Posted by: Richie Bernardo

Caring means having intimate and human connection with others. And it can be expressed in multiple ways — from helping an elderly person cross the street to fighting a house fire. But certain parts of America put this into practice more than others.

As a whole, Americans have shown their care through charitable giving more and more. According to Giving USA, Americans donated over $390 billion in 2016, up 2.7% from the previous year. But even if you can’t afford to give away your income, there are plenty of other ways to show kindness to others.

In order to identify the areas that care the most, WalletHub compared the 100 largest cities across 36 key indicators of a compassionate spirit. Our data set ranges from share of sheltered homeless persons to number of volunteering hours per capita to share of income donated to charity. Continue reading below for the complete ranking, expert commentary and a full description of our methodology.

1. Main Findings
2. Ask the Experts
3. Methodology

Main Findings Embed on your website<iframe src="//d2e70e9yced57e.cloudfront.net/wallethub/embed/17814/geochart-caring.html" width="556" height="347" frameBorder="0" scrolling="no"></iframe> <div style="width:556px;font-size:12px;color:#888;">Source: <a href="http://ift.tt/2AUwvHf;

 

Most Caring Cities in America

Overall Rank*	City	Total Score	‘Caring for the Community’ Rank	‘Caring for the Vulnerable’ Rank	‘Caring in the Workforce’ Rank
1	Madison, WI	68.13	10	6	1
2	Virginia Beach, VA	63.73	6	17	23
3	Lincoln, NE	63.59	29	7	12
4	Boston, MA	63.52	1	35	25
5	Jersey City, NJ	63.00	4	42	14
6	Pittsburgh, PA	61.53	16	37	6
7	Chesapeake, VA	61.48	20	18	16
8	Fremont, CA	61.42	13	4	56
9	St. Paul, MN	61.17	35	43	3
10	Seattle, WA	60.90	9	14	50
11	San Francisco, CA	60.86	51	2	49
12	San Diego, CA	60.28	11	3	78
13	Colorado Springs, CO	60.18	19	13	34
14	San Jose, CA	59.98	3	9	93
15	Chicago, IL	59.96	21	21	30
16	Portland, OR	59.69	41	12	31
17	Scottsdale, AZ	59.25	48	1	73
18	Plano, TX	58.90	5	20	76
19	Irvine, CA	58.79	8	8	91
20	Minneapolis, MN	58.78	67	38	4
21	New York, NY	58.67	2	88	26
22	Gilbert, AZ	58.64	17	5	77
23	Washington, DC	58.56	34	40	22
24	Denver, CO	58.51	54	10	33
25	Aurora, CO	58.37	31	32	28
26	Philadelphia, PA	58.37	12	86	5
27	Omaha, NE	57.76	50	22	36
28	Durham, NC	57.73	30	76	2
29	Chula Vista, CA	57.24	7	25	80
30	Newark, NJ	57.13	24	74	13
31	Boise, ID	57.07	22	31	47
32	Chandler, AZ	56.80	36	11	65
33	Anchorage, AK	56.35	87	27	11
34	Honolulu, HI	56.23	44	54	27
35	Columbus, OH	56.17	28	57	37
36	Charlotte, NC	56.14	26	56	41
37	Anaheim, CA	55.60	23	16	89
38	Norfolk, VA	55.32	39	77	15
39	Los Angeles, CA	55.23	32	29	68
40	Nashville, TN	54.83	52	44	48
41	Kansas City, MO	54.56	60	64	24
42	Milwaukee, WI	54.40	40	89	9
43	Lexington-Fayette, KY	54.10	70	60	19
44	Cincinnati, OH	53.97	38	70	46
45	Raleigh, NC	53.89	68	45	38
46	Oklahoma City, OK	53.75	79	34	32
47	Mesa, AZ	53.72	43	36	69
48	Reno, NV	53.47	62	24	71
49	Irving, TX	53.30	15	62	79
50	Indianapolis, IN	53.28	84	49	20
51	Tampa, FL	53.10	49	52	60
52	Louisville, KY	52.98	72	53	40
53	Garland, TX	52.91	14	72	83
54	Santa Ana, CA	52.81	33	41	90
55	Oakland, CA	52.81	61	33	66
56	Sacramento, CA	52.72	69	19	75
57	Cleveland, OH	52.56	58	91	10
58	Long Beach, CA	52.21	47	50	74
59	Fort Worth, TX	52.19	27	59	84
60	Arlington, TX	52.19	18	69	82
61	Austin, TX	51.98	75	30	59
62	Fort Wayne, IN	51.91	55	75	35
63	Baltimore, MD	51.88	56	93	18
64	Toledo, OH	51.68	83	80	7
65	Riverside, CA	51.30	42	23	100
66	Henderson, NV	51.22	25	48	94
67	Jacksonville, FL	51.01	78	39	54
68	Wichita, KS	50.91	92	28	51
69	Buffalo, NY	50.59	74	96	8
70	Atlanta, GA	50.49	64	63	62
71	Phoenix, AZ	50.12	73	46	72
72	St. Petersburg, FL	50.08	65	67	60
73	Greensboro, NC	49.68	81	66	45
74	St. Louis, MO	49.64	96	61	17
75	Dallas, TX	49.44	45	82	81
76	New Orleans, LA	49.24	57	95	43
77	Bakersfield, CA	49.04	77	15	98
78	San Antonio, TX	48.62	76	68	57
79	Las Vegas, NV	48.46	59	55	94
80	Orlando, FL	48.38	90	26	87
81	Tucson, AZ	48.35	95	51	53
82	Fresno, CA	48.00	37	78	88
83	Corpus Christi, TX	47.85	82	73	52
84	Glendale, AZ	47.69	80	65	70
85	Tulsa, OK	47.67	100	58	44
86	Houston, TX	47.47	63	79	92
87	Albuquerque, NM	47.39	97	87	21
88	El Paso, TX	47.11	46	84	85
89	Baton Rouge, LA	46.67	93	92	29
90	Memphis, TN	46.43	98	71	42
91	North Las Vegas, NV	46.36	53	81	94
92	Hialeah, FL	45.95	71	97	63
93	Lubbock, TX	45.22	99	83	39
94	Miami, FL	45.13	88	85	63
95	Stockton, CA	44.99	89	47	99
96	Winston-Salem, NC	43.84	94	90	55
97	Birmingham, AL	42.85	86	98	58
98	San Bernardino, CA	41.45	85	94	97
99	Detroit, MI	41.33	91	99	67
100	Laredo, TX	37.86	66	100	86

