Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Analyzing Differences in Child Well-Being Among U.S. States

  • Published:
Child Indicators Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article develops a comprehensive composite state-level index of child well-being modeled after the Foundation for Child Development’s Child Well-Being Index (CWI) to assess state differences in child well-being among the 50 U.S. states in 2007. The state-level CWIs are composed of 25 state-level indicators clustered into seven different domains or dimensions of child well-being. In addition to examining state rankings and the inter-relationship among domains across states, statistics on 27 demographic, economic, and policy characteristics of the states are analyzed in a regression analysis with respect to their ability to explain state differences in the CWIs. Because of the large number of explanatory variables and the potential redundancy created thereby, a principal components analysis/composite index method is applied. This leads to three composite indices that simplify the regressor space and explain 66.0 % of the variance. A second regression that adds three key policy measures to the three structural indices explains 79.5 % of the variance. Key findings of the study pertaining to how the resources available to children provided by families, communities, and the public sector relate to child well-being are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Map 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The District of Columbia is not included in the rankings because it is really not comparable to states. The District of Columbia is very similar to many central cities around the country, but unlike those cities, the more affluent suburbs are not included. Also, the District of Columbia does not have many of the governance powers of a state.

  2. O’Hare and Bramstedt (2003) compared two alternative methods for producing a state index. In the first method, the standard scores were averaged without regard to domains and in the second method domains scores were calculated and then averaged together to arrive at the total score for each state. The results were nearly identical.

  3. The concept of human capital refers to the resources people have for producing monetary and psychic income (Becker 1975, p. 9). At the level of state populations, examples are attributes like adults who are not disabled and have educational and job skills and thus can participate in the labor force, several of which are reflected in the indicators with relatively high associations with this principal component.

References

  • Becker, G. S. (1975). Human capital: A theoretical and empirical analysis with special reference to education. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Arieh, A., & Frones, I. (2007). Editorial: indicators of children’s well being—concepts, indices and usage. Social Indicators Research, 80, 1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Billen, P., Boyd, D., Dadayan, L., & Gais, T. (2007). State funding for children: Spending in 2004 and how it changed from earlier years. Albany, NY: The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government, Albany, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradshaw, J., & Richardson, D. (2009). An index of child well-being in Europe. Child Indicators Research, 2, 319–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, B. V., & Botsko, C. (1996). A guide to State and local-level indicators of child well-being available through the federal statistical system. (prepared for the Annie E. Casey Foundation). Washington, D.C: Child Trends, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, B. V., & Moore, K. A. (2007). An overview of state-level data on child well-being available through the federal statistical system. Prepared for the Annie E. Casey Foundation.

  • Brown, B. V., Smith, B., & Harper, M. (2002). International surveys of child and family well-being: An overview. Washington, DC.: Child Trends.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, B. V., Hashim, K., Martin, P. (2008). A guide to resources for creating, locating, and using child and youth indicators data. Child Trends and KIDS COUNT.

  • Center for the Study of Social Policy (2008). Policy matters: 2008 update. Available online at:http://www.cssp.org/publications/public-policy/top-five/4_policy-matters-20-state-policies-to-enhance-states-prosperity-and-create-bright-futures-for-americas-children.pdf?1289591685.

  • Cohen, P. (1998). State policies, spending, and KIDS COUNT indicators of child well-being. Unpublished paper. Washington, DC: Population Reference Bureau.

  • Columbo, S. A. (1986). “General well-being in adolescents; its nature and measurement.” Doctoral Dissertation, St. Louis University.

  • Coulton, C. J. (2008). Catalog of Administrative Data Sources for Neighborhood Indicators, A National Neighborhood Indicators Partnership Guide, The Urban Institute, Washington DC.

  • Cummings, R. A. (1996). The domains of life satisfaction: an attempt to order chaos. Social Indicators Research, 38, 303–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, G. J., Yeung, W. J., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Smith, J. R. (1998). How much does childhood poverty affect the life chances of children. American Sociological Review, 63, 406–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engels, S. M., Field, C., Finkelhor, D. (2000).State child well-being ranking: Alternative approaches. Family Research Laboratory, University of New Hampshire, accessed at www.unh.edu/frl on October 31, 2005.

