+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I included some information in my last post from the United Nation’s 2010 findings about the growing inequality record between the ‘have’ and the ‘have not’ children in the United States in comparisons of three measures of child well-being between the globe’s 24 richest nations. According to the United Nations (in this report),
“Three dimensions of inequality are examined: material well-being, education, and health. In each case and for each country, the question asked is ‘how far behind are children being allowed to fall?’
“The idea that inequality is justified as a reflection of differences in merit cannot reasonably be applied to children. Few would deny that children’s early circumstances are beyond their own control. Or that those early circumstances have a profound effect on their present lives and future prospects. Or that growing up in poverty incurs a substantially higher risk of lower standards of health, of reduced cognitive development, of underachievement at school, of lower skills and aspirations, and eventually of lower adult earnings, so helping to perpetuate disadvantage from one generation to the next.
“None of this is the fault of the child.
“Second, the question being asked here – ‘how far behind are children being allowed to fall?’ – requires a measure not of overall inequality but of inequality at the bottom end of the distribution. In other words, the metric used is not the distance between the top and the bottom but between the median and the bottom. The median level of child well-being – whether in material goods, educational outcomes, or level of health – represents what is considered normal in a given society and falling behind that median by more than a certain degree carries a risk of social exclusion.
“Today, ‘bottom-end inequality’ is no longer a concern only of the political left. In the United Kingdom, for example, a Conservative Prime Minister has argued that “We should focus on closing the gap between the bottom and the middle not because that is the easy thing to do, but because focusing on those who do not have the chance of a good life is the most important thing to do.”
“That ‘gap between the bottom and the middle’ is the focus of Report Card 9.”
According to this U.N. report inequalities based on this “distance between the median and the bottom” on child well-being places America 23rd (followed only by Slovakia) on the ‘material’ measure of child well-being; 19th of 24 on the ‘education’ measure of child well-being; and 22nd (followed by Italy and Hungry) on the ‘health’ measure of child well-being.
++
Today I wanted to spend some time looking at some of our national data that breaks some related information down ‘in house’ by each of our 50 states.
I want to highlight some of the most recent United States of America national statistics concerning the state of well-being and lack of well-being for America’s children as they are presented on the national KIDS COUNT data pages. Yes, ‘the numbers’ might lie, but if they do the error is on the side of being too conservative because of non-reporting, under recognition, underreporting along with the possibility of lack of consistency in data collection between states.
In all cases the appearance of “S” means to me that the overall percentage of Children in Poverty by state and nationally is not accurate because these numbers are significantly missing.
As KIDS COUNT states about these findings:
Definitions: The share of children under age 18 who live in families with incomes below the federal poverty level, as defined by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget. The federal poverty definition consists of a series of thresholds based on family size and composition. In calendar year 2009, a family of two adults and two children fell in the “poverty” category if their annual income fell below $21,756…. The data are based on income received in the 12 months prior to the survey. More…
Data Source: Population Reference Bureau, analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Supplementary Survey, 2001 Supplementary Survey, 2002 through 2009 American Community Survey. More…
Footnotes: Updated September 2010.
S – Estimates suppressed when the confidence interval around the percentage is greater than or equal to 10 percentage points. N.A. – Data not available. A 90 percent confidence interval for each estimate can be found at Children in poverty by race. (Please also see beginning on page 21 of the United Nations Report concerning ‘measures of poverty’.)
++
Given that I would believe the following states DO in fact have a recognizable percentage of their state population within these ‘racial’ categories. I would also have to seriously question the overall top states’ ranking in the nation on measures of child-well being based on the following:
New Mexico is missing its report for Black or African American or Asian and Pacific Islander children in their population
New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin are missing data for their American Indian children
Iowa has no data for American Indian or for Black or African American children
Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah (ranked 4th on overall child well-being in the nation?) and (appallingly!) District of Columbia all report no data on their Black or African American, American Indian and Asian and Pacific Islander children
Maine, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire (ranked 1st on overall child well-being in the nation?), North Dakota, Vermont (ranked 3rd on overall child well-being in the nation?), West Virginia and Wyoming only report here for the non-Hispanic White children!
