42Pennsylvania 9 2RhodeIsland 5.6 49SouthCarolina 7.7 28SouthDakota 8.8 6Tennessee 5 51Texas 8.5 11Utah 9.3 1Vermont 6.2 45Virginia 6.9 41Washington 7.5 32WestVirginia 8.5 11Wisconsin 8.2 19Wyoming 8.2 19



O U T COME 3

P E RMAN EN T F AM I L I E S ,S A F E HOME S

meASuRING SuCCeSS• Whichstateshelpkidsmovetoapermanenthomebeforetheyturn18?

• Whichstateshelpyoungchildrenliveinafamily-likesettingwhileinfostercare,suchasafosterhome,ratherthanatgrouphomesorastateinstitution?

Achildwhohasbeenremovedfromanabusiveorneglectfulhome should ideally be in a family-like setting—a fosterfamily.Youngchildreninparticularshouldbeinfostercareovergrouphomesorinstitutions,wheneverpossible.Achildin fostercareshouldtransitiontoasafe,permanenthomeasquicklyaspossible.

Key ReSulTS• Ofallchildreninfostercarefor24monthsorlongeronthefirstdayof theyear,whatpercentageweredischargedtoapermanenthomepriortotheir18thbirthdayandbytheendof theyear? (FederalCompositeOutcome3.1,2010data)

• Of all children discharged from foster care during 2010and who were legally free for adoption at the time ofdischarge (i.e., there was a parental rights terminationdatereportedtotheAdoptionandFosterCareAnalysisand Reporting System (AFCARS) and Families for bothmotherandfather),whatpercentageweredischargedtoapermanenthomepriortotheir18thbirthday?(FederalCompositeOutcome3.2,2010)

• Of all children who entered care during the 2010fiscal year andwere age 12 or younger at time of thisplacement, what percentage were in group homes orinstitutions?(2010)

STATe SCORe RANKAlabama 7 18Alaska 8.2 3Arizona 7.5 12Arkansas 5.1 37California 6.3 27Colorado 6.7 25Connecticut 3.1 49Delaware 5.8 32DistrictofColumbia 5.2 35Florida 6.7 23Georgia 6.9 19Hawaii 5.1 37Idaho 8.2 3Illinois 6.8 22Indiana 7.5 12Iowa 6.9 21Kansas 6 31

STATe SCORe RANKKentucky 5 41Louisiana 7.7 8Maine 5.5 33Maryland 5.2 35Massachusetts 5.1 37Michigan 7.6 10Minnesota 2.6 51Mississippi 5.1 37Missouri 6.9 19Montana 3.7 47Nebraska 7.6 10Nevada 7.1 16NewHampshire 7.8 7NewJersey 8.5 1NewMexico 6.6 26NewYork 6.3 27NorthCarolina 7.1 16

STATe SCORe RANKNorthDakota 6.1 29Ohio 4.9 42Oklahoma 4.1 46Oregon 7.4 14Pennsylvania 8.3 2RhodeIsland 4.4 45SouthCarolina 3.3 48SouthDakota 2.7 50Tennessee 7.8 6Texas 4.7 44Utah 6.1 29Vermont 6.7 23Virginia 5.5 33Washington 7.7 8WestVirginia 8 5Wisconsin 7.2 15Wyoming 4.9 43

DID yOu KNOW…•South Carolina and Minnesota placeyoung children in institutions and groupshomesatthreetimesthenationalaverage.On the positive side, Delaware, Kansas,Louisiana, Oregon, and Washingtonplacedkids ingroup settingsat less thanone-thirdthenationalaverage.



O U T COME 4

R E T U R N HOME Q U I C K L YA ND S A F E L Y

meASuRING SuCCeSS• Whichstatesquicklyreturnchildrentotheirbiologicalfamilieswheneverpossibleandappropriate?

• Whichstatesaresuccessful in thesereunificationsasevidencedbychildrennot reenteringfostercarebecauseofrecurringabuseandneglectintheirbiologicalhome?

Whenever safe,possibleandappropriate,children should transitionback to theirbiologicalhomeasquicklyaspossible. Obviously, thebiologicalparent(s)mustsuccessfullyaddress thecauseof themaltreatmentthatforcedtheirchildintofostercareinthefirstplace.

Key ReSulTS• Timetoreunification-medianlengthofstay(2010data)

• Of all children discharged from foster care to reunificationduring the year who had been in care for 8 days or longer,whatpercentagewerereunifiedinlessthan12monthsfromthedateofthelatestremovalfromhome?(Includestrialhomevisitadjustment,FederalCompositeMeasure1.1,2010)

• Of all children discharged from foster care to reunificationduring the year who had been in care for 8 days or longer,whatwas themedian length of stay (months) from thedateof the latest removal from home until the date of dischargeto reunification? (Includes trialhomevisitadjustment, FederalCompositeMeasure1.2,2010)

• Ofall childrendischarged from foster care to reunification inthe12-monthperiodpriortotheyearshown,whatpercentagereentered care in less than 12 months from the date ofdischarge?(FederalCompositeMeasure1.4,2010)

DID yOu KNOW…•Reunifyingfamiliesistoughwork,butsomestates do it quickly and well. Arkansas,Idaho, and Kentucky seemed to havefigured it out. New York and Vermonthaveworktodo.

STATe SCORe RANKAlabama 5.4 34Alaska 5.6 29Arizona 5.2 38Arkansas 8.8 1California 5.1 39Colorado 6.8 8Connecticut 5 41Delaware 6.2 20DistrictofColumbia 3.8 48Florida 6.3 18Georgia 6.2 20Hawaii 6.4 16Idaho 7.3 3Illinois 1.8 51Indiana 6.6 10Iowa 6.4 14Kansas 6.1 22

STATe SCORe RANKKentucky 7.4 2Louisiana 6 23Maine 4.8 43Maryland 4.3 47Massachusetts 5.7 28Michigan 5 41Minnesota 6.7 9Mississippi 7.1 4Missouri 5.6 29Montana 4.7 44Nebraska 5.6 29Nevada 6.6 10NewHampshire 5.3 36NewJersey 5.8 25NewMexico 5.4 35NewYork 3.1 50NorthCarolina 5.7 27

STATe SCORe RANKNorthDakota 6.5 12Ohio 6.3 18Oklahoma 5.1 39Oregon 5.9 24Pennsylvania 4.4 46RhodeIsland 4.7 44SouthCarolina 6.4 16SouthDakota 6.9 7Tennessee 7.1 4Texas 5.8 25Utah 7 6Vermont 3.6 49Virginia 5.6 29Washington 6.4 14WestVirginia 5.5 33Wisconsin 5.3 36Wyoming 6.5 12



O U T COME 5

FO R E V E R F AM I L I E S A S A P

meASuRING SuCCeSS• Whichstatesquicklymovechildrenfreedforadoptionintoforeverfamilies(ideallywithin12months)?

• Which states have a majority of children removed froman abusive home transition to an adoptive familywithin24months, ensuring nomore than 2 years in foster carebeforegettinganew,safeforeverfamily?

• Which statesmovechildren toadoptionafter theyhavebeenlanguishinginfostercareforatleast17months?