No. 1 = Most Caring

 

Ask the Experts

Every now and then, we all need a helping hand. Sometimes that help must come from our local government and community. We asked a panel of experts for their ideas on how cities can provide the care that residents need and address other important challenges. Click on the experts’ profiles to read their bios and thoughts on the following key questions:

1. Should people who care for children or other relatives receive financial compensation from the government?
2. How can local authorities encourage citizens to be more caring?
3. Foster care has largely replaced orphanages in the United States. Is this trend good?
4. How can local communities strike the right balance between care services provided by the government versus nonprofits, charities and religious organizations?
5. How can cities design programs that care for people in need while also encouraging self-sufficiency?

< >

• Rukshan Fernando Associate Dean of the School of Behavioral and Applied Sciences at Azusa Pacific University
• Mary Dozier Amy E. du Pont Chair and Francis Alison Professor in the Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences at University of Delaware
• David C. Droppa Associate Professor and Director of the Social Work Program at Seton Hill University
• Trish Wonch Hill Research Assistant Professor of Sociology at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln
• Nadia Rubaii Associate Professor of Public Administration and Co-Director of the Institute for Genocide and Mass Atrocity Prevention at the Binghamton University
• Stephen Edward McMillin Assistant Professor of Social Work and Epidemiology in the College for Public Health and Social Justice at Saint Louis University
• Tanya M. Coakley Associate Professor of Social Work at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro
• Frank V. Zerunyan Professor of the Practice of Governance at the Sol Price School of Public Policy and Director of Executive Education at USC Price Bedrosian Center on Governance
• James Agbodzakey Associate Professor of Public Administration at Nova Southeastern University
• Vivek Sankaran Director and Clinical Professor of Law in the Child Advocacy Law Clinic at University of Michigan
• Matthew I. Fraidin Professor at the University of the District of Columbia David A. Clarke School of Law
• Alma J. Carten Associate Professor in the Silver School of Social Work at New York University
• Angelique Day Assistant Professor in the School of Social Work at Wayne State University

