UPDATE, AUGUST 12, 2016
Although we have not been able to update the interactive database at this time, a table with data through 2014 is available from the Annie E. Casey Foundation's KidsCount Data Center here.
UPDATED, JANUARY 31, 2012
The National Coalition for Child Protection Reform believes that far too many children are in foster care. We believe that, for the overwhelming majority of children whose families are investigated by child protective services agencies, including many children now taken from their homes, the best placement is no placement. These children should be left in their own homes with their families given the help they need to keep their children safe.
Although we have not been able to update the interactive database at this time, a table with data through 2014 is available from the Annie E. Casey Foundation's KidsCount Data Center here.
UPDATED, JANUARY 31, 2012
The National Coalition for Child Protection Reform believes that far too many children are in foster care. We believe that, for the overwhelming majority of children whose families are investigated by child protective services agencies, including many children now taken from their homes, the best placement is no placement. These children should be left in their own homes with their families given the help they need to keep their children safe.
But some children really do need to be placed in substitute care. In those cases, not all “placement settings” are created equal. In the overwhelming majority of cases, the least detrimental alternative, the one most likely to “cushion the blow” of foster care placement is placement with a relative, typically a grandparent. This is commonly known as kinship foster care. Study after study has found that kinship care placements typically are more stable, better for children’s well-being and, most important, safer than what should properly be called “stranger care.”
At the other extreme, the worst form of care is “congregate care” – a group home or an institution – where the child is denied any family at all.
Every year, the federal government asks the states for a “snapshot” of how many children they have in these and other “placement settings” on September 30, the last day of the federal fiscal year. But the federal government publishes only the national totals. Using the federal Freedom of Information Act, NCCPR has obtained the state-by-state totals for 2010, and presents them below, along with a comparison to 2009.
As is so often the case in child welfare, the data reveal enormous variation among the states. Colorado, which has the worst record for congregate care, uses non-family care at nearly eight times the rate of Oregon, which reports using it the least. Hawaii, with the nation’s best record for using kinship care uses it at more than seven times the rate of Virginia, which has the worst record.
Courtesy of Data Revelations, we are pleased to present the data as an interactive database, allowing readers to see the data in graphic form, and customize data elements.
We have ranked state performance on kinship care and congregate care. Of course, while a number one ranking in kinship care should be a source of pride, a number one ranking in congregate care should be a source of shame. We also have a new graphic comparing the progress among states in reducing the total number of children in foster care between 2009 and 2010.
We do not rank the remaining categories, foster homes with strangers, pre-adoptive homes and “other” – a category which combines runaways and independent living.
The first tab on the charts below brings up a map indicating the proportion of children in congregate care or kinship care in each state. Hovering over a state, or using the pull down menu provides a more detailed breakdown of placements for that state.
The second tab arranges the data in the form of bar graphs for each state in each category, again with numerical rankings for kinship care and congregate care. A third graphic compares the number of children in each state in foster care in 2009 and 2010.
CAUTIONS AND CAVEATS
These data are self-reported by state child welfare agencies to the federal Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) database. Although AFCARS has standard definitions for these categories, we believe states sometimes may err in entering data, perhaps using their own definition of a “group home” or “institution” instead of the AFCARS definition, for example.
So the subcategories of “congregate care” should be viewed with particular caution.