  • Every Child Matters Education Fund. (2008). Geography matters: Child well-being in the States. Washington, DC: Every Child Matters Fund.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fernandez, L., Mendes, A., & Teixeira, A. A. C. (2012). A review essay on the measurement of child well-being. Social Indicators Research, 106, 239–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finegold, K., Wherry, L., Schardin S. (2004a) Block grants: Historical overview and lessons learned. No. A-63 in Series, “New federalism: Issues and options for States.” The Urban Institute, Washington, DC.

  • Finegold, K., Wherry, L., Schardin S. (2004b). Block grants; Details of the bush proposals. No. A-64 in Series, “New federalism: Issues and options for States.”The Urban Institute, Washington, DC.

  • Gordon, R. A. (1968). Issues in multiple regression. The American Journal of Sociology, 73, 592–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haggerty, M. R., & Land, K. C. (2007). Constructing summary indices of quality of life: a model for the effect of heterogeneous importance weights. Sociological Methods and Research, 35, 455–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harknett, K., Garfinkel, I., Bainbridge, J., Smeeding, T., Folbre, N., McLanahan, S. (2003). Do public expenditures improve child outcomes in the U.S.: A comparison across the fifty states. Princeton, NJ: Center for research on Child well-Being, Princeton, University, Working paper #03-02.

  • Hernandez, D. J., & Macartney, S. E. (2008). Racial-ethnic inequality in child well-being from 1985–2004: Gaps narrowing, but persist. Albany, NY: University at Albany, SUNY. January 1, 2008. Also in The Annie E Casey Foundation. (2011). KIDS COUNT Data Book, 2011. Table 2, page 35, available online at www.kidscount.org.

  • Hsueh, J., & Jacobs, E. (2011) A two-generational child-focused program enhanced with employment services. The Annie E. Casey Foundation , available online athttp://www.aecf.org/~/media/Pubs/Topics/Economicpercent20Security/Familypercent20Economicpercent20Supports/ATwoGenerationalChildFocusedProgram/TwoGenerationChildProgram.pdf

  • Johnson, K. M., & Lichter, D. T. (2008). Population growth in new Hispanic destinations. The Carsey Institute, University of New Hampshire, Policy Brief No. 8, Fall.

  • Lamb, V. L., Land, K. C., Meadows, S. O., & Traylor, F. (2005). Trends in African-American child well-being: 1985–2001. In V. McLoyd, N. Hill, & K. Dodge (Eds.), African American family life (pp. 21–44). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Land, K. C., McCall, P. L., & Cohen, L. E. (1990). Structural covariates of homicide rates: are there any invariances across time and social space? The American Journal of Sociology, 95, 922–963.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Land, K. C., Lamb, V. L., & Mustillo, S. K. (2001). Child and youth well-being in the United States, 1975–1998: some findings from a new index. Social Indicators Research, 56, 241–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Land, K. C., Lamb, V. L., Meadows, S. O., & Taylor, A. (2007). Measuring trends in child well-being: an evidence-based approach. Social Indicators Research, 80, 105–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Land, K. C., Lamb, V. L., & Zheng, H. (2011). How are the kids doing? How do we know? Recent trends in child and youth well-being in the United States and some international comparisons. Social Indicators Research, 100, 463–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mather, M., O’Hare, W. P., Adams, D. (2007). “Testing the validity of the KIDS COUNT State-level index of child well-being.” KIDS COUNT Working Paper, The Annie. E. Casey Foundation, Baltimore., MD www.kidscount.org.

  • McCall, P. L., Land, K. C., & Parker, K. F. (2010). An empirical assessment of what we know about structural covariates of homicide rates: a return to a classic 20 years later. Homicide Studies, 14, 219–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLeod, J. D., Nonnemaker, J. M., & Call, K. H. (2004). Income inequality, race, and child well-being: an aggregate analysis in the 50 United States. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 45, 249–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meadows, S. O., Land, K. C., & Lamb, V. L. (2005). Assessing Gilligan versus Sommers: gender-specific trends in child and youth well-being in the United States, 1985–2001. Social Indicators Research, 70, 1–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyers, M. K., Gornick, J. C., & Peck, L. (2001). Packaging support for low-income families: policy variation across the United States. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 20, 457–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, K. A., Vandivere, S., Lippman, L., McPhee, C., & Bloch, M. (2007). An index of the condition of children: the ideal and the less-than-ideal U.S. example. Social Indicators Research, 84(3), 291–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, K. A., Theokas, C., Lippman, L., Bloch, M., Vandivere, S., & O’Hare, W. (2008). A microdata child well-being index: conceptualization, creation, and findings. Child Indicators Research, 1, 17–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Hare, W. P. (2006). Developing state indices of child well-being. Washington DC: Brookings Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Hare, W. P. (2011). The changing child population of the United States: Analysis of data from the 2010 census. Baltimore, MD: The Annie E. Casey Foundation. KIDS COUNT Working Paper, available online at http://www.aecf.org/KnowledgeCenter/Publications.aspx?pubguid={667AADB4-523B-4DBC-BB5B-C891DD2FF039.

