|
|
"POLICY COUNTS":
SETTING AND MEASURING
BENCHMARKS FOR STATE POLICIES
A CONCEPT PAPER
INTRODUCTION
State policymakers, whether they are Governors, state legislators, executive agency managers or policy advocates, continually wonder about the effectiveness of the policies and programs they develop. However, the ability to assess the success of existing and new policy initiatives to produce positive and lasting results for families and children is frequently elusive. Currently, there is no commonly accepted way to assess the degree to which state policies advance or detract from the goal of improving child, family, and community well being.
While policies are often developed to address or produce a certain set of outcomes, the relationship between policy and outcomes is not well understood. Little investigation of the impact of policy on system improvement and on outcomes for children and families has occurred, leaving policy makers and administrators without the needed information to guide the development and implementation of policy that will produce results.
In such an environment, how can state legislators and leaders know whether policies they implement are supportive of families? How can they discern whether the mix of policy improvements and legislative changes bring them closer to achieving better outcomes? How can policy makers and leaders make informed decisions about an array of policy choices for families? To answer these questions, the Center for the Study of Social Policy (CSSP), with support from The Annie E. Casey Foundation, has begun a project to develop a results-based framework that proposes benchmarks for state policies.
I. THE POLICY COUNTS PROJECT
Policy Counts attempts to offer coherent, comprehensive information regarding the strength and adequacy of state policies affecting children, families, and communities. This is done by establishing consensus among policy experts and state leaders regarding the cluster of policies believed to offer the best opportunity for improving key child and family results. Further, the project puts forth key benchmarks for gauging the strength of existing state policies aimed at these results.
How the Policies Are Organized
Policy Counts attempts to examine six related results: school readiness, school success, youth engaged in positive, productive behaviors, family economic success, healthy families, and strong families. When viewed collectively, these six results form one possible composite of family strengthening policy. Included are results that focus on the entire family (i.e. family economic success, healthy families, and strong families) as well as results that focus more narrowly on young children (school readiness), youth (school success and youth engaged in positive behaviors), and particular issue areas (education, health, economic success). The mix of results and policies focuses on a broad life span, from birth to retirement (see Figure 1), and a broad range of potential policy categories (see Tables 1-6).
Each of the six results is guided by a working definition and focus.
- School Readiness is defined broadly as the preparedness of young children 0-8 years of age to enter school and the preparedness of schools to receive young children into public educational settings. The cluster focuses on young children and the major policies that support their social, cognitive, and emotional development and on child-serving systems and their capacity to deliver high quality, developmentally appropriate care and education. The School Readiness policy cluster includes: child care quality, affordability, and accessibility; Head Start, public pre-school and school transition; and early health care policies.
- School Success focuses on the public school and post-secondary educational achievement of students and the provision of quality public and education services. The school success policy cluster may include policies governing class size and school enrollment, school accountability systems, teacher quality and retention, alternative education, curriculum standards, testing, and post-secondary financial aid.
- Youth Engaged in Positive, Productive Behavior is defined as the availability of healthy personal, civic, peer, family, and community options for young people 8-24 years of age. The result focuses on the developmental needs of pre-adolescents, adolescents, and young adults and the crucial transitions between each of these periods of increasing maturity. Policies that encourage and support youth in meaningful civic roles, prepare young people for work and other adult roles, and make available quality child welfare, juvenile justice, after-school, school-to-work, and health promotion services are examined in this cluster.
- Family Economic Success refers to the ability of working age (18-65) adults and families (up to 250% of FPL) to earn enough pay and benefits to provide for their basic needs and to accrue long-term assets like homes and retirement benefits. The policy cluster includes policies that support the acquisition and retention of quality jobs (i.e. WIA and TANF), improve income and earnings (i.e. state-enhanced minimum wage, tax burden, earned income tax credit, affordable housing,), encourage and protect the development of assets (i.e. Individual Development Accounts, Anti-Predatory Lending), and create an economic safety net for families (i.e. Health Insurance, Unemployment Insurance and workmen's Compensation).
- Healthy Families refers to the physical and mental well-being of families and examines the availability, quality, and accessibility of appropriate health services for low-income families. The policy cluster includes policies related to health insurance coverage and benefits, health safety nets, health support services like transportation and translation, and health system capacity.
- The result Strong Families is defined as the relational well-being of families. While "strong families" is clearly tied to family economic success and family health, this result focuses on strengthening the formation of families, the interaction of parents and children, the connection of families to social networks, and the adequacy and quality of necessary family resources. The policy cluster includes food security (i.e. Food Stamp and WIC), child welfare, domestic violence, family formation, homelessness, affordable housing, father involvement, and family support (i.e. home visiting, family and medical leave, and parent education) policies.
