fga rightforkidsbook web single pages

7/31/2019 FGA RightForKidsBook Web Single Pages

1/36012RightforKidsRanking|FoundationforGovernmentAccountability

Which Stat Chid Wfar

Ssts Ar Right for Kids?

R A N K I N G

2012

PublishedbytheFoundationforGovernmentAccountability


2/36


3/36

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

ACCOUNTABILITY

TarrenBragdon

ChiefEecutiveOfcer

Which Stat Chid Wfar

Ssts Ar Right for Kids?

R A N K I N G

2012


4/36 2012RightforKidsRanking|FoundationforGovernmentAccounta



2012

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

CONTeNTSEecutiveSummary..................................................................................................6

DoingRightForKids GoodSocialPoli cy,GoodEconomicPolicy........ ......... .... 7

FiveKeyFindings FromThe2012Right ForKidsRanking........ ......... ......... ........ ...... 8

TheBestAndWorstWhichStatesAreRightForKids?.........................................9

WhatIfAllStates PerformedLikeThe Top10RightForK idsStates?........ ........ ... 10

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

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

SubRankingsTheBestAndWorstStatesForEachOfThe11OutcomeAreas....13

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

Outcome2-ReduceAbuse InFosterCare......... ......... ........ ......... ........ ......... .... 15

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

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

Outcome5-ForeverFamiliesASAP.................................................................... 18Outcome6-HereToday...AndTomorrow.......................................................19

Outcome7-HopeAndHomesFor Teens........ ......... ........ ......... ........ ......... ......... 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

AboutTheAuthorTarrenBragdon.....................................................................33

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



Eachstateschildwelfaresystemtypicallyoperatesoutofthepubliceyeunlessatragedy,oftenthedeatha

child,pullsthesystemfromtheshadowstothefrontpage.Itshouldnotbethisway.Protectingchildrenfrom

abuseandneglectisafundamentalresponsibilityofacivilsociety.

Yet,theaverageAmerican,andevenmostpolicymakersandmembersofthemedia,haslittleunderstandingofhow

theirstateschildwelfaresystemperforms.TheannualRIGHTFORKIDSRANKINGprovidesthehardfactsabouthow

wellstatesareservingvulnerablekids.TheRIGHTFORKIDSRANKINGandthecompanionRightForKids.orgWebsite

answersbasicquestionslike:

Whichstatesaredoingthebestjoboverallinservingchildrenwhoareab usedandneglected?

Andmorefocusedquestionslike:

Whichstatesarebestservingteenagersinfostercarebyhelpingthemmoveontopermanencyandstab ility?

The2012RIGHTFORKIDSRANKINGshowswhichstatesarebestandworstatthistoughbutcriticaljob,usinga

methodologythatscoresallstatesin11keyoutcomeareasand41differentdatameasures.Thiscomprehensive

lististherstofitskind.

ThevemajorndingsfromthisyearsRIGHTFORKIDSRANKINGare:

1.Only11stateshavea24-hourrapidresponsetoinvestigateclaimsofabuseorneglect.

2.Only12statesvisitthevastmajorityoffosterkidsmonthly.

3.Only9statesquicklyandsafelyreturnfosterchildrenhometotheirbiologicalfamilieswhenpossible.

4.Only9statesensureshortandstablestaysinfostercareasgeneralpractice.

5.Only11stateshelpndforeverfamiliesASAPforalargeshareoffosterchildren.

Americans,mostimportantlyabusedandneglectedkids,payasignicantpriceasaresultofsomestatesdoing

amuchworsejobthanothers.WhatifallstatesperformedattheleveloftheTop10RightforKidsStates?Ifthat

happened:

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

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

Helpingkidsisnotjustgoodsocialpolicy.Itisgoodeconomicpolicyaswell.Childabuseandneglectcosts

morethan$100billioneveryyearindirect($33billion)andindirect($71billion)costs.

This annual ranking is a reality check on how well each state is serving the most vulnerable children, and

celebratestopperformingstatesoverallandinspecicoutcomeareas.Thesebrightspotscanleadbyeample,andhighlightsuccessfulpublicpolicies,fundingstructures,andleadershiptobestservekids.Understandingwhy

astaterankswhereitdoesistherststeptowardpositive,pro-activereforms.Learnmoreabouthowyourstate

performsbyreadingthisreportandstatespecicprolesatRightForKids.org

E x E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y



D O I N G R I G H T F O R K I D S G O O D S O C I A L P O L I C Y , G O O D E C O N O M I C P O L I C

Ithappens.ChildreninAmericadiefromabuseandneglect.Ithappens1,770timesayearalmostvetimes

everyday.1Whenthesetragediesoccurquestionsareaskedandngersarepointed.Thestateschildwelfare

systembecomesfrontpagenews.Suchtragediesrightlyforcethemedia,policymakersandthepublictoask

toughquestionsabouthowwellastateschildwelfaresystemprotectskids,reducesabuse,supportsfamilies,

andmovesabusedkidstosafeandpermanentfamiliesandultimatelytowardabetterlife.

Achildshouldnothavetodietoforcethesequestions.

Policymakers,childadvocates,themediaandthepublichavearighttoknow:

Whichstatesaredoingthebestjoboverallinservingchildrenwhoareab usedandneglected?

Whichstatesarequickesttoinvestigateallegationsofabuse?

Whichstatesarebestatreducingtheamountoftimechildrenspendinfostercare?

Whichstateshaveincreasedthenumberofchildrenmovingfromfostercaretoadoptivefamilies?

Whichstatesarebestatsupporting fosterchildrensafelyreturningbacktotheirbiologicalfamilies?

Whichstatesarebestatservingteenagersincarebyhelpingth emmoveontopermanencyandstability?

Whichstatesarereducingthenumberoffosterhomesthatkidsinfostercareareplacedinto?

Whichstatesarereducingtherateofchildabuseandneglect?

Simplyput,atopperformingchildwelfaresystemshouldrespondquicklytoallegationsofabuse,ensurethat

kidswhoareabusedaretransitionedtoasafeandpermanenthomeasquicklyaspossible(whetherthrough

successful reunication or adoption), guarantee that children in out-of-home placements are in safe and

supportivehome-likesettings(fostercareorkinshipcare)withasfewplacementsaspossible,andreducethe

overallincidenceofabuseand,subsequently,thenumberofchildreninneedoffostercare.

TheFoundationforGovernmentAccountabilitypublishestheRIGHTFORKIDSRANKINGtocomprehensivelyand

holisticallyratethechildwelfaresystemsofall50statesandtheDistrictofColumbia.Thisannualrankingisthe

rstofitskind.Itmeasureseachstatesjobperformanceinservingthemostvulnerablekids,andidentiesthe

leaderstateswecanlooktoforinspirationandadvice.

Helpingkidsisnotjustgoodsocialpolicy.Itisgoodeconomicpolicyaswell.Childabuseandneglectcosts

morethan$100billioneveryyearindirect($33billion)andindirect($71billion)costs.2Accordingtonumerous

studies,abusedandneglectedchildrenaremorelikelytoeperiencethefollowingduringtheirlifetime:poor

physicalhealth,pooremotionalhealth,socialdifculties,cognitivedysfunction,high-riskhealthbehaviors,and

behavioralproblems.

Thedirectcostsofchildabuseandneglectaremoreobvious:hospitalizationfromabuse($6.6billion),mental

healthservices($1billion),childwelfareservices($25.4billion),andlawenforcement($33million).Butthere

arealsoseveralindirectcostsofchildabuseandneglect:specialeducation($2.4billion),juveniledelinquency

($7.2billion),mentalhealthandhealthcare($67million),adultcriminaljusticespending($28billion),andlost

productivity ($33 billion). This totalcostis eight times greater than the total$12.6billion reported stateand

federalTitleIV-EspendingforFosterCare($8.4billion)andAdoptionAssistance($4.1billion)inscalyear2010. 3

Whatisimmeasurableisthecosttothelifeoftheabusedchild.Asasociety,weneedtoreducetheincidence

ofchildabuseandneglectandimproveoutcomesinstatechildwelfaresystemsnotbecauseitisgoodscal

policy,butrstandforemostbecauseitistherightandjustthingtodoinacivilsociety.



1. On 11 stats ha a 24-hor rapid rspons to instigat cais of abs or ngct.

Theaveragetimebetweenreceivingareportofabuseorneglectandlaunchinganinvestigationislessthan24hours

inthefollowing11states:Colorado,DistrictofColumbia,Florida,Illinois,Iowa,Nevada,NewHampshire,NewJersey,

NewYork,TennesseeandWyoming. Unbelievably,13statestakelongerthan120hours(5days)torespond.Fora

vulnerablechild,thiscouldmeananothervedaysofabusebecauseofbureaucraticdelay.Itcouldalsomeanthe

differencebetweenlifeanddeath.

2. On 12 stats isit th ast ajorit of fostr kids onth.

Caseworkervisitsarecriticaltoensurethesafetyofthechildinfostercareandtosupportthefosterparentsserving

thechild.12statesprioritizefosterfamilyaccountabilityandsafetywithmonthlyvisitstoatleast85%offosterchildren.

Theyare: Florida, Georgia, Idaho,Indiana, Kansas,Louisiana,Maine, New Meico, Pennsylvania, SouthCarolina,

SouthDakota,andUtah.

3. On 9 stats qick and saf rtrn fostr chidrn ho to thir bioogica faiis whn possib.

Just13states,onaverage,reunifyfosterchildrenwiththeirbiologicalfamilieswithin12months.Toomanystatestake

toolongtoreunify,eventhoughreunicationisinthebestinterestofthechildren.Inthesestateskidslanguishinfoster

carelikelylongerthantheyneed.

38states,onaverage,havefewerthan15%(about1 in7)ofreuniedfosterchildrenre-enterfostercarewithin12

months(presumablybecauseofcontinuedabuseandneglect).Mostreunicationsaresuccessful.

Only9statesaccomplishbothfewerthan12monthsonaveragetoreunifywithan85%+successrate.Thesestates

are:Arkansas,Florida,Idaho,Indiana,Mississippi,Nebraska,Tennessee,Utah,andWyoming.

4. On 9 stats nsr short and stab stas in fostr car as a gnra practic.

Only14stateshavechildrenremaininfostercare12monthsorless,onaverage.