++
I am also including beside each state below information beside the name of each state where that state ranks from this page: KIDS COUNT overall rank (Number) – 2010
Children in poverty by race (Percent) – 2009
Non-Hispanic White 12%
Black or African American 36%
American Indian 35%
Asian and Pacific Islander 13%
Hispanic or Latino 31% Total 20%
Children in poverty by race (Percent) – 2009 – by state — (totals below represent the approximate percentage of kids in poverty within each state):
Alabama (47th)
Non-Hispanic White 14%
Black or African American 42%
American Indian S Asian and Pacific Islander S
Hispanic or Latino 44% Total 25%
Alaska (38th)
Non-Hispanic White 9%
Black or African American S
American Indian 24%
Asian and Pacific Islander S Hispanic or Latino S Total 13%
Arizona (39th)
Non-Hispanic White 11%
Black or African American 30%
American Indian 45%
Asian and Pacific Islander 11%
Hispanic or Latino 33% Total 23%
Arkansas (48th)
Non-Hispanic White 18%
Black or African American 49%
American Indian S Asian and Pacific Islander 9%
Hispanic or Latino 43% Total 27%
California (19th)
Non-Hispanic White 9%
Black or African American 29%
American Indian 31%
Asian and Pacific Islander 12%
Hispanic or Latino 28% Total 20%
Colorado (20th)
Non-Hispanic White 8%
Black or African American 36%
American Indian S Asian and Pacific Islander 7%
Hispanic or Latino 34% Total 17%
Connecticut (8th)
Non-Hispanic White 5%
Black or African American 25%
American Indian S Asian and Pacific Islander 6%
Hispanic or Latino 31% Total 12%
Delaware (27th)
Non-Hispanic White 11%
Black or African American S
American Indian S Asian and Pacific Islander 5%
Hispanic or Latino S Total 16%
Florida (35th)
Non-Hispanic White 13%
Black or African American 38%
American Indian S
Asian and Pacific Islander 12%
Hispanic or Latino 25% Total 21%
Georgia (42nd)
Non-Hispanic White 11%
Black or African American 33%
American Indian S
Asian and Pacific Islander 14%
Hispanic or Latino 42% Total 22%
Hawaii (22nd)
Non-Hispanic White 12%
Black or African American S
American Indian S
Asian and Pacific Islander 11%
Hispanic or Latino 19% Total 14%
Idaho (21st)
Non-Hispanic White 15%
Black or African American S
American Indian S
Asian and Pacific Islander S
Hispanic or Latino 35% Total 18%
Illinois (24th)
Non-Hispanic White 10%
Black or African American 40%
American Indian S
Asian and Pacific Islander 11%
Hispanic or Latino 26% Total 19%
Indiana (33rd)
Non-Hispanic White 14%
Black or African American 45%
American Indian S
Asian and Pacific Islander 15%
Hispanic or Latino 37% Total 20%
Iowa (6th)
Non-Hispanic White 13%
Black or African American S
American Indian S
Asian and Pacific Islander 5%
Hispanic or Latino 32% Total 16%
Kansas (13th)
Non-Hispanic White 12%
Black or African American 40%
American Indian S
Asian and Pacific Islander 9%
Hispanic or Latino 32% Total 18%
Kentucky (40th)
Non-Hispanic White 23%
Black or African American 44%
American Indian S
Asian and Pacific Islander 7%
Hispanic or Latino 39% Total 26%
Louisiana (49th)
Non-Hispanic White 12%
Black or African American 42%
American Indian S
Asian and Pacific Islander 8%
Hispanic or Latino 21% Total 24%
Maine (14th)
Non-Hispanic White 15%
Black or African American S
American Indian S
Asian and Pacific Islander S
Hispanic or Latino S Total 17%
Maryland (25th)
Non-Hispanic White 6%
Black or African American 19%
American Indian S
Asian and Pacific Islander 7%
Hispanic or Latino 15% Total 12%
Massachusetts (5th)
Non-Hispanic White 7%
Black or African American 28%
American Indian S
Asian and Pacific Islander 11%
Hispanic or Latino 38% Total 13%
Michigan (30th)
Non-Hispanic White 15%
Black or African American 47%
American Indian S