The categorization of policy according to desired results is imprecise. For the purposes of this project, specific policies were assigned to a category either because the category offered the "best fit" for the policy or because the workgroup tasked with developing benchmarks for that result area was best suited to discuss the policy in question. Many policies appropriately apply to many of the desired results and will "show up" in each place where it is applicable. For example, health insurance coverage plays a role in achieving all six of the results. In addition, some policies appear in multiple categories with a shifted focus depending on the category. For instance, housing policy appears in both the family economic sufficiency and the strong families results. However, housing policy included in the family economic success result focuses on home ownership while reduction in homelessness and affordable rental housing is emphasized in the strong families result. Policies appearing in multiple result areas are likely to be "high leverage" policies because of their potential for impacting multiple results.
How the Project Is Organized
Given the breadth and complexity of state policy, it is important to clarify what the Policy Counts project intends to produce. Specifically, Policy Counts is an attempt to meet the information needs of policy makers, advocates, administrators and local leaders with four products. These products, while distinct from one another, are developed sequentially and build upon the successful completion of the previous product.
First, up to six policy papers will be developed and published during this project. Each paper, possibly one for each of the six result areas, will offer a strategic policy framework for achieving a specific result and set of outcomes. The policy papers will include a short list of policies that collectively have: (1) the best chance of effecting the desired result, (2) have the best chance of being supported by multiple constituencies, (3) sufficient scale and scope for impacting the desired result, and (4) some evidence (where available) supporting their effectiveness. For each recommended policy, the papers also will posit the key policy attributes and interactions between policies that are thought to enhance the policy's effectiveness. Teams of state and national policy experts will review drafts of the policy papers and meet to reach consensus on specific policy recommendations. The papers could be a positive contribution to our strategic understanding of the link between policy and results for children and families.
Second, Policy Counts attempts to offer coherent, comprehensive information regarding the strength and adequacy of state policies affecting children, families, and communities. This is done by establishing benchmarks for a cluster of policies aimed at specific child and family results. The recommended policies and their benchmarks will be published for consideration and use among state and local leaders.
Third, the project hopes to develop the policy papers and policy benchmarks into a self-assessment tool useful for those involved in policy planning and advocacy. The self-assessment tool might include a range of policy options beyond the "core" policies recommended in the policy papers and benchmarks product. We envision an easy-to-use tool - perhaps in a checklist format - that identifies strengths and weaknesses in a state's policy agenda and one that would have import for strategic efforts. The tool will be widely available to state and local leaders.
Fourth, we believe this effort could lead to a KIDS COUNT like product that compares state policy efforts. However, where KIDS COUNT is concerned with child well being, this effort is concerned with assessing policy. The effort to set benchmarks for state policy might be thought of as a policy well-being project that measures an individual state's policy against agreed upon benchmarks in critical areas. By measuring the strength of state policies against established benchmarks, the project hopes to provide some further insight on the policy context of state success at achieving outcomes for children and families.
While we believe the collection of products described above could be useful to the field of policy analysis, we wish to also be clear about what this project is not. The current project is not an attempt to track a wide range of possible policies related to a given topic. Nor is the project intended to be a policy clearinghouse or program "best practices" guide. And lastly, the project is not a well-being indicator, evaluation, or measurement project, though information from these activities help to shape our policy focus. All of these activities are valuable contributions and services and many organizations do an excellent job at one or more of them. However, these activities are beyond the scope of the current project.
We believe the collective products and tools will benefit states in several ways:
- This project helps states to measure their performance. It provides states with a method for self-assessing their progress towards implementing family-strengthening policies. Currently, CSSP is unaware of a comprehensive method for examining such policies.
- This project increases the visibility of family strengthening policies. By establishing key policy benchmarks, the project may offer an external influence that helps to galvanize and strengthen the burgeoning efforts of families, advocates, and practitioners across the country. The project holds the potential for "validating" and elevating family-strengthening efforts to the national spotlight. This second benefit could be realized in a dramatic fashion when the project implements an objective, external rating system and national policy awards.
- It promotes awareness of innovative and promising policies. With implementation of the current benchmarks project, CSSP will be able to identify states with exemplary efforts. Innovations and promising practices from these states can be documented and disseminated to CSSP partners (for example, the Casey Foundation´s Making Connections sites, other foundation initiatives, cities and states that are innovating in community decision-making, etc) and other states. The most effective policy practices could be recognized as recipients of the national policy awards.
- This project contributes to a national consensus on certain policy directions. The benchmarks report and related tools (i.e. self-assessment) will help states develop a clear family-strengthening policy agenda organized around a clear set of child and family results.
Overall, we hope this body of work provides a valuable connection between the on-going efforts to produce results for families and children and the policy context in which such efforts occur. The paper that follows presents a framework for establishing a system of policy benchmarks and assessing states against these benchmarks. It also identifies some challenges to successful implementation of such an approach. We hope this framework helps states think strategically about policy decisions that create opportunities to strengthen families and that it contributes to a national consensus on policy directions for those interested in promoting the positive development of young people. This work is part of a larger series of activities undertaken by CSSP, The Annie E. Casey Foundation and others to advance policy priorities and practices that focus on making families stronger.