27stateshave85%ormoreofchildreninfostercarelessthan12monthsandina maimumoftwodifferentfoster

homes(orplacements).Suchmovescanbetraumaticforthechild,oftenforcingachangeofschoolandleaving

friendsandcommunitysupport.

Only9statesaccomplish bothhavefosterchildrenremainincare ayearorlessand ensuretheydonoteperience

thetraumaofmultiplemoves. Thesestatesare:Arizona,Florida,Idaho,Indiana,Iowa,Minnesota,Nebraska,West

Virginia,andWyoming.

5. On 11 stats hp nd forr faiis ASAP for a arg shar of fostr chidrn.

Whenafosterchildissuccessfullyadoptedintoaforeverfamily,heorshehasoftenbeeninthechildwelfaresystem

alongtime.Just28states,onaverage,takelessthan30monthstomoveachildfromanabusivebiologicalhome

throughthefostercaresystemandintoasafe,permanentadoptivefamily.Thismeansjustoverhalfthestatestakelessthantwoandonehalfyearstomoveachildfromabuseanduncertaintytosafetyandstability.Onlyfourstates

accomplishthisinlessthan24months:Colorado,Iowa,Utah,andVermont.

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

Only11statesaccomplishb othlessthan30monthson averagetomoveafosterchildto anadoptivehome,anda

largenumberofadoptionsasashareofthenumberofkidsinfostercare.Thesestatesare:Arizona,Arkansas,Florida,

Idaho,Maine,NewMeico,NorthCarolina,Teas,Utah,Vermont,andWyoming.

F I V E K E Y F I N D I N G S F R O M T H E 2 0 1 2 R I G H T

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



T H E B E S T A N D W O R S T W H 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 RightFOR 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,orethnicproleofatopperforming

state.Thelistisdiverse.Whatmattersisnotthephysicalcharacteristicsofastate,buthowstatesactandwhat

programsandpoliciestheyhave.

Anystatecanbeatopperformer.Thatsgoodnewsforpolicymakersandgreatnewsforkidswhoareabused

andneglected.



W H A T I F A L L S T A T E S P E R F O R M E D L I K E T H E T O P

1 0 R I G H T F O R K I D S S T A T E S ?

Thenotionofallstateshavingahigh-performingchildwelfaresystemisnotpolicyutopia.Infact,asdatain

thisreportandonRightForKids.orgshows,overarelativelyshortperiodoftimestatescananddodramatically

improveorworsentheirperformanceinprotectingandservingkidswhoareabusedandneglected.

SowhatwoulditmeanifallstatesweretoperformaswellastheTop10RightForKidsStates?Whatiftherestof

thestateshad,onaverage,thesameoutcomesastheTop10states?

1.Therewouldbe72,000fewerkidsinfostercare(17%fewer)

2.Therewouldbealmost19,000moreadoptionsfromfostercareeachyear(36%more)

TheRIGHT FORKIDS RANKINGmatters. Child advocates,families, voters, policymakers and themediamust

encouragestatestoreformtheirchildwelfaresystemsanddevelopachildwelfaresafetynetthatservesabusedandneglectedkidswell.Whenthishappens,acompassionateandpremierchildwelfarenetworkacrossthe

countrywillbethereality,notjustanideal.



2 0 1 2 R I G H T F O R K I D S R A N K I N G

The2012RIGHTFORKIDSRANKINGisbasedonthemostrecentdataavailablemostlyfrom2010andfactorsa

stateschangeinperformanceovertime,from2007to2010.

STATe SCORe RANK

Alabama 58.8 33

Alaska 56.6 40

Arizona 70.3 6

Arkansas 57.8 37

California 56.4 41

Colorado 69.6 7

Connecticut 57.9 36

Delaware 57.3 38

DistrictofColumbia 40.9 51

Florida 70.9 4

Georgia 66.1 12

Hawaii 68.2 9

Idaho 78.9 1

Illinois 50 48

Indiana 62.9 24

Iowa 64.6 15

Kansas 61.4 30

STATe SCORe RANK

Kentucky 62.9 23

Louisiana 61.5 29

Maine 62.7 25

Maryland 58.4 34

Massachusetts 42.3 50

Michigan 63.1 22

Minnesota 63.4 21

Mississippi 55.3 43

Missouri 62.4 26

Montana 52.6 46

Nebraska 53.5 44

Nevada 61.8 28

NewHampshire 73.6 2

NewJersey 70.7 5

NewMeico 64.4 18

NewYork 53.4 45

NorthCarolina 73.1 3

STATe SCORe RANK

NorthDakota 68.9 8

Ohio 65.8 13

Oklahoma 60.1 31

Oregon 48.9 49

Pennsylvania 64.5 16

RhodeIsland 58 35

SouthCarolina 55.3 42

SouthDakota 51 47

Tennessee 66.7 10

Teas 58.9 32

Utah 63.9 20

Vermont 56.9 39

Virginia 62.1 27

Washington 64.1 19

WestVirginia 65.4 14

Wisconsin 64.5 17

Wyoming 66.5 11

2012 RANKINGS - AlPHABeTICAl

2012 RANKINGS - BeST TO WORST

STATe SCORe RANK

Idaho 78.9 1

NewHampshire 73.6 2


Florida 70.9 4

NewJersey 70.7 5

Arizona 70.3 6

Colorado 69.6 7

NorthDakota 68.9 8

Hawaii 68.2 9

Tennessee 66.7 10

Wyoming 66.5 11

Georgia 66.1 12

Ohio 65.8 13

WestVirginia 65.4 14

Iowa 64.6 15

Pennsylvania 64.5 16

Wisconsin 64.5 17

STATe SCORe RANK

NewMeico 64.4 18

Washington 64.1 19

Utah 63.9 20

Minnesota 63.4 21

Michigan 63.1 22

Kentucky 62.9 23

Indiana 62.9 24

Maine 62.7 25

Missouri 62.4 26

Virginia 62.1 27

Nevada 61.8 28

Louisiana 61.5 29

Kansas 61.4 30

Oklahoma 60.1 31

Teas 58.9 32

Alabama 58.8 33

Maryland 58.4 34

STATe SCORe RANK

RhodeIsland 58 35

Connecticut 57.9 36

Arkansas 57.8 37

Delaware 57.3 38

Vermont 56.9 39

Alaska 56.6 40

California 56.4 41


Mississippi 55.3 43

Nebraska 53.5 44

NewYork 53.4 45

Montana 52.6 46

SouthDakota 51 47

Illinois 50 48

Oregon 48.9 49


Districtof Col umbia 40.9 51



Tobestunderstandhowstateperformancechangedovertime(inthiscasefouryears),acalculationofthe2006Rankingisprovidedforcomparisonwiththe2012RIGHTFORKIDSRANKING.The2006Rankingalsomeasureshow a states performance changed from2003to2006.

Whatismosttellingaboutthe2006Rankingscompared to the 2012 Rankings is howmuchstatesmoved.

Fromthe2006tothe2012Rankings,19states

movedmorethan10places(upordown).Infact,14statesmovedatleast15places.

Whatdoesthismean?Statescananddosignicantly change how well they serveabusedandneglectedkidsinaveryshortamountof time. A child welfaresystem isnot an immovable bureaucracy. It is a

dynamic system and its performance canquicklyanddramaticallychange.

Ontheother hand,thisalsoindicates thattopperformingstatesmustbevigilantandpro-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 statesperformed poorlyin 2006 andstill performed poorly years later, like theDistrict of Columbia,Illinois, Massachusetts,

Nebraska,andOregon.

P erform anc e b etwe en 2006 a nd 2012plummeted in Alabama (-28 places),California (-14), Delaware (-34, the largestdrop), Mississippi (-17), Missouri (-19),Montana(-27),andUtah(-19).

RightForKids.orgshowswhichoutcomeareasdrove a states change in performance,andprovidesstatespecicoverviewsofallkeydatapoints.

2 0 0 6 V S . 2 0 1 2 R I G H T F O R K I D S R A N K I N G

2012 2006 mOveD

2006 TO

2012STATe SCORe RANK SCORe RANKAlabama 58.8 33 68.6 5 -28

Alaska 56.6 40 53.2 45 5

Arizona 70.3 6 66.5 9 3

Arkansas 57.8 37 57.2 32 -5

California 56.4 41 59 27 -14

Colorado 69.6 7 70.3 3 -4

Connecticut 57.9 36 60.1 24 -12

Delaware 57.3 38 69.4 4 -34

DistrictofColumbia 40.9 51 52.2 46 -5

Florida 70.9 4 63.1 16 12

Georgia 66.1 12 57.5 30 18Hawaii 68.2 9 72.3 2 -7

Idaho 78.9 1 68.2 6 5

Illinois 50 48 51.4 47 -1

Indiana 62.9 24 64.2 14 -10

Iowa 64.6 15 55.4 38 23

Kansas 61.4 30 56.6 33 3

Kentucky 62.9 23 63.3 15 -8

Louisiana 61.5 29 58.8 28 -1

Maine 62.7 25 55.4 39 14

Maryland 58.4 34 43.8 51 17

Massachusetts 42.3 50 53.6 44 -6

Michigan 63.1 22 55.3 40 18

Minnesota 63.4 21 64.9 11 -10

Mississippi 55.3 43 59.8 26 -17

Missouri 62.4 26 67.8 7 -19

Montana 52.6 46 62.2 19 -27

Nebraska 53.5 44 54.6 42 -2

Nevada 61.8 28 61.8 20 -8

NewHampshire 73.6 2 64.4 12 10

NewJersey 70.7 5 57.3 31 26

NewMeico 64.4 18 62.5 17 -1

NewYork 53.4 45 55.8 35 -10

NorthCarolina 73.1 3 67.1 8 5

NorthDakota 68.9 8 55.7 36 28

Ohio 65.8 13 64.4 12 -1

Oklahoma 60.1 31 49.6 48 17

Oregon 48.9 49 49.5 49 0

Pennsylvania 64.5 16 61.3 22 6

RhodeIsland 58 35 54.4 43 8

SouthCarolina 55.3 42 56.5 34 -8

SouthDakota 51 47 54.8 41 -6

Tennessee 66.7 10 62.2 18 8

Teas 58.9 32 58.8 29 -3

Utah 63.9 20 72.5 1 -19

Vermont 56.9 39 48.4 50 11

Virginia 62.1 27 61.6 21 -6

Washington 64.1 19 61.1 23 4

WestVirginia 65.4 14 55.5 37 23

Wisconsin 64.5 17 59.9 25 8

Wyoming 66.5 11 65.1 10 -1



SUBRANKINGSTHEBESTANDWORSTSTATESFOREACHOFTHE11OUTCOMEAREAS

Families,policymakers,themedia,andthepublicneedtounderstandwhichstatesareleadingineachspecic

outcomearea.Eachoutcomeareawasspecicallychosenaspartoftheassessmentofstateschildwelfare

systemsbecausetheywereeitheridentiedbythefederalAdministrationforChildrenandFamilies(ACF)as

beingacoreareaofchildwelfaresystemperformanceoridentiedbyrelevantresearchasbeingcoretoa

well-performingchildwelfaresystem.