Rukshan Fernando Associate Dean of the School of Behavioral and Applied Sciences at Azusa Pacific University Should individuals who care for children or other relatives receive financial compensation from the government? Far too many children, especially those from communities of color, are placed in foster care as wards of the state. Recent research literature suggests that foster children placed in kinship care exhibit higher levels of psychological stability and well-being. As such, when the government provides financial support to relatives, children are better supported in these living environments. Moreover, living with relatives in a financially stable environment indicates that foster care youth are less likely to fall into negative behaviors and outcomes (e.g., homelessness, prostitution, substance abuse, etc.). How can local communities strike the right balance between care services provided by the government versus nonprofits, charities and religious organizations? It should be noted that only a small portion of tax revenues go to low-income populations in communities. In addition, government services are contracted out to for-profit and non-profit organizations. The outcomes of these organizations have been mixed over the past decade. Instead of focusing on the form and type of institutions which provide care services, local communities should concrete their resources on best practice organizations and “go where the good happens.” At the same time, effective care for the vulnerable needs to be a cross sector enterprise. Government, nonprofits and businesses need to collaborate as equal stakeholders in the care of a community’s citizenry. In addition, in many communities a faith community (church, mosque, temple, etc.) is the centerpiece of that community. Consequently, religious institutions are important forces of social capital, charity and well-being for many communities across the nation. To ignore or minimize the role of religious organizations by the government would be a significant mistake. How can cities design programs that care for people in need while also encouraging self-sufficiency? Cities must develop programs which are most appropriate to the specific organizational context. For example, businesses are now involved in social good through a number of socially responsible initiatives. This should be encouraged and expanded. Religious organizations, both locally and nationally, should develop collaborations with other nonprofits to develop projects which create social and spiritual good. The government, using a number of federal, state and local funding streams should develop and expand tax credit incentives for companies interested in community and economic development. Finally, the city government, instead of being a space primarily for regulation and compliance, becomes a convener of public-private partnerships between governments, nonprofits and for-profits. What are the top 5 metrics for measuring a caring city? While I would avoid using a “top 5” metrics list, I would recommend that the level of “caring” in a city is judged based on its performance with the human development index. The human development index is a composite measure, which explains the level to which people in a city are freely able to achieve their full “capability.” Therefore, the index analyzes a person’s economic well-being and their educational, physical, and social well-being. While the human development index is used to measure such metrics in a country, it can be applied to a city. I believe that its use in communities would give the public a holistic picture of a citizen’s well-being in a city as opposed to a city’s median income, school rankings, crime rates, etc. While these metrics are helpful tools to measuring a caring city, we don’t obtain a comprehensive picture of “care” in a city. Mary Dozier Amy E. du Pont Chair and Francis Alison Professor in the Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences at University of Delaware Should individuals who care for children or other relatives receive financial compensation from the government? Yes. Foster care has largely replaced orphanages in the United States. Is this trend a good thing? Absolutely. Orphanages are known to have problematic effects on children across a range of domains. How can local communities strike the right balance between care services provided by the government versus nonprofits, charities and religious organizations? It is critical that government funded agencies be adequately funded to provide necessary services. David C. Droppa Associate Professor and Director of the Social Work Program at Seton Hill University Should individuals who care for children or other relatives receive financial compensation from the government? Complicated. If they can only do this if they receive compensation, and if their care would be compassionate, and if they would promote the kids to aspire and learn, yes. But how do we assess that? Assuming those things are in place, then the cost of compensating those individuals will be lower than the cost of residential placement, so it would save the government money, so yes from that perspective. But being in a caring and firm environment that values diversity and promotes aspiration and education trumps cost savings. How can local authorities encourage citizens to be more caring? They can be compassionate themselves as role models, and promote policies that encourage caring, but caring comes from early development, from one's own parents and relatives. Government can provide early childhood education and support for families that are poor or otherwise challenged. It can provide effective and caring treatment to people who face difficulties, from abused and neglected kids to prisoners, and thus promote effective parenting. Foster care has largely replaced orphanages in the United States. Is this trend a good thing? It's a reality. Orphanages were better than most of the alternatives at the time, but congregate care (more than eight kids in a home) has lots of problems. So the trend toward foster care is definitely good, but the trend away from group homes and keeping kids at home or putting them in foster care has limitations. Not all kids can tolerate the closeness of a foster family. Government is trying to phase out group homes because they are more expensive than foster are, but if a kid fails in foster home after foster home, group home might be more effective. Also, government is trying to limit time in group homes and move kids into independent living before they are ready, to save money. Most kids who have histories of abuse and neglect are not healed in a few months, and many can't survive in independent living without harming themselves. Well run group homes can be an answer for many, but seriously damaged kids need to develop trust and therefore heal over time; they don't just snap out of it. Also, paying staff in group home poverty wages will never attract the kind of compassionate, firm people that these kids need to heal. We pay someone to program $80-90,000 starting; we pay a residential counselor who is to parent a kid - who will at first hate them before they begin to heal - $22,000. That is just wrong. How can local communities strike the right balance between care services provided by the government versus nonprofits, charities and religious organizations? Most care, if you mean residential care, is provided by nonprofits, not government; government funds and monitors it, except for some government child protective service organizations that still provide rather than contract for foster care. In my experience, they both do pretty well most of the time, so whatever balance a local community has is OK. How can cities design programs that care for people in need while also encouraging self-sufficiency? There is no conflict between them. Providing compassionate, effective services for people in need means that they are being prepared for self-sufficiency. You can't, however, promote self-sufficiency for someone who is severely damaged (by abandonment, abuse, neglect, addiction, etc.) until they are substantially through the healing process. What are the top 5 metrics for measuring a caring city? You could start with compassionate teachers in public schools, police who listen and intervene in compassionate ways rather than harsh, confrontational ones, judges who actually know about child development and family dynamics who consider the needs of the child rather than split kids 50/50 with parents that may or may not be parental, and on and on. Trish Wonch Hill Research Assistant Professor of Sociology at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln Should individuals who care for children or other relatives receive financial compensation from the government? Caregiving is critical to a healthy functioning society - without it, society would collapse in squalor and the sick, elderly, mothers and their children, would suffer greatly. Humans need cared for, and our most vulnerable populations are at risk without caregiving. Caregiving has historically been done by women, and because of that, it is unpaid and undervalued. Although it’s considered a labor of love, no one would deny that caregiving costs time, money and resources. Yet we expect people do it for free, and often it interferes with the paid labor people must do to survive. Therefore, society, through payroll taxes, should compensate people for caregiving for a newborn, sick, or dying family member. Similarly, our tax dollars should be spend on health and human services agencies and schools, which are often underfunded. How can local authorities encourage citizens to be more caring? I don’t know if people need encouragement to care, I think we all care about the people and animals we love. The problem is that this is devalued because it isn’t profitable, and so instead, people are overburdened, working long hours or two or three jobs to survive, and our relationships, our civic engagement and caring take a back seat to paid work. Foster care has largely replaced orphanages in the United States. Is this trend a good thing? There is absolutely no doubt that children need nurturing and a home like environment where they can build strong bonds, and maintain bonds with their biological family while they are in foster care. Orphanages or group homes have consistently been shown to have negative outcomes for youth in them, compared to youth in foster care. How can local communities strike the right balance between care services provided by the government versus nonprofits, charities and religious organizations? There is no substitute for the government agencies that provide critical services for our most vulnerable. Nonprofits and charities can only provide resources to these critical government agencies. How can cities design programs that care for people in need while also encouraging self-sufficiency? I don’t think that programs that care for people discourage self-sufficiency. Most people, if given the right kind of supports and work that provides a living wage, prefer to be self-sufficient and to contribute to a greater good. All people want to be self-sufficient. What are the top 5 metrics for measuring a caring city? To care for our most vulnerable, this includes the elderly, sick and disabled, children, and economically disadvantaged.

1. The first would be the number of government agency workers in child welfare (child protective services), in services for the disabled and elderly (adult protective services), services for the developmentally disabled, and their caseload size and successful outcomes.

2. Additionally, the number of non-profits (religious or secular), including drug treatment centers, food banks, homeless shelters, youth outreach programs, health centers, child advocacy agencies and counseling services, community centers; the number of people they serve compared to the size of the city, and if they have waiting lists.

3. Affordability and quality of local healthcare facilities, including services for those without insurance. This includes accessibility.

4. The number of men and women who are able to take paid leave from work to care for a newborn or adopted child or a sick relative.

5. Finally, the number of charitable donations people give and volunteer hours worked on average by people in those communities.

Nadia Rubaii Associate Professor of Public Administration and Co-Director of the Institute for Genocide and Mass Atrocity Prevention at the Binghamton University Should individuals who care for children or other relatives receive financial compensation from the government? While this is an important goal and one that is philosophically logical in order to recognize the value that these services provide to society as a whole, not simply the individual families, it is not the highest priority for the use of government tax dollars. Before that, we need to address problems in our systems of education and health care which require a large investment of public resources, and we need wholescale reform of our unjust criminal justice and immigration systems. How can local authorities encourage citizens to be more caring? Local government officials have a responsibility to develop a welcoming and inclusive climate for all who reside within their jurisdictions. Encouraging citizens to be more caring begins by demonstrating caring within the local government at all levels. Local government authorities can also promote more dialogue among residents. People care for others when they know them and respect them as individuals and as human beings, rather than as members of a group who can be depersonalized and dehumanized. Foster care has largely replaced orphanages in the United States. Is this trend a good thing? As intended, foster care is a dramatic improvement over the system of orphanages. Children deserve to be raised within families and homes, not in institutions. That said, the foster care system is underfunded and overtaxed and thus is less than ideal. Foster care needs to be considered as part of a larger system of family support, which also allows individuals to terminate unwanted pregnancies, to have childcare so that parents can work and earn enough to support their children, or provides compensation to allow them to raise their own children. How can local communities strike the right balance between care services provided by the government versus nonprofits, charities and religious organizations? A community’s culture of caring extends beyond the services provided directly by a local government. It is less important who provides the services and more important that the services are provided. Whether government provides the services or provides resources to nonprofits who in turn provide the services is not the issue. Local governments need to provide resources to support the service provision. Nonprofits should not have to rely on individual donors to provide basic social services. In deciding which actor should provide the services, the key criteria should be which institution has the capacity to provide services of the highest quality and to all those in need. How can cities design programs that care for people in need while also encouraging self-sufficiency? They need to talk to the people who are in need of services and not assume that there is a one-size-fits-all solution. The overwhelming majority of adults want to be self-sufficient. Cities (and other levels of government) need to stop making policy decisions designed to prevent or respond to abuses by the small fraction of individuals who try to take advantage of the system. We need to treat service recipients as individuals deserving of respect. Cities need to get to know their residents and clients as people and ask them what they most need in order to become more self-sufficient. For some it will be temporary housing, for others it will be job training, and for others still it may be childcare. What are the top 5 metrics for measuring a caring city?