  • O’Hare, W. P., & Bramstedt, N. L. (2003). Assessing the KIDS COUNT Composite Index. Baltimore, MD: The Annie E. Casey Foundation. Available online at http://www.aecf.org/upload/publicationfiles/assessingpercent20compositepercent20index.pdf.

  • O’Hare, W. P., & Gutierrez. (2012). The use of domains in constructing a comprehensive composite index of child well-being. Child Indicators Research, Digital Object Identifier. doi:10.1007/s12187-012-9138-6.

  • O’Hare, W. P., & Lamb, V. L. (2004). Ranking states based on improvement in child well-being during the 1990s. Baltimore, MD: The Annie E. Casey Foundation. KIDS COUNT Working Paper. Available online at http://www.aecf.org/upload/publicationfiles/da3622h1264.pdf.

  • O’Hare, W. P., & Lamb, V. L. (2009). Ranking States on improvement in child well-being since 2000. Baltimore, MD: The Annie E. Casey Foundation. KIDS COUNT Working Paper. Available online at http://www.aecf.org/~/media/PublicationFiles/OHare%20%20Lamb%20March%202009%20Paper.pdf.

  • O’Hare, W. P., & Lee, M. (2007). Factors affecting state differences in child well-being. Baltimore, MD: The Annie E. Casey Foundation. KIDS COUNT Working Paper, available online at http://www.aecf.org/~/media/Pubs/Initiatives/KIDS%20COUNT/F/FactorsAffectingStateDifferencesinChildWell%20B/factors_affecting_state_diffs.pdf.

  • O’Hare, W. P., & Vandivere, S. (2007). States ranked on the well-being of children in low-income families. Baltimore, MD: The Annie E. Casey Foundation. KIDS COUNT Working Paper. Available online at http://www.aecf.org/~/media/Pubs/Initiatives/KIDS%20COUNT/S/StatesRankedontheBasisoftheConditionofChildre/iowincomewellbeing.pdf.

  • Olif, P., & Leachman, M. (2011). New school year brings steep cuts in state funding for schools. Washington D.C., Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Available online at http://www.cbpp.org/files/9-1-11sfp.pdf.

  • Pollard, E. I., & Lee, P. D. (2002). Child well-being: a systematic review of the literature. Social Science Indicators Research, 61, 59–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ritualo, A., & O’Hare, W. P. (2000). Factors related to state differences in child well-being. Paper presented at the Southern Demographic Association, October 2000.

  • Schor, E. L. (1995). Developing communality: family-centered programs to improve children’s health and well-being. Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 72(2), 413–442.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stagner, M., Goerge, R. M., & Ballard, P. (2008). Improved indicators of child well-being. Chicago: Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • The Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2011). 2011 kids count data book. Baltimore, MD: Annie E. Casey Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • USA Today (2010). States cut preschool from budgets. USA TODAY. 8/8/2010

  • Voss, P. (1995). Indicators of child well-being in the United States, 1985–1992: An analysis of related factors. The Applied Population Laboratory at the University of Wisconsin and The Annie E. Casey Foundation, Baltimore, MD.

  • Washington Post (2011). In trimming school budgets, more officials turn to a four-day week. Lyndsey Layton, October 28.

  • Weinberg, D. (2011). U.S. neighborhood income inequality in the 2005–2009 period. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey Reports, ACS-16.