II. IMPORTANT DEFINITIONS
In order to develop a conceptual approach for setting benchmarks for state policy, it is first necessary to clarify some terms. Specifically, we must be clear about our meanings for the terms "result", "benchmark" and "policy".
By result we mean a condition, occurrence, or event often expressed as a desired end for children, families, or neighborhoods. The term result is frequently used interchangeably with the terms "outcome" and "goal". Most state efforts for children and families are organized around a small set of key results, including "healthy children", "children ready for school", "strong families", "economically self-sufficient families", and "safe neighborhoods". Policy Counts proposes to organize the policies for which benchmarks are set into clusters of policies that correspond to a similar set of core results.
By benchmark we mean a point of reference from which measurements may be made and/or is something that serves as a standard by which others may be measured. Benchmarks convey not only the general idea of measurement but also set an explicit standard for performance. Where indicators measure a change in a result or condition (i.e., increases in age-appropriate child immunization rates), benchmarks measure such changes against an established standard. Consequently, benchmarks make possible certain judgments about the success or failure of a measured change that indicators alone do not. For example, increasing immunization rates from 80% to 85% in a given period is an important indicator. But, comparing such progress against a benchmark immunization rate of 95% communicates the (in) adequacy of such progress and informs future actions. In the Policy Counts project, this definition of and approach to "benchmarks" is applied to policies rather than outcomes or results. For example, a state may raise the refundable portion of its state earned income tax credit from 10% to 20% of the federal credit. Such a movement would be an important indicator of progress. However, considering that a far greater number of families will be moved out of poverty if a state EITC is refundable up to 50% of the federal EITC, a benchmark for a state EITC poverty might be set at this level. A state's EITC refundable at 20% would then be gauged against this benchmark or standard.
The term "policy" may be employed to communicate a number of ideas ranging from standards for frontline practice to enacted legislation. For this project, the term "policy" refers to those formal policies reflected in state statutes, executive orders, and judicial rulings. While many innovative policies do exist at other levels of government (i.e. county or city), our consideration is limited to those policies that are intended to be statewide in scope or impact.
In addition to this basic definition of policy, the Center offers a particular public policy point-of-view informed by what it takes to successfully strengthen families and transform neighborhoods - namely, strong connections between families and economic opportunities, social supports, and needed human services. Where these connections are maintained, families and neighborhoods thrive. Where these connections are impaired, families are pushed into isolation and poor outcomes tend to result. Therefore, we believe it is important that policy either creates such connections or is re-conceptualized in ways that meaningfully reduce family isolation from economic, social, and formal supports. To that end, the following perspectives characterize the collection of policies likely to be included in this project:
- First, this benchmarks project assesses policies aimed at improving the life chances of poor and disadvantaged people. While most U. S. residents have benefited from more than ten years of economic expansion, those who remain poor have, on average, grown poorer. Poverty is also associated with differences in other social outcomes. With only 29 percent of U.S. citizens leaving poverty year-to-year, a rate well behind most industrialized nations, a focus on a broad range of policies with particular attention to their effects on poor persons and impoverished communities is warranted.
- Second, the policies included reflect a support for aligning responsibility and authority between state, local, and citizen decision-making bodies. The proper devolution and alignment of responsibility and decision-making authority is essential for effective implementation of policy strategies.
- Third, our perspective emphasizes the need for cross-system or inter-agency coordination and collaboration that reduces unnecessary fragmentation and duplication. The policy directions adopted by states should engender approaches that combine and maximize the available resources of various local and state agencies.
- Fourth, our point-of-view favors policies that build the capacity of local communities to meet their own needs. Policy should enable families to provide for themselves and develop lasting resources and institutions in communities whose futures depend on such resources but where few exist.
- Fifth, we believe that policies should focus our collective efforts on achieving results. Enacted policies should be framed with specific results in mind. Further, state, local, and neighborhood stakeholders should be held accountable for achieving tangible results for the families and children they represent.
While other points of view and values may be debated to one extent or another, we hold the above points of view to be evident based upon a wealth of experience and research.
III. A BEGINNING FRAMEWORK
One "magic" policy is unable to accomplish the multiple and varied results desired by poor families in impoverished communities - isolated from economic, social, and service supports. Such results require multiple policy solutions. Consequently, our approach is to set benchmarks for a variety of state policies. Such benchmarks would provide us with a measure of the total policy environment affecting results for children and families.
From Results to Policy
Figure 2 illustrates the relationship between the desired results for children and families and the policy context that affects them. Using a "backward mapping" approach to policy development, figure 2 begins with the result or set of results of interest to policymakers and advocates. These results may generally be defined in response to a set of social problems or political and economic concerns. For this project, the results include five core results typical to many statewide policy initiatives. The results are: children ready for school; healthy families; strong families; family economic success; and youth engaged in positive and productive behavior.
