America’s Childhood Well-being Index: The Best U.S. Cities for Children to Thrive

To explore how these conditions differ across the country, ProCare Therapy created the 2026 America’s Childhood Well-being Index, ranking the 100 largest U.S. cities across five factors connected to children’s educational, physical, social, and environmental well-being.

The results reveal significant differences from one city to the next. Texas cities dominate the top of the ranking, several smaller and midsize cities outperform the nation’s biggest urban centers, and some cities with excellent recreational access still struggle across other areas of childhood well-being.

Ranking Cities for Childhood Well-being: Key Findings

• Frisco, Texas, ranks No. 1 in America for childhood well–being, earning an overall score of 89.8 out of 100.

• Texas claims three of the top four spots, with Frisco, Plano, and McKinney all ranking near the top of the index.

• Irvine, California, ranks No. 3 and is the highest-ranking city outside Texas.

• Austin ranks No. 11 and is the highest-ranking city in the study with a population exceeding 1 million.

• Boise City records the lowest chronic absenteeism rate among cities with observed data, at 5.4%.

• San Francisco and Boston have the strongest park access, with 99.5% of residents living within a 10-minute walk of publicly accessible green space.

• Despite that strong park access, Boston ranks No. 88 overall, showing why no single factor tells the full story of childhood well-being.

• Detroit ranks last, followed by Buffalo, Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Columbus.

• Three Ohio cities rank among the bottom five, highlighting particularly significant challenges across several of the state’s largest urban areas.

• Many of America’s largest cities finish well outside the top of the index, including New York at No. 39, Phoenix at No. 76, Los Angeles at No. 82, Chicago at No. 89, and Philadelphia at No. 94.

The Top 10 Best U.S. Cities for Childhood Well-being

Rank	City	Childhood Well–being Score
1	Frisco, Texas	89.8
2	Plano, Texas	89.6
3	Irvine, California	85.7
4	McKinney, Texas	82.6
5	Chandler, Arizona	74.9
6	Boise City, Idaho	73.5
7	San Jose, California	73.2
8	Chesapeake, Virginia	72.9
9	Henderson, Nevada	72.8
10	Chula Vista, California	72.1

Frisco Ranks No. 1 for Childhood Well-being

Frisco earns the highest Childhood Well-being Score in the country at 89.8 out of 100, performing particularly well across several of the factors included in the study.

Just 3.9% of children in Frisco live below the federal poverty level, the lowest rate among the cities analyzed. The city also records a chronic absenteeism rate of only 5.6%, falls into the lowest category for lead-exposure risk, and has the highest third-grade reading proficiency rate in the study at 89.4%.

Frisco does not lead every individual category. Its park-access rate, for example, is 57.5%, leaving room for improvement compared with cities where more than 90% of residents live near a park. Its No. 1 ranking instead reflects consistently strong results across several different dimensions of childhood well-being.

That balance is central to the index. A city does not necessarily need to rank first in every category to provide a strong environment for children. Performing well across education, economic security, recreation, and healthy living conditions can matter more than excelling in one area alone.

Texas Cities Dominate the Top of the Ranking 

Frisco is not an isolated success story—North Texas stands out in particular. Plano ranks No. 2, McKinney No. 4, Austin No. 11, Irving No. 12, Arlington No. 15, Corpus Christi No. 19, and Garland No. 20, giving Texas eight cities among the top 20 cities with complete observed data.

Plano records an 8.7% child poverty rate, the lowest level of lead-exposure risk, 75.1% park access, and an 83.1% third-grade reading proficiency rate. McKinney similarly performs well across economic security and education, with just 8.8% of children living in poverty and third-grade reading proficiencyof 85.1%.

The strong performance of Frisco, Plano, and McKinney puts three Dallas–Fort Worth-area cities in the national top four.