When transitioning back to their biological family or a relative is notpossible, children shouldmove quickly to a safe, appropriate adoptivefamilyasquicklyaspossible. Studiesshowthatanadoptivefamily, notfostercare,isthefavorablehomeenvironment.Comparedtochildreninfostercare,adoptedchildrenaremore likely tobe livingwithamarriedmother and father (71% compared to 56%); three times more likely tobefinancially secure;andmore likely to live inasafeneighborhood. Inaddition,children inadoptedfamilies require less taxpayersupport thanchildreninfostercareorsimilarchildrenlivinginsingle-parentfamilies.5

Key ReSulTS

STATe SCORe RANKAlabama 2.1 46Alaska 3.7 21Arizona 5.4 2Arkansas 4.9 8California 3.1 37Colorado 4.5 11Connecticut 3.4 32Delaware 3.6 23DistrictofColumbia 1.6 48Florida 5 7Georgia 3.1 38Hawaii 3.6 26Idaho 4.9 8Illinois 0.8 50Indiana 3.8 18Iowa 5.1 5Kansas 3.6 23

STATe SCORe RANKKentucky 3.2 35Louisiana 3.3 34Maine 4 15Maryland 1.3 49Massachusetts 2.1 46Michigan 3.5 27Minnesota 3.3 33Mississippi 3.6 23Missouri 4.5 10Montana 2.7 41Nebraska 4 15Nevada 2.5 44NewHampshire 3.9 17NewJersey 3.5 29NewMexico 4.4 12NewYork 0.7 51NorthCarolina 4.1 14

STATe SCORe RANKNorthDakota 5.2 3Ohio 3.2 35Oklahoma 3.5 27Oregon 2.4 45Pennsylvania 3.7 21RhodeIsland 4.1 13SouthCarolina 2.5 43SouthDakota 2.9 40Tennessee 5.1 4Texas 3.5 29Utah 8 1Vermont 5 6Virginia 2.5 42Washington 3 39WestVirginia 3.5 29Wisconsin 3.8 19Wyoming 3.7 20

DID yOu KNOW…• Four states takeanaverageof at least 40months to move a child from an abusivehome toanadoptive family. These statesare Illinois, Maryland, New York, andWashington,DC. Forperspective, theCivilWar was just under 48 months. Only onestate, Utah, moves children to a foreverfamilyinlessthan18months.

Top 10 states Bottom 10 states• Portionofchildrenmovedtoadoption:

Lessthan12monthstoadoption(2010data)

Lessthan24monthstoadoption(2010)



48ormoremonthstoadoption(2010)

• Of all children discharged from foster careto a finalized adoption during the year, whatpercentage were discharged in less than 24months from the date of the latest removal fromhome?(FederalCompositeMeasure2.1,2010)

• Of all children discharged from foster care to afinalized adoption during the year, whatwas the

medianlengthofstayincare(inmonths)fromthedateoflatestremovalfromthehometothedateof discharge to adoption? (Federal CompositeMeasure2.2,2010)

• Ofallchildreninfostercareonthefirstdayoftheyearwhowereincarefor17continuousmonthsorlonger(andwho,bythelastdayoftheyear,werenotdischarged from fostercarewithadischargereason of reunification, living with relative, orguardianship),whatpercentageweredischargedfromfostercaretoafinalizedadoptionbythelastdayoftheyear?(FederalCompositeMeasure2.3,2010)

• Ofallchildreninfostercareonthefirstdayoftheyearwhowereincarefor17continuousmonthsorlonger,andwhowerenotlegallyfreeforadoption

prior to that day (i.e., there was not a parentalrights termination date reported to AFCARS forboth mother and father), what percentagebecamelegallyfreeforadoptionduringthefirst6monthsof theyear?(FederalCompositeMeasure2.4,2010)

• Of all children who became legally free foradoption in the12-monthperiodprior to theyearshown(i.e.,therewasaparentalrightsterminationdate reported to AFCARS for both mother andfather), what percentage were discharged fromfoster care toa finalizedadoption in less than 12months from the date of becoming legally free?(FederalCompositeMeasure2.5,2010)


O U T COME 6

H E R E T ODA Y . . . A ND T OMOR ROW

meASuRING SuCCeSS• Whichstatesensurechildreninfostercarehaveastableenvironmentasevidencedbyjustoneortwomoves(typicallyoneortwofosterhomes,maximum)?

• Whichstatesensurechildreninfostercarehaveastableenvironmenteveniftheyremaininfostercareforayearormoreorevenmorethantwoyears?

Whennotwithhisorherownfamily,achildsuffering fromabuse or neglect should not be further traumatized bymultiplemoves from one new setting to another. Studiesshow that “Frequent moves may result in children losingcontact with siblings, other family members, friends andadults in theircommunitywhomayhavebeen involved intheirlives,suchasneighbors,coaches,religiousleadersandothers. This furtherplaces thechildrenat riskof emotionalandbehavioralproblemsandothernegativeoutcomes.”6

Key ReSulTS•Ofallchildrenservedinfostercareduringtheyearwhowereincareforatleast8daysbutlessthan12months,whatpercentagehad two or fewer placement settings? (Federal CompositeMeasure4.1,2010data)

• Ofallchildrenservedinfostercareduringtheyearwhowereincareforat least12months,whatpercentagehadtwoorfewerplacementsettings?(FederalCompositeMeasure4.2,2010)

• Ofallchildrenservedinfostercareduringtheyearwhowereincareforat least24months,whatpercentagehadtwoorfewerplacementsettings?(FederalCompositeMeasure4.3,2010)

DID yOu KNOW…•The longer a child remains in foster care,themore likelyheorshewillbouncefromonefosterhometoanother.Whileonlyoneinsixkidsinfostercareforlessthanayearlive inat leastthreedifferentfosterhomes(couldincludegrouphomesorinstitutions),that rate increases to four in six kids forthoseinfostercaremorethantwoyears.

STATe SCORe RANKAlabama 3.1 44Alaska 8.8 3Arizona 7.4 11Arkansas 1.5 49California 5.6 29Colorado 6.6 20Connecticut 6.5 23Delaware 5.4 32DistrictofColumbia 3.6 42Florida 5.7 28Georgia 2.1 45Hawaii 7.6 9Idaho 6.6 21Illinois 7.2 16Indiana 7.4 11Iowa 5.5 30Kansas 4.5 36

STATe SCORe RANKKentucky 6.3 26Louisiana 3.2 43Maine 7.2 16Maryland 8.8 3Massachusetts 2.1 45Michigan 8.1 7Minnesota 5.4 32Mississippi 4.4 37Missouri 4 40Montana 6.3 26Nebraska 5.1 34Nevada 5.5 30NewHampshire 6.6 21NewJersey 8.4 6NewMexico 4.4 38NewYork 9 2NorthCarolina 9.5 1

STATe SCORe RANKNorthDakota 6.4 24Ohio 8.6 5Oklahoma 1.1 50Oregon 7 18Pennsylvania 7.3 14RhodeIsland 7 18SouthCarolina 1.9 47SouthDakota 4.3 39Tennessee 4.9 35Texas 4 40Utah 1.8 48Vermont 0.8 51Virginia 7.3 14Washington 7.5 10WestVirginia 7.3 13Wisconsin 7.9 8Wyoming 6.4 24



O U T COME 7

HO P E A ND HOME SF O R T E E N S

meASuRING SuCCeSS• Whichstatesdonotgiveuponteenagersbutinsteadhelpthemmovetoasafe,permanenthome?

• Which states prevent teens from ever getting into fostercare by moving them into a permanent home quicklywhentheyenterfostercareasapre-teen?

• Which stateshelp teenagers in fostercare findadoptivefamilies?