1. Ambitious social equity goals and resources invested to achieve them (for example, cities should be committed to eliminating homelessness and hunger, not simple reducing those problems).

2. How persons of color are treated by law enforcement (cities need to be proactive and not reactive to racial discrimination).

3. The extent to which immigrants are integrated in the community and treated with dignity and respect.

4. Children’s sense of security in the schools.

5. Continued integration of elderly residents as valued members of the community.

Stephen Edward McMillin Assistant Professor of Social Work and Epidemiology in the College for Public Health and Social Justice at Saint Louis University Should individuals who care for children or other relatives receive financial compensation from the government? It is certainly important not to discriminate against relative caregivers when the family member receiving care would otherwise qualify for a paid caregiver. The practice of paid caregiving developed in the U.S. is part because there were sometimes bizarre situations where family members were ideally positioned to provide care but were not treated the same as unrelated caregivers. There is no one-size-fits-all answer here. We don't look at income tax deductions or property tax abatements as "financial compensation from the government," but clearly they are. We as a society need to reflect on why we are so skeptical about lower-income families receiving "financial compensation from the government," when multinational corporations and higher-income individuals (and I include myself here among the latter) receive financial advantages through the tax code that are barely even noticed. How can local authorities encourage citizens to be more caring? Local authorities can encourage citizens to be more caring by clearly and unambiguously focusing on social justice, social innovation, and social entrepreneurship. I am always shocked when I hear people mock "social justice warriors" and denigrate the concept - social justice, civic engagement, and civil society go to the very roots of how we live together in peace and brotherhood. We need our leaders to offer a full-throated and unambiguous defense of social justice and other basic concepts of a fair and just society. We also need our civic leaders to offer opportunities for social innovation and entrepreneurship - encouraging our business leaders to use their economic know-how to innovate and reform the economic landscape so that all of civil society benefits. There is enormous, burgeoning interest in the business community to engage in commerce in ways that produce social benefit. Local authorities need to feed this interest and harness the good will of the business community to achieve social goals that touch every member of the community. When social impact across the economic sector becomes the norm, citizens will be more caring. How can local communities strike the right balance between care services provided by the government versus nonprofits, charities and religious organizations? I teach my students to be "agnostic" regarding the tax status of health and social service providers. There are highly efficient public sector agencies as well as less efficient government agencies, passionately generous for-profit firms as well as ruthlessly selfish ones, and cutting edge, state of the art nonprofit organizations as well as nonprofits stuck in the past. Tax status alone tells you little, and all service providers should be evaluated according to their achievements. Certainly, any organization enjoying a tax-exempt status should be providing services that justify this exemption. However, a bigger concern is likely the spate of tax credits being offered to for-profit firms with very little evaluation or follow-up as to whether these firms created value in proportion to their tax breaks. Local communities that fail to follow up on tax breaks and credits are in effect making generous donations to for-profit businesses and diverting money away from more worthy organizations of any tax status that can achieve demonstrable outcomes. How can cities design programs that care for people in need while also encouraging self-sufficiency? Cities encourage self-sufficiency when they recognize the intense, passionate desire most people in need have to be self-sufficient and independent. The best programs recognize that people in need want to work and care for themselves and their families, and these cities design humane work programs that engage people in need and help them get back into the labor market by giving them greater security that keeps them employed. If you are working two 30-hour jobs a week and taking buses to get to them, the deck is stacked against you also taking care of your kids and seeing your doctor and doing all the other things that salaried professionals don't think twice about. Reducing insecurity - food insecurity, housing insecurity, childcare insecurity, transportation insecurity - is what keeps people receiving care gainfully employed. Tanya M. Coakley Associate Professor of Social Work at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro Should individuals who care for children or other relatives receive financial compensation from the government? It is essential to provide relatives financial support when they demonstrate the courage to step in and rescue a child from a dire situation. Some relatives who formally apply to become a kinship caregiver or foster parent will receive financial compensation and services to support a child’s development and success. However, relatives (i.e., informal kinship caregivers) often raise a family member’s child without compensation, training or support, and as a result many incur financial burden. Children’s healthy development is dependent on their receiving of proper nutrition and shelter, and emotional support. Basic needs such as these should not be jeopardized because of parents’ inability to care for them or because of relative caregivers’ socio-economic status. How can local authorities encourage citizens to be more caring? When local authorities lead by example, they can inspire citizens to be more caring and compassionate towards others, especially those who are less fortunate or those who have historically been excluded from social and political processes. Specifically, leadership requires that those in authority, such as policymakers, police officials, and well respected community leaders, conduct business in the highest quality to serve its citizens. This would entail demonstrating inclusive practices with cultural minorities, as well as creating an opportunity for all citizens to be heard and valued. Foster care has largely replaced orphanages in the United States. Is this trend a good thing? The foster care system addresses a critical and urgent need. Unlike orphanages, the primary goal of foster care is to provide temporary living arrangements for children in need when their parents are not able or not willing to care for them safely. The foster care system typically works with various organizations such as orphanages, whether private or nonprofit, to ensure that children have permanent, safe homes. Though it might vary across states, these organizations might assist families with adopting foster children or facilitate parent-child visits, or provide other needed services that might lead to adoption. Thus, it is a good idea to have a variety of helping organizations that work with the foster care system. An advantage that the foster care program has is that while protecting children from neglectful or abusive situations, there is also an opportunity to strengthen families by providing resources, support services before they are reunited with their children. This gives the parent time to address any safety concerns, which led to the child being put at risk and entering foster care. How can cities design programs that care for people in need while also encouraging self-sufficiency? Before cities design programs for people who are in need, they must first partner with them or a respected community leader who represents those citizens’ views and wishes. When people in need have a vested interest in the program’s success, they are likely to participate and share their ideas about how well the program is running and what changes are needed to improve it. Citizens should have a role in the program’s development, implementation and evaluation to ensure it is effective and serves the community well. What are the top 5 metrics for measuring a caring city?