Thesubrankingsforeachoutcomeareashowthosetopperformersthatmayhavepolicyorprogramstrategies

worthyofreplicationinother,lowerperformingstates.TheRightForKids.orgWebsiteallowsuserstoseetheentire

subrankingsforeachoutcomearea.Thesesubrankingsarehelpfultochildadvocatesandpolicymakersto

guidewherereformsshouldbetargetedandwhatoutcomemeasuresshouldbemonitoredassuchreformsare

implemented.

Thefollowingsectionprovidesinformationoneachofthe11outcomeareas,andeachstatesscoreandrank

foreachoftheoutcomeareas.Thehighestpossiblescoreforeachoutcomeareais10points.

Otco 1 Rdc Abs

Otco 2 Rdc Abs in Fostr Car

Otco 3 Prannt Faiis, Saf Hos

Otco 4 Rtrn Ho Qick and Saf

Otco 5 Forr Faiis ASAP

Otco 6 Hr Toda and Toorrow

Otco 7 Hop and Hos for Tns

Otco 8 Fostring A Good edcation

Otco 9 Fwr Fostr Kids

Otco 10 Rapid Rspons

Otco 11 mor Forr Faiis

012RightforKidsRanking|FoundationforGovernmentAccountability



O U T C O M E 1

R E D U C E A B U S E

meASuRING SuCCeSS

Whichstatesdo thebestjob atstopping thecycleof abuseandneglect, asevidencedby childrennotrepeatedly

enteringthechildwelfaresystemforpersistentabuseandneglect?

Whichstatesachievetheultimateoutcomeofreducingtherateofabuseandneglectoverall?

Theultimategoalofawell-functioningchildwelfaresystemistoreducethechanceofachildbeingabusedonceorrepeatedly.

Infact,themostrecentFourthFederalNationalIncidenceStudy 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 tokeepchildren 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 or

neglect)within6months(2010data)

Rateofmaltreatmentvictimsper100,000children(2010)

Changein the rate ofmaltreatment victims per 100,000 children from2007to2010

STATe SCORe RANK

Alabama 6.6 18

Alaska 3.8 43

Arizona 6.4 19

Arkansas 2.8 49

California 5.3 30

Colorado 5.5 29

Connecticut 3.9 42

Delaware 5.8 26


Florida 4.1 41

Georgia 8.2 1

Hawaii 7 12

Idaho 6.9 14

Illinois 5 34

Indiana 3.3 45

Iowa 3.1 47

Kansas 7.5 4

STATe SCORe RANK

Kentucky 4.2 38

Louisiana 6 23

Maine 5.1 32

Maryland 4.9 35Massachusetts 5.3 30

Michigan 2.8 49

Minnesota 6.8 16

Mississippi 4.6 37

Missouri 7.3 5

Montana 6.9 14

Nebraska 3.7 44

Nevada 5.8 26

NewHampshire 7.1 8

NewJersey 5.7 28

NewMeico 4.2 38

NewYork 1.4 51


STATe SCORe RANK

NorthDakota 7.1 8

Ohio 4.8 36

Oklahoma 7.1 8

Oregon 5.1 32Pennsylvania 7.3 7

RhodeIsland 3.3 45


SouthDakota 6 22

Tennessee 7.9 2

Teas 6.4 19

Utah 4.2 38

Vermont 7.3 5

Virginia 7 12

Washington 5.8 25

WestVirginia 7.7 3

Wisconsin 6.7 17

Wyoming 7 11

DID yOu KNOW

31 states reducedthe rate of conrmed

abuseorneglectvictimsfrom2007to2010.Sadly,intheother20statestheconrmed

rateofabuseandneglectincreased.

Top 10 stats

Botto 10 stats



O U T C O M E 2

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

meASuRING SuCCeSS

Whichstatesprotectkidsfrombeingabusedorneglectedwhileinafosterhome?

Whichstatesensurechildrenssafetywhileinfostercarebyconductingmonthlyin-homevisitswithalmostallfoster

children?

Whichstateshavea shortaverage lengthof stayforchildrenin fostercare beforereturningthemhomeor toan

adoptivefamily?

Ifachildmustberemovedfromhisorherbiologicalhome,statesmustensurethatchildisnotabusedagaininafosterhomebythefosterparents,byotherchildreninthehomeorbysomeotherpersonwithinthathome.Statescandothatbyvisitingchildrenmonthly,atthefosterhome,toensurethefosterfamilyisprovidingasafe

andnurturingenvironment,andtoprovidesupporttohardworking

fosterparents.

Fostercareshouldbeatemporarytransition,notadestination.Byreducingtheaverageamountoftimeachildremainsinfostercare,

thestatecanreducethechancethatchildwillbeabusedwhileinthesystem.Shorterstaysandaccountabilitythroughmonthlyvisitsprotectkids.

Key ReSulTS

Percent of chi ldren maltreated

whileinfostercare(2010data)

Percent of children in foster care

receivingmonthlyvisits(2010)Percent of children in foster care

receivinghomevisits(2010)

Medianlengthofstayinfostercare

(months)forchildreninfostercare

onSeptember30,2010

DID yOu KNOW

In 9 states, less than half of

all foster children are visited

each month. These states are:

Alaska, Arkansas, Hawaii, Iowa,

Massachusetts, Oregon, Rhode

Island, Tennessee (did not report

atall),andVermont.

Foster children in the District of

Columbia and Illinois spend the

longest time in foster carea

me di an of 30 and 29 m onths,respectively. These kids spend

moretimeinfostercarethenthey

willspendatschoolforrstgrade,

second grade and third grade

combined.

STATe SCORe RANK

Alabama 7.7 30

Alaska 6.2 46

Arizona 8.4 13

Arkansas 7.4 35

California 7.3 36

Colorado 8.1 23

Connecticut 7.1 37

Delaware 7.6 31


Florida 9 2

Georgia 7.1 37

Hawaii 6 47

Idaho 9 2

Illinois 6 47

Indiana 8.7 8

Iowa 7.7 28

Kansas 8.7 8

STATe SCORe RANK

Kentucky 8.4 13

Louisiana 8.8 6

Maine 8.2 19

Maryland 7 40Massachusetts 6.6 43

Michigan 7.4 34

Minnesota 8.2 19

Mississippi 7.5 33

Missouri 8.6 10

Montana 8.4 13

Nebraska 7.9 26

Nevada 7.1 37

NewHampshire 8.4 13

NewJersey 8.4 13

NewMeico 9 2

NewYork 5.1 50


STATe SCORe RANK

NorthDakota 7.9 27

Ohio 8.4 13

Oklahoma 8 25

Oregon 6.7 42Pennsylvania 9 2

RhodeIsland 5.6 49


SouthDakota 8.8 6

Tennessee 5 51

Teas 8.5 11

Utah 9.3 1

Vermont 6.2 45

Virginia 6.9 41

Washington 7.5 32

WestVirginia 8.5 11

Wisconsin 8.2 19

Wyoming 8.2 19

Top 10 stats

Botto 10 stats



O U T C O M E 3

P E R M A N E N T F A M I L I E S , S A F E H O M E S

meASuRING SuCCeSS

Whichstateshelpkidsmovetoapermanenthomebeforetheyturn18?

Whichstateshelpyoungchildrenliveinafamily-likesettingwhileinfostercare,suchasafosterhome,ratherthanat

grouphomesorastateinstitution?

Achildwhohasbeenremovedfromanabusiveorneglectfulhome should ideally be in a family-like settinga fosterfamily.Youngchildreninparticularshouldbeinfostercareovergrouphomesorinstitutions,wheneverpossible.Achildinfostercareshouldtransitiontoasafe,permanenthomeasquicklyaspossible.

Key ReSulTS

Ofallchildreninfostercarefor24monthsorlongeronthe

rstdayoftheyear,whatpercentageweredischarged

toapermanenthomepriortotheir18thbirthdayandby

theendoftheyear?(FederalCompositeOutcome3.1,

2010data)

Ofallchildrendischarged fromfoster care during 2010

and who were legally free for adoption atthe time of

discharge (i.e., there was a parental rights termination

datereportedtotheAdoptionandFosterCareAnalysis

and Reporting System (AFCARS) and Families for both

motherandfather),whatpercentageweredischargedto

apermanenthomepriortotheir18thbirthday?(Federal

CompositeOutcome3.2,2010)

O f a ll chi ld ren who e nt er ed car e du ri ng t he 2 01 0

scalyearand were age 12or younger attimeof this

placement,what percentage were in group homes or

institutions?(2010)

STATe SCORe RANK

Alabama 7 18

Alaska 8.2 3

Arizona 7.5 12

Arkansas 5.1 37California 6.3 27

Colorado 6.7 25

Connecticut 3.1 49

Delaware 5.8 32


Florida 6.7 23

Georgia 6.9 19

Hawaii 5.1 37

Idaho 8.2 3

Illinois 6.8 22

Indiana 7.5 12

Iowa 6.9 21

Kansas 6 31

STATe SCORe RANK

Kentucky 5 41

Louisiana 7.7 8

Maine 5.5 33


Michigan 7.6 10

Minnesota 2.6 51

Mississippi 5.1 37

Missouri 6.9 19

Montana 3.7 47

Nebraska 7.6 10

Nevada 7.1 16

NewHampshire 7.8 7

NewJersey 8.5 1

NewMeico 6.6 26

NewYork 6.3 27


STATe SCORe RANK

NorthDakota 6.1 29

Ohio 4.9 42

Oklahoma 4.1 46


RhodeIsland 4.4 45


SouthDakota 2.7 50

Tennessee 7.8 6

Teas 4.7 44

Utah 6.1 29

Vermont 6.7 23

Virginia 5.5 33

Washington 7.7 8

WestVirginia 8 5

Wisconsin 7.2 15

Wyoming 4.9 43

DID yOu KNOW

South Carolina and Minnesota place

young children in institutions and groups

homesatthreetimesthenationalaverage.