In this framework, complex long-term results may be broken down into a series of important measures or indicators. These indicators can be short-term or long-term in nature and collectively answer the question "are we achieving the results we want?" Sometimes the results and indicators are explicitly defined in policy; other times, policies state broad goals leaving results and indicators to be defined by implementing agencies or communities.
As shown in the box labeled "clusters of policies" in Figure 2, three factors guide the inclusion of individual policies into the cluster of policies we believe improve results: values and assumptions, research findings, and practice-based experience. As previously discussed in section two, certain values and assumptions impact which individual policies are considered. While not necessarily empirically tested, these assumptions are self-evident. For example, policies that reward work are generally thought to be good for families. Policies that result in more financial and material assets for poor families, policies that locate more resources at the neighborhood level, that contribute to the capacity of neighborhoods, and that foster safer, socially connected neighborhoods are policies with better chances for achieving positive outcomes than those that do not.
Second, the individual policies included in each policy cluster are determined by what we know works. Here, sound empirical research informs the selection and development of policy. The body of social scientific knowledge of poverty has grown over the past several decades. With the use of rigorous methods employed in individual, longitudinal, and meta-analytical studies, we can say a fair amount about which programs and policies actually achieve measurable results for families. Consequently, some policy options may go entirely unconsidered because they have little demonstrated or conceived relationship to the desired results.
Third, the selection of included policies is influenced by field-based or practice knowledge. While empirical research is useful, it is incomplete. The consensus experiences and learning of practitioners provides a wealth of information for selecting and designing policies likely to reach results. This knowledge often grows out of multiple programs that register good results and culminates in an informed "best bets" opinion on policy. Field-based knowledge, particularly in the absence of empirical data, rounds out the available knowledge base by providing important insights about which policies are likely to yield results.
Figure 2 also demonstrates that the relationship between the desired results, on the one hand, and the actual policy clusters, on the other hand, is affected by policy implementation. While the best possible policies may exist in statute, the manner in which those policies are implemented can make or break any effort at results. Several factors - including the scope of the policy, level of funding, agency capacity to implement, and delivery design - can hinder or enhance success.
The policy implementation and development phases are also somewhat overlapping activities. The stages are depicted as overlapping to underscore the iterative relationship between policy development and early implementation. Many policies are adjusted and improved based upon the experiences of agencies and local systems as they attempt to carry out the requirements of enacted policy. Because of the close relationship and interaction between policy implementation and policy development, any benchmarks project should attempt to set benchmarks for both phases. To the extent that such benchmarks are possible, it is possible then to describe the adequacy of the state's total policy environment for producing a given result.
An Example
Figure 3 offers a hypothetical example using family economic success as the key result. Here, two long-term indicators or outcomes define family economic success: increased family assets and increased work attachment and support. A series of short-term indicators (increased benefits, increased family income, etc.) in turn operationalize these long-term outcomes. Ostensibly, this constellation of results and indicators represent the intended impacts the cluster of sample policies are to produce - if implemented well.
Developing the Benchmarks
Given this general representation, how then are state scores actually determined? For each of the six result areas, an interdisciplinary expert panel will be convened and charged with reaching consensus about policy options that achieve results for families and children. The expert panel also will be charged with identifying implementation benchmarks related either to the policy clusters in general or to an individual policy specifically. Where necessary, individual policy options may be categorized into indexes containing individual policy strategies belonging to a general policy field. Table 7 presents an example using the family economic success result area. In this example, state TANF options regarding individual development accounts, child care subsidies, and earned income tax credits might be categorized into an index and a corresponding index benchmark established by consensus.
Scoring Individual State Efforts
The expert panel also will recommend a scoring scheme for each individual policy option. The scoring scheme accounts for the features that policy experts consider necessary for maximizing a particular policy option´s effectiveness. Hence, the scoring scheme is an attempt to assess the strength or weakness of an individual policy option. These features are selected by consensus and based upon expert knowledge, research, and experience regarding their effectiveness. Positive scores may be assigned to features thought to be helpful, and negative scores are assigned to features considered harmful to children, families, and communities. For each policy option, a specific feature or combination of features may serve as the acceptable standard for states implementing that policy option. In our Table 1 example, the standard features for family economic success policies are "refundable EITC", "EITC refundable at 25% of the federal credit", and individual development accounts matched "1:1 to 2:1" with state funds.
Each complete policy cluster (i.e. the combination of policies aimed at family economic success) and each index (i.e. TANF) may have a benchmark score. The total policy cluster and index benchmarks may be determined by summing the points assigned to the recommended policy features (shown in bold in Table 7) for each policy option in the index.