• Less homelessness

• Less joblessness

• Variety of governmental and community resources to help individuals and families become financially self-sufficient

• Programs and opportunities to enhance children’s academic and social development

• Safety of citizens

Frank V. Zerunyan Professor of the Practice of Governance at the Sol Price School of Public Policy and Director of Executive Education at USC Price Bedrosian Center on Governance How can local communities strike the right balance between care services provided by the government versus nonprofits, charities and religious organizations? This is an arena where intersectoral collaboration will likely be the most efficient and effective tool for county and city governments. While the not for profit or NGO community driven by a specific mission is best suited to handle this care, government must be a very important partner to facilitate care or the notion of being caring. Dynamic leadership by local public officials can educate and humanize the necessity to care for children at various stages of their lives. One such leader was the former Los Angeles County Supervisor Don Knabe, who started and advocated for the “Safe Surrender Program” - the safe surrender of unwanted infants in Los Angeles County. First5LA and many organizations like it use the collaborative formula to tackle early childhood policy issues to elevate child care and education to keep children away from poverty, prostitution, drug-use and crime. Finally, collaborative projects tend to welcome innovation and reject bureaucracy, which may impede the progress of care in our cities and counties. James Agbodzakey Associate Professor of Public Administration at Nova Southeastern University Should individuals who care for children or other relatives receive financial compensation from the government? It depends. I do not think government should be compensating individuals and/or family members for expected family roles. However, if it has to do with issues of disability, other medical concerns etc., that fall within the domain of government support for needed services - then of course, it should be acceptable for government to pay a qualified family member who can render such service(s). How can local authorities encourage citizens to be more caring? I presume caring here entails taking care of one another or looking out for one another. For the most part, people are caring and/or have the capacity to care for one another. I think promoting efforts that enhance the collective good and/or common humanity could help. For instance, encouraging citizens to support local nonprofits - financially, volunteer for meaningful social programs, join civil society groups, participate in City Hall deliberations, and other collaborative engagements at the local level could help provide needed services to citizens, and by doing so advance the common good, especially, for the benefit of the "Average Joe." Foster care has largely replaced orphanages in the United States. Is this trend a good thing? I think so. Foster care promotes integrated family life unlike orphanages that create some delineation in terms of a sense of community. So long as the foster care efforts are done within the contours of established guidelines/frameworks, it should continue to positively serve society. How can local communities strike the right balance between care services provided by the government versus nonprofits, charities and religious organizations? I think it entails avoiding duplication of efforts, collaboration/partnership in common service areas, support for entities providing essential services (if possible), regular communication among various sectors/service providers, etc. How can cities design programs that care for people in need while also encouraging self-sufficiency? It should be done within the context of promoting social justice (i.e., ex-ante and ex-post equality). Furthermore, there should be mechanisms/measures to ensure that a particular program/policy initiative does not promote dependency in the medium-long term. Having reasonable rules/regulations and empowering street-level bureaucrats to effectively implement such measures could help. What are the top 5 metrics for measuring a caring city?

• A city that is intentional as it relates to providing beneficial social services to citizens, especially, to the "Average Joe".

• A city that is family-oriented: provides facilities/amenities-parks and recreation, etc.

• A city that implements citizen-centered governance-embraces various segments of the population in decision-making.

• A city that benchmarks best practices.

• A city that provides optimal security to residents and/or is relentless in ensuring safety of residents.

Vivek Sankaran Director and Clinical Professor of Law in the Child Advocacy Law Clinic at University of Michigan Should individuals who care for children or other relatives receive financial compensation from the government? Yes. We all know that raising children is incredibly costly. As a society, we need to take every measure necessary  including providing financial support for those caring for children  to ensure that the basic needs of all children are met. How can local authorities encourage citizens to be more caring? First, local authorities can work towards creating relationships between families in need and those with resources. We need to ensure that all parents  regardless of their income  have the support they need to raise children. This could take the form of creating programs to provide financial support to families, or providing them with assistance to address specific needs. Second, local authorities can create programs to give options for others to temporarily care for children while a family works through a crisis. An example of such a program is the Safe Families for Children Program, which gives families in need the option to temporarily place their children with host families while they work through a crisis. While this is happening, other members of the community wrap the family with services so that children can be returned home quickly. Finally, if kids must be placed outside the home, communities must ensure that those caring for children receive the financial support they need to ensure that the basic needs of children are being met. For example, some communities have established subsidies for relatives caring for their kin, even when the children aren't in foster care. Foster care has largely replaced orphanages in the United States. Is this trend a good thing? Yes. Children deserve to be with families, not in institutions. Rather than placing children in institutions, we should support birth parents, foster parents and relatives by giving them the financial assistance they need and the additional supports they require, such as day care, medical assistance, and educational assistance. Not only are institutions costly, they have never been found to promote good outcomes for children. How can local communities strike the right balance between care services provided by the government versus nonprofits, charities and religious organizations? At its core, the government has the responsibility to meet the basic needs of all of its citizens, including children. Nonprofits and others can supplement that basic level of government support by meeting the additional needs of children, such as costs for extracurricular activities or anything beyond the necessities of what the government can or will provide. What are the top 5 metrics for measuring a caring city?

• Subsidies given to low-income birth parents caring for children.

• Subsidies given to relatives and other non-parents caring for children.

• Length of time that parents or others can receive subsidies for caring for children.

• Surveys of how supported families feel by their local government.

• Surveys of how supported families feel by their local community.