On the positive side, Delaware, Kansas,

Loui si ana , Or egon, a nd Wa shington

placedkidsingroupsettings atlessthan

one-thirdthenationalaverage.

Top 10 stats

Botto 10 stats



O U T C O M E 4

R E T U R N H O M E Q U I C K L Y A N D S A F E L Y

meASuRING SuCCeSS

Whichstatesquicklyreturnchildrentotheirbiologicalfamilieswheneverpossibleandap propriate?

Whichstatesare successfulinthesereunicationsasevidencedby childrennotreenteringfostercarebecauseof

recurringabuseandneglectintheirbiologicalhome?

Wheneversafe,possibleandappropriate,childrenshouldtransitionbacktotheirbiologicalhomeasquicklyaspossible.Obviously,thebiologicalparent(s)mustsuccessfullyaddressthecauseofthemaltreatmentthat

forcedtheirchildintofostercareintherstplace.

Key ReSulTS

Timetoreunication-medianlengthofstay(2010data) Of all children discharged from foster care to reunication

during the year who hadbeen incarefor 8 days orlonger,

whatpercentagewerereuniedinlessthan12monthsfromthe

dateofthelatestremovalfromhome?(Includestrialhomevisit

adjustment,FederalCompositeMeasure1.1,2010)

Of all children discharged from foster care to reunication

during the year who had been incarefor 8 days orlonger,

what was the median length ofstay(months)fromthedate

ofthelatest removal from home untilthe date ofdischarge

toreunication?(Includes trialhomevisitadjustment,Federal

CompositeMeasure1.2,2010)

Ofall childrendischargedfromfostercare toreunication in

the12-monthperiodpriortotheyearshown,whatpercentagereentered care in less than 12 months from the date of

discharge?(FederalCompositeMeasure1.4,2010)

DID yOu KNOW

Reunifyingfamiliesistoughwork,butsomestates do it quickly and well. Arkansas,

Idaho, and Kentucky seemed to have

gured it out. New York and Vermont

haveworktodo.

STATe SCORe RANK

Alabama 5.4 34

Alaska 5.6 29

Arizona 5.2 38


Colorado 6.8 8

Connecticut 5 41

Delaware 6.2 20


Florida 6.3 18

Georgia 6.2 20

Hawaii 6.4 16

Idaho 7.3 3

Illinois 1.8 51

Indiana 6.6 10

Iowa 6.4 14

Kansas 6.1 22

STATe SCORe RANK

Kentucky 7.4 2

Louisiana 6 23

Maine 4.8 43


Michigan 5 41

Minnesota 6.7 9

Mississippi 7.1 4

Missouri 5.6 29

Montana 4.7 44

Nebraska 5.6 29

Nevada 6.6 10

NewHampshire 5.3 36

NewJersey 5.8 25

NewMeico 5.4 35

NewYork 3.1 50


STATe SCORe RANK

NorthDakota 6.5 12

Ohio 6.3 18

Oklahoma 5.1 39


RhodeIsland 4.7 44


SouthDakota 6.9 7

Tennessee 7.1 4

Teas 5.8 25

Utah 7 6

Vermont 3.6 49

Virginia 5.6 29

Washington 6.4 14

WestVirginia 5.5 33

Wisconsin 5.3 36

Wyoming 6.5 12

Top 10 stats

Botto 10 stats



O U T C O M E 5

F O R E V E R F A M I L I E S A S A P

meASuRING SuCCeSS Whichstatesquicklymovechildrenfreedforadoptioninto

foreverfamilies(ideallywithin12months)?

Which stateshave a majorityof children removed from

an abusive hometransition to an adoptive family within

24months,ensuringno morethan2 yearsin foster care

beforegettinganew,safeforeverfamily?

Whichstatesmovechildrentoadoptionafterthey have

beenlanguishinginfostercareforatleast17months?

When transitioning back to their biological family or a relative is notpossible, children shouldmove quicklyto a safe, appropriate adoptive

familyasquicklyaspossible.Studiesshowthatanadoptivefamily,notfostercare,isthefavorablehomeenvironment.Comparedtochildreninfostercare,adoptedchildrenaremorelikelytobelivingwithamarriedmother and father (71% compared to 56%); three times more likely tobenanciallysecure;andmorelikelytoliveinasafeneighborhood.Inaddition,childreninadoptedfamiliesrequirelesstapayersupportthanchildreninfostercareorsimilarchildrenlivinginsingle-parentfamilies. 5

Key ReSulTS

STATe SCORe RANK

Alabama 2.1 46

Alaska 3.7 21

Arizona 5.4 2Arkansas 4.9 8

California 3.1 37

Colorado 4.5 11

Connecticut 3.4 32

Delaware 3.6 23


Florida 5 7

Georgia 3.1 38

Hawaii 3.6 2 6

Idaho 4.9 8

Illinois 0.8 50

Indiana 3.8 18

Iowa 5.1 5

Kansas 3.6 23

STATe SCORe RANK

Kentucky 3.2 35

Louisiana 3.3 34

Maine 4 15Maryland 1.3 49


Michigan 3.5 27

Minnesota 3.3 33

Mississippi 3.6 23

Missouri 4.5 10

Montana 2.7 41

Nebraska 4 15

Nevada 2.5 44

NewHampshire 3.9 17

NewJersey 3.5 29

NewMeico 4.4 12

NewYork 0.7 51


STATe SCORe RANK

NorthDakota 5.2 3

Ohio 3.2 35

Oklahoma 3.5 27Oregon 2.4 45

Pennsylvania 3.7 21

RhodeIsland 4.1 13


SouthDakota 2.9 40

Tennessee 5.1 4

Teas 3.5 29

Utah 8 1

Vermont 5 6

Virginia 2.5 42

Washington 3 39

WestVirginia 3.5 29

Wisconsin 3.8 19

Wyoming 3.7 20

DID yOu KNOW

Fourstatestakeanaverageofatleast40

months to move a child from an abusive

hometoanadoptivefamily.Thesestates

are Illinois, Maryland, New York, and

Washington,DC.Forperspective,theCivil

War was just under 48 months. Only one

state, Utah, moves children to a forever

familyinlessthan18months.

Top 10 stats

Botto 10 stats Portionofchildrenmovedtoadoption:

Lessthan12monthstoadoption(2010data)

Lessthan24monthstoadoption(2010)



48ormoremonthstoadoption(2010)

Of a ll chi ld ren d ischarged f rom fos te r care

to a nalized adoption during the year, what

percentage were d ischarged in less than 24

monthsfromthedateofthelatestremovalfrom

home?(FederalCompositeMeasure2.1,2010)

Ofall children dischargedfromfoster care toa

nalizedadoptionduringtheyear,whatwasthe

medianlengthofstayincare(inmonths)fromthe

dateoflatestremovalfromthehometothedate

of discharge to adoption? (Federal Composite

Measure2.2,2010)

Ofallchildreninfostercareontherstdayofthe

yearwhowereincarefor17continuousmonthsorlonger(andwho,bythelastdayoftheyear,were

notdischargedfromfostercarewithadischarge

reason of reunication, l iv ing with relative, or

guardianship),whatpercentageweredischarged

fromfostercaretoanalizedadoptionbythelast

dayoftheyear?(FederalCompositeMeasure2.3,

2010)

Ofallchildreninfostercareontherstdayofthe

yearwhowereincarefor17continuousmonthsor

longer,andwhowerenotlegallyfreeforadoption

priorto that day(i.e., there wasnot a parental

rights termination date reported to AFCARS for

both mother and father) , what percentage

becamelegallyfreeforadoptionduringtherst6monthsoftheyear?(FederalCompositeMeasure

2.4,2010)

Of a ll chi ldren who became legal ly f ree for

adoptioninthe12-monthperiodpriortotheyear

shown(i.e.,therewasaparentalrightstermination

date reported to AFCARS for both mother and

father), what percentage were discharged from

fostercaretoanalizedadoptioninlessthan12

monthsfrom thedate of becoming legallyfree?

(FederalCompositeMeasure2.5,2010)



O U T C O M E 6

H E R E T O D A Y . . . A N D T O M O R R O W

meASuRING SuCCeSS

Whichsta tesensurechi ldreninfostercar ehaveastableenviro nmentasevidenc edbyjustoneortwomoves(typica lly

oneortwofosterhomes,maimum)?

Whichstatesensurechildreninfostercarehavea stableenvironmenteveniftheyremaininfostercarefora yearor

moreorevenmorethantwoyears?

Whennotwithhisorherownfamily,achildsufferingfrom

abuse or neglect should not be further traumatized bymultiple moves from one newsettingto another. Studiesshow that Frequent moves may result in children losingcontact with siblings, other family members, friends andadultsintheircommunitywhomayhavebeeninvolvedin

theirlives,suchasneighbors,coaches,religiousleadersandothers. This further placesthe childrenat risk ofemotionalandbehavioralproblemsandothernegativeoutcomes. 6

Key ReSulTS

Ofallchildrenservedinfostercareduringtheyearwhowerein

careforatleast8daysbutlessthan12months,whatpercentage

had two or fewer placement settings? (Federal Composite

Measure4.1,2010data)


careforatleast12months,whatpercentagehadtwoorfewer

placementsettings?(FederalCompositeMeasure4.2,2010)


careforatleast24months,whatpercentagehadtwoorfewer

placementsettings?(FederalCompositeMeasure4.3,2010)

DID yOu KNOW

The longer a child remains in foster care,

themorelikelyheorshewillbouncefrom

onefosterhometoanother.Whileonlyoneinsixkidsinfostercareforlessthanayear

liveinatleastthreedifferentfosterhomes

(couldincludegrouphomesorinstitutions),

that rate increases to four in six kids for

thoseinfostercaremorethantwoyears.