Asian and Pacific Islander 20%
Hispanic or Latino 36% Total 23%
Minnesota (2nd)
Non-Hispanic White 8%
Black or African American 47%
American Indian S
Asian and Pacific Islander 22%
Hispanic or Latino 32% Total 14%
Mississippi (50th)
Non-Hispanic White 16%
Black or African American 48%
American Indian S
Asian and Pacific Islander S
Hispanic or Latino S Total 31%
Missouri (31st)
Non-Hispanic White 16%
Black or African American 40%
American Indian S
Asian and Pacific Islander 8%
Hispanic or Latino 34% Total 21%
Montana (32nd)
Non-Hispanic White 16%
Black or African American S
American Indian S
Asian and Pacific Islander S
Hispanic or Latino S Total 21%
Nebraska (9th)
Non-Hispanic White 9%
Black or African American S
American Indian S
Asian and Pacific Islander S
Hispanic or Latino 29% Total 15%
Nevada (36th)
Non-Hispanic White 10%
Black or African American 30%
American Indian S
Asian and Pacific Islander 10%
Hispanic or Latino 25% Total 18%
New Hampshire (1st)
Non-Hispanic White 9%
Black or African American S
American Indian S
Asian and Pacific Islander S
Hispanic or Latino S Total 11%
New Jersey (7th)
Non-Hispanic White 6%
Black or African American 26%
American Indian S
Asian and Pacific Islander 8%
Hispanic or Latino 25% Total 13%
New Mexico (46th)
Non-Hispanic White 12%
Black or African American S
American Indian 35%
Asian and Pacific Islander S
Hispanic or Latino 30% Total 25%
New York (15th)
Non-Hispanic White 11%
Black or African American 31%
American Indian S
Asian and Pacific Islander 19%
Hispanic or Latino 33% Total 20%
North Carolina (37th)
Non-Hispanic White 12%
Black or African American 37%
American Indian S
Asian and Pacific Islander 13%
Hispanic or Latino 42% Total 23%
North Dakota (12th)
Non-Hispanic White 9%
Black or African American S
American Indian S
Asian and Pacific Islander S
Hispanic or Latino S Total 13%
Ohio (29th)
Non-Hispanic White 16%
Black or African American 47%
American Indian S
Asian and Pacific Islander 12%
Hispanic or Latino 38% Total 22%
Oklahoma (44th)
Non-Hispanic White 16%
Black or African American 40%
American Indian 28%
Asian and Pacific Islander S
Hispanic or Latino 35% Total 22%
Oregon (18th)
Non-Hispanic White 16%
Black or African American S
American Indian S
Asian and Pacific Islander S
Hispanic or Latino 29% Total 19%
Pennsylvania (23rd)
Non-Hispanic White 11%
Black or African American 37%
American Indian S
Asian and Pacific Islander 15%
Hispanic or Latino 35% Total 17%
Rhode Island (17th)
Non-Hispanic White 10%
Black or African American S
American Indian S
Asian and Pacific Islander S
Hispanic or Latino 35% Total 17%
South Carolina (45th)
Non-Hispanic White 13%
Black or African American 41%
American Indian S
Asian and Pacific Islander 7%
Hispanic or Latino 41% Total 24%
South Dakota (26th)
Non-Hispanic White 11%
Black or African American S
American Indian 60%
Asian and Pacific Islander S
Hispanic or Latino S Total 19%
Tennessee (41st)
Non-Hispanic White 17%
Black or African American 42%
American Indian S
Asian and Pacific Islander 9%
Hispanic or Latino 37% Total 24%
Texas (34th)
Non-Hispanic White 10%
Black or African American 32%
American Indian S
Asian and Pacific Islander 12%
Hispanic or Latino 35% Total 24%
Utah (4th)
Non-Hispanic White 9%
Black or African American S
American Indian S
Asian and Pacific Islander S
Hispanic or Latino 23% Total 12%
Vermont (3rd)
Non-Hispanic White 12%
Black or African American S
American Indian S
Asian and Pacific Islander S
Hispanic or Latino S Total 13%
Virginia (16th)
Non-Hispanic White 9%
Black or African American 28%
American Indian S
Asian and Pacific Islander 7%
Hispanic or Latino 17% Total 14%
Washington (11th)
Non-Hispanic White 11%
Black or African American 34%
American Indian S
