Austin is known for innovation, music, and culture. It could be known for something more foundational: how its children are doing. GenATX benchmarks child well-being across the fifty largest American cities.
Make Austin the best place in America to be a kid.
A citywide initiative that treats child well-being as a measure of civic success. Not a single program, but a shared expectation about what every child in Austin should experience — every day, in every neighborhood.
The governing question
What will Austin feel like — twenty years from now — to the children growing up here today? Will they feel safe? Will they feel joy? Will they feel that they belong? Will they feel that this city made child well-being part of its identity?
Every adult in this city has a child they're responsible for. The answer to that question will define the next chapter of Austin.
The next defining chapter of Austin will be written in child well-being.
The Framework
Safe. Healthy. Happy.
That is what child well-being means in Austin. — Mayor Kirk Watson
Three aspirational outcomes for every child — the convergence point of every major child well-being framework (CDC, OECD, UNICEF, National Academies). GenATX names them in plain language. The research foundation underneath is anything but plain.
The Research Foundation
Six things the research consistently shows.
01
Child well-being is integrated, not additive.
Health, learning, safety, and play operate as a system. Progress on any one is limited by weakness in another. Serious frameworks measure multiple dimensions at once.
02
Mental health is foundational.
When children's mental health declines, every other outcome does too — learning, physical health, family stability, belonging. This is why mental well-being runs through every pillar, not just one.
03
Safety has two meanings that must coexist.
Children need protection from harm and freedom to explore. A city safe in only one of those senses is not actually safe for children.
04
The early years compound.
Investment in the first five years of life shapes earnings and health decades later. The returns are larger than almost any other public investment. The conditions that drive those years are largely local.
05
Family stability shapes every child outcome.
Children can't be isolated from what their families are facing — economic stress, unstable housing, caregiver strain. Family stability is among the strongest predictors of how children do.
06
Aggregate progress can hide widening disparities.
A city-level average can improve while the gap between its best-served and least-served children grows. Every serious framework measures both the whole and its subgroups.
Synthesis of Ben-Arieh · UNICEF Innocenti · OECD · CDC · Brooks-Gunn Fragile Families Study · National Academies
The first pillar
Safe.
A safe child grows up free from threatening danger and serious harm — in environments that are stable and trustworthy, able to move, explore, and participate in daily life with confidence.
What we measure
Violent crime exposure
Traffic and pedestrian safety
Housing stability
Neighborhood trust
School safety environments
The second pillar
Healthy.
A healthy child is growing — physically, mentally, emotionally — supported by the basics that sustain long-term well-being: sleep, nutrition, movement, connection, care.
What we measure
Health insurance coverage
Mental health access
Food and nutrition security
Physical activity
Preventive care
The third pillar
Happy.
A happy child experiences joy, belonging, and purpose — feeling valued, connected to others, and confident that their voice and presence matter in the world around them.
What we measure
Community belonging
Third spaces and mentorship
Civic and youth participation
Access to the arts
Child life satisfaction
Three outcomes Austin is working toward for every child. Each pillar represents not an outcome but a set of conditions — the factors that research identifies as contributing to that dimension of a child's well-being. The benchmarking measures conditions because conditions are what cities can actually shape.
The Methods
How the work got done.
GenATX's framework was built through an iterative, four-phase process: academic synthesis, national expert validation, local practitioner testing, and rigorous fifty-city data assembly. The principles below are what make the findings defensible.
Defining the work · the three research questions
1
How do we define the pillars — safe, healthy, happy?
This set our foundation.
2
How do we measure performance on each pillar?
Here's where we are today.
3
How do we move from findings to action across the initiative?
This becomes our strategy.
The four phases
Phase 01
Literature Synthesis
Leading research on child well-being — from academic scholars, practitioners, and global institutions. Existing frameworks (CDC, OECD, UNICEF Innocenti, National Academies). Foundational texts and city-level program evaluations.
40+ sources reviewed
Phase 02
Expert Validation
National roundtables convened researchers and practitioners who stress-tested the three-pillar framework, refined indicator selection, and specifically rejected composite scoring — benchmarking produces conversations, not verdicts.
National expert roundtables
Phase 03
Local Testing
More than sixty Austin leaders — from healthcare, education, mental health, youth development, faith, housing, and neighborhoods — tested the pillars against lived experience. They didn't debate the framework. They deepened it.