States have a particular responsibility to ensure thatteenage foster children successfully move to permanenthomes and not just run out the clock on the foster caresystem. These teenagers who “age out of the system”struggleacademically,struggletoholdjobs,moreheavilyrelyonpublicassistance,areathigher risk formentalandphysicalhealthproblemsandhavehigherratesofincarceration.7

Key ReSulTS• Ofallchildrenwho,during theyear shown,either1)weredischargedfromfostercarepriortoage18withadischargereasonofemancipation,or2)reachedtheir18thbirthdaywhileinfostercare,whatpercentagewereinfostercarefor3yearsor longer?(FederalCompositeMeasure3.3,2010data)

• Rateofteenagersinfostercareper100,000children(2010)

• Change in rateof teenagers in fostercareper100,000children from2007to2010(2010data)

• Rateofteenageadoptionsfromfostercareper1,000fosterteens(2010)

• Changeinrateofteenageadoptionsfromfostercareper1,000fosterteensfrom2007to2010(2010)

STATe SCORe RANKAlabama 6.6 1Alaska 4 38Arizona 4.5 25Arkansas 4.6 23California 4.3 31Colorado 4.9 13Connecticut 4.1 36Delaware 6 3DistrictofColumbia 3.7 47Florida 4.7 18Georgia 5 10Hawaii 5.4 6Idaho 4.8 17Illinois 3.8 45Indiana 3.8 43Iowa 5.3 8Kansas 4.9 13

STATe SCORe RANKKentucky 5 10Louisiana 4.7 21Maine 3.8 45Maryland 4.1 35Massachusetts 4.6 23Michigan 4.5 25Minnesota 4.8 16Mississippi 4 37Missouri 4 38Montana 3.1 51Nebraska 4.5 25Nevada 3.9 42NewHampshire 4 38NewJersey 4 41NewMexico 4.3 31NewYork 4.3 30NorthCarolina 4.5 25

STATe SCORe RANKNorthDakota 4.9 13Ohio 4.2 33Oklahoma 4.5 25Oregon 3.2 50Pennsylvania 5.5 5RhodeIsland 5.6 4SouthCarolina 4.2 33SouthDakota 3.5 49Tennessee 4.7 18Texas 3.8 43Utah 4.6 22Vermont 5 10Virginia 5.1 9Washington 3.6 48WestVirginia 5.4 6Wisconsin 4.7 18Wyoming 6.3 2

DID yOu KNOW…•Some states are leaders in movingteenage foster kids to adoptive homes:Alabama,Alaska,Arizona,Florida, Idaho,NewMexico,andOklahoma.Sadly,eventhese states, on average, helped just 11outofevery1,000teenagefosterchildrenfindanadoptivefamilyin2010.



O U T COME 8

FO S T E R I NG A GOODE D UCA T I ON

meASuRING SuCCeSS• Statesdonotuniformlyreportonafosterchild’seducationaloutcomes.However,theliteratureshowsthathavingafosterchildliveinastablehome(notbouncingtodifferentfosterhomesand,often,differentschools),aswellasultimatelymovingthatchildintoasafe,permanenthomearekeyindicatorsofacademicsuccess.

• Whichstatesprovidestablehomesforchildreninfostercare,ensuringtheyhavethebestchancetosucceedacademically?

• Whichstateshelp fosterchildrenquicklymovetoasafepermanenthome,eitherthroughreturningtotheirbiologicalfamilies(inlessthan12months)ortoadoptivefamilies(inlessthan24months)?

Althoughfosterchildren’seducationoutcomesarenotdirectlytrackedbythefederalgovernment,studiesshowthatfewerhomeplacementsandachievingpermanencyarebothkeyindicatorsof futureacademic success.8 Academic success is critical tobetteremployment,incomeandqualityoflifeindicators.

Key ReSulTS• Indicatorofgreateracademicsuccess–fewerplacements

ScoreforOutcome6–HereToday…AndTomorrow(2010data)

• Indicatorof likelyacademicsuccess–permanencythroughadoptionorreunification

Ofallchildrenwhoenteredfostercareforthefirsttimeinthe6-monthperiod justprior to theyear shown,andwho remained incare for 8daysorlonger,whatpercentageweredischargedfromfostercaretoreunificationinlessthan12monthsfromthedateofthelatestremovalfromhome?(Includestrialhomevisitadjustment,FederalCompositeMeasure1.3,2010)

Of all children discharged from foster care to a finalized adoptionduring the year, what percentage were discharged in less than 24months from the date of the latest removal from home? (FederalCompositeMeasure2.1,2010)

DID yOu KNOW…•Quickly and safely moving childrenbackwith their biological families oron to adoptive homes requires skills,focus and persistence by all partiesinvolved. The top five states thatsuccessfully and quickly do both, inrank order, are Arkansas, Colorado,Utah,Minnesota,andTennessee.

STATe SCORe RANKAlabama 3 47Alaska 6.1 11Arizona 5.8 17Arkansas 4.2 37California 4.9 30Colorado 6.9 2Connecticut 5.3 24Delaware 4.6 33DistrictofColumbia 2.3 50Florida 5.1 28Georgia 2.9 48Hawaii 6.4 4Idaho 6.3 8Illinois 3.8 42Indiana 5.9 16Iowa 5.9 15Kansas 3.9 40

STATe SCORe RANKKentucky 5.4 21Louisiana 3.7 43Maine 5.3 24Maryland 5.3 26Massachusetts 3.1 46Michigan 5.4 21Minnesota 6 13Mississippi 4.7 32Missouri 3.9 41Montana 4.5 34Nebraska 4.8 31Nevada 4.4 36NewHampshire 5.4 21NewJersey 6.6 3NewMexico 4.1 38NewYork 6.1 11NorthCarolina 6.3 5

STATe SCORe RANKNorthDakota 5.5 19Ohio 7 1Oklahoma 1.7 51Oregon 5.5 19Pennsylvania 6 13RhodeIsland 6.2 10SouthCarolina 3.6 44SouthDakota 4.5 34Tennessee 5.7 18Texas 3.5 45Utah 4.1 39Vermont 2.6 49Virginia 5 29Washington 5.2 27WestVirginia 6.3 5Wisconsin 6.3 9Wyoming 6.3 5



O U T COME 9

F EW E R FO S T E R K I D S

meASuRING SuCCeSS• Whichstatesdothebestjoboverallofreducingthenumberofchildreninfostercare?

• Whichstateshavethelowestshareofchildreninfostercareatanygiventime?

A natural outcomeof awell-functioning childwelfare system is fewer kids being abused, kidswho remain inthesystemashortertimebeforereturninghomeormovingtoanewadoptivefamily,and,subsequently,fewerchildreninfostercareoverall.Infact,from2000to2009,thetotalnumberofchildreninfostercaredropped22%.9

Key ReSulTS• Rateofchildreninfostercareper100,000children(2010data)

• Change in the rate children in foster care per 100,000childrenfrom2007to2010(2010)

STATe SCORe RANKAlabama 5.5 31Alaska 3.9 49Arizona 4.5 43Arkansas 4.8 38California 6.2 18Colorado 5.8 24Connecticut 6.3 14Delaware 7.8 2DistrictofColumbia 1.8 51Florida 7 5Georgia 7.8 3Hawaii 7.8 3Idaho 6.5 10Illinois 4.9 37Indiana 3.2 50Iowa 5.7 30Kansas 4.8 38

STATe SCORe RANKKentucky 5.1 35Louisiana 6.3 14Maine 6.1 19Maryland 6.4 13Massachusetts 5.5 31Michigan 5.7 25Minnesota 6.6 8Mississippi 4.8 38Missouri 5.1 35Montana 4.3 44Nebraska 4.2 46Nevada 4.8 38NewHampshire 6.5 10NewJersey 5.9 22NewMexico 6.7 7NewYork 5.4 33NorthCarolina 6.3 14

STATe SCORe RANKNorthDakota 5.3 34Ohio 6 20Oklahoma 8.1 1Oregon 4.1 48Pennsylvania 6.5 10RhodeIsland 6.3 14SouthCarolina 6 20SouthDakota 4.8 38Tennessee 5.9 22Texas 5.7 25Utah 5.7 25Vermont 6.6 8Virginia 7 5Washington 4.2 46WestVirginia 4.3 44Wisconsin 5.7 25Wyoming 5.7 25

DID yOu KNOW…•The seven stateswith the largest drop inthenumberofchildreninfostercarefrom2007 to 2010: Delaware, Georgia, Iowa,Hawaii, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, andVermont.Someofthesestateshaveahighrateofchildreninfostercare,buttheyarerapidlymovingintherightdirection.