Figure 2. Framework for Connecting Results to Policy
Figure 3. Sample Framework for Family Asset Policies (For Illustration Only)
States with scores greater than the benchmarks for a given policy cluster, index, or individual policy would be enacting policies with desired strength and focus. States with scores that fall below the benchmarks would be either without policies addressing a particular issue or enacting poorly conceived policies. Comparing a state´s score against either a total policy benchmark or index benchmarks would likely shed some light on a state´s policy performance. Such comparisons would make it possible for each individual state to discern where its overall strength lies and which specific policy strategies can be developed or improved. Figure 3 presents a sample "snapshot" of current state scores for the family economic success policy cluster and a sample line graph view of state efforts by year. Such a view could be used with total policy cluster scores, index scores, or all individual policy scores as shown in Figure 4.
Comparing State Performance
State policy performance could be compared in two ways. First, a general comparison of all 50 states could be completed for each policy and index. General comparisons of states would compare the strength of state policies without regard to individual state characteristics that may affect policy implementation. Issues like the political orientation (i.e. conservative or moderate), system of policy implementation (i.e. state or county administered), policy focus (i.e. health care, education), size or wealth of a state are not factored into general rankings of states. Figures 5 and 6 provide examples of a general comparison of states using family economic success as an example.
While the general comparisons will be done without regard to individual state characteristics, another approach to comparing states involves clustering states by shared characteristics. Clustered comparisons might occur using two broad characteristics: region (i.e. Southeast, Midwest) and demographic commonalities (i.e. population, poverty levels). With clustered comparisons, an attempt is made to stratify states using either characteristics associated with child and family well-being (i.e. factors like poverty, median family income, and measures of risk status) or by grouping states based upon the adequacy, commitment, and inclusion levels of policy options exercised by states. Figure 7 offers a fictional example of regional clustered comparisons on family economic success.
Clustered comparisons could be useful in three ways. First, such clustering could address the often-heard objections regarding differences between states. Many policy makers, practitioners, and administrators assert that general rankings of states yield unfair comparisons and overgeneralizations because their state is unquestionably unique. While such differences can be overstated, such refrains occur frequently enough and with enough prima facie legitimacy that any effort to compare states should at least begin to address disparities between states in some basic ways. The regional and demographic clusters attempt a basic response to these concerns.
Second, the cluster comparisons could be beneficial because they allow a level of analysis that general rankings do not. It will, for example, be possible with clustered comparisons to contrast the differences between the policy strategies of low-poverty and high-poverty states. We might also be able to draw some inferences about the strength of policies employed by large urban states versus small rural states.
Third, clustered comparisons might have very practical applications. Such comparisons would improve our understandings of which policy strategies might be most effective in certain settings. If clustered comparisons yield information about effective policy strategies in one setting, they might also yield information about the features of those strategies that are transportable to other settings. Coupled with targeted technical assistance strategies, such information will be very useful in fostering wider implementation of effective family-strengthening policy. But while the framework holds promise for providing new and useful information regarding state policy, it is not without its conceptual and practical challenges.
IV. CONCEPTUAL AND PRACTICAL CHALLENGES
One challenge to the usefulness and legitimacy of this framework is its indifference to the differing policy agendas at play in states. States are engaged in a range of policy issues at any given time, from health care to education to corrections. The issues that occupy the forefront of policy activity at the state level vary with changes in economic conditions, executive and legislative leadership, competing political interests, and current events in a state. Consequently, the set of policies embedded in the project may not synchronize completely with the priorities and policy agendas of every state.
On some level, the potential variance between the policies included in this benchmarks project and changing state agendas is unavoidable. However, we believe the policies included represent a set of core policy clusters that every state should attend to in order to set the best possible context for achieving desired results for children, families and neighborhoods. In the best case, the advent of a sound policy benchmarks project provides a source of stability for today's frequently changing policy context.
Not only are the priorities of state policy agendas different from state to state, but so are the ways in which states develop and implement policy. These differences come in a number of forms. In some states, policy development occurs primarily at the state executive or legislative branches of government. In other states, local branches of government play an important role in the development of state policy. This is particularly the case where state policy ultimately is administered by local branches of government. States with policy approaches involving passage of fairly broad policies at the state level, and discretion in policy implementation at the local level, present a particular challenge to the accuracy of any attempt to rank state policies. These state-adopted, locally administered policy contexts often can obscure the existence of policies that are codified more concretely at the local level rather than in state statute. Such complexity in these relationships has pronounced impacts on the effectiveness of policy development and implementation.
For its part, the current benchmarks project addresses these rather complex issues by actively seeking out and including in a state's scoring - to the extent possible - those policies that are broadly defined in state policy but find specific expression in local policy and practices. While states are not clustered by differences in policy development and implementation processes, the benchmarks and scoring schemes have applicability to all states without regard to their particular policy development and implementation context.
CONCLUSION
The need for information and tools to improve state policy planning is great. The project described in the preceding pages represents one attempt to meet the needs of state and local stakeholders. If successful, the project could aid in the wider implementation and success of family strengthening policies and ultimately better results for children, families, and communities.