Matthew I. Fraidin Professor at the University of the District of Columbia David A. Clarke School of Law Should individuals who care for children or other relatives receive financial compensation from the government? Yes. Parents long have looked out for their children’s best interests by turning to family members to take care of the children in times of need, whether due to the parent’s illness, addiction, relocation, incarceration, military service, or other career needs. Currently, under some circumstances, family members who care for children of other family members are legally entitled to a modicum of financial support in the form of small monthly payments under the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program. Those essential payments are tiny, and go only a fraction of the way toward addressing the costs of raising children. In addition, when the state removes children from their parents’ care, under some circumstances, relatives who step forward to take in the children are legally entitled to monthly financial support payments, like those available to all foster parents. Especially for relatives unexpectedly caring for children who have experienced the trauma of being separated from their parents, siblings, schools, friends, and communities, these payments can be essential in addressing the children’s needs. At the same time, we harm many, many children every year by insisting that kinship caregivers satisfy the same technical standards applied to non-kinship foster parents. Children often remain in foster care unnecessarily with strangers because their grandmothers, aunts, uncles, or grown siblings reside in homes that don’t quite meet the stringent square-footage requirements of foster care regulations, or because a relative had a long-ago brush with the law or child services. In my experience, children ordinarily would prefer to sleep on the floor of Grandma’s apartment than on silk sheets in a stranger’s foster home. Foster care has largely replaced orphanages in the United States. Is this trend a good thing? The problem with an argument promoting foster care over institutions is that foster care itself is overused; there is abundant evidence that many children are taken from their families without being in danger, and the vast majority of even maltreated children have better life outcomes if simply left at home, rather than being taken and housed in foster care. For the few children whose lives would improve if taken from their families, kinship care — residing with relatives or friends — is the least-bad option. For a child without family or other community resources, family-foster care (i.e., living in a home with a family previously unknown to the child) is a less-bad option than group homes and institutions. The outcomes for institutionalized children are worse, and the rates of abuse in congregate care are higher. Unfortunately, however, the orphanage never went away. The institutions just rebranded themselves as residential treatment centers. The most recent federal data show that, as of Sept. 30, 2015, 14 percent of foster children were in a group home or an institution. And that underestimates the total, since many children will pass through a group home or institution at some point during their time in foster care. (I don’t know of any figure estimating that total.) There is no evidence that group homes or other institutions do any good, and considerable evidence that they do harm. How can cities design programs that care for people in need while also encouraging self-sufficiency? How can local authorities encourage citizens to be more caring? How can local communities strike the right balance between care services provided by the government versus nonprofits, charities and religious organizations? These important goals are met by time exchanges, such as Time Banking, which use untapped resources to address society's vast unmet needs. Members of a time exchange share their skills with other members, and benefit from the skills other members bring to bear for them. For example, if I can cut hair and you can weed a garden, and one of our neighbors loves to teach kids arts and crafts, and another can drive her car to help on grocery runs, we are building a supportive network that fills in the gaps left by the diaspora of families and fragmentary governmental programs that don’t do enough. When I need help, I get it from one of you; when you need what I can do, I give it. In the process, we build social capital, honor each other’s hidden talents, and reknit the fabric of our community by valuing the contributions each makes in pursuit of a better tomorrow. In Chicago, 8th graders in special education tutor help first graders in math. In Washington, D.C., ex-offenders watch over children making their way to school in the morning. Time exchanges recognize our untapped wealth by valuing what each of us can do for each other, and in the process, remind us of our abilities, not our limitations. City, state, and federal governments can promote and support time exchanges by providing the small seed funding required for community members to reach out to each other, collect lists of the skills and talents each can contribute to the others, and operate those exchanges. What are the top 5 metrics for measuring a caring city? Do they require employers to pay a living wage? Do they have less income inequality than the average for cities? Do they invest in affordable housing, child care, and good public schools? How well do they avoid placing children in foster care? Alma J. Carten Associate Professor in the Silver School of Social Work at New York University Should individuals who care for children or other relatives receive financial compensation from the government? Yes, that in fact is now established in law - it reduces the trauma of placement on the child. The kinship program establishes in law that relatives who are caring for the children of kin should be the first placement choice for the child(ren), and relative caretakers are entitled to the same rate of reimbursement as non-relative foster parents. Similarly, the Fostering Connections Act also provides adoption subsidies for relatives who adopt the children of kin when the birth parent is not able to care for the child. Also, AFDC (now TANF) allows for a child only grant. I support these policies since in many instances, these relatives are grandparents who are on a fixed income, and many of the birth parents are mentally ill or have other problems that prevent them from providing a safe, nurturing home for their children. If the government did not step in, the children would be innocent victims, and at risk of many problems that they will carry into their adult lives - In the case of the children, an ounce of prevention is worth of pound of cure! How can local authorities encourage citizens to be more caring? Americans are and always have been a very caring people. When citizen's taxpayer dollars are being used to pay for social programs, local authorities need to demonstrate that these programs are effective, are based in science or the best available knowledge about helping strategies that work in solving social problems and achieving the most desirable outcomes. When citizens have hard evidence, they are more willing to support social problems financially; and are also more likely to be faithful volunteers, when they receive training, given clear assignment, made to feel that they are appreciated for the volunteer work that they do. Foster care has largely replaced orphanages in the United States. Is this trend a good thing? Yes, and now we need to reduce foster care and promote services and programs that keep children out of foster care and in their own homes. The evolving science has informed us that children fare best when raised in their own homes by their own parents, when that was not possible then foster care was the next best alternative in providing a nurturing substitute family home. See the concept of the least restrictive environment in making placement decisions in child welfare. It was subsequently learned from the research that foster care evolved to become a system for the care of children of the poor, and many were unnecessarily removed from their own homes not because of abuse/or neglect but because their parents where poor. See for example the orphan trains, that removed the children or poor immigrants and sent them out west to learn habits and values that promoted self-sufficiency. Foster care in essence carried forward this tradition of "rescue and punishment." Recent policy changes, like the 1980 Adoptions Assistance and Child Welfare Reform Act, and 1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act were enacted to reverse the trend of the overuse of foster care, and encourage the use of preventive services to keep children safely in their own homes. This approach is in keeping with the principle established by the first White House Conference on children in 1909 that recognized the importance of home life for children in the assertion that no child should be removed from their own homes for the reason of poverty alone. How can local communities strike the right balance between care services provided by the government versus