•The top five states that reduced thenumber of children in foster care overtime AND had a low number of kids infostercarein2010are:Delaware,Florida,Georgia,HawaiiandOklahoma.



O U T COME 1 0

R A P I D R E S PON S E

meASuRING SuCCeSS• Whichstatesrapidlyrespondtoandinvestigateallegationsofabuseorneglect?

To reducetheriskof furtherabuseorneglect, statesmust respondtoallegationsofchildabuseasquicklyaspossible.Forachildbeingabusedorneglected,aslowresponsecouldmeanpermanentinjuryorevendeath.

Key ReSulTS• Howlongittakesthestatetorespondtoanallegationofabuse-TimetoInvestigation-Mean(average,2010data)

• Howlongittakesthestatetorespondtoanallegationofabuse-TimetoInvestigation-Median(midpoint,24-hourrange,2010data)

DID yOu KNOW…•The average time between receivinga report of abuse or neglect andlaunchingan investigation is less than 24hours in 11 states: Colorado, District ofColumbia, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Nevada,New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York,TennesseeandWyoming.

•13 states take longer than 120 hours(5 days) to respond. For an abused orneglectedchild,thiscouldmeananotherfive days living in an abusive homebecauseofbureaucraticdelay. Itcouldalso mean the difference between lifeanddeath.

STATe SCORe RANKAlabama 8.5 21Alaska 0 48Arizona 8.3 26Arkansas 7.5 29California 5.5 41Colorado 9.7 6Connecticut 8.5 21Delaware 2.3 46DistrictofColumbia 8.9 17Florida 9.8 4Georgia 9.6 9Hawaii 6.3 38Idaho 8.4 24Illinois 9 16Indiana 9.6 9Iowa 10 1Kansas 8.3 26

STATe SCORe RANKKentucky 9.4 13Louisiana 5.8 40Maine 7.3 31Maryland 7 36Massachusetts 0 48Michigan 8.3 26Minnesota 8.6 19Mississippi 7.1 35Missouri 9.6 9Montana 6.4 37Nebraska 4 45Nevada 8.9 17NewHampshire 9.7 6NewJersey 9.7 6NewMexico 7.3 31NewYork 10 1NorthCarolina 8.6 19

STATe SCORe RANKNorthDakota 9.2 15Ohio 9.6 9Oklahoma 7.2 34Oregon 0 48Pennsylvania 0 48RhodeIsland 8.5 21SouthCarolina 9.4 13SouthDakota 4.7 44Tennessee 10 1Texas 7.3 31Utah 6.1 39Vermont 7.5 29Virginia 5.5 41Washington 8.4 24WestVirginia 1.7 47Wisconsin 5.3 43Wyoming 9.8 4



O U T COME 1 1

MOR E FO R E V E R F AM I L I E S

meASuRING SuCCeSS• Whichstatesdothebestjobatmovingchildreninfostercaretoadoption?

• Whichstateshavemostdramaticallyincreasedtherateofadoptionsfromfostercarefrom2007to2010?

Whennotappropriateorpossibleforachildtoremainwithhisorherbiologicalfamily,thatchilddeservesasafe,permanentandlovingadoptivefamily.

Key ReSulTS• Rateofadoptionsfromfostercareper100fosterchildren(2010data)

• Changeintherateofadoptionsfromchildreninfostercareper100fosterchildrenfrom2007to2010

STATe SCORe RANKAlabama 3.3 32Alaska 6.3 13Arizona 6.9 9Arkansas 6.2 14California 2.8 37Colorado 4.1 28Connecticut 4.7 24Delaware 2.2 42DistrictofColumbia 0.7 51Florida 7.5 5Georgia 7.2 6Hawaii 6.6 10Idaho 10 1Illinois 0.9 50Indiana 3.1 34Iowa 3 35Kansas 3.1 33

STATe SCORe RANKKentucky 3.5 30Louisiana 6 15Maine 5.4 18Maryland 4.1 28Massachusetts 2.2 42Michigan 4.8 21Minnesota 4.4 25Mississippi 2.4 40Missouri 2.9 36Montana 1.6 48Nebraska 2.1 44Nevada 5.2 19NewHampshire 8.9 3NewJersey 4.2 27NewMexico 8 4NewYork 2 45NorthCarolina 6.6 10

STATe SCORe RANKNorthDakota 4.8 21Ohio 2.8 37Oklahoma 9.7 2Oregon 1.6 48Pennsylvania 6.5 12RhodeIsland 2.3 41SouthCarolina 4.4 25SouthDakota 1.9 46Tennessee 2.6 39Texas 5.7 16Utah 7 8Vermont 5.6 17Virginia 4.7 23Washington 4.8 20WestVirginia 7.2 7Wisconsin 3.4 31Wyoming 1.7 47

DID yOu KNOW…•Just five states had at least one in fivefoster childrenmove to a forever family:Arizona, Idaho, New Hampshire, NewMexico,andOklahoma.

•Ninestateshadadramaticimprovementin the rate of adoptions from foster carefrom 2007 to 2010, increasing at least5 percentage points: Florida, Georgia,Idaho, Louisiana, New Hampshire, NewMexico,Pennsylvania,andWestVirginia.

•Montana and Tennessee had a steepdropintherateofadoptionsfrom2007to2010.



R A N K I NG M E T HODO LOGY

ThefederalACFmakescomprehensivedataavailable in itsChildWelfareOutcomesReportData.10ACFusesdataprovidedby the states through theNationalChildAbuseandNeglectDataSystem (NCANDS)and theAdoptionandFosterCareAnalysisandReportingSystem(AFCARS).

The RIGHT FOR KIDS RANKING has 11major outcome categories, with 41 datameasures and a total of 110possiblepoints.Eachoutcomecategoryhasatotalpossiblescoreof10points.Thestatewiththebestscoreforaparticulardatameasure(eitherthehighestorlowestvalue,dependingonwhatispreferred)wasawardedthemaximumnumberofpoints.Thestatewiththeworstscoreforaparticulardatameasureisawardedzeropoints.Allotherstatesareproratedbetweenthisminimumandmaximumscore.Notonlyweredatameasurescalculated for 2010, themost recent year available, but whenever possible and practical, states were alsoawardedpointsbasedonwhethertheyimprovedtheirperformanceforkeydatameasuresoverthepastfouryears.Somestatesdidnotreportforaparticulardataoutcomein2010(or2006forthe2006Rankings).Inthesecases,themostrecentlyreportedyearwasused(2009or2008,and2005and2004forthe2006Rankings).Ifastatedidnotreportonaparticularoutcomeforthreeyears, itreceivedzeropointsforthatdataoutcomeforthatyear.

Thisapproachtocalculatingscoreshastwodistinctadvantages.Itrewardsstatesthatmoveintherightdirection(butmay still need tomake significant improvement)andpenalizes states thatmove in thewrongdirection(regardlessoftheirperformancein2010).