STATe SCORe RANK

Alabama 3.1 44

Alaska 8.8 3

Arizona 7.4 11Arkansas 1.5 49

California 5.6 29

Colorado 6.6 20

Connecticut 6.5 23

Delaware 5.4 32


Florida 5.7 28

Georgia 2.1 45

Hawaii 7.6 9

Idaho 6.6 21

Illinois 7.2 16

Indiana 7.4 11

Iowa 5.5 30

Kansas 4.5 36

STATe SCORe RANK

Kentucky 6.3 26

Louisiana 3.2 43

Maine 7.2 16Maryland 8.8 3


Michigan 8.1 7

Minnesota 5.4 32

Mississippi 4.4 37

Missouri 4 40

Montana 6.3 26

Nebraska 5.1 34

Nevada 5.5 30

NewHampshire 6.6 21

NewJersey 8.4 6

NewMeico 4.4 38

NewYork 9 2

NorthCarolina 9.5 1

STATe SCORe RANK

NorthDakota 6.4 24

Ohio 8.6 5

Oklahoma 1.1 50Oregon 7 18

Pennsylvania 7.3 14

RhodeIsland 7 18


SouthDakota 4.3 39

Tennessee 4.9 35

Teas 4 40

Utah 1.8 48

Vermont 0.8 51

Virginia 7.3 14

Washington 7.5 10

WestVirginia 7.3 13

Wisconsin 7.9 8

Wyoming 6.4 24

Top 10 stats

Botto 10 stats



O U T C O M E 7

H O P E A N D H O M E S F O R T E E N S

meASuRING SuCCeSS

Whichstatesdonotgiveuponteenagersbutinsteadhelp

themmovetoasafe,permanenthome?

Whichstates prevent teens fromever getting intofoster

care by moving them into a permanent home quickly

whentheyenterfostercareasapre-teen?

Whichstateshelp teenagersin foster carend adoptive

families?

States have a particular responsibil ity to ensure thatteenage foster children successfully move to permanent

homes and not just run out the clock on the foster caresystem. These teenagers who age out of the system

struggleacademically,struggletoholdjobs,moreheavilyrelyonpublicassistance,areathigherriskformentalandphysicalhealthproblemsandhavehigherratesofincarceration. 7

Key ReSulTS

Ofallchildrenwho,duringtheyear shown,either1) weredischarged

fromfostercarepriortoage18withadischargereasonofemancipation,

or2)reachedtheir18thbirthdaywhileinfostercare,whatpercentage

wereinfostercarefor3yearsorlonger?(FederalCompositeMeasure

3.3,2010data)

Rateofteenagersinfostercareper100,000children(2010)

Change inrate ofteenagers infostercare per100,000children from

2007to2010(2010data)

Rateofteenageadoptionsfromfostercareper1,000fosterteens(2010)

Changeinrateofteenageadoptionsfromfostercareper1,000fosterteensfrom2007to2010(2010)

STATe SCORe RANK

Alabama 6.6 1

Alaska 4 38

Arizona 4.5 25


Colorado 4.9 13

Connecticut 4.1 36

Delaware 6 3


Florida 4.7 18

Georgia 5 10

Hawaii 5.4 6

Idaho 4.8 17

Illinois 3.8 45

Indiana 3.8 43

Iowa 5.3 8

Kansas 4.9 13

STATe SCORe RANK

Kentucky 5 10

Louisiana 4.7 21

Maine 3.8 45


Michigan 4.5 25

Minnesota 4.8 16

Mississippi 4 37

Missouri 4 38

Montana 3.1 51

Nebraska 4.5 25

Nevada 3.9 42

NewHampshire 4 38

NewJersey 4 41

NewMeico 4.3 31

NewYork 4.3 30


STATe SCORe RANK

NorthDakota 4.9 13

Ohio 4.2 33

Oklahoma 4.5 25


RhodeIsland 5.6 4


SouthDakota 3.5 49

Tennessee 4.7 18

Teas 3.8 43

Utah 4.6 22

Vermont 5 10

Virginia 5.1 9

Washington 3.6 48

WestVirginia 5.4 6

Wisconsin 4.7 18

Wyoming 6.3 2

DID yOu KNOW

Some states are leaders in moving

teenage foster kids to adoptive homes:

Alabama,Alaska,Arizona,Florida,Idaho,

NewMeico,andOklahoma.Sadly,even

these states, on average, helped just 11

outofevery1,000teenagefosterchildren

ndanadoptivefamilyin2010.

Top 10 stats

Botto 10 stats



O U T C O M E 8

F O S T E R I N G A G O O D E D U C A T I O N

meASuRING SuCCeSS

Statesdonotuniformlyreportonafosterchildseducationaloutcomes.However,theliteratureshowsthathaving

afosterchildliveinastablehome(notbouncingtodifferentfosterhomesand,often,differentschools),aswellas

ultimatelymovingthatchildintoasafe,permanenthomearekeyindicatorsofacademicsuccess.

Whichstatesprovidestablehomesforchildreninfostercare,ensuring

theyhavethebestchancetosucceedacademically?

Whichstateshelpfosterchildrenquicklymovetoa safepermanent

home,eitherthroughreturningtotheirbiologicalfamilies(inlessthan

12months)ortoadoptivefamilies(inlessthan24months)?

Althoughfosterchildrenseducationoutcomesarenotdirectly

trackedbythefederalgovernment,studiesshowthatfewerhomeplacementsandachievingpermanencyarebothkeyindicatorsoffutureacademicsuccess. 8Academicsuccessiscriticaltobetteremployment,incomeandqualityoflifeindicators.

Key ReSulTS

Indicatorofgreateracademicsuccessfewerplacements

ScoreforOutcome6HereTodayAndTomorrow(2010data)

Indicatoroflikelyacademicsuccesspermanencythroughadoption

orreunication

Ofallchildrenwhoenteredfostercareforthersttimeinthe6-month

periodjustpriortotheyearshown,andwhoremainedincarefor8

daysorlonger,whatpercentageweredischargedfromfostercaretoreunicationinlessthan12monthsfromthedateofthelatestremoval

fromhome?(Includestrialhomevisitadjustment,FederalComposite

Measure1.3,2010)

Ofallchildrendischargedfrom foster care to a nalized adoption

during theyear, what percentage were discharged in less than 24

months from the date of the latest removal from home? (Federal

CompositeMeasure2.1,2010)

DID yOu KNOW

Quickly and safely moving children

back with theirbiologicalfamilies or

on toadoptive homes requires skills,

focus and persistence by all parties

involved. The top ve states thatsuccessfully and quickly do both, in

rank order, are Arkansas, Colorado,

Utah,Minnesota,andTennessee.

STATe SCORe RANK

Alabama 3 47

Alaska 6.1 11

Arizona 5.8 17


Colorado 6.9 2

Connecticut 5.3 24

Delaware 4.6 33


Florida 5.1 28

Georgia 2.9 48

Hawaii 6.4 4

Idaho 6.3 8

Illinois 3.8 42

Indiana 5.9 16

Iowa 5.9 15

Kansas 3.9 40

STATe SCORe RANK

Kentucky 5.4 21

Louisiana 3.7 43

Maine 5.3 24


Michigan 5.4 21

Minnesota 6 13

Mississippi 4.7 32

Missouri 3.9 41

Montana 4.5 34

Nebraska 4.8 31

Nevada 4.4 36

NewHampshire 5.4 21

NewJersey 6.6 3

NewMeico 4.1 38

NewYork 6.1 11

NorthCarolina 6.3 5

STATe SCORe RANK

NorthDakota 5.5 19

Ohio 7 1

Oklahoma 1.7 51

Oregon 5.5 19Pennsylvania 6 13

RhodeIsland 6.2 10


SouthDakota 4.5 34

Tennessee 5.7 18

Teas 3.5 45

Utah 4.1 39

Vermont 2.6 49

Virginia 5 29

Washington 5.2 27

WestVirginia 6.3 5

Wisconsin 6.3 9

Wyoming 6.3 5

Top 10 stats

Botto 10 stats



O U T C O M E 9

F E W E R F O S T E R K I D S

meASuRING SuCCeSS

Whichstatesdothebestjoboverallofreducingthenumberofchildreninfostercare?

Whichstateshavethelowestshareofchildreninfostercareata nygiventime?

A natural outcome of a well-functioningchild welfare system isfewer kidsbeing abused, kidswho remaininthesystemashortertimebeforereturninghomeormovingtoanewadoptivefamily,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 RANK

Alabama 5.5 31

Alaska 3.9 49

Arizona 4.5 43


Colorado 5.8 24

Connecticut 6.3 14

Delaware 7.8 2


Florida 7 5

Georgia 7.8 3

Hawaii 7.8 3

Idaho 6.5 10

Illinois 4.9 37

Indiana 3.2 50

Iowa 5.7 30

Kansas 4.8 38

STATe SCORe RANK

Kentucky 5.1 35

Louisiana 6.3 14

Maine 6.1 19


Michigan 5.7 25

Minnesota 6.6 8

Mississippi 4.8 38

Missouri 5.1 35

Montana 4.3 44

Nebraska 4.2 46

Nevada 4.8 38

NewHampshire 6.5 10

NewJersey 5.9 22

NewMeico 6.7 7

NewYork 5.4 33


STATe SCORe RANK

NorthDakota 5.3 34

Ohio 6 20

Oklahoma 8.1 1


RhodeIsland 6.3 14

SouthCarolina 6 20

SouthDakota 4.8 38

Tennessee 5.9 22

Teas 5.7 25

Utah 5.7 25

Vermont 6.6 8

Virginia 7 5

Washington 4.2 46

WestVirginia 4.3 44

Wisconsin 5.7 25

Wyoming 5.7 25

DID yOu KNOW

The seven stateswith the largestdropin

thenumberofchildreninfostercarefrom

2007 to 2010: Delaware, Georgia, Iowa,

Hawaii, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, and

Vermont.Someofthesestateshaveahigh

rateofchildreninfostercare,buttheyare

rapidlymovingintherightdirection.

T he top ve state s that r edu ced the

number of children in foster care overtime AND had a low number of kids in

fostercarein2010are:Delaware,Florida,

Georgia,HawaiiandOklahoma.

Top 10 stats

Botto 10 stats



O U T C O M E 1 0

R A P I D R E S P O N S E

meASuRING SuCCeSS

Whichstatesrapidlyrespondtoandinvestigateallegationsofabuseorneglect?

Toreducetheriskoffurtherabuseorneglect,statesmustrespondtoallegationsofchildabuseasquicklyaspossible.Forachildbeingabusedorneglected,aslowresponsecouldmeanpermanentinjuryorevendeath.