Figures & Tables
Figure 1. Overlapping Age Spans for Policy Counts Results
IMAGE GOES HERE!
Figure 4. Sample State Snapshot of Policy Benchmarks and Historical Performance
(For Illustration Purposes Only)
ARIZONA
| Policy Cluster |
B |
S |
R |
Year-to-Year Scores:
Family Economic
Success
|
| Family Economic Success |
33 |
28 |
11 |
| TANF Index |
13 |
11 |
11 |
| Earned Income Tax Credit |
10 |
8 |
-- |
| Child Care Subsidy |
0 |
0 |
-- |
| Individual Development Accounts |
3 |
3 |
-- |
| Home Ownership Index |
11 |
8 |
T 5 |
| Ownership Assist. |
4 |
2 |
-- |
| Housing Trust |
4 |
3 |
-- |
| Circuit breaker |
3 |
3 |
-- |
| Micro-enterprise |
3 |
3 |
-- |
| Family Insurance Coverage |
3 |
3 |
-- |
| Workforce Training & Placement Programs |
3 |
3 |
-- |
Key: B - Benchmark; S - State Score; R - Rank
Figure 5. Sample State Rankings and Index Scores for Each Policy Result Cluster (For Illustration Purposes Only)
| |
Family Economic Success |
Children Ready for School |
StrongFamilies |
Health Children & Families |
Productive Youth Behavior |
| State |
Rank (Score) |
Rank (Score) |
Rank (Score) |
Rank (Score) |
Rank (Score) |
| Alabama |
49 (1) |
|
|
|
|
| Alaska |
17 (4) |
|
|
|
|
| Arizona |
11 (28) |
|
|
|
|
| Arkansas |
21 (4) |
|
|
|
|
| California |
42 (1) |
|
|
|
|
| Colorado |
37 (1) |
|
|
|
|
| Connecticut |
37 (1) |
|
|
|
|
| Delaware |
21 (4) |
|
|
|
|
| Florida |
17 (4) |
|
|
|
|
| Georgia |
26 (3) |
|
|
|
|
| Hawaii |
26 (3) |
|
|
|
|
| Kansas |
32 (2) |
|
|
|
|
| Kentucky |
32 (2) |
|
|
|
|
| Louisiana |
49 (0) |
|
|
|
|
| Maine |
49 (0) |
|
|
|
|
| Maryland |
1 (13) |
|
|
|
|
| Massachusetts |
2 (11) |
|
|
|
|
| Michigan |
2 (11) |
|
|
|
|
Figure 6. Sample State Scores and Rankings on Family Economic Success Policy Cluster (Total) and Indexes
(For Illustration Purposes Only)
| |
Family Economic Success |
|
|
TANFIndex |
|
|
Home Ownership Index |
| State |
Total Score (Rank) |
State |
Score (Rank) |
State |
Score (Rank) |
| Arkansas |
49 (1) |
Connecticut |
27 (1) |
Colorado |
3 (1) |
| Louisiana |
49 (1) |
Louisiana |
27 (1) |
Louisiana |
3 (1) |
| Maine |
49 (1) |
Colorado |
27 (1) |
Maine |
3 (3) |
| California |
42 (4) |
California |
26 (4) |
California |
3 (3) |
| Colorado |
37 (5) |
Maine |
24 (5) |
Benchmark |
3 (--) |
| Connecticut |
37 (5) |
Arizona |
24 (5) |
Arizona |
8 (5) |
| Kansas |
36 (7) |
Kansas |
20 (7) |
Kansas |
8 (5) |
| Kentucky |
36 (7) |
Michigan |
20 (7) |
Michigan |
8 (5) |
| Alabama |
35 (9) |
Alabama |
20 (7) |
Alabama |
8 (5) |
| Georgia |
34 (10) |
Arkansas |
15 (10) |
Arkansas |
8 (5) |
| Hawaii |
34 (10) |
BENCMARK |
13 (--) |
Connecticut |
8 (5) |
| BENCMARK |
33 (--) |
Hawaii |
11 (11) |
Hawaii |
-2 (11) |
| Arizona |
28 (11) |
Arizona |
7 (12) |
Georgia |
-2 (11) |
| Delaware |
21 (12) |
Delaware |
6 (13) |
Delaware |
-2 (11) |
| Massachusetts |
20 (14) |
Massachusetts |
6 (13) |
Massachusetts |
-2 (11) |
| Michigan |
18 (15) |
Kentucky |
6 (13) |
Kentucky |
-2 (11) |
| Alaska |
17 (16) |
Alaska |
6 (13) |
Alaska |
-2 (11) |
| Florida |
17 (16) |
Florida |
5 (17) |
Florida |
-2 (11) |
| Maryland |
16 (18) |
Georgia |
4 (18) |
Maryland |
-2 (11) |
Figure 7. Sample Clustered Rankings for Family Economic Success Benchmarks
(For Illustration Purposes Only)
| Southeastern U.S. |
|
Northeastern U.S. |
| State |
Score (Rank) |
State |
Score (Rank) |
| North Carolina |
49 (1) |
Vermont |
46 (1) |
| South Carolina |
37 (5) |
Rhode Island |
46 (1) |
| Georgia |
35 (7) |
BENCMARK |
33 (--) |
| Florida |
33 (10) |
New Hampshire |
30 (3) |
| BENCMARK |
33 (--) |
Maine |
30 (3) |
| Virginia |
21 (23) |
New York |
27 (4) |
| Maryland |
20 (27) |
Pennsylvania |
24 (5) |
| Kentucky |
17 (35) |
New Jersey |
19 (6) |
| Alabama |
7 (48) |
Connecticut |
16 (7) |
| West Virginia |
7 (48) |
Delaware |
15 (8) |
| Mississippi |
5 (50) |
Massachusetts |
15 (8) |
Table 1.