D E T A I L E D O U TCOME S S UMMAR Y T A B L E

OuTCOme NumBeR

SHORT TITle DeSCRIPTION DATA meASuRe yeAR

WHAT’S POSITIve

(higher or lower score)

WeIGHT (10 pts each

outcome)lARGeST vAlue

lOWeST vAlue

Total 110

Outcome 1 Reduce Abuse

Reducerecurrenceofchildabuseand/orneglect&reducenumberofvictimsof

maltreatment

Percentofchildrenwithoutarecurrenceofmaltreatment(abuseorneglect)within6months 2010 Higher 3.34 98.8 87.7

Rateofmaltreatmentvictimsper100,000children 2010 Lower 3.33 2464 134

“Changeintherateofmaltreatmentvictimsper100,000childrenfrom2007to2010(howmanyfewer(-)/more(+)) 2010 Lower 3.33 374 -762

Outcome 2 Reduce Abuse in

Foster Care

Reducetheincidenceofchildabuseand/orneglectinfostercare

Percentofchildrenmaltreatedwhileinfostercare 2010 Lower 2 2.33 0.0

Percentofchildreninfostercarereceivinghomevisits 2010 Higher 2 96 0

Percentofchildreninfostercarereceivingmonthlyvisits 2010 Higher 3 100 0

MedianlengthofstayinfostercareforchildreninfostercareonSeptember30,2010 2010 Lower 3 29.6 8.6

Outcome 3 Permanent Families,

Safe Homes

Increasepermanencyforchildreninfoster

care&reduceplacementofyoungchildreningroup

homesorinstitutions

Ofallchildreninfostercarefor24monthsorlongeronthefirstdayoftheyear,whatpercentageweredischargedtoapermanenthomepriortotheir18thbirthdayandbytheendoftheyear?(FederalCompositeOutcome3.1)

2010 Higher 3.34 49.2 13.5

Ofallchildrendischargedfromfostercareduring2010,andwhowerelegallyfreeforadoptionatthetimeofdischarge(i.e.,therewasaparentalrightsterminationdatereportedtoAFCARSforbothmotherandfather),whatpercentageweredischargedtoapermanenthomepriortotheir18thbirthday?(FederalCompositeOutcome3.2)

2010 Higher 3.33 100 80.9

Ofallchildrenwhoenteredcareduringthefiscalyearandwereage12oryoungerattimeofthisplacement,whatpercentagewereingrouphomesorinstitutions?

2009 Lower 3.33 19.5 1

Outcome 4 Return Home

Quickly and Safely

Reducetimeinfostercaretoreunificationwithoutincreasing

reentry

Timetoreunification-medianlengthofstay 2010 Lower 2.5 29.6 8.6

Ofallchildrendischargedfromfostercaretoreunificationduringtheyearwhohadbeenincarefor8daysorlonger,whatpercentagewerereunifiedinlessthan12monthsfromthedateofthelatestremovalfromhome?(Includestrialhomevisitadjustment,FederalCompositeMeasure1.1)

2010 Higher 2.5 91.3 45.5

Ofallchildrendischargedfromfostercaretoreunificationduringtheyearwhohadbeenincarefor8daysorlonger,whatwasthemedianlengthofstay(inmonths)fromthedateofthelatestremovalfromhomeuntilthedateofdischargetoreunification?(Includestrialhomevisitadjustment,FederalCompositeMeasure1.2)

2010 Lower 2.5 13.9 1.7

Ofallchildrendischargedfromfostercaretoreunificationinthe12-monthperiodpriortotheyearshown,whatpercentagereenteredcareinlessthan12monthsfromthedateofdischarge?(FederalCompositeMeasure1.4)

2010 Lower 2.5 25.7 2

Outcome 5 Forever Families

ASAP

Reducetimebetweenfostercareand

adoption

Portionofchildrenmovedtoadoptionin…Lessthan12monthstoadoption 2010 Higher 3 32.8 0.8

Lessthan24monthstoadoption 2010 Higher 0.5 86.1 7

Lessthan36monthstoadoption 2010 Higher 0.5 93.9 29.4

Lessthan48monthstoadoption 2010 Higher 0.5 97.7 54.3

48ormoremonthstoadoption 2010 Lower 0.5 45.8 2.2

Ofallchildrendischargedfromfostercaretoafinalizedadoptionduringtheyear,whatpercentageweredischargedinlessthan24monthsfromthedateofthelatestremovalfromhome?(FederalCompositeMeasure2.1)

2010 Higher 1 86.1 6.9

Ofallchildrendischargedfromfostercaretoafinalizedadoptionduringtheyear,whatwasthemedianlengthofstayincare(inmonths)fromthedateoflatestremovalfromthehometothedateofdischargetoadoption?(FederalCompositeMeasure2.2)

2010 Lower 1 45.6 14.4

Ofallchildreninfostercareonthefirstdayoftheyearwhowereincarefor17continuousmonthsorlonger(andwho,bythelastdayoftheyear,werenotdischargedfromfostercarewithadischargereasonofreunification,livingwithrelative,orguardianship),whatpercentageweredischargedfromfostercaretoafinalizedadoptionbythelastdayoftheyear?(FederalCompositeMeasure2.3)

2010 Higher 1 46.4 13


OuTCOme NumBeR

SHORT TITle DeSCRIPTION DATA meASuRe yeAR

WHAT’S POSITIve

(higher or lower score)

WeIGHT (10 pts each

outcome)lARGeST vAlue

lOWeST vAlue

Ofallchildreninfostercareonthefirstdayoftheyearwhowereincarefor17continuousmonthsorlonger,andwhowerenotlegallyfreeforadoptionpriortothatday(i.e.,therewasnotaparentalrightsterminationdatereportedtoAFCARSforbothmotherandfather),whatpercentagebecamelegallyfreeforadoptionduringthefirst6monthsoftheyear?(FederalCompositeMeasure2.4)

2010 Higher 1 30.8 2

Ofallchildrenwhobecamelegallyfreeforadoptioninthe12-monthperiodpriortotheyearshown(i.e.,therewasaparentalrightsterminationdatereportedtoAFCARSforbothmotherandfather),whatpercentageweredischargedfromfostercaretoafinalizedadoptioninlessthan12monthsfromthedateofbecominglegallyfree?(FederalCompositeMeasure2.5)

2010 Higher 1 85.5 25.5

Outcome 6 Here Today…

And Tomorrow

Increaseplacementstability

Ofallchildrenservedinfostercareduringtheyearwhowereincareforatleast8daysbutlessthan12months,whatpercentagehadtwoorfewerplacementsettings?(FederalCompositeMeasure4.1)

2010 Higher 3.33 92.1 69.5

Ofallchildrenservedinfostercareduringtheyearwhowereincareforatleast12months,whatpercentagehadtwoorfewerplacementsettings?(FederalCompositeMeasure4.2)

2010 Higher 3.33 76.3 44.4

Ofallchildrenservedinfostercareduringtheyearwhowereincareforatleast24months,whatpercentagehadtwoorfewerplacementsettings?(FederalCompositeMeasure4.3)

2010 Higher 3.34 47.5 14.9

Outcome 7 Hope and Homes for

Teens

Achievetimelypermanencyfor

teenagers

Ofallchildrenwho,duringtheyearshown,either1)weredischargedfromfostercarepriortoage18withadischargereasonofemancipation,or2)reachedtheir18thbirthdaywhileinfostercare,whatpercentagewereinfostercarefor3yearsorlonger?(FederalCompositeMeasure3.3)

2010 Lower 2 67.4 13.4

Rateofteenagersinfostercareper100,000children 2010 Lower 2 951 78

Changeintherateofteenagersinfostercareper100,000childrenfrom2007to2010(howmanyfewer(-)/more(+))

2010 Lower 2 8 -183

Rateofteenageadoptionsfromfostercareper1,000fosterteens 2010 Higher 2 26.63 1

Changeinrateofteenageadoptionsfromfostercareper1,000fosterteensfrom2007to2010 2010 Higher 2 15.26 -72.33