Key ReSulTS

Howlongittakesthestatetorespondtoana llegationofabuse-TimetoInvestigation-Mean(average,2010data)

Howlongittakesthestatetorespondtoanallegationofabuse-TimetoInvestigation-Median(midpoint,24-hour

range,2010data)

DID yOu KNOW

The average time between receiving

a report of abuse or neglect and

launchingan investigationis less than 24

hours in 11 states: Colorado, District of

Columbia, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Nevada,

New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York,

TennesseeandWyoming.

13 sta tes ta ke l onge r than 120 hou rs

(5 days) to respond. For an abused or

neglectedchild,thiscouldmeananotherve days living in an abusive home

becauseofbureaucraticdelay.Itcould

also mean the difference between life

anddeath.

STATe SCORe RANK

Alabama 8.5 21

Alaska 0 4 8

Arizona 8.3 26


Colorado 9.7 6

Connecticut 8.5 21

Delaware 2.3 46


Florida 9.8 4

Georgia 9.6 9

Hawaii 6.3 38

Idaho 8.4 24

Illinois 9 16

Indiana 9.6 9

Iowa 10 1

Kansas 8.3 26

STATe SCORe RANK

Kentucky 9.4 13

Louisiana 5.8 40

Maine 7.3 31

Maryland 7 36Massachusetts 0 48

Michigan 8.3 26

Minnesota 8.6 19

Mississippi 7.1 35

Missouri 9.6 9

Montana 6.4 37

Nebraska 4 45

Nevada 8.9 17

NewHampshire 9.7 6

NewJersey 9.7 6

NewMeico 7.3 31

NewYork 10 1


STATe SCORe RANK

NorthDakota 9.2 15

Ohio 9.6 9

Oklahoma 7.2 34

Oregon 0 48Pennsylvania 0 48

RhodeIsland 8.5 21


SouthDakota 4.7 44

Tennessee 10 1

Teas 7.3 31

Utah 6.1 39

Vermont 7.5 29

Virginia 5.5 41

Washington 8.4 24

WestVirginia 1.7 47

Wisconsin 5.3 43

Wyoming 9.8 4

Top 10 stats

Botto 10 stats



O U T C O M E 1 1

M O R E F O R E V E R F A M I L I E S

meASuRING SuCCeSS

Whichstatesdothebestjobatmovingchildreninfostercaretoa doption?

Whichstateshavemostdramaticallyincreasedtherateofadoptionsfromfostercarefrom2007to2010?

Whennotappropriateorpossibleforachildtoremainwithhisorherbiologicalfamily,thatchilddeservesasafe,permanentandlovingadoptivefamily.

Key ReSulTS

Rateofadoptionsfromfostercareper100fosterchildren(2010data)

Changeintherateofadoptionsfromchildreninfostercareper100fosterchildrenfrom2007to2010

STATe SCORe RANK

Alabama 3.3 32

Alaska 6.3 13

Arizona 6.9 9


Colorado 4.1 28

Connecticut 4.7 24

Delaware 2.2 42


Florida 7.5 5

Georgia 7.2 6

Hawaii 6.6 10

Idaho 10 1

Illinois 0.9 50

Indiana 3.1 34

Iowa 3 35

Kansas 3.1 33

STATe SCORe RANK

Kentucky 3.5 30

Louisiana 6 15

Maine 5.4 18


Michigan 4.8 21

Minnesota 4.4 25

Mississippi 2.4 40

Missouri 2.9 36

Montana 1.6 48

Nebraska 2.1 44

Nevada 5.2 19

NewHampshire 8.9 3

NewJersey 4.2 27

NewMeico 8 4

NewYork 2 45


STATe SCORe RANK

NorthDakota 4.8 21

Ohio 2.8 37

Oklahoma 9.7 2


RhodeIsland 2.3 41


SouthDakota 1.9 46

Tennessee 2.6 39

Teas 5.7 16

Utah 7 8

Vermont 5.6 17

Virginia 4.7 23

Washington 4.8 20

WestVirginia 7.2 7

Wisconsin 3.4 31

Wyoming 1.7 47

DID yOu KNOW

Just ve states had at least one in ve

fosterchildren move to a forever family:

Arizona, Idaho, New Hampshire, New

Meico,andOklahoma.

Ninestateshadadramaticimprovement

intherateofadoptionsfromfostercare

from 2007 to 2010, increasing at least

5 percentage points: Florida, Georgia,

Idaho, Louisiana, New Hampshire, NewMeico,Pennsylvania,andWestVirginia.

Montana and Tennessee had a steep

dropintherateofadoptionsfrom2007to

2010.

Top 10 stats

Botto 10 stats



R A N K I N G M E T H O D O L O G Y

ThefederalACFmakescomprehensivedataavailableinitsChildWelfareOutcomesReportData. 10ACFuses

dataprovidedbythestatesthroughtheNationalChildAbuseandNeglectDataSystem(NCANDS)andthe

AdoptionandFosterCareAnalysisandReportingSystem(AFCARS).

TheRIGHT FORKIDS RANKINGhas 11major outcome categories, with 41 data measures and a total of110

possiblepoints.Eachoutcomecategoryhasatotalpossiblescoreof10points.Thestatewiththebestscore

foraparticulardatameasure(eitherthehighestorlowestvalue,dependingonwhatispreferred)wasawarded

themaimumnumberofpoints.Thestatewiththeworstscoreforaparticulardatameasureisawardedzero

points.Allotherstatesareproratedbetweenthisminimumandmaimumscore.Notonlyweredatameasures

calculated for 2010, the most recentyear available, butwhenever possible andpractical, stateswere also

awardedpointsbasedonwhethertheyimprovedtheirperformanceforkeydatameasuresoverthepastfour

years.Somestatesdidnotreportforaparticulardataoutcomein2010(or2006forthe2006Rankings).Inthesecases,themostrecentlyreportedyearwasused(2009or2008,and2005and2004forthe2006Rankings).Ifa

statedidnotreportonaparticularoutcomeforthreeyears,itreceivedzeropointsforthatdataoutcomefor

thatyear.

Thisapproachtocalculatingscoreshastwodistinctadvantages.Itrewardsstatesthatmoveintherightdirection

(but maystillneedtomake signicantimprovement)andpenalizesstates thatmove inthewrongdirection

(regardlessoftheirperformancein2010).



D E T A I L E D O U T C O M E S S U M M A R Y T A B L E

OuTCOmeNumBeR

SHORTTITle DeSCRIPTION DATA meASuRe yeAR

WHATSPOSITIve(highror owrscor)

WeIGHT(10 ptsach

otco)lARGeSTvAlue

lOWeSTvAlue

Total 110

Outcom 1 RducAbus

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

Outcom 2 RducAbus in

Fostr Car

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

Outcom 3 PranntFailis,

Saf Hos

Increasepermanencyforchildreninfoster

care&reduceplacementofyoung

childreningrouphomesorinstitutions

Ofallchildreninfostercarefor24monthsorlongerontherstdayoftheyear,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

Ofallchildrenwhoenteredcareduringthescalyearandwereage12oryoungerattimeofthisplacement,whatpercentagewereingrouphomesorinstitutions?

2009 Lower 3.33 19.5 1

Outcom 4 RturnHo

Quickly andSafly

Reducetimeinfostercaretoreunication

withoutincreasingreentry

Timetoreunication-medianlengthofstay 2010 Lower 2.5 29.6 8.6

Ofallchildrendischargedfromfostercaretoreunicationduringtheyearwhohadbeenincarefor8daysorlonger,whatpercentagewerereuniedinlessthan12monthsfromthedateofthelatestremovalfromhome?(Includestrialhomevisitadjustment,FederalCompositeMeasure1.1)

2010 Higher 2.5 91.3 45.5

Ofallchildrendischargedfromfostercaretoreunicationduringtheyearwhohadbeenincarefor8daysorlonger,whatwasthemedianlengthofstay(inmonths)fromthedateofthelatestremovalfromhomeuntilthedateofdischargetoreunication?(Includestrialhomevisitadjustment,FederalCompositeMeasure1.2)

2010 Lower 2.5 13.9 1.7

Ofallchildrendischargedfromfostercaretoreunicationinthe12-monthperiodpriortotheyearshown,whatpercentagereenteredcareinlessthan12monthsfromthedateofdischarge?(FederalCompositeMeasure1.4)

2010 Lower 2.5 25.7 2

Outcom 5 ForvrFailis

ASAP

Reducetimebetweenfostercareand

adoption

PortionofchildrenmovedtoadoptioninLessthan12monthstoadoption 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

Ofallchildrendischargedfromfostercaretoanalizedadoptionduringtheyear,whatpercentageweredischargedinlessthan24monthsfromthedateofthelatestremovalfromhome?(FederalCompositeMeasure2.1)

2010 Higher 1 86.1 6.9

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

2010 Lower 1 45.6 14.4

Ofallchildreninfostercareontherstdayoftheyearwhowereincarefor17continuousmonthsorlonger(andwho,bythelastdayoftheyear,werenotdischargedfromfostercarewithadischargereasonofreunication,livingwithrelative,orguardianship),whatpercentageweredischargedfromfostercaretoanalizedadoptionbythelastdayoftheyear?(FederalCompositeMeasure2.3)

2010 Higher 1 46.4 13



OuTCOmeNumBeR

SHORTTITle DeSCRIPTION DATA meASuRe yeAR

WHATSPOSITIve

(highror owrscor)

WeIGHT(10 ptsach

otco)lARGeSTvAlue

lOWeSTvAlue

Ofallchildreninfostercareontherstdayoftheyearwhowereincarefor17continuousmonthsorlonger,andwhowerenotlegallyfreeforadoptionpriortothatday(i.e.,therewasnotaparentalrightsterminationdatereportedtoAFCARSforbothmotherandfather),whatpercentagebecamelegallyfreeforadoptionduringtherst6monthsoftheyear?(FederalCompositeMeasure2.4)

2010 Higher 1 30.8 2

Ofallchildrenwhobecamelegallyfreeforadoptioninthe12-monthperiodpriortotheyearshown(i.e.,therewasaparentalrightsterminationdatereportedtoAFCARSforbothmotherandfather),whatpercentageweredischargedfromfostercaretoanalizedadoptioninlessthan12monthsfromthedateofbecominglegallyfree?(FederalCompositeMeasure2.5)