nonprofits, charities and religious organizations? Our current formula of shared funding for social programs by federal, city and state governments is a good one. In my thinking it is the federal government alone that has the "imminence" of power to protect the general welfare and promote the common good. Therefore, there are some programs established under New Deal that have become the "safety net programs" that provide income protection for people at vulnerable periods - childhood, disability and old age. See also FDR Four Freedoms speech - freedom from want. The federal government is responsible for keeping that safety net in place, and should be expected to do more because of the imminence of power and ability to tax. The Social Service Block Grant established under Reagan give states the right to design their own programs since needs differ over various states and jurisdiction - also a good thing for the most part. Since government funds are limited and tend to provide the basics, nonprofits should step in to enhance these basics, fill the gap, and religious organizations typically take care of their own. We do have the right mix, but achieving a balance may be more complex since carrying out the mission of these care organizations have unfortunately become highly politicized, competitive and may pursue covert goals - often creating service gaps, service duplication, fragmentation, under-utilization, to name a few. How can cities design programs that care for people in need while also encouraging self-sufficiency? Design programs that are non-stigmatizing and encourage feelings of affiliation and belonging vs. difference and shame. David Ellwood articulated that quite elegantly in his 1988 book, Poor Support, in his discussion of the conundrum of American social welfare. I also comment on this in my book that examines US social welfare developments over a fifty-year period. American social programs for the poor have largely been shaped by capitalistic values that favor individualism, self-reliance, family privacy and limited role of the federal government. This ideology takes a negative view of human behavior in the assumption that if people can get something for nothing than that is what they will opt for - and the worst thing that can be done in a society based in a capitalist economy is to reduce the motivation to work. As a social worker, a profession anchored in democratic values, I take a more positive view of human nature, and assume that unless people have been made to feel "less than" because they have been labeled as "the other", most want to take care of themselves and their family, and want to be engaged in meaningful, purposeful work. Work makes it possible for people to meet material needs as well as those that are more existential in nature. Most public assistance programs have been stigmatizing, using crippling strategies vs. those that promoted feelings of belonging, self-efficacy, and self-worth. The 1988 Family Support Act was a good start in taking a new approach by putting in place transitional benefits, but was too quickly replaced by the 1996 welfare reform law that mirrored the Contract with America component of personal responsibility that took an even more punitive approach. An important point to make - America is the only Western society that does not have a coherent national family policy. Unsurprisingly, the US also has the highest child poverty rates in comparison to other wealthy nations. Child poverty rates are re consistently highest for African American children that call attention to the implications of race in the design of US care programs. What are the top 5 metrics for measuring a caring city? Tough to name top 5 since does capture the interactive effects of each on overall well-being of the individual, family and the collective community. As a social worker, I take the person in the environment approach. Metrics are needed that measure the well-being of the various age groupings of residents over the full life cycle. These should include measures across many life domains including material well-being, as well as indicators of subjective well-being that includes mental health and life satisfactions, and maybe even a happiness metric! Cannot name the top 5, but these might be among those of a caring city - income/social equity; the availability of health, education and social welfare programs of high quality that are easily accessible and available to all segments of the city's population; a pollutant free environment/sanitation; amenities like public parks and recreational facilities, libraries; and strong infrastructures that include employment opportunities, communication, transportation networks, and community policing. Angelique Day Assistant Professor in the School of Social Work at Wayne State University Should individuals who care for children or other relatives receive financial compensation from the government? Absolutely. When grandparents and other relatives step up to care for children, they provide a family alternative that is less traumatizing for children than stranger based foster care, and these placements often lead to better child well-being outcomes. These relatives do not plan in advance for these unforeseen opportunities. Caring for minor children is a costly endeavor, and without support, can put a strain on one's current financial resources, can negatively impact retirement planning, and can even impact one's current housing situation. For example, grandparents living in senior housing are not allowed to care for minor children in that housing environment, and that necessitates a move to a larger and more expensive housing situation. Financial stability is strongly correlated with lower familial stress, and families who live in lower stressed households have better outcomes than those who don't. Relative caregivers provide a cost-effective alternative to stranger-based care settings. We owe them a great debt of gratitude for taking on this responsibility. The children they are caring for are our society's future. How can local authorities encourage citizens to be more caring? Often times, the stories covered by media depict the department of human services in a negative light through coverage of stories that portray crisis, such as a child death. Coverage of more stories about the child welfare department in a positive light and coverage of families who are doing well would go along in encouraging other citizens to be more caring. Foster care has largely replaced orphanages in the United States. Is this trend a good thing? Children in institutional care, such as an orphanage, are almost certain to have fewer interpersonal interactions with caring adults that support their well-being, including the chance to develop close relationships with a significant individual who will make a permanent, lasting, legal and meaningful commitment to them. From an educational perspective, the opportunity to provide educational instruction with individualized attention has shown not to be consistently realized. This is in part to the fact that these types of settings have high levels of structure, which make it difficult to allow children to pursue their individual development in academic and extra-curricular activities. From a fiscal standpoint, the cost of group care settings far exceed those for family based foster care settings. Since there is virtually no evidence that these additional expenses result in better outcomes for children, there is no cost-benefit justification for group care models when other types of placements are available. How can local communities strike the right balance between care services provided by the government versus nonprofits, charities and religious organizations? Public and private partnerships are wonderful and a key to success for child welfare involved children, youth and families. We will always need both; different communities have differing capacities to provide private programming opportunities. I don't think there is a magic formula here. How can cities design programs that care for people in need while also encouraging self-sufficiency? Cities have not historically been in the role of human service program design, rather that has been the role of federal and state entities. I think the strongest cities are those that have built strong relationships with their state and federal government institutions and are savvy in filling in gaps in public programming utilizing relationships in the local private industry. These relationships could be with corporate or foundation industries. Coupled with the building of strong safety net programs, cities should be investing in their job training infrastructure, including 2 year, 4 year colleges and vocational training institutions to ensure that majors offered to residents are those that can fill the gap in improving the city's infrastructure. Access to adequate safety net programs that do not prematurely expire before an individual has completed their job training goals and secured stable, meaningful employment that pays a living wage is critical. Safety net programs that require frequent reapplication can delay goal attainment, and for some, indefinitely. What are the top 5 metrics for measuring a caring city?