Outcome 8

Foster A Good

education

Achievebettereducation

outcomesforthoseinfostercare

ScoreforOutcome6-Increaseplacementstability 2010 Higher 5 9.5 0.8

Ofallchildrenwhoenteredfostercareforthefirsttimeinthe6-monthperiodjustpriortotheyearshown,andwhoremainedincarefor8daysorlonger,whatpercentageweredischargedfromfostercaretoreunificationinlessthan12monthsfromthedateofthelatestremovalfromhome?(Includestrialhomevisitadjustment,FederalCompositeMeasure1.3)

2010 Higher 2.5 62.3 16.6

Ofallchildrendischargedfromfostercaretoafinalizedadoptionduringtheyear,whatpercentageweredischargedinlessthan24monthsfromthedateofthelatestremovalfromhome?(FederalCompositeMeasure2.1)

2010 Higher 2.5 86.1 6.9

Outcome 9

Fewer Foster Kids

Reducenumberofkidsinfostercare

Rateofchildreninfostercareper100,000children 2010 Lower 5 1814 273

Changeintheratechildreninfostercareper100,000childrenfrom2007to2010 2010 Lower 5 96 -457

Outcome 10

Rapid Response

Respondtimelytoallegationsofabuseorneglect

Howlongdoesittakesthestatetorespondtoanallegationofabuse-TimetoInvestigation-Mean(average)

2010 Lower 5 340.7 0

Howlongdoesittakesthestatetorespondtoanallegationofabuse-TimetoInvestigation-Median(midpoint,24-hourrange)

2010 Lower 5 6.5 0.5

Outcome 11

more Forever Families

Increasenumberofadoptions

Rateofadoptionsfromfostercareper100fosterchildren 2010 Higher 5 21.04 5.41

Changeintherateofadoptionsfromchildreninfostercareper100fosterchildrenfrom2007to2010

2010 Higher 5 10.63 -3.53


S P E ND I NG V E R S U SP E R FO RMANC E - I S

MON E Y T H E A N SW E R ?

InFiscalYear2010,statesspent$8.5billioninTitleIV-EFosterCarecomputablespending.ThechartbelowshowshowmuchIV-Efundingeachstatespends,onaverage,perfosterchildserved,comparedtotheir2012RIGHTFORKIDSRANKING.Thetablethatfollowsalsoshowshowmanyfosterchildrenonaverageeachstateserveseachmonth,andhowmuchIV-Efundingtheyspendperfosterchildandforeverychildintheirstate(atypeofpercapitameasure).

Asyoucanseefromthechartandtable,theTop10RightForKidsstatesarenotthebiggestspenders.

Statesneedtofocusonhowresourcesarespentonkids,notjusthowmuchisspent.

This$8.5billioninTitleIV-EFosterCarecomputablespendingdoesnotincludeallofastate’sspendingonchildwelfare,butitisthemostrecentdataavailableasdirectlytrackedbythefederalgovernment.

COmPARISON OF STATe FOSTeR CARe SPeNDING PeR FOSTeR CHIlD AND RIGHT FOR KIDS RANKING

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

$- $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 $60,000 $70,000 $80,000 $90,000

2012

Rig

ht F

or K

ids

Rank

Foster Care Spending per Foster Child Served

Sources: U.S. Administration for Children and Families, Foundation for Government Accountability


F O S T E R CA R E S P E ND I NGP E R S T A T E

STATe CHIlD

POPulATION

TOTAl TITle Iv-e FOSTeR

CARe SPeNDING (STATe & FeDeRAl)

AveRAGe mONTHly NumBeR

OF FOSTeR CHIlDReN

SPeNDING PeR FOSTeR CHIlD

SPeNDING FOR eveRy CHIlD lIvING IN THe

STATe (PeR CHIlD CAPITA)

RIGHT FOR KIDS RANKING

2009 Fy 2010 2010 2010 2010 2012 Alabama 1,128,864 $59,221,886 2,097 $28,241 $52 32Alaska 183,546 $26,534,451 655 $40,511 $145 40Arizona 1,732,019 $115,956,294 4,403 $26,336 $67 6Arkansas 709,968 $66,196,383 1,789 $37,002 $93 37California 9,435,682 $2,652,407,968 33,188 $79,921 $281 41Colorado 1,227,763 $119,495,100 2,041 $58,547 $97 7Connecticut 807,985 $115,154,827 1,670 $68,955 $143 35Delaware 206,993 $7,688,485 201 $38,251 $37 38DistofCol 114,036 $55,665,215 902 $61,713 $488 51Florida 4,057,773 $226,283,102 6,127 $36,932 $56 4Georgia 2,583,792 $141,738,038 2,755 $51,448 $55 12Hawaii 290,361 $33,531,455 473 $70,891 $115 9Idaho 419,190 $16,118,419 963 $16,738 $38 1Illinois 3,177,377 $356,365,966 13,292 $26,811 $112 48Indiana 1,589,365 $153,216,642 3,087 $49,633 $96 24Iowa 713,155 $41,139,949 1,471 $27,967 $58 17Kansas 704,951 $48,303,420 1,245 $38,798 $69 30Kentucky 1,014,323 $71,297,559 2,921 $24,409 $70 23Louisiana 1,123,386 $87,030,084 2,562 $33,970 $77 29Maine 271,176 $32,102,888 957 $33,545 $118 25Maryland 1,351,935 $138,690,054 2,145 $64,657 $103 33Massachusetts 1,433,002 $115,093,269 2,191 $52,530 $80 50Michigan 2,349,892 $170,219,209 4,165 $40,869 $72 22Minnesota 1,260,797 $80,004,778 1,800 $44,447 $63 21Mississippi 767,742 $22,908,983 999 $22,932 $30 43Missouri 1,431,338 $98,758,261 3,166 $31,193 $69 26Montana 219,828 $20,501,826 627 $32,698 $93 46Nebraska 451,641 $34,299,051 1,369 $25,054 $76 45Nevada 681,033 $65,623,203 2,083 $31,504 $96 28NewHampshire 289,071 $32,271,908 436 $74,018 $112 2NewJersey 2,045,848 $180,389,422 4,226 $42,686 $88 4NewMexico 510,238 $43,415,528 1,092 $39,758 $85 18NewYork 4,424,083 $811,825,153 12,724 $63,803 $184 44NorthCarolina 2,277,967 $137,503,745 3,197 $43,010 $60 3NorthDakota 143,971 $19,239,015 375 $51,304 $134 8Ohio 2,714,341 $326,940,245 7,446 $43,908 $120 13Oklahoma 918,849 $58,305,534 3,308 $17,626 $63 31Oregon 872,811 $178,872,235 3,190 $56,073 $205 49Pennsylvania 2,775,132 $465,507,864 14,690 $31,689 $168 16RhodeIsland 226,825 $24,877,811 592 $42,023 $110 36SouthCarolina 1,080,732 $64,583,331 1,174 $55,011 $60 42SouthDakota 199,616 $11,170,128 590 $18,932 $56 47Tennessee 1,493,252 $76,206,643 2,981 $25,564 $51 10Texas 6,895,969 $435,996,825 11,971 $36,421 $63 34Utah 868,824 $35,677,005 902 $39,553 $41 20Vermont 126,275 $17,003,829 528 $32,204 $135 39Virginia 1,847,182 $105,301,558 2,870 $36,690 $57 27Washington 1,569,592 $174,239,042 4,159 $41,894 $111 19WestVirginia 386,449 $47,542,862 1,012 $46,979 $123 14Wisconsin 1,310,250 $94,593,284 2,151 $43,976 $72 15Wyoming 132,025 $4,494,513 120 $37,454 $34 11

GRAND TOTAl 74,548,215 $8,517,504,245 181,078 $47,038 $114 TOTAlS FOR TOP 10 RANKeD STATeS 13,977,215 $956,995,103 25,222 $37,943 $68


S T R E NG T H S A NDL I M I T A T I ON S

Anytimeoneattemptstoholisticallymeasureandrankstates’performanceinanypolicyareatherearelimitationstosuchanapproach.