Table 1. Preliminary List of School Readiness Policies
- Income Tax Policy (refundable dependent care credit)
- Family Leave Policy
- Health and Nutrition Policy
- Developmental screenings
- Child Care Policy
- Subsidy coverage
- TANF
- Access to care
- Head Start Policy
- Pre-school Education Policy (Pre-k programs)
- Transition to School Policy
- Quality Enhancement Policy
- Provider scholarships
- Provider compensation enhancements
- Regulatory inclusion
- Coordination and Governance
- Facilities improvement and construction
- Accountability (child-based outcomes)
Table 2.
Table 2. Preliminary List of "Healthy Families" Policies
- Affordability Policies
- Health Insurance
- Charity/Free Care
- Availability Policies
- Safety Net
- Insurance Benefits (scope of coverage)
- Payment and Reimbursement
- Provider Supply: training, recruitment, retention, reimbursement, licensing/credentialing
- Accessibility and Appropriateness
- Geographic Accessibility
- Consumer Advocates
- Access Supports
- Public Education
- Service Integration/Coordination
- Implementation Policy
- Bureaucratic and System Capacity
- Community Engagement
- Results Accountability
Table 3.
Table 3. Preliminary List of "Strong Families" Policies
- Promotional/Prevention Policies
- Family Support Policy (home visiting, parent education)
- Family and Medical Leave Policy
- Family Formation Policy
- Housing (Affordable, not ownership) Policy
- Expand housing subsidy
- Affordable housing stock and rents
- Mixed income housing
- Father Involvement Policy
- Targeted Policies
- Food Security Policy (Expand Food Stamp coverage)
- WIC Policy (state supplements)
- Child Welfare Policy
- Domestic Violence Policy
- Homelessness Policy
Table 4.
Table 4. Preliminary List of "Youth Engaged in Positive, Productive Behaviors" Policies
- Promotional/Prevention Policies
- Recreation and Parks Policy
- Community Service Policy
- Adolescent Health Policy
- Out-of-School/After-School Opportunities
- Targeted Policies
- Child Welfare Policy
- Age of emancipation
- Transition supports (health insurance, housing support)
- Tuition waivers/Financial Aid for post-secondary education
- Juvenile Justice Policy
- Juvenile court jurisdictions
- Diversion policy
- Workforce Readiness Policy (School-to-Work, Apprenticeship, Career Academy)
- Alcohol, Cigarette, and Substance Abuse Treatment and Prevention Policy
- Alternative Education
Table 5.
Table 5. Preliminary List of "Family Economic Success" Policies
- Asset Development and Protection
- Home Ownership Policy
- Individual Development Accounts
- Unemployment Insurance
- Predatory Lending Policy
- Income Support Policy
- Total Tax Burdens
- Affordable Housing Policies (vouchers, subsidies, supply, location)
- State Earned Income Tax Credits (EITC)
- State-Enhanced Minimum Wage Policy
- Work Attachment
- Health Insurance
- Child Care Subsidies
- Work Preparation
- TANF
- WIA
Table 6.