2010 Higher 1 85.5 25.5

Outcom 6 HrToday

AndToorrow

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

Outcom 7 Hop andHos for

Tns

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

Outcom8

FostrA Good

education

Achievebettereducation

outcomesforthoseinfostercare

ScoreforOutcome6-Increaseplacementstability 2010 Higher 5 9.5 0.8

Ofallchildrenwhoenteredfostercareforthersttimeinthe6-monthperiodjustpriortotheyearshown,andwhoremainedincarefor8daysorlonger,whatpercentageweredischargedfromfostercaretoreunicationinlessthan12monthsfromthedateofthelatestremovalfromhome?(Includestrialhomevisitadjustment,FederalCompositeMeasure1.3)

2010 Higher 2.5 62.3 16.6

Ofallchildrendischargedfromfostercaretoanalizedadoptionduringtheyear,whatpercentageweredischargedinlessthan24monthsfromthedateofthelatestremovalfromhome?(FederalCompositeMeasure2.1)

2010 Higher 2.5 86.1 6.9

Outcom9

FwrFostr Kids

Reducenumberofkidsinfostercare

Rateofchildreninfostercareper100,000children 2010 Lower 5 1814 273

Changeintheratechildreninfostercareper100,000childrenfrom2007to2010 2010 Lower 5 96 -457

Outcom10

RapidRspons

Respondtimelytoallegationsofabuseorneglect

Howlongdoesittakesthestatetorespondtoanallegationofabuse-TimetoInvestigation-Mean(average)

2010 Lower 5 340.7 0

Howlongdoesittakesthestatetorespondtoanallegationofabuse-Timeto

Investigation-Median(midpoint,24-hourrange)

2010 Lower 5 6.5 0.5

Outcom11

morForvrFailis

Increasenumberofadoptions

Rateofadoptionsfromfostercareper100fosterchildren 2010 Higher 5 21.04 5.41

Changeintherateofadoptionsfromchildreninfostercareper100fosterchildrenfrom2007to2010

2010 Higher 5 10.63 -3.53



S P E N D I N G V E R S U S P E R F O R M A N C E - I S

M O N E Y T H E A N S W E R ?

InFiscalYear2010,statesspent$8.5billioninTitleIV-EFosterCarecomputablespending.Thechartbelowshows

howmuchIV-Efundingeachstatespends,onaverage,perfosterchildserved,comparedtotheir2012RIGHT

FORKIDSRANKING.Thetablethatfollowsalsoshowshowmanyfosterchildrenonaverageeachstateserves

eachmonth,andhowmuchIV-Efundingtheyspendperfosterchildandforeverychildintheirstate(atypeof

percapitameasure).

Asyoucanseefromthechartandtable,theTop10RightForKidsstatesarenotthebiggestspenders.

Statesneedtofocusonhowresourcesarespentonkids,notjusthowmuchisspent.

This$8.5billioninTitleIV-EFosterCarecomputablespendingdoesnotincludeallofastatesspendingonchildwelfare,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

2012R

ightForKids

Rank

Foster Care Spending per Foster Child Served

Sources: U.S. Administraton for Children and Families, Foundaton for Government Accountability



F O S T E R C A R E S P E N D I N G P E R S T A T E

STATeCHIlD

POPulATION

TOTAl TITleIv-e FOSTeR

CARe SPeNDING(STATe &FeDeRAl)

AveRAGemONTHly

NumBeR

OF FOSTeRCHIlDReN

SPeNDING PeRFOSTeR CHIlD

SPeNDING FOReveRy CHIlD

lIvING IN THe

STATe (PeRCHIlD CAPITA)

RIGHT FOR KIDSRANKING

2009 Fy 2010 2010 2010 2010 2012

Alabama 1,128,864 $59,221,886 2,097 $28,241 $52 32

Alaska 183,546 $26,534,451 655 $40,511 $145 40

Arizona 1,732,019 $115,956,294 4,403 $26,336 $67 6

Arkansas 709,968 $66,196,383 1,789 $37,002 $93 37

California 9,435,682 $2,652,407,968 33,188 $79,921 $281 41

Colorado 1,227,763 $119,495,100 2,041 $58,547 $97 7

Connecticut 807,985 $115,154,827 1,670 $68,955 $143 35

Delaware 206,993 $7,688,485 201 $38,251 $37 38

DistofCol 114,036 $55,665,215 902 $61,713 $488 51

Florida 4,057,773 $226,283,102 6,127 $36,932 $56 4Georgia 2,583,792 $141,738,038 2,755 $51,448 $55 12

Hawaii 290,361 $33,531,455 473 $70,891 $115 9

Idaho 419,190 $16,118,419 963 $16,738 $38 1

Illinois 3,177,377 $356,365,966 13,292 $26,811 $112 48

Indiana 1,589,365 $153,216,642 3,087 $49,633 $96 24

Iowa 713,155 $41,139,949 1,471 $27,967 $58 17

Kansas 704,951 $48,303,420 1,245 $38,798 $69 30

Kentucky 1,014,323 $71,297,559 2,921 $24,409 $70 23

Louisiana 1,123,386 $87,030,084 2,562 $33,970 $77 29

Maine 271,176 $32,102,888 957 $33,545 $118 25

Maryland 1,351,935 $138,690,054 2,145 $64,657 $103 33

Massachusetts 1,433,002 $115,093,269 2,191 $52,530 $80 50

Michigan 2,349,892 $170,219,209 4,165 $40,869 $72 22

Minnesota 1,260,797 $80,004,778 1,800 $44,447 $63 21

Mississippi 767,742 $22,908,983 999 $22,932 $30 43

Missouri 1,431,338 $98,758,261 3,166 $31,193 $69 26Montana 219,828 $20,501,826 627 $32,698 $93 46

Nebraska 451,641 $34,299,051 1,369 $25,054 $76 45

Nevada 681,033 $65,623,203 2,083 $31,504 $96 28

NewHampshire 289,071 $32,271,908 436 $74,018 $112 2

NewJersey 2,045,848 $180,389,422 4,226 $42,686 $88 4

NewMeico 510,238 $43,415,528 1,092 $39,758 $85 18

NewYork 4,424,083 $811,825,153 12,724 $63,803 $184 44

NorthCarolina 2,277,967 $137,503,745 3,197 $43,010 $60 3

NorthDakota 143,971 $19,239,015 375 $51,304 $134 8

Ohio 2,714,341 $326,940,245 7,446 $43,908 $120 13

Oklahoma 918,849 $58,305,534 3,308 $17,626 $63 31

Oregon 872,811 $178,872,235 3,190 $56,073 $205 49

Pennsylvania 2,775,132 $465,507,864 14,690 $31,689 $168 16

RhodeIsland 226,825 $24,877,811 592 $42,023 $110 36

SouthCarolina 1,080,732 $64,583,331 1,174 $55,011 $60 42

SouthDakota 199,616 $11,170,128 590 $18,932 $56 47

Tennessee 1,493,252 $76,206,643 2,981 $25,564 $51 10

Teas 6,895,969 $435,996,825 11,971 $36,421 $63 34

Utah 868,824 $35,677,005 902 $39,553 $41 20

Vermont 126,275 $17,003,829 528 $32,204 $135 39

Virginia 1,847,182 $105,301,558 2,870 $36,690 $57 27

Washington 1,569,592 $174,239,042 4,159 $41,894 $111 19

WestVirginia 386,449 $47,542,862 1,012 $46,979 $123 14

Wisconsin 1,310,250 $94,593,284 2,151 $43,976 $72 15

Wyoming 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 STATeS13,977,215 $956,995,103 25,222 $37,943 $68



S T R E N G T H S A N D L I M I T A T I O N S

Anytimeoneattemptstoholisticallymeasureandrankstatesperformanceinanypolicyareatherearelimitations

tosuchanapproach.

Eachstateschildwelfaresystemisdifferent.Somestateshavedifferentdenitionsofwhatconstitutesabuseor

neglect. Otherstateshavedifferentmandatoryreportersindividualswhoby professionandtheirinteractions

withchildrenarerequiredtoreportsuspectedabuseorneglect.Butusingsuchdifferencesasanecusefornot

measuringthestatesandrankingtheirperformanceisadisservicetochildren.

Allstateshavetouniformlyreporttothefederalgovernmentontheirchildwelfaresystem,providingastandard

denitionandasstandardizeddataaspossibleregardingsystemperformance.Suchuniformreportingand

dataisnotavailableformanypolicyareas,butisforchildwelfare.Inaddition,amajorstrengthoftheRIGHT

FORKIDSRANKINGisthatituses11majoroutcomeareastocomprehensivelymeasurestates,andprovidessub

rankingstobetterpresentandfacilitateunderstandingofwhere,specically,astateisdoingwellandwhereit

needsimprovement.Thinkofitlikeareportcardinschool.Maybeyouscorehighinmathbutneedhelpwith

readingcomprehension(asevidencedbyalowgrade).YouarestillgivenanoverallGPA,butthescoringby

subjectprovidesaroadmapofwhattocelebrateandprotectandwheretogetatutor.Thesameistruein

policy.

A limitation of the Rankings is that many data measures we would have

likedtoassessarenotavailable.Whataboutachildswell-beingwhilein

fostercare,orafterbeingreuniedwithhisorherfamilyorbeingadopted

intoanewfamily?Policymakersandchildwelfareepertsarestilltrying

to determine how bestto measurethis. We want to knowhowkids in

fostercarearedoingonbasiceducationaloutcomesattendingschool,advancing to a new grade, graduating high school and completing

highereducation.Somestatesmeasurethis,butmostdonot.Thefederal

governmentdoesnotrequirethatstatesdoso.Inaddition,wehaveno

comprehensivepictureofhowthephysicalandmentalhealthofachildin

fostercareisbeingattendedto.

Moreneedstobemeasuredtobestunderstandandultimatelyimprove

howastateschildwelfaresystemserveskids.

TheRIGHTFORKIDSRANKINGisnotperfect,butitismuchbetterthan

whatisavailablenow...nothing.Itprovidescontettothedullstatistics.

Thats important, because these arenot just numbers we are talking

about,theyarechildren,andtheymustnotbeignored.

The RIGHT FOR KIDS RANKING wil l be an annual reality and

accountabilitychecktoensurethatabusedandneglectedkids

receivetheattention,supportandcaretheydeservefromthe

public,themedia,policymakers,andallthosethatserveand

seektoprotectthemfromfutureabuseandneglect.