Eachstate’schildwelfaresystemisdifferent.Somestateshavedifferentdefinitionsofwhatconstitutesabuseorneglect. Otherstateshavedifferentmandatoryreporters–individualswhobyprofessionandtheir interactionswithchildrenarerequiredtoreportsuspectedabuseorneglect.Butusingsuchdifferencesasanexcusefornotmeasuringthestatesandrankingtheirperformanceisadisservicetochildren.

Allstateshavetouniformlyreporttothefederalgovernmentontheirchildwelfaresystem,providingastandarddefinitionandas standardizeddataaspossible regarding systemperformance. Suchuniform reportinganddataisnotavailableformanypolicyareas,butisforchildwelfare.Inaddition,amajorstrengthoftheRIGHTFORKIDSRANKINGisthatituses11majoroutcomeareastocomprehensivelymeasurestates,andprovidessubrankingstobetterpresentandfacilitateunderstandingofwhere,specifically,astateisdoingwellandwhereitneedsimprovement.Thinkofitlikeareportcardinschool.Maybeyouscorehighinmathbutneedhelpwithreadingcomprehension(asevidencedbyalowgrade).YouarestillgivenanoverallGPA,butthescoringbysubjectprovidesa roadmapofwhattocelebrateandprotectandwheretogetatutor. Thesame is true inpolicy.

A limitation of the Rankings is that many data measures we would havelikedtoassessarenotavailable.Whataboutachild’swell-beingwhileinfostercare,orafterbeingreunifiedwithhisorherfamilyorbeingadoptedintoanewfamily?Policymakersandchildwelfareexpertsarestill tryingto determine how best tomeasure this. Wewant to know how kids infostercarearedoingonbasiceducationaloutcomes–attendingschool,advancing to a new grade, graduating high school and completinghighereducation.Somestatesmeasurethis,butmostdonot.Thefederalgovernmentdoesnot requirethatstatesdoso. Inaddition,wehaveno

comprehensivepictureofhowthephysicalandmentalhealthofachildinfostercareisbeingattendedto.

Moreneedstobemeasuredtobestunderstandandultimatelyimprovehowastate’schildwelfaresystemserveskids.

TheRIGHT FORKIDS RANKING is notperfect, but it ismuchbetter thanwhatisavailablenow...nothing.Itprovidescontexttothedullstatistics.That’s important, because these are not just numbers we are talkingabout,theyarechildren,andtheymustnotbeignored.

The RIGHT FOR KIDS RANKING will be an annual reality andaccountabilitychecktoensurethatabusedandneglectedkidsreceivetheattention,supportandcaretheydeservefromthepublic,themedia,policymakers,andallthosethatserveandseektoprotectthemfromfutureabuseandneglect.

30 2012RightforKidsRanking|FoundationforGovernmentAccountability


N EW O P POR T UN I T I E S F O RS T A T E S A ND K I D S

The2012RIGHTFORKIDSRANKINGwillhopefullyinspirestatestolearnfromeachotherandimprovechildwelfaresystemperformance.Lowerrankingstates shouldcommunicatewith states that rankhighandexploreprovenreformsthatareworkingtobestservekids.Thisistrueforindividualoutcomeareasaswell.

There isalways room from improvement. Forexample, Idaho, thehighestrankingstateoverall,might improve itsperformanceinOutcome10(rapidresponsetoinvestigateallegationsofabuse, inwhichIdahoranks24th)bylearningfromNewYork,whichranksfirstinOutcome10,despiteranking45thoverall.

Poorfiscalpolicyoftenpunishesstatesandpolicymakersfordoingtherightthing. In the case of childwelfare, poor fiscal policies have underminedwhatisrightforkidsandfortaxpayers.

TitleIV-Eisthemajorfederalfundingsourceforstatechildwelfaresystems.It is a federal subsidy tied to the costs and number of kids in foster care(foster homes, group homes and institutions) and for related training andadministrative costs for a state’s childwelfare system.11More kids in fostercare can drawmore federal Title IV-E funding. Conversely, fewer kids infostercarecanmeanacuttofederalTitleIV-Efundingtothatstate.

Waivers give states the flexibility to set their federal funding at a specificlevel, regardlessofachangeinthenumberofchildreninfostercare.Thewaiveralsogivesstatestheabilitytousethefundingforprevention,earlierinterventionservices,familysupportservicesandfasterpermanencyplanningandimplementation.AsweseeintheSpendingversusPerformancechartonpage26,astate’sRightforKidsrankingdependsmoreonhowandwhereastatespends,nothowmuchitspends.Thefreedomthesewaiversprovidematters.

From1997through2006,theU.S.DepartmentofHealthandHumanServiceshadtheauthoritytograntTitleIV-Ewaivers.Just23statesactuallyappliedforandreceivedwaiversduringthatentiredecade.12FederalwaiverauthorityexpiredonMarch31,2006.13

That loss of the Title IV-Ewaiver opportunitymeantamajor tool for statesto do right for kids was gone. As a recent Casey Family Services reportnoted,“Inrecentyears,flexiblefundingwaivershavebeenassociatedwithlargereductionsinfostercarepopulationsinFlorida,Ohio,OregonandtwocountiesinCalifornia:AlamedaandLosAngeles.”14

Recognizingthis,in2011Congressactedtogivestatestheabilitytorequestand receive Title IV-E waivers, with President Barack Obama signing theChildandFamilyServices Improvementand InnovationActonSeptember30,2011.

TheChild and Family Services Improvement and InnovationAct gives thefederalgovernmenttheabilitytogrant10TitleIV-Ewaiverseachyearfrom2012through2014,foratotalofupto30statewaivers.

AsofMay2012,onlyFloridaandWashingtonhadappliedforthesewaivers.This opportunity for states only lasts another 27months (July 2012 throughSeptember2014).

That iswhy theRight For Kids Ranking is so important. If policymakers, familiesand themediadonot focusonhowchildwelfaresystemsareactuallyperformingthentheywillnothavethepoliticalwilltoutilizeeveryavailabletool, includingTitleIV-Ewaivers,tomaximizethepositiveimpactofchildwelfarereform.

According to an overview of thewaiverprocesspublishedbytheChildWelfare League of America, a statemustdo the following toqualify forawaiver:

• “Increasepermanencebyreducingtimeinfostercare,

• Increasepositiveoutcomesforchildrenandfamilies,or

• Preventmaltreatmentandre-entryintocare.”

In addition, part of the waiverimplementationplanmust includeatleasttwoofthefollowingpolicies,withatleastonebeingnewlyimplementedasaresultofthewaiver:

• “Establishingabillofrightsforchildrenincare,

• Implementingahealthandmentalhealthplanforchildrenincare,

• Coveringkinship/subsidizedguardianshipwithIV-Efunding,extendingIV-Efostercareto21,

• Implementingaplantoreducecongregatecare,increasingtheplacementofsiblingstogether,

• Implementingaplantoimprovetherecruitmentandretentionofqualityfosterfamilies,

• Establishingprocedurestoassistyouthintransitioningoutofcare,

• Stateplaninclusionofolderyouthguidanceintheirowntransitionplan,and

• Theestablishmentofoneormoreprogramstopreventplacementincareandprovidepermanency.”15


TheFoundationforGovernmentAccountability(FGA)believespersonallibertyandprivateenterprisearekeytooureconomicfuture.Toadvanceoursharedvision,Foundationstaffdevelopsandpromotesfreemarketpublicpoliciesthatachievelimited,constitutionalgovernmentandarobusteconomythatwillbeanengineforjobcreationacrossFlorida.

