State & Tribal Landscape
States, territories, and tribal organizations implement home visiting models that match the needs of their communities using varied funding streams, including the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program (MIECHV). Maternal and child health indicators provide insight into states’ varied contexts, which drive their decisions and priorities.
For example, 6 percent of women used tobacco during pregnancy nationally, but the state average ranges from 1 percent in California to 24 percent in West Virginia.
The number of potential beneficiaries in each state relates to its population size, ranging from 28,800 potential beneficiaries in Vermont to 2,169,700 in California. However, size does not necessarily relate to the percentage of beneficiaries who meet 1 or more targeting criteria (have an infant, low income, single parent, parent or expectant parent under 21, or parent with less than a high school diploma). The percentage of high-priority families meeting any 1 of 5 targeting criteria ranges from 41 percent in Utah to 60 percent in New Mexico.
How Does the Percentage of Families Served Vary by State?
In terms of families served, the percentage of potential beneficiaries served ranged from 0.2 percent in Vermont to 5.8 percent in Michigan and Iowa. The percentage of high-priority families served ranged from 0.4 percent in Vermont to 12.4 percent in Iowa, 11.2 percent in Michigan, and 10.1 percent in Kansas.
Select a state in the interactive map below to see a brief data snapshot or click an orange button to view the information in a table or download the data file.
Home Visiting by State (2019)
|High-Priority Families (%)|
|All Families Served (%)|
|High-Priority Families Served (%)|
|Home Visits Provided|
|State||Potential Beneficiaries||High-Priority Families (%)||All Families Served (%)||High-Priority Families Served (%)||Home Visits Provided||Children Served||Families Served||Local Agencies||Models Implemented|
Sources: Service numbers and participant demographics come from evidence-based model data for 2019 as detailed in each profile. Information on potential beneficiaries is derived from the [2014–2018 American Community Survey](https://usa.ipums.org/usa/index.shtml), and includes pregnant women and families with children not yet in kindergarten.
Note: NA = not available.
*Percentages of high-priority families served are estimates of potential beneficiaries who meet any one of five targeting criteria—(1) having an infant, (2) income below the federal poverty threshold, (3) pregnant women and mothers under 21, (4) single/never married mothers or pregnant women, or (5) parents without a high school education—and who received home visiting services in 2019.
States serve as many potential beneficiaries as possible. There are many reasons why they cannot reach all families who could benefit. States have limited funding and often must piece together federal, state, and private dollars to serve families. Geographic challenges can also prevent states from reaching more families. For example, in rural areas, home visitors may travel hours to see one family, which limits the number of families that can be served overall.
States work hard to overcome these barriers. In 2019, the number of families served by states ranged from 51 to 29,776. Some states have an expansive network of local agencies implementing evidence-based home visiting. For example, Michigan has 213 local agencies implementing 7 models across the state, serving 29,776 families.