The Social Progress Index for U.S. states assesses quality of life based on 53 indicators related to basic human needs, foundations of wellbeing, and opportunity. Although the U.S. ranks 5th in GDP per capita, it ranks only 18th in social progress, indicating a decline in social conditions and highlighting issues such as inequity and political division. The initiative aims to improve local community conditions by using the index data to identify and address critical needs across different states.

1. Social
Progress
Index: US
States
Draft: January 24, 2018

2. The information presented is
embargoed until April 11, 2018

3. The Social Progress Index measures the founding fathers’
goals for the United States: life, liberty and happiness

4. SCORE RANK
2017Social ProgressIndex 86.43 18/128
GDPPPPpercapita $52,704 5/128
SCORE/
VALUE RANK
STRENGTH/
WEAKNESS
BasicHumanNeeds 93.42 17
NutritionandBasicMedical Care 98.96 36
Undernourishment (%of pop.; 5 signifies ≤ 5) 5.00 1
Depthof fooddeficit
(calories/undernourished person; 8 signifies ≤ 8)
8.00 1
Maternal mortalityrate (deaths/100,000 live
births)
13.75 39
Childmortalityrate (deaths/1,000 live births) 6.50 35
Deathsfrominfectiousdiseases
(deaths/100,000)
23.33 34
WaterandSanitation 98.77 27
Accesstopipedwater (%of pop.) 98.64 30
Rural accesstoimprovedwater source
(%of pop.)
98.16 44
Accesstoimprovedsanitationfacilities
(%of pop.)
99.99 10
Shelter 89.18 10
Availabilityof af ordablehousing (%satisfied) 56.68 30
Accesstoelectricity (%of pop.) 100.00 1
Qualityof electricitysupply (1=low; 7=high) 6.47 13
Householdair pollutionattributabledeaths
(deaths/100,000)
0.00 1
Personal Safety 86.76 21
Homiciderate (deaths/100,000) 3.90 70
Level of violent crime (1=low; 5=high) 1.00 1
Perceivedcriminality (1=low; 5=high) 2.00 1
Political terror (1=low; 5=high) 2.00 34
Traf cdeaths(deaths/100,000) 10.60 40
SCORE/
VALUE RANK
STRENGTH/
WEAKNESS
Foundationsof Wellbeing 84.19 29
AccesstoBasicKnowledge 97.95 30
Adult literacyrate (%of pop. aged 15+)
Primaryschool enrollment (%of children) 98.04 53
Secondaryschool enrollment (%of children) 97.56 50
Gender parityinsecondaryenrollment
(distance from parity)
0.02 32
AccesstoInformation
andCommunications
84.63 27
Mobiletelephonesubscriptions
(subscriptions/100 people)
100.00 1
Internet users (%of pop.) 74.45 27
PressFreedomIndex
(0=most free; 100=least free)
22.49 32
HealthandWellness 75.88 34
Lifeexpectancyat 60 (years) 23.61 27
Prematuredeathsfromnon-communicable
diseases(deaths/100,000)
299.40 42
Suiciderate (deaths/100,000) 12.41 82
Environmental Quality 78.31 33
Outdoor air pollutionattributabledeaths
(deaths/100,000)
18.48 13
Wastewater treatment (%of wastewater) 50.44 36
Biodiversityandhabitat
(0=no protection; 100=high protection)
79.35 73
Greenhousegasemissions
(CO2 equivalents per GDP)
392.70 60
SCORE/
VALUE RANK
STRENGTH/
WEAKNESS
Opportunity 81.68 13
Personal Rights 88.98 19
Political rights (0=no rights; 40=full rights) 36.00 32
Freedomof expression
(0=no freedom; 16=full freedom)
16.00 1
Freedomof assembly
(0=no freedom; 1=full freedom)
0.86 14
Privatepropertyrights (0=none; 100=full) 80.00 17
Personal FreedomandChoice 79.88 19
Freedomover lifechoices (%satisfied) 75.48 65
Freedomof religion (1=low; 4=high) 3.00 54
Earlymarriage (%of women aged 15-19) 3.00 32
Satisfieddemandfor contraception
(%of women)
85.10 13
Corruption (0=high; 100=low) 74.00 15
ToleranceandInclusion 68.30 23
Tolerancefor immigrants (0=low; 100=high) 78.78 16
Tolerancefor homosexuals(0=low; 100=high) 71.34 19
Discriminationandviolenceagainst
minorities (0=low; 10=high)
5.10 39
Religioustolerance (1=low; 4=high) 2.00 92
Communitysafetynet (0=low; 100=high) 89.58 31
AccesstoAdvancedEducation 89.55 1
Yearsof tertiaryschooling 1.86 3
Women’saverageyearsinschool 15.06 7
Inequalityintheattainment of education
(0=low; 1=high)
0.05 28
Number of globallyrankeduniversities
(0=none; 10=most highly rank ed)
10.00 1
Percent of tertiarystudentsenrolledinglobally
rankeduniversities
(0=none; 6=highest enrollment)
4.00 15
UNITED STATES
STRENGTH/
WEAKNESS
Oveperforming and underperforming are relative to 15 countries of similar GDPper capita:
Ireland, Saudi Arabia, Switzerland, Netherlands, Austria, Sweden, Denmark, Germany,
Australia, Canada, Belgium, Iceland, Norway, Finland, United Kingdom
Overperforming by 1or more pts.
Overperforming by less than 1pt.
Performing within the expected range
Underperforming by less than 1pt.
Underperforming by 1or more pts.
No data available
Strengthsandweaknesses
And it reveals that
the US
underperforms on
many measures
of quality of life
As the world’s
largest economy,
today the US
ranks 5th in GDP
per capita but just
18th in social
progress