Table 6. Preliminary List of "Educational Success" Policies
- Elementary and Secondary Education
- State Education Goals and Standards
- Testing Policies
- Student Achievement Standards
- High School Credential
- Alternative Education and Charter Schools
- Graduation Requirements
- Teacher Quality
- Teacher training and certification
- Teacher retention
- Emergency and Provisional License
- Teacher compensation
- School-to-Work Programs
- Community Schools
- Class and School Size
- Post-Secondary Education
- Student financial aid
- Need-based financial aid
- College Savings Plans
Table 7. Sample Family Economic Success Policy Cluster: Policies and Scoring Scheme (For Illustration Only)
| Policy Options |
Scoring Scheme |
Benchmark |
| TANF Index |
| Earned Income Tax Credit |
Non-refundable (-5); Refundable (5) %Refundable: < 10% fed eitc (1); 11-24% (3); >25% (5) |
10 |
| Child Care Subsidy |
Eligibility: <150% poverty (-5); <200% (0); >200% poverty (5)Co-pay: .10% family income (-5); 7-10% (0); <7% fam. income (5) |
0 |
| Individual Development Accounts |
State Match: none (0); < 1:1 (1); 1:1 to 2:1 (3); > 2:1 (5)Eligibility: <150% poverty (-5); <200% (0); >200% poverty (5) |
3 |
| TANF Index Benchmark |
13 |
| Home Ownership Index |
| Homebuyer Assistance |
None (-1); Some (4) |
4 |
| Housing Trust |
None (0); Some (4) |
4 |
| Circuit Breaker |
None (-2); Some (3) |
3 |
| Home Ownership Index Benchmark |
11 |
| |
| Microenterprise |
None (-1); TA services only (1); TA + small loans (3) |
3 |
| Family Insurance Coverage |
None (-5); <150% poverty (1); <200% (3); >200% (5) |
3 |
| Workforce Training and Placement Programs |
None (-5); Some (3) |
3 |
| Total Benchmark for Family Economic Self-Sufficiency Policies |
33 |
Bold items represent policy features and scores used in calculating total and index benchmarks.
Appendix A - Annotated List of Policy Report Card and Tracking Initiatives
National Report Cards.
The Family Violence Prevention Fund completes a report card of states' responses to domestic violence as a health care issue. State progress in passing laws in five areas - training, screening, protocols, reporting, and insurance - is assessed and reported for each state (The full report, State-by-State Report Card on Health Care Laws and Domestic Violence, is available at http://www.fvpf.org/statreport/).
Education Week's Quality Counts '99 is a state-by-state report card focusing on education policy. Specifically, Quality Counts '99 examines and grades states' progress in enacting educational accountability laws. (The full report, Quality Counts '99, is available at http://www.edweek.org/qc /).
Building in part on the Quality Counts '99 report, The Thomas B. Fordham Foundation publishes The State of State Standards report card. The State of the State Standards report grades and tracks state improvement in implementing solid academic standards and accountability policies. With reports produced in 1998 and 2000, Fordham Foundation's The State of the State Standards reports offer perhaps the best analysis of standards-based reform in education and the truest effort to set benchmarks for state progress in enacting standards. (The full report, The State of State Standards 2000 is available at www.edexcellence.net/library/soss2000/standards/).
Governing Magazine has produced two report cards on government management titled Grading the States and Grading the Cities. The Governing Magazine reports evaluate the management practices of state governments and the thirty-five largest U. S. cities. The report cards assign grades in five areas: financial management, human resources, information technology, capital management, and managing for results. (The full report cards are available at www.Governing.com).
National Policy Tracking Efforts
The National Center for Children in Poverty (NCCP) surveys state policy and practice initiatives in two areas - responsible fatherhood and initiatives for young children and families. Map and Track Fathers tracks five clusters of strategies states use to encourage responsible fatherhood: promoting public awareness; preventing unwanted too-early fatherhood; enhancing fathers as economic providers; strengthening fathers as nurturers; and promoting leadership capacity. Map and Track Young Children and Families tracks whether states are investing in comprehensive initiatives for young children, community mobilization and comprehensive programs, comprehensive programs only, or links between welfare reform and children's initiatives. Map and Track does not present any benchmarks or attempt an evaluation or grade of states' policies. Instead, Map and Track presents each state's "level of effort". Level of effort is defined as the number of strategy clusters used to promote responsible fatherhood or investments in young children and families. (The Map and Track reports are available at http://www.cpmcnet.columbia.edu/dept/nccp/MT99text.html).
Jointly operated by the Center for Law and Social Policy and the Center on Budget Policy and Priorities, the State Policy Documentation Project (SPDP) is a comprehensive source of information on states' Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) policies. SPDP tracks each states TANF cash assistance and Medicaid policy choices, but does not attempt any evaluation or ranking of state efforts. The primary goal of SPDP is to provide information on state policy choices. (The comprehensive project website is http://www.spdp.org).
One effort to rate states' child care policies is conducted annually by Working Mother magazine. Working Mother's National Child-Care Survey "focuses on the creation and expansion of pre-kindergarten programs, safety issues, lower child-to-adult ratios, inspections, and quality of care". The survey also assesses each state's commitment to child care by reporting how states have improved care over the preceding year. Exemplary states and policies are highlighted in the report, although no rankings or year-to-year comparisons are offered. (The current National Child-Care Survey is available at http://www.workingwoman.com).
The American Federation of Teachers annually publishes Making Standards Matter. Making Standards Matter tracks standards-based reform efforts in the United States. First published in 1995, Making Standards Matter analyzes states' progress in implementing academic standards, aligning assessments with standards, and aligning student incentives and consequences with standards. The report profiles state progress on these issues over the five-year period since its inception (1995-1999). Complete Making Standards Matter reports are available at www.aft.org/edissues/policybriefs/.
|
|