1. How many units of safe, affordable housing by percent of the population do cities have?

2. Does the city have adequate, affordable quality childcare to meet the demands of the city's residents? (minimal wait lists; adequate number of providers who accept state child care subsidies)

3. Does the city offer high quality public schools with access to before and after school and summer programs?

4. Does the city offer access to reliable and safe public transportation opportunities for its residents?

5. Does the city boast a low unemployment rate and access to training programs designed to prepare city residents for job opportunities in the city? This includes partnerships with two and four year colleges and other post-secondary vocational institutions. The extent that programs are built on universal vs needs based principles also ensures that a greater proportion of the city's residents knows about the programs and how to access them.

Methodology

In order to determine the most caring cities in America, WalletHub compared the 100 most populated cities across three key dimensions: 1) Caring for the Community, 2) Caring for the Vulnerable and 3) Caring in the Workforce.

We then evaluated those dimensions using 36 relevant metrics, which are listed below with their corresponding weights. Each metric was graded on a 100-point scale, with 100 representing the highest level of caring. Data for metrics marked with an asterisk (*) were available only at the state level. For metrics marked with two asterisks (**), we used the square root of the population to calculate the population size in order to avoid overcompensating for minor differences across cities.

Finally, we determined each city’s weighted average across all metrics to calculate its total score and used the resulting scores to rank-order our sample.

In determining our sample, we considered only the city proper in each case and excluded cities in the surrounding metro area.

Caring for the Community – Total Points: 40

• Violent Crime Rate: Double Weight (~4.00 Points)
• Property Crime Rate: Double Weight (~4.00 Points)
• Alcohol-Impaired Fatalities per Capita: Full Weight (~2.00 Points)
• Driving Fatalities per Capita: Full Weight (~2.00 Points)
• Pedestrian Fatality Rate: Full Weight (~2.00 Points)
• Care for the Environment: Full Weight (~2.00 Points)Note: The percentage of workers who carpool was used for this metric.
• WalletHub “Energy Efficiency” Ranking: Half* Weight (~1.00 Point)Note: This metric is based on WalletHub’s “Most & Least Energy Efficient States ranking.”
• Social Ties: Full Weight (~2.00 Points)Note: This metric is based on responses to Sharecare’s RealAge® Test and was used in our analysis to highlight the places where relationships with family and friends are strongest and therefore likely to result in a positive effect on a person’s social life.
• Civic Engagement: Half* Weight (~1.00 Point)Note: The percentage of citizens who voted in the 2014 elections was used for this metric.
• Favors for Neighbors: Triple Weight (~6.00 Points)Note: This metric measures the percentage of residents who do favors for their neighbors daily or multiple times per week.
• Food & Clothing Distribution to the Needy: Full Weight (~2.00 Points)Note: This metric measures the percentage of residents who collect or distribute food or clothing for the needy.
• Share of Residents Who Fundraise or Sell Items to Raise Money: Full Weight (~2.00 Points)
• Share of Income Donated to Charity: Full Weight (~2.00 Points)
• Online Giving per Capita: Full Weight (~2.00 Points)
• Volunteering Hours per Capita: Double Weight (~4.00 Points)
• Google Search Interest for “Charitable Donations”: Full Weight (~2.00 Points)Note: This metric measures the real intent of the population to find information using the following search terms: “volunteer,” “non profit organizations,” “charity,” “charitable donations” and “charitable organizations.” “Real intent” is measured using the average monthly search volumes for those specific terms.

Caring for the Vulnerable – Total Points: 40

• Child Poverty Rate: Double Weight (~6.40 Points)
• Adult Poverty Rate: Double Weight (~6.40 Points)
• Adoption Rate: Half* Weight (~1.60 Points)Note: This metric measures the number of children adopted through public agencies per adult population.
• Availability of Paid Family Leave*: Full Weight (~3.20 Points)Note: This binary metric considers the presence or absence of paid family leave in the state.
• Percentage of Sheltered Homeless Persons: Double Weight (~6.40 Points)
• Rehabilitation Centers per Capita**: Full Weight (~3.20 Points)
• Pet Shelters & Rescue Services per Capita**: Full Weight (~3.20 Points)
• Animal Protection Laws Ranking: Full Weight (~3.20 Points)Note: This metric is based on the “2016 U.S. Animal Protection Laws Rankings” report.
• Disability-Friendliness of Employers: Full Weight (~3.20 Points)Note: This metric measures the percentage of people with disabilities who are employed.
• Uninsured Rate: Full Weight (~3.20 Points)

Caring in the Workforce – Total Points: 20

• Residents Who Work in Community & Social Services per Capita: Double Weight (~3.64 Points)
• Physicians per Capita: Full Weight (~1.82 Points)
• Nurses per Capita: Full Weight (~1.82 Points)
• Special-Education Teachers per School-Aged People With Disabilities: Full Weight (~1.82 Points)
• Teachers’ Care for Students’ Well-Being: Full Weight (~1.82 Points)Note: Student-teacher ratio was used for this metric.
• Counselors’ Care for Students’ Well-Being: Full Weight (~1.82 Points)Note: Student-counselor ratio was used for this metric.
• Full-Time Law-Enforcement Employees per Capita: Full Weight (~1.82 Points)
• Mental-Health Counselors & Therapists per Capita: Full Weight (~1.82 Points)
• Personal-Care Aides per Capita: Full Weight (~1.82 Points)
• Firefighters per Capita: Full Weight (~1.82 Points)
• Paramedics per Capita: Full Weight (~1.82 Points)

 

Sources: Data used to create this ranking were collected from the U.S. Census Bureau, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Corporation for National & Community Service, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Chronicle of Philanthropy, Administration for Children & Families, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, National Center for Education Statistics, Sharecare, Animal Legal Defense Fund, National Conference of State Legislatures, Yelp and WalletHub research.

from Wallet HubWallet Hub


via Finance Xpress