5. Social progress
flat lined in the
US between 2014-
2017
Social Progress
Index results
warned of
emerging social
and political
issues in the US

6. A far-reaching crisis
6
The United States’ failure to
improve quality of life for its
people has sweeping effects:
• A 20-year decline in competitiveness
• Discontent and sense of unequal
opportunity
• Divisive politics, as citizens turn on
fellow citizens
• Declining participation and trust in
democracy

7. To truly understand the dissent, neglect
and inequity and address these issues,
government, business and philanthropic
organizations must also examine them
at the state, regional and local levels

8. 8
The Social Progress
Index: US States uses 53
indicators to measure
quality of life for 323
million people across all
50 states
It is designed to lead to
greater insight and
action on today’s most
pressing issues
Fueled by drug crisis, U.S.
life expectancy declines for a
second straight year

9. Social progress framework for US states
9
Social Progress Framework for US states

10. State performance

11. 11
2018 Social Progress Index: US States

12. 12
2018 Social Progress Index: US States

13. You don’t have to be a small,
New England state to have high
social progress: Minnesota
scores second in the nation

14. In general, US states have
low overall scores —
Massachusetts, ranked first,
scores just 64.82/100 on
social progress

15. While states often considered
“progressive” also defy
stereotypes upon examination:
California falls in the bottom
half of the index rankings

16. Blue states tend to perform better on social
progress than red states
16

17. But politics don’t tell the whole
story: Many blue states like
California, Nevada and New
Mexico score poorly

18. Regional performance

19. 19
Regional performance:
New England
• New England is the
highest performing region
in the country, with 4 of
the 5 states in the highest
tier, including top-ranked
Massachusetts
• All New England states
rank in the national top
ten

20. 20
Regional performance:
Mid Atlantic
• The Mid Atlantic is home
to three states in the top
two tiers nationally: New
York, Maryland and New
Jersey
• The Mid Atlantic region
leads the country on
Access to Advanced
Education
• New York ranks first in the
nation on Inclusiveness

21. 21
Regional performance:
Great Lakes
• Wisconsin is the highest
performing state in the
region, outscoring its
neighbors on all three
dimensions
• The Great Lakes region
leads the country on
Water and Sanitation
• Health and Wellness is an
area of weak average
performance

22. 22
Regional performance:
Plains
• Performance in this
region varies greatly, with
7 states scattered across
5 tiers of social progress
• Minnesota is the only
Plains state in the top tier
• The Plains region leads
the nation on Shelter

23. 23
Regional performance:
Southeast
• The Southeast has the
worst performance of any
US region
• Virginia is the region’s
strongest performer,
ranking 15th nationally
• Both Florida and North
Carolina overperform on
Access to Advanced
Education, a national and
regional weakness

24. 24
Regional performance:
Southwest
• The Southwest has the
worst performance of any
US region on Basic
Human Needs
• Arizona is the region’s
strongest performer,
outperforming its
neighbors on
Foundations of Wellbeing
and Opportunity

25. 25
Regional performance:
Rocky Mountains
• Colorado outperforms its
neighbors, particularly on
Opportunity, but ranks
just 40th nationally on
Shelter
• Opportunity is a major
challenge for other states
in the region: Montana,
Idaho and Wyoming score
especially poorly on
Inclusiveness

26. 26
Regional performance:
Far West
• The Far West is the only
region with worse
average performance on
Basic Human Needs than
on Foundations of
Wellbeing and
Opportunity
• The region leads the US
on Environmental Quality
and Inclusiveness but is
the lowest performing
region on Shelter

27. Thematic findings

28. On average, US states perform
best on Shelter, although it is an
area of weakness for many of
the fastest-growing states in the
country

29. The most common area of
weakness for US states is in
Access to Advanced
Education, followed closely by
Health & Wellness

30. • No state dominates the index: no state is the best performer in the
country on more than two components
• Tallying the top scorers on each of the 12 components of the
index reveals an economically, geographically, and
demographically diverse group of seven states:
Performance by component: No state dominates
30
• Massachusetts
• Minnesota
• Iowa
• New Hampshire
• Washington
• New York
• Hawaii