  • Weiner, T. S. (1988). Human development index, child well-being, and the cultural project of development. New Directions for Child Development, 81, 69–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitaker, I. P. (2001). Unequal opportunities among unequal states: the importance of examining state characteristics in making social welfare policies regarding children. Journal of Children and Poverty, 7, 145–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilkinson, R., & Pickett, K. (2010). The spirit level: Why greater equality makes societies stronger. New York: Bloomsbury Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winston, P., & Castañeda, R. M. (2007). Assessing federalism: ANF and the recent evolution of American social policy federalism. Urban Institute, Discussion Papers 07-01. Accessed online at www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411473_assessing_federalism.pdf.

  • Zill, N. (2006). Are all indicators created equal? Alternatives to an equal weighting strategy in the construction of a composite index of child well-being. Accessed online at www.fcd-us.org/PDFs/ZillPaper.pdf.21.2006.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to William P. O’Hare.

Additional information

This research is based on work supported by grants from the Annie E. Casey Foundation and the Foundation for Child Development.

Appendix A: Sources and Definitions of Demographic, Economic and Policy Measures

Appendix A: Sources and Definitions of Demographic, Economic and Policy Measures

Demographic Measures

Source

Definition/Importance for Children and Families

Non-Hispanic Black Population Under Age 18

U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates 2007

Percent of the under 18 population that is non-Hispanic and black.

Hispanic Population Under Age 18

U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates 2007

Percent of the under 18 population that is Hispanic.

Minority Population Under Age 18

U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates 2007

Percent of the under 18 population that is not non-Hispanic white.

Population Ages 0 to 4

U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates 2007

Percent of the under 18 population that is age 0 to 4.

Population Ages 10 to 17

U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates 2007

Percent of the under 18 population that is age 10 to 17.

Children with a Foreign-Born Parent

U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2007

Percent of the under 18 population with at least one foreign-born parent.

Urban population

U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2007

Percent of total population that live in urban areas.

State Per Capita Income

U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 2007

Sum of all personal income received by all persons from all sources divided by state population from U.S. Census Bureau’s Population Estimates.

Gini Coefficient

U.S. Census Bureau 2007

A measure of the inequality of the income distribution. A value of 0 implies total equality, and a value of 1 is considered the maximum inequality.

Household Net Worth

U.S. Census Bureau 2007

Household net worth is the sum of assets of any person age 15 years and older in the household, less any liabilities. Assets included in this measure are interest-earning assets, stocks and mutual fund shares, real estate, own business or profession, mortgages held by sellers, and motor vehicles. Liabilities covered include debts secured by any asset, credit card or store bills, banks loans, and other unsecured debts.

Employment Ratio

U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2007

Percentage of all working-age persons, 18 to 64, who are employed.

Adults 25+ with a HS diploma

U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2007

Percentage of persons 25 and older who have a high school diploma or equivalent.

Adults 18 to 64 without Health Insurance

U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey 2007

Percentage of adults 18 to 64 who were not covered by any health insurance in the previous year.

Adults with a Disability

U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2007

Percentage of adults, 18 and older, who reported at least one type of disability.

Economic Measures

Source

Definition/Importance for Children and Families

State Per Capita Income

U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 2007

Sum of all personal income received by all persons from all sources divided by state population from U.S. Census Bureau’s Population Estimates.

Gini Coefficient

U.S. Census Bureau 2007

A measure of the inequality of the income distribution. A value of 0 implies total equality, and a value of 1 is considered the maximum inequality.

Household Net Worth

U.S. Census Bureau 2007

Household net worth is the sum of assets of any person age 15 years and older in the household, less any liabilities. Assets included in this measure are interest-earning assets, stocks and mutual fund shares, real estate, own business or profession, mortgages held by sellers, and motor vehicles. Liabilities covered include debts secured by any asset, credit card or store bills, banks loans, and other unsecured debts.

Employment Ratio

U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2007

Percentage of all working-age persons, 18 to 64, who are employed.

Policy Measures

Source

Definition/Importance for Children and Families

State and local tax rates

Tax Foundation State-Local Tax burdens, All States, 2007

Total states and local taxes paid by state residents to both their own and other Governments divided by each state’s total income

Income tax threshold for a two parent family of four

Policy Matters: 2008 Data Update, Center for the Study of Social Policy

Higher thresholds at which a family becomes subject to state income taxes reduce the tax burden and ensure that the state’s tax structure encourages and rewards work.