GovernedbyanindependentBoardofDirectors,theFoundationforGovernmentAccountabilityisanonprofit,nonpartisan,501c3tax-exemptorganization.Charitabledonationsaretax-deductibletothefullextentofthelaw.

FGAreliesonthegeneroussupportfromindividuals,corporations,andfoundationsthatsupportourfreemarketprinciples.TheFoundationdoesnotseeknoracceptanygovernmentfundingorperformcontractwork.

TheFoundationislocatedinNaples,Florida.Formoreinformation,visitwww.FloridaFGA.org,call239.244,[email protected]:15275CollierBoulevard,Suite201-279,Naples,Florida34119.

A BOU T T H E F O UNDA T I ONFO R GOV E RNMEN TACCOUN T A B I L I T Y



Tarren Bragdon is president andchief executive officer of the Foundationfor Government Accountability, a research and advocacy organizationcommittedtomakingFloridathemosteconomicallyvibrantstateinAmerica.

In 2008, Tarrenwas named chief executive officer of TheMaine HeritagePolicyCenter,afreemarketthinktankbasedinPortland,Maine.Underhisleadership, theorganizationgrew tobecome the largest state-based freemarket think tankonapercapitabasis. In September 2010,he receivedtheThomasRoeAward,givenannuallyby theStatePolicyNetwork to theindividualwiththegreatestimpactonthenation’sfreemarketmovement.

From1996through2000,TarrenservedintheMaineHouseofRepresentatives.Electedattheageof21,TarrenremainstheyoungestpersoneverelectedtotheMaineHouse.WhileintheHouseofRepresentatives,TarrenworkedforthreeyearsinprogramdevelopmentandlicensingcomplianceforaprivatechildwelfareagencyinMaine,helpingtostarttheiradoptionprogramwhichfocusedexclusivelyonfosterchildreninneedofforeverfamilies.

Anationally recognizedexpertonhealthpolicy issueswitha specialty inMedicaid reform, Tarrenhas servedas a health-policy analyst with the Manhattan Institute’s Empire Center for New Your State Policy. He hastestifiedbeforetheU.S.SenateSmallBusinessandEntrepreneurshipCommittee;statelegislativecommitteesinConnecticut,Florida,Georgia,NewYork,Illinois,andMaine;numerousnationalconferences;andtheAmericanSwissFoundationinSwitzerland.HisworkhasbeenfeaturedonFoxNews’SeanHannityshow,NationalPublicTelevision’sNOW,inaWallStreetJournaleditorialandmultipleWallStreetJournalop-eds,andintheNewYorkPost,BostonGlobe,NewYorkTimesandonNationalPublicRadio.

HereceivedhisBachelorofSciencedegreeincomputersciencefromtheUniversityofMaineandhisMastersofScienceofBusinessdegreefromHussonUniversityinBangor,Maine.

TarrenandhiswifeAnnahavefourchildren;Wyatt,Waverlyandthetwins,JudeandAsher. Heandhiswifeadoptedalltheirchildren.In2010,TarrenandAnnawererecognizedbyU.S.SenatorSusanCollinsasAngelsinAdoptiononbehalfoftheCongressionalCoalitiononAdoption.

TocontactTarren,[email protected]

A BOU T T H E A U T HOR –T A R R E N B R AGDON


R E F E R E NC E S

1 “ChildAbuseandNeglectFatalities2009:Statisticsand Interventions.”U.S.DepartmentofHealthandHumanServices.February2011.Page2.Availableat:http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/factsheets/fatality.pdf(March16,2012)

2 Wang,Ph.D.,Ching-Tung&JohnHolton,Ph.D.“TotalEstimatedCostofChildAbuseandNeglectintheUnitedStates.”PewCharitableTrusts.September2007.Page2.Figuresin2007dollars.Availableat:http://member.preventchildabuse.org/site/DocServer/cost_analysis.pdf?docID=144(March16,2012)

3 Spreadsheets provided on February 29, 2012 by Sara Moomaw of U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’AdministrationofChildandFamilies,OfficeofLegislativeAffairsandtheBudget.Availableuponrequest.

4 Daro, Deborah. “Child Abuse Prevention: A Job Half Done.” Chapin Hall Issue Brief. Chapin Hall at the University ofChicago. February 2010. Page 1. Available at: http://www.chapinhall.org/sites/default/files/publications/Child%20Abuse_IB_F_02_25_10.pdf(March16,2012)

5 Zill,Nicholas. “AdoptionfromFosterCare:AidingChildrenWhileSavingPublicMoney.”Brookings Institution.May2011.Page4.Availableat:http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2011/05_adoption_foster_care_zill.aspx(March16,2011).

6 Williams-Mbengue, Nina. “Moving Children Out of Foster Care: The Legislative Role in Finding Permanent Homes forChildren.”NationalConferenceofStateLegislatures.October2008.Page2.Availableat:http://www.ncsl.org/documents/cyf/movingchildrenoutofcare.pdf(March16,2012)

7 “ImprovingOutcomesforOlderYouthinFosterCare.”CaseyFamilyPrograms.2008.Pages3-4.Availableat:http://www.casey.org/resources/publications/pdf/WhitePaper_ImprovingOutcomesOlderYouth_FR.pdf(March16,2012)

8 “EducationistheLifelineforYouthinFosterCare.”NationalWorkingGrouponFosterCareandEducation.July2011.Pages2-3.Availableat:http://www.casey.org/Resources/Publications/pdf/EducationalOutcomesFactSheet.pdf(March16,2012)

9 “Data Snapshot on FosterCare Placement.”Annie E.Casey Foundation.May 2011. Page 1. Availableat: http://www.aecf.org/~/media/Pubs/Initiatives/KIDS%20COUNT/D/DataSnapshotFosterCarePlcmnt/DataSnapshot_FinalWeb.pdf(March16,2012)

10 “ChildWelfareOutcomesReportData.”U.S.DepartmentofHealthandHumanServices,AdministrationofChildrenandFamilies.Availableat:http://cwoutcomes.acf.hhs.gov/data/tables.demo_stats(May25,2012)

11 “Overview of Title IV-E Foster Care Program.” ChildWelfare League of America. Available at: http://www.cwla.org/advocacy/overviewtitleIV-E.htm(May25,2012)

12 JamesBellAssociates.“SummaryoftheTitleIV-EChildWelfareWaiverDemonstrations.”March2012.Page1.Availableat:http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb//programs_fund/cwwaiver/2012/summary_demo2012.pdf(May25,2012)

13 Houshyar,Shadi.“TitleIV-EWaivers:ExpandingandModifyingChildWelfareDemonstrationWaiverstoPromoteFlexibilityandFosterInnovation.”FirstFocus.March9,2011.Availableat:http://www.firstfocus.net/library/reports/title-iv-e-waivers-expanding-and-modifying-child-welfare-demonstration-waivers-to-pr(May25,2012)

14 “TheNeedtoReauthorizeandExpandTitleIV-EWaivers.”CaseyFamilyServices.May2010.Page3.Availableat:http://casey.org/resources/publications/pdf/NeedForWaivers.pdf(May25,2012)

15 “AnOverviewofChildWelfareWaivers.”ChildWelfareLeagueofAmerica.March2012.Pages1-2.Availableat:http://www.cwla.org/advocacy/OverviewChildWelfareWaiversWebsite.pdf(May25,2012)

PublishedbytheFoundationforGovernmentAccountabilitywww.FloridaFGA.org,|239.244,8808|[email protected]

15275CollierBoulevard,Suite201-279,Naples,Florida34119


mailto:[email protected]

which state child welfare systems are right for kids? · 2016-09-06 · holistically rate the child...

Documents