0 2012RightforKidsRanking|FoundationforGovernmentAccounta



N E W O P P O R T U N I T I E S F O RS T A T E S A N D K I D S

The2012RIGHTFORKIDSRANKINGwillhopefullyinspirestatestolearnfrom

eachotherandimprovechildwelfaresystemperformance.Lowerranking

statesshouldcommunicatewithstatesthatrankhighandeploreproven

reformsthatareworkingtobestservekids.Thisistrueforindividualoutcome

areasaswell.

Thereisalwaysroomfromimprovement.Foreample,Idaho,thehighest

rankingstateoverall,mightimproveitsperformanceinOutcome10 (rapid

responsetoinvestigateallegationsofabuse,inwhichIdahoranks24th)by

learningfromNewYork,whichranksrstinOutcome10,despiteranking45th

overall.

Poorscalpolicyoftenpunishesstatesandpolicymakersfordoingtheright

thing. Inthe case ofchild welfare,poorscal policies have undermined

whatisrightforkidsandfortapayers.

TitleIV-Eisthemajorfederalfundingsourceforstatechildwelfaresystems.

Itis a federal subsidy tied tothe costs andnumber ofkidsin foster care

(foster homes, group homes and institutions) and for related training and

administrativecosts fora states childwelfaresystem.11 Morekids in foster

care candrawmorefederal Title IV-E funding. Conversely,fewer kids in

fostercarecanmeanacuttofederalTitleIV-Efundingtothatstate.

Waivers give states the eibility toset theirfederalfundingat a specic

level,regardlessofachangeinthenumberofchildreninfostercare.The

waiveralsogivesstatestheabilitytousethefundingforprevention,earlier

interventionservices,familysupportservicesandfasterpermanencyplanning

andimplementation.AsweseeintheSpendingversusPerformancechart

onpage26,astatesRightforKidsrankingdependsmoreonhowandwhere

astatespends,nothowmuchitspends.Thefreedomthesewaiversprovide

matters.

From1997through2006,theU.S.DepartmentofHealthandHumanServices

hadtheauthoritytograntTitleIV-Ewaivers.Just23statesactuallyappliedfor

andreceivedwaiversduringthatentiredecade. 12Federalwaiverauthority

epiredonMarch31,2006.13

ThatlossoftheTitleIV-Ewaiveropportunitymeantamajortoolforstates

to dorightfor kids wasgone. As a recent CaseyFamily Servicesreport

noted,Inrecentyears,eiblefundingwaivershavebeenassociatedwith

largereductionsinfostercarepopulationsinFlorida,Ohio,Oregonandtwo

countiesinCalifornia:AlamedaandLosAngeles.14

Recognizingthis,in2011Congressactedtogivestatestheabilitytorequest

and receive Title IV-E waivers, with President Barack Obama signing the

ChildandFamilyServicesImprovementandInnovationAct onSeptember30,2011.

TheChild andFamily ServicesImprovement andInnovationAct gives the

federalgovernmenttheabilitytogrant10TitleIV-Ewaiverseachyearfrom

2012through2014,foratotalofupto30statewaivers.

AsofMay2012,onlyFloridaandWashingtonhadappliedforthesewaivers.

Thisopportunity forstates onlylasts another 27 months (July2012 through

September2014).

ThatiswhytheRightForKidsRankingissoimportant.Ifpolicymakers,familiesandthemediadonotfocusonhowchild

welfaresystemsareactuallyperformingthentheywillnothavethepoliticalwilltoutilizeeveryavailabletool,includingTitle

IV-Ewaivers,tomaimizethepositiveimpactofchildwelfarereform.

Acc or di ng to an over vie w of thewaiverprocesspublishedbytheChildWelfare League of America, a statemustdothefollowingtoqualifyforawaiver:

Increasepermanenceby

reducingtimeinfostercare,

Increasepositiveoutcomesfor

childrenandfamilies,or

Preventmaltreatmentand

re-entryintocare.

In addition, part of the waiveimplementationplan must includeatleasttwoofthefollowingpolicies,withatleastonebeingnewlyimplementedasaresultofthewaiver:

Establishingabillofrightsfor

childrenincare,

Implementingahealthand

mentalhealthplanforchildrenin

care,

Coveringkinship/subsidized

guardianshipwithIV-Efunding,

etendingIV-Efostercareto21,

Implementingaplantoreduce

congregatecare,increasingthe

placementofsiblingstogether,

Implementingaplantoimprove

therecruitmentandretentionof

qualityfosterfamilies,

Establishingprocedurestoassist

youthintransitioningoutofcare,

Stateplaninclusionofolder

youthguidanceintheirown

transitionplan,and

Theestablishmentofoneormore

programstopreventplacementin

careandprovidepermanency.1



TheFoundationforGovernmentAccountability(FGA)believespersonallibertyandprivateenterprisearekey

tooureconomicfuture.Toadvanceoursharedvision,Foundationstaffdevelopsandpromotesfreemarket

publicpoliciesthatachievelimited,constitutionalgovernmentandarobusteconomythatwillbeanenginefor

jobcreati onacrossFlori da.

GovernedbyanindependentBoardofDirectors,theFoundationforGovernmentAccountabilityisanonprot,

nonpartisan,501c3ta-eemptorganization.Charitabledonationsareta-deductibletothefulletentofthe

law.

FGAreliesonthegeneroussupportfromindividuals,corporations,andfoundationsthatsupportourfreemarket

principles.TheFoundationdoesnotseeknoracceptanygovernmentfundingorperformcontractwork.

TheFoundationislocatedinNaples,Florida.Formoreinformation,visitwww.FloridaFGA.org,call239.244,8808

[email protected]:15275CollierBoulevard,Suite201-279,Naples,Florida34119.

A B O U T T H E F O U N D A T I O N F O R G O V E R N M E N T

A C C O U N T A B I L I T Y

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

ACCOUNTABILITY



TarrenBragdon ispresident and chiefeecutiveofcer ofthe Foundation

for Government Accountability, a research and advocacy organization

committedtomakingFloridathemosteconomicallyvibrantstateinAmerica.

In2008, Tarren wasnamedchief eecutive ofcerof The Maine Heritage

PolicyCenter,afreemarketthinktankbasedinPortland,Maine.Underhis

leadership,theorganizationgrewtobecomethelargeststate-basedfree

marketthinktankonapercapitabasis.InSeptember2010,hereceived

theThomasRoeAward,givenannuallybytheStatePolicyNetworktothe

individualwiththegreatestimpactonthenationsfreemarketmovement.

From1996through2000,TarrenservedintheMaineHouseofRepresentatives.

Electedattheageof21,Tarrenremainstheyoungestpersoneverelectedto

theMaineHouse.WhileintheHouseofRepresentatives,Tarrenworkedfor

threeyearsinprogramdevelopmentandlicensingcomplianceforaprivate

childwelfareagencyinMaine,helpingtostarttheiradoptionprogramwhich

focusedeclusivelyonfosterchildreninneedofforeverfamilies.

AnationallyrecognizedepertonhealthpolicyissueswithaspecialtyinMedicaidreform,Tarrenhasserved

as a health-policy analyst with the Manhattan Institutes Empire Center for New Your State Policy. He has

testiedbeforetheU.S.SenateSmallBusinessandEntrepreneurshipCommittee;statelegislativecommitteesin

Connecticut,Florida,Georgia,NewYork,Illinois,andMaine;numerousnationalconferences;andtheAmerican

SwissFoundationinSwitzerland.HisworkhasbeenfeaturedonFoNewsSeanHannityshow,NationalPublic

TelevisionsNOW,inaWallStreetJournaleditorialandmultipleWallStreetJournalop-eds,andintheNewYorkPost,BostonGlobe,NewYorkTimesandonNationalPublicRadio.

HereceivedhisBachelorofSciencedegreeincomputersciencefromtheUniversityofMaineandhisMastersof

ScienceofBusinessdegreefromHussonUniversityinBangor,Maine.

TarrenandhiswifeAnnahavefourchildren;Wyatt,Waverlyandthetwins,JudeandAsher.Heandhiswife

adoptedalltheirchildren.In2010,TarrenandAnnawererecognizedbyU.S.SenatorSusanCollinsasAngelsin

AdoptiononbehalfoftheCongressionalCoalitiononAdoption.

TocontactTarren,[email protected]

A B O U T T H E A U T H O R T A R R E N B R A G D O N



R E F E R E N C E S

1 ChildAbuseandNeglectFatalities2009:Statisticsand Interventions.U.S.DepartmentofHealthand HumanServices.

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,OfceofLegislativeAffairsandtheBudget.Availableuponrequest.

4 Daro, Deborah.Child Abuse Prevention: A Job Half Done. Chapin Hall Issue Brief. Chapin Hall attheUniversity of

Chicago. February 2010. Page 1. Available at: http://www.chapinhall.org/sites/default/les/publications/Child%20

Abuse_IB_F_02_25_10.pdf(March16,2012)

5 Zill,Nicholas. AdoptionfromFosterCare:AidingChildrenWhileSavingPublicMoney.BrookingsInstitution.May2011.

Page4.Availableat:http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2011/05_adoption_foster_care_zill.asp(March16,2011).

6 Williams-Mbengue, Nina. Moving Children Out of Foster Care: The Legislative Role in Finding Permanent Homes for

Children.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.Pages

2-3.Availableat:http://www.casey.org/Resources/Publications/pdf/EducationalOutcomesFactSheet.pdf(March16,2012)

9 Data Snapshoton Foster Care Placement. AnnieE. Casey Foundation.May2011. Page1.Availableat:http://www.aecf.

org/~/media/Pubs/Initiatives/KIDS%20COUNT/D/DataSnapshotFosterCarePlcmnt/DataSnapshot_FinalWeb.pdf(March16,2012)

10 ChildWelfareOutcomesReportData.U.S.DepartmentofHealthandHumanServices,AdministrationofChildrenand

Families.Availableat:http://cwoutcomes.acf.hhs.gov/data/tables.demo_stats(May25,2012)

11 Overview ofTitle IV-E Foster Care Program. ChildWelfareLeague ofAmerica. Availableat: 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:EpandingandModifyingChildWelfareDemonstrationWaiverstoPromoteFleibility

andFosterInnovation.FirstFocus.March9,2011.Availableat:http://www.rstfocus.net/library/reports/title-iv-e-waivers-

epanding-and-modifying-child-welfare-demonstration-waivers-to-pr(May25,2012)

14 TheNeedtoReauthorizeandEpandTi

fga rightforkidsbook web single pages

Documents