States with personal income tax

Policy Matters: 2008 Data Update, Center for the Study of Social Policy

Does the state have a personal income tax?

States where minimum wage exceeds federal requirements

Policy Matters: 2008 Data Update, Center for the Study of Social Policy

States where minimum wage exceeds the federal requirements can promote economic stability and encourage and reward work.

States with refundable Earned Income Tax Credit

Policy Matters: 2008 Data Update, Center for the Study of Social Policy

The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) is considered effective in helping move working families out of poverty. States can supplement the federal EITC by making the state tax credit refundable and increasing tax refunds.

States where part time workers are eligible for unemployment insurance

United States Department of Labor, Comparison of state unemployment laws, 2007

Many states exclude workers who seek part-time employment, often times parents and primarily women. Possible benefits to workers seeking part-time work include full eligibility for unemployment insurance or limited eligibility—possibly covering workers with health conditions or a history of part-time work.

TANF cutoff for countable asset limits

Corporation for Enterprise Development, 2007–2008 Assets and Opportunities Scorecard

Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) may limit benefits to those with few or no assets, which can discourage families from saving or collecting assets in the interest of receiving benefits. Higher limits on assets can encourage personal savings and asset building allows families to move off of assistance.

Food Stamp participation rate

U.S. Department of Agriculture, State Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Participation Rates In 2008.

The participation rate is calculated by dividing the number of people participating in food stamp programs by the number of eligible people. The estimates of eligible individuals are derived from a model that uses data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC), which provides income and program participation information for the previous calendar year, as well as detailed information on program rules from the fiscal year to simulate eligibility for SNAP.

Medicaid child eligibility as a percent of federal poverty level

Policy Matters: 2008 Data Update, Center for the Study of Social Policy

The availability of government health insurance is determined by the income eligibility level and is considered an important part of child development and helping children to stay healthy.

Medicaid working parent eligibility cutoff as a percent of poverty

Policy Matters: 2008 Data Update, Center for the Study of Social Policy

Parental health eligibility is determined by the income level of the family and is an indicator of child’s use of health services. The eligibility for government funded health insurance is determined separately from the child’s eligibility.

States charging a premium for child health coverage programs

Policy Matters: 2008 Data Update, Center for the Study of Social Policy

States that charge a premium or copay for access to children’s health care can ultimately limit access to health care. Copayments apply to non-preventative physician visits, emergency visits, and/or inpatient hospitalizations.

Education spending per 4 year old in pre-kindergarten

Policy Matters: 2008 Data Update, Center for the Study of Social Policy

Education spending is an indicator of access to pre-school and is a comparative measure across states. This is not the same measure as funding per 4 year old enrolled, which can be considered a measure of quality.

Spending per pupil in public elementary and secondary schools

National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics, 2007

This is the total current expenditures for public elementary and secondary education divided by the fall membership as reported in the state finance file. The expenditures for equipment, non-public education, school construction, debt financing and community services are excluded. These data are from the CCD National Public Education Financial Survey.

Access to preschool

National Institute for Early Education Research, State of Preschool Yearbook, 2007

The measures of access for 3 and 4 year-olds were calculated using state data on enrollment and Census population estimates. Criteria considered were total state program enrollment, school districts that offer state program, income requirement, hours of operation, hours of operation, special education enrollment, federally funded Head Start enrollment, and state-funded Head Start enrollment.

Resources for preschool

National Institute for Early Education Research, State of Preschool Yearbook, 2007

All reported spending per child was calculated by dividing the sum of reported local, state, and federal spending by enrollment. Types of spending include: total state pre-K spending, whether local providers match state funding, state Head Start spending, state spending per child enrolled, and all reported spending per child enrolled.

Quality standards for preschool

National Institute for Early Education Research, State of Preschool Yearbook, 2007

Quality standards for preschools were determined from the following indicators: early learning standards set by the state, teachers with at least BA degrees, teacher specialized training, assistant teacher degree, teacher in-service, maximum class size, staff-child ratio, screening/referral and support services for vision, hearing, and health, meals, and monitoring of classes.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

O’Hare, W.P., Mather, M., Dupuis, G. et al. Analyzing Differences in Child Well-Being Among U.S. States. Child Ind Res 6, 401–431 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-012-9173-3

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12187-012-9173-3

Keywords

Navigation