The Every Child Matters Education Fund has released a report called "Geography Matters: Child Well-Being in the States." It assesses the vulnerability of children in all 50 states according to a dozen metrics.

As the mother of two small children in the Des Moines area, I had a particular interest in Iowa's ranking (seventh overall, mixed bag on the individual metrics).

But when I clicked on the page ranking all states in terms of "overall child vulnerability," one thing jumped out at me: the bottom 20 states all voted for George W. Bush in 2004. Of the top 20 states, only three voted for Bush (including Iowa, which he won by a very slim margin).

Follow me after the jump to learn the specific reasons that blue states are better places for children to be born and grow up.

The authors ranked the states according to the following metrics:

1. Infant Mortality Rates
   
2. Child Deaths
   
3. Teen Deaths
   
4. Teen Births
   
5. Prenatal Care
   
6. Child Poverty
   
7. Uninsured Children
   
8. Juvenile Incarceration
   
9. Child Abuse Fatalities
   
10. Child Welfare Spending
    
11. Overall Vulnerability Rank
    
12. Relationship of the Tax Burden to Overall Child Well-Being

On each page ranking the states, the report "shows how the top state compares to the  bottom state for each indicator, and how the top 10 states and bottom 10 states compare." For instance,

Children born in the bottom 10 states are 70% more likely to die before their first birthday than children  in the top 10.   In Louisiana, the infant mortality rate is more than twice as high than in Montana and Vermont.  

Children in the bottom 10 states are 2.8 times as likely to be uninsured as children in the top 10.   In Texas, a child is 5 times as likely to be uninsured as a child in Rhode Island.  

Overall, the report notes,

These vast differences between states reveal sharply reduced life-chances and opportunities for millions  of children. In states with the best outcomes a child is more likely to receive medical attention when ill, to  be protected from further assaults if sexually abused, to be treated for a mental illness rather than  incarcerated, and to receive the special help needed to finish high school.  

Again and again, red states dominate the bottom rankings, especially the red states that were in the Confederacy. Remember this the next time some Republican claims that the GOP stands for family values.

Incidentally, the Bible-belt red states also consistently have the highest divorce rates in the country. Although the report by the Every Child Matters Education Fund did not examine divorce rates, it's not surprising that states with high divorce rates would also have high levels of child poverty, for instance.

Why do so many red states, particularly in the deep south, have statistically worse outcomes for babies and children?

The report identifies seven factors that contribute to the disparities: poverty, race, education, political culture, taxes, weak federal policy, and declining federal investments. It also suggests various policy changes and questions people can ask candidates for elected office about matters that affect children's well-being.

I don't have any original analysis to add, but I highly recommend downloading the report if you care about these issues.

Before I end this diary, I wanted to share one thought that crossed my mind as I scanned the state rankings. Vermont ranks first overall, which reminded me of the first time I saw Howard Dean speak, at the Iowa Democratic Party's Jefferson-Jackson dinner in the fall of 2002.

He spent a lot of time talking about his record as governor of Vermont. I was really impressed by some of the policies he described. For instance, he enacted a policy whereby a social worker visited every mother of a newborn (regardless of socio-economic status) to look for red flags for abuse, neglect, or other problems in the household. The result was that within a decade, child abuse fell by a third, and I think child sexual abuse was reduced by something like 70 percent in Vermont.

As it turned out, Dean wasn't my first choice for president last cycle. But I always felt that he would have done much better in Iowa if he had talked more about his record of achievement as governor and not focused almost exclusively on the Iraq War and his people-powered movement in his television commercials.

I am sure that many state officials over many years have contributed to Vermont's policies that benefit children. But no doubt Howard Dean deserves quite a bit of credit too.

Just one more reason to be proud he is leading our party.