Asian and Pacific Islander 13%
Hispanic or Latino 32% Total 16%
West Virginia (43rd)
Non-Hispanic White 23%
Black or African American S
American Indian S
Asian and Pacific Islander S
Hispanic or Latino S Total 24%
Wisconsin (10th)
Non-Hispanic White 11%
Black or African American 48%
American Indian S
Asian and Pacific Islander 16%
Hispanic or Latino 32% Total 17%
Wyoming (28th)
Non-Hispanic White 11%
Black or African American S
American Indian S
Asian and Pacific Islander S
Hispanic or Latino S Total 13%
District of Columbia
Non-Hispanic White 3%
Black or African American 43%
American Indian S
Asian and Pacific Islander S
Hispanic or Latino S Total 29%
++++++++++++++
Each of the main links on this KIDS COUNT page — Data Across States – expand so that you can identify individual categories in which detailed information is available. You can also access Data By State
For example:
Children in low-income households where housing costs exceed 30 percent of income (Percent) – 2009
Scale: 46% – 82%
| United States | 67% | |
| Alabama | 58% | |
| Alaska | S | |
| Arizona | 67% | |
| Arkansas | 55% | |
| California | 76% | |
| Colorado | 69% | |
| Connecticut | 80% | |
| Delaware | 74% | |
| Florida | 76% | |
| Georgia | 67% | |
| Hawaii | 71% | |
| Idaho | 59% | |
| Illinois | 70% | |
| Indiana | 60% | |
| Iowa | 53% | |
| Kansas | 54% | |
| Kentucky | 55% | |
| Louisiana | 57% | |
| Maine | 66% | |
| Maryland | 77% | |
| Massachusetts | 73% | |
| Michigan | 69% | |
| Minnesota | 67% | |
| Mississippi | 56% | |
| Missouri | 59% | |
| Montana | 51% | |
| Nebraska | 52% | |
| Nevada | 76% | |
| New Hampshire | 77% | |
| New Jersey | 82% | |
| New Mexico | 51% | |
| New York | 74% | |
| North Carolina | 60% | |
| North Dakota | S | |
| Ohio | 64% | |
| Oklahoma | 50% | |
| Oregon | 68% | |
| Pennsylvania | 64% | |
| Rhode Island | 76% | |
| South Carolina | 58% | |
| South Dakota | 46% | |
| Tennessee | 59% | |
| Texas | 61% | |
| Utah | 65% | |
| Vermont | 67% | |
| Virginia | 68% | |
| Washington | 69% | |
| West Virginia | 47% | |
| Wisconsin | 67% | |
| Wyoming | S | |
| Puerto Rico | 36% | |
| Virgin Islands | N.A. | |
++
KIDS COUNT overall rank (Number) – 2010 – by state at this link
(Most current data) Children who have one or more emotional, behavioral, or developmental conditions (Percent) – 2007 – by state at this link and presented below:
United States 15%
Alabama 18%
Alaska 15%
Arizona 14%
Arkansas 19%
California 13%
Colorado 13%
Connecticut 16%
Delaware 19%
Florida 16%
Georgia 12%
Hawaii 13%
Idaho 14%
Illinois 13%
Indiana 18%
Iowa 17%
Kansas 16%
Kentucky 18%
Louisiana 19%
Maine 20%
Maryland 18%
Massachusetts 18%
Michigan 17%
Minnesota 14%
Mississippi 15%
Missouri 16%
Montana 17%
Nebraska 15%
Nevada 13%
New Hampshire 17%
New Jersey 14%
New Mexico 14%
New York 14%
North Carolina 20%
North Dakota 16%
Ohio 20%
Oklahoma 18%
Oregon 16%
Pennsylvania 17%
Rhode Island 19%
South Carolina 15%
South Dakota 13%
Tennessee 16%
Texas 12%
Utah 14%
Vermont 20%
Virginia 16%
Washington 17%
West Virginia 18%
Wisconsin 15%
Wyoming 17%
District of Columbia
15% Puerto Rico N.A.
Virgin Islands N.A.
++
Teens ages 16 to 19 not in school and not high school graduates
2005 – 7% — 1,114,000
2009 – 6% — 1,053,000
Teens ages 16 to 19 not attending school and not working
2008 – 8% — 1,410,000
2009 – 9% — 1,559,000
Children living in families where no parent has full-time, year-round employment
2008 – 27% — 20,181,000
2009 – 31% — 23,062,000
Children in single-parent families
2005 – 32% — 21,682,000
2009 – 34% — 23,808,000
++
Previous post:
+WE MAY SAY WE ARE A FAIR NATION – BUT LOTS OF KIDS WOULD SAY OTHERWISE
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Stop the Storm 