60+ local leaders convened
Phase 04
50-City Benchmark
Every indicator pulled from a verified primary source and applied consistently across the fifty largest U.S. cities. Texas reference rows and two aspirational peer groups to sharpen the comparison.
50 cities · 47 indicators
Three peer groups. One Austin.
To see how Austin is really doing, the scorecard compares Austin against the cities it actually competes with — for families, for talent, for investment — not just the cities closest to it geographically. Every indicator is measured against all three groups.
National
50 Largest U.S. Cities
The national benchmark. Every major American city, same indicators, same definitions. Where Austin sits in the full field.
All U.S. cities with population above roughly 400,000.
Tech Peers
10 Knowledge-Economy Cities
Cities with similar economic structure, workforce, and growth trajectory. Where Austin is actually competing for families and talent.
Boston · Denver · Minneapolis · Portland · Raleigh · San Diego · San Francisco · San Jose · Seattle · Washington DC
Texas Peers
6 Major Texas Cities
Shared state policy environment — Medicaid eligibility, education funding formulas, housing regulation. Reveals what's locally shaped versus state-determined.
Arlington · Dallas · El Paso · Fort Worth · Houston · San Antonio
Data Discipline
Every number sourced. Nothing estimated.
Where data could not be verified to a primary source, the cell was left blank. No estimates. No interpolations. The framework reports only what the data supports.
City-level data is used wherever available. Where it is not, the framework falls back to County, then MSA, applied consistently across all fifty cities so comparisons remain valid. Geography is documented for every indicator.
Indicators where higher or lower is unambiguously better are ranked. Context indicators — where direction is ambiguous or descriptive — are reported as Austin values only, not ranked against peers.
Primary data sources
American Community SurveyACS 2020–2024
Child Opportunity Index 3.0Brandeis · diversitydatakids
CDC WONDERmortality
CDC PLACEShealth outcomes
County Health RankingsCHR 2025
NHTSA FARStraffic safety
FBI Crime Data Explorerviolent crime
TPL ParkScorepark access 2025
IMLS Public Library Surveylibraries
HUD Point-in-Time Counthousing
ED DataExpresseducation outcomes
United for ALICEfamily economic stress
NCES CCD · F-33school finance
The Findings
Fifteen things the data told us about Austin.
Each finding synthesizes the forty-seven-indicator benchmark, national research, and more than sixty local practitioner conversations. Click any finding to open the full analysis — stat callouts, narrative, peer comparison charts, and sources.
Healthy
Safe
Happy
Cross-Cutting
01
Who Austin's Children Are
Austin's children are more diverse than its adults.
43% of Austin's children are Hispanic, compared to 32% of adults. 37% have at least one immigrant parent.
02
How the Child Population Is Changing
Austin has fewer children than it had five years ago.
17,091 fewer children in 2024 than 2019 — a 9.3% decline. Over the same five years, Austin's median family income rose 39%.
03
The Comparative Frame
Austin leads Texas in child well-being and trails its peer cities elsewhere.
First or second in Texas on 36 of 47 indicators. Bottom three among tech peers on 17.
04
Early-Life Health
Austin children start life healthier than those in most American cities.
Top 15 nationally on birth weight (#8), infant mortality (#10), prenatal care (#14), and asthma burden (#4).
05
Safety
Austin is one of the safest major cities in America for children.
Austin families earn more and struggle less than families in nearly every peer city.
Median family income #5 of 50. #1 in Texas on income. But last in Texas on family homelessness.
07
Neighborhood Opportunity
By the measure of neighborhood opportunity, Austin leads Texas by a wide margin.
Child Opportunity Index score of 80 — #9 of 50. Nearly double Fort Worth (47), more than 3× Dallas (18).
08
Public Benefits
On Medicaid and SNAP enrollment for children, Austin ranks last in America.
#50 of 50 on Medicaid/CHIP coverage and SNAP enrollment. The gap is one of enrollment, not eligibility.
09
School Investment
Austin underinvests in the systems that surround its public-school children.
$12,492 per pupil — #36 of 50. Only Raleigh spends less among tech peers. Boston spends nearly 3× as much.