Where Childhood Well-being Challenges Are Greatest 

The five lowest-ranking cities in the index are:

Rank	City	Childhood Well–being Score
96	Columbus, Ohio	34.6
97	Cincinnati, Ohio	31.2
98	Cleveland, Ohio	22.6
99	Buffalo, New York	22.2
100	Detroit, Michigan	15.6

The results do not suggest that children cannot thrive in these cities. Instead, they highlight places where several community-level challenges overlap and where additional support and investment may have an especially meaningful impact.

Detroit records the lowest Childhood Well-being Score among the cities analyzed, at 15.6 out of 100.More than half of children in Detroit live below the federal poverty level, at 54.5%, the highest rate in the study. The city also has the highest chronic absenteeism rate at 45.1% and the lowest third-grade reading proficiency rate at 19.2%. Detroit additionally falls into the highest category for lead-exposure risk.

Not every indicator is negative. More than 81% of Detroit residents live within a 10-minute walk of publicly accessible green space. That contrast again illustrates why childhood well-being is best understood through multiple measures rather than a single statistic.

Why Childhood Well-being Goes Beyond the Classroom 

Academic achievement is only one part of healthy childhood development. Children’s experiences are shaped by an interconnected set of influences, from the stability of their homes and neighborhoods to the opportunities they have for play, social interaction, healthcare, and educational support.

For schools, families, and communities, supporting children often means recognizing when challenges in one part of a child’s life may affect another.

How Schools and Communities Can Support Childhood Well-being 

There is no single program or investment that can address every part of childhood well-being. Instead, communities can focus on creating environments where children have multiple layers of support.

That may include expanding access to school counselors, psychologists, speech-language pathologists, occupational therapists, and other specialized professionals; identifying academic or developmental concerns early; supporting consistent school attendance; creating safe opportunities for physical activity and recreation; reducing environmental health risks; and connecting families with appropriate community resources.

Strong communication between families, educators, healthcare professionals, and community organizations can also help children receive support earlier rather than after challenges become more difficult to address.

At ProCare Therapy, we know a child’s well-being is shaped by the support they receive every day at school and in their community. School psychologists, speech-language pathologists, occupational therapists, special education teachers, nurses, counselors, and other education professionals all play a role in helping students feel supported, stay engaged, and reach their full potential.

Explore school-based career opportunities with ProCare Therapy, or learn how our school staffing services can help your district connect students with the specialized support they need to thrive.