31. 31
Leading states by component of
social progress
Basic Human Needs
• Nutrition and Basic Medical Care:
Massachusetts
• Water and Sanitation: Minnesota
• Shelter: Iowa
• Personal Safety: New Hampshire

32. 32
Leading states by component of
social progress
Foundations of Wellbeing
• Access to Basic Knowledge: New
Hampshire
• Access to Information and
Communications: Washington
• Health and Wellness: Hawaii
• Environmental Quality: Washington

33. 33
Leading states by component of
social progress
Opportunity
• Personal Rights: Minnesota
• Personal Freedom and Choice: Hawaii
• Inclusiveness: New York
• Access to Advanced Education:
Massachusetts

34. Social progress vs.
economic growth

35. An emphasis on jobs, trade,
consumption and other
economic measures hides the
true state of the union

36. 36
Income isn’t
everything
States with higher Median
Household Income tend to
have higher social progress
But many states perform
better, or worse, than their
income would suggest
On its own, more income
does not guarantee higher
social progress

37. Income isn’t
everything
Massachusetts and New
Jersey have similar median
household income ($70,954
and $73,702, respectively),
but diverge on social
progress (64.82/100 and
54.26/100)
37

38. Minnesota and California
have similar median
household income ($63,217
and $63,783, respectively),
but substantially diverge on
social progress (62.30/100
and 45.53/100)
38
Income isn’t
everything

39. Wisconsin and Texas have
similar median household
income ($54,610 and
$54,727, respectively), but
diverge on social progress
(57.88/100 and 40.27/100)
39
Income isn’t
everything

40. Louisiana and Tennessee
have similar median
household incomes ($45,652
and $46,574, respectively),
but diverge on social
progress (30.07/100 and
41.24/100)
40
Income isn’t
everything

41. • The Social Progress Index disentangles the
social and economic aspects of state
performance, making it possible to compare a
state’s quality of life to that of its economic
peers
• We define a state’s economic peers as the 15
states closest in Median Household Income
• By analyzing a state’s performance relative to its
economic peers, we can uncover which states
are best at turning each dollar of income into
better social outcomes
Comparing state performance
41

43. 43
Over- and
under-
performers on
the Social
Progress Index:
US States

44. New England is not the top-
performing region only because it
is wealthy; it is also the best at
turning income into social
progress

45. All of the bottom five states on
social progress also
underperform compared to their
economic peers

46. 46
Over- and under-
performers on
the Social
Progress Index:
US States by
political affiliation
Overperformers
Wisconsin
Massachusetts
Minnesota
Vermont
New Hampshire
Connecticut
Maine
Underperformers
Nevada
Hawaii
California
Wyoming
Alaska
Texas
Oklahoma
Arkansas
Louisiana
West Virginia
Mississippi

47. Social progress is
strongly tied to poverty
States with higher
poverty rates, on
average, have lower
social progress
47

48. Unemployment may
help us understand
social progress
On average, higher
unemployment rates
are associated with
lower social progress
But the relationship is
weaker than that
between poverty and
social progress
48

49. The US social progress initiative

50. An audacious goal
50
• We are launching an ambitious initiative to bring the data and insight of
the Social Progress Index to every community in the country by 2022
• Starting with 10 city pilots, we will help communities develop
customized Social Progress Indexes to identify their greatest needs and
convert their resources into better, more equitable outcomes
• Our aim is to improve quality of life for all Americans from the
grassroots level on up by empowering communities to measure and
solve the issues that matter most to them

51. 51
The US has a data
deficiency
• Calculating this index
reveals the lack of quality,
standardized data
• And the data that do exist
are not consistently and
sufficiently disaggregated
by race, gender etc.
• To support local leaders
in solving their most
pressing issue, the data
gap must close

52. 52
DATA
PARTNERS Data owners, experts and advocates
TECHNOLOGY
PARTNERS Experts to co-design and build open source
IMPLEMENTING
PARTNERS Partners who can positon with local leaders
FINANCIAL
INVESTORS Initial backers to fuel the initiative for first 36 months
A range of opportunities for
investors, innovators & influencers
Offer your support at www.socialprogressimperative.org

53. Thank you
See the full results starting April 11, 2018 at
www.socialprogressimperative.org

54. 54
About the Social Progress Imperative
• We have a single, bold goal: to redefine how the world measure’s success,
putting social progress at the center of debate and action.
• We are an international nonprofit with a headquarters office in Washington,
DC and a global reach through a network of regional and national partners.
• Our global network consists of 29 Social Progress Indexes covering 2.4
billion people across 38 countries, while we have data users in 134 different
countries.

55. State progress reports

64. • We also measured social progress in the District of
Columbia
• DC scored 39.60/100 on the index, just below Texas and just
above Kentucky
• However, because of the District’s unique political, social
and economic circumstances, and to avoid skewing the
results, we have opted to exclude it from our statistical
analysis
District of Columbia
64