10
Teen Engagement
Austin's teenagers are more engaged with school and work than teens in most American cities.
85.7% of teens working or in school (#14 of 50). Only 4% are disconnected — #13 nationally, #1 in Texas.
11
Third Spaces
Austin's children have less access to third spaces than children in nearly any peer city.
Recreational facilities #47 of 48. Park access #28 of 50. Second to last among tech peers on park walkability.
12
Food Security
One in seven Austin children is food insecure.
Food insecurity #37 of 50. Last among tech peers. SNAP enrollment reaches fewer Austin families than any major city.
13
Mental Health
Austin's mental health system is the strongest in Texas and the weakest among its tech-peer cities.
403 providers / 100,000 residents. #1 in Texas. #11 of 11 tech peers — Portland has nearly 3× Austin's rate.
14
Equity
Austin's strengths in childhood well-being don't reach every child equally.
Black children in poverty at 2.4× the rate of White children. ALICE rate ranges from 8% to 50% by neighborhood.
15
What's Missing
Some of the dimensions most central to children's lives are not yet measured.
No nationally comparable city-level data on children's mental health, life satisfaction, belonging, or early-childhood development.
The Austin picture.
Who Austin's children are. How the city stacks up. Where the gaps concentrate.
Austin's Kids · At a Glance
175,930 children live in Austin today.
They are younger, more diverse, and more immigrant-connected than Austin's adults — and their numbers are shrinking.
175,930
Children Under 18
18.0% of Austin's population
−17,091
5-Year Change
A 9.3% decline since 2019
37%
Immigrant-Connected
Have at least one parent born outside the U.S.
3.9%
Children With Disability
Roughly 6,900 children
Race & Ethnicity of Austin's Children
43.2%
Hispanic / Latino
34.3%
White (non-Hispanic)
8.3%
Asian
7.1%
Black / African American
Family & Household Context
15.0%
Below federal poverty line
30.3%
Living with one parent
44.4%
In renter housing
8.8%
Foreign-born children
The Austin Scorecard · Overview
47 indicators. Three pillars. One city.
Every indicator in the scorecard compares Austin to the 50 largest U.S. cities. The scorecard does not grade Austin. It shows Austin in relation to the cities it competes with for talent, families, and investment.
19
Top Quartile
Rank 1–13 · Austin's strengths
9
Second Quartile
Rank 14–25 · Above average
13
Third Quartile
Rank 26–37 · Below average
6
Bottom Quartile
Rank 38–50 · Austin's gaps
Pillar · 17 indicators
Healthy.
4 top
2 above
8 below
3 bottom
Pillar · 14 indicators
Safe.
8 top
3 above
3 below
0 bottom
Pillar · 16 indicators
Happy.
7 top
2 above
4 below
3 bottom
All 47 Indicators · Search, Sort, Explore
The full scorecard.
Every indicator with Austin's value and three ranks: vs. the 50 largest U.S. cities, vs. Texas peers, vs. tech-and-knowledge-economy peers. Click any row for the full detail.
Top Quartile
Above Average
Below Average
Bottom Quartile
Sort
Pillar
Indicator
Austin
National Quartile
Compare Any Two Cities
Explore any city.
Pick your home city on the map. Then pick another to compare.
Clicking a city on the map assigns it to:
Home city (default: Austin)
Comparison city
Click any to select
Home
Compare
Who's behind this
GenATX is an initiative of the Office of Mayor Kirk Watson, in partnership with United Way of Greater Austin and CivicSol.
Vision & Leadership
CITY OF AUSTIN
Office of Mayor Kirk Watson
GenATX began in the Office of Mayor Kirk Watson as part of a broader vision to make Austin the best place in America to be a child. The Mayor's Office convened partners, set the goal, and owns the findings.
United Way of Greater Austin serves as the civic backbone for GenATX — anchoring community engagement and connecting the initiative to Austin's broader child well-being ecosystem.
CivicSol designed and built GenATX end-to-end — from the three-pillar framework to the forty-seven-indicator national benchmark. CivicSol partners with cities, public agencies, coalitions, and mission-driven institutions to turn complex challenges into clear strategies.
GenATX drew on more than sixty Austin-based practitioners and several national expert panels. Their conversations shaped both framework and findings. We are grateful for their engagement and insights.