The Full 2026 America’s Childhood Well-being Index

Rank	City	Score
1	Frisco, TX	89.8
2	Plano, TX	89.6
3	Irvine, CA	85.7
4	McKinney, TX	82.6
5	Chandler, AZ	74.9
6	Boise City, ID	73.5
7	San Jose, CA	73.2
8	Chesapeake, VA	72.9
9	Henderson, NV	72.8
10	Chula Vista, CA	72.1
11	Austin, TX	70.3
12	Irving, TX	70.2
13	Gilbert, AZ	70.0
14	San Diego, CA	69.3
15	Arlington, TX	68.1
16	Seattle, WA	67.5
17	San Francisco, CA	67.1
18	Scottsdale, AZ	67.1
19	Corpus Christi, TX	65.7
20	Garland, TX	64.1
21	Mesa, AZ	61.9
22	Colorado Springs, CO	61.7
23	Fort Worth, TX	61.5
24	El Paso, TX	61.2
25	Las Vegas, NV	59.8
26	North Las Vegas, NV	59.7
27	Reno, NV	59.3
28	Aurora, CO	57.8
29	Omaha, NE	57.7
30	Glendale, AZ	57.2
31	Oklahoma City, OK	56.6
32	Tulsa, OK	56.6
33	Lexington, KY	56.2
34	Houston, TX	55.9
35	Anaheim, CA	55.8
36	Portland, OR	55.3
37	Dallas, TX	54.9
38	San Antonio, TX	54.0
39	New York, NY	53.2
40	Charlotte, NC	52.8*
41	Memphis, TN	52.8*
42	Baltimore, MD	52.8*
43	Milwaukee, WI	52.8*
44	Atlanta, GA	52.8*
45	Raleigh, NC	52.8*
46	Virginia Beach, VA	52.8*
47	Orlando, FL	52.8*
48	Newark, NJ	52.8*
49	Greensboro, NC	52.8*
50	Durham, NC	52.8*
51	Jersey City, NJ	52.8*
52	Lincoln, NE	52.8*
53	Anchorage, AK	52.8*
54	Madison, WI	52.8*
55	St. Louis, MO	52.8*
56	Lubbock, TX	52.8*
57	Toledo, OH	52.8*
58	Winston-Salem, NC	52.8*
59	Richmond, VA	52.8*
60	Norfolk, VA	52.8*
61	Kansas City, MO	52.6
62	Albuquerque, NM	52.4
63	Fort Wayne, IN	52.2
64	Minneapolis, MN	50.8
65	Cape Coral, FL	50.8
66	Riverside, CA	50.7
67	Washington, D.C.	50.7
68	Bakersfield, CA	50.3
69	Sacramento, CA	50.2
70	Denver, CO	49.9
71	Santa Ana, CA	49.2
72	St. Paul, MN	48.7
73	Oakland, CA	48.2
74	Long Beach, CA	47.3
75	Port St. Lucie, FL	47.1
76	Phoenix, AZ	46.9
77	Stockton, CA	46.8
78	Fresno, CA	46.1
79	Laredo, TX	44.8
80	St. Petersburg, FL	44.2
81	New Orleans, LA	44.1
82	Los Angeles, CA	43.9
83	Nashville, TN	43.7
84	Tampa, FL	43.2
85	Indianapolis, IN	43.0
86	Jacksonville, FL	42.6
87	Wichita, KS	40.8
88	Boston, MA	40.8
89	Chicago, IL	40.3
90	Huntsville, AL	40.2
91	Pittsburgh, PA	40.0
92	Tucson, AZ	39.5
93	Miami, FL	39.3
94	Philadelphia, PA	37.5
95	Louisville, KY	37.2
96	Columbus, OH	34.6
97	Cincinnati, OH	31.2
98	Cleveland, OH	22.6
99	Buffalo, NY	22.2
100	Detroit, MI	15.6

*Cities marked with an asterisk did not have complete values available in the archived city-level dataset used for the study. Neutral median values were assigned so missing data would not artificially raise or lower their position. These cities are included for completeness but were excluded from city-specific findings and comparisons.

Methodology

ProCare Therapy created the 2026 America’s Childhood Well–being Index to compare the environments available to children across the 100 largest U.S. cities. The city universe was determined using the U.S. Census Bureau’s Vintage 2025 population estimates. Each city was evaluated across five indicators:

• Chronic absenteeism (20%): The percentage of public school students missing 10% or more of the school year. Lower rates received higher scores.

• Children in poverty (20%): The percentage of residents under age 18 living below the federal poverty level. Lower rates received higher scores.

• Lead-exposure risk (20%): A standardized measure of housing-related lead-exposure risk. Lower-risk cities received higher scores.

• Park access (20%): The percentage of residents living within a 10-minute walk of publicly accessible green space. Higher access received a higher score.

• Third-grade reading performance (20%): A measure of early elementary reading achievement. Higher performance received a higher score.

Each measure was normalized to a 0–100 scale based on performance among the 100 cities included in the study. The five category scores were then weighted equally and averaged to determine each city’s overall Childhood Well-being Score. For 21 cities not represented in the archived City Health Dashboard dataset used for this analysis, the median value among cities with available data was assigned to each indicator. This provides a neutral score and prevents missing data from either rewarding or penalizing those cities. Cities with imputed data were excluded from the report’s primary city-specific findings.

The index is intended as a comparative look at community conditions associated with childhood well-being and should not be interpreted as a clinical assessment of children or as evidence that any individual factor directly causes a particular outcome.

Sources:

• U.S. Census Bureau, Vintage 2025 Population Estimates

• City Health Dashboard, NYU Langone Health