Notes & Sources
Data Sources
Every indicator draws from a publicly available dataset. Sources are organized by domain below. Geographic level — City, County, MSA, or District — is noted for each dataset.
Demographics & Population
U.S. Census Bureau. American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates 2020–2024. Tables S0901 (Children Characteristics) and S0902 (Youth 15–19). City and county level.
Early-Life Health
University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute. County Health Rankings & Roadmaps 2025 release. County level. Covers birth weight, infant mortality, food security, air quality, pediatric care, teen births.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC WONDER. County level. Prenatal care, 2020–2024.
Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America. Asthma Capitals 2025. MSA level.
Health Infrastructure & Mental Health
Health Resources and Services Administration / County Health Rankings. Mental Health Provider Ratio. County level, 2023.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. PLACES: Local Data for Better Health. City level, 2024. Adult mental wellness.
National Center for Education Statistics. Common Core of Data. District level, 2021–2022. School counselor ratios.
Safety
Federal Bureau of Investigation. Crime Data Explorer (CDE). City level, 2023. Violent crime rates.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS). County level, 2024. Child traffic fatalities.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. WISQARS: Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System. County level, 2018–2022. Youth gun deaths, combined with ACS population denominators.
Economic Stability
U.S. Census Bureau. American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates 2020–2024. City and county level. Median family income, cost burden, single-parent households, parent employment, child poverty, child care burden.
United For ALICE. ALICE (Asset Limited, Income Constrained, Employed) Report 2025. County level, 2023 data.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Point-in-Time (PIT) Count. Continuum of Care level, 2024. Family homelessness.
U.S. Department of Education. McKinney-Vento Homeless Education data / NCES. District level, 2021–2022. Student homelessness.
Education & Opportunity
U.S. Department of Education. EDFacts & Data Express. District level, 2022–2023. Chronic absenteeism.
National Center for Education Statistics. F-33 Public Elementary-Secondary Education Finance Data. District level, 2021–2022. Per-pupil expenditure.
Brandeis University · diversitydatakids.org. Child Opportunity Index 3.0. County level, 2023. Overall index and Health, Social & Economic, and Education sub-domains.
Infrastructure & Play
Trust for Public Land. ParkScore & Park Access Rankings 2025. City level. Park access, playgrounds, recreational facilities.
Walk Score, Inc. Walk Score and Bike Score. City level, 2021 composite.
American Forests. Tree Equity Score. City level, 2024.
Institute of Museum and Library Services. Public Libraries Survey (PLS). Library system level, 2023. Programs for children.
GenATX Benchmarking Framework, 2026 · All sources publicly available
Notes & Sources
Methodology & Limitations
Methodology Notes
Peer groups
Austin is compared against three peer sets: the fifty largest U.S. cities by population (national), ten knowledge-economy peers selected for shared economic structure (tech peers), and six major Texas metros (Texas peers). The same indicator definitions apply across all three.
Geographic hierarchy
City-level data is used wherever available. Where it is not, the framework falls back to County, then MSA, applied consistently across all fifty cities so comparisons remain valid. Geography is noted for each indicator on its appendix page.
Directional vs. context indicators
Indicators where higher or lower is unambiguously better are ranked. Context indicators — where direction is ambiguous or descriptive — are reported as Austin values only, not ranked against peers.
Data integrity
Where data could not be verified to a primary source, the cell was left blank. No estimates. No interpolations. The framework reports only what the data supports.
Not yet measurable
Four dimensions central to child well-being — mental health, life satisfaction, belonging, and early-childhood development — are not yet measurable at the city level in any American city. The framework names this gap rather than filling it.
Limitations
This benchmarking reflects the most recent comparable data available — generally 2020 through 2024. Housing and cost-burden figures may have shifted since.
Geography varies by indicator. Where city-level data is unavailable, county or metropolitan data is used, applied consistently across all fifty cities.
Benchmarking measures position, not cause. A low rank can reflect low performance, low reach, or low need. The framework notes this where relevant on individual indicator pages.
The equity analysis uses the four largest racial and ethnic groups for which the Census publishes reliable disaggregated data at the city level. Smaller subgroups may have sample sizes too small for reliable estimates.
The full benchmarking dataset, methodology documentation, and indicator-level source files are maintained by CivicSol and available on request.