Which States Are Good for Autism Support?

Alabama had one of the lower measured-access scores in this study, with 25 out of 100. Its strongest factor was waiting-list access; its weakest was funding.

Alaska landed near the middle of the scored states, with 47 out of 100. Its strongest factor was funding; its weakest was provider access.

We did not assign Arizona a final score because its waiting-list reporting was not comparable under the KFF eligibility-screening rule. Among the available factors, family support was strongest and funding was weakest.

Arkansas scored below the middle of the states we could compare, with 38 out of 100. Its strongest factor was funding; its weakest was family support.

Yes, by the measures in this study. California scored 76 out of 100 and ranked among the stronger states. Its strongest factor was family support; its weakest was funding.

Colorado scored below the middle of the states we could compare, with 41 out of 100. Its strongest factor was provider access; its weakest was funding.

Connecticut landed near the middle of the scored states, with 53 out of 100. Its strongest factor was provider access; its weakest was funding.

We did not assign Delaware a final score because its waiting-list reporting was not comparable under the KFF eligibility-screening rule. Among the available factors, provider access was strongest and family support was weakest.

We did not assign Florida a final score because its waiting-list reporting was not comparable under the KFF eligibility-screening rule. Among the available factors, provider access was strongest and funding was weakest.

Georgia scored below the middle of the states we could compare, with 34 out of 100. Its strongest factor was provider access; its weakest was funding.

We did not assign Hawaii a final score because its waiting-list reporting was not comparable under the KFF eligibility-screening rule. Among the available factors, provider access was strongest and funding was weakest.

We did not assign Idaho a final score because its waiting-list reporting was not comparable under the KFF eligibility-screening rule. Among the available factors, funding was strongest and family support was weakest.

Illinois had one of the lower measured-access scores in this study, with 26 out of 100. Its strongest factor was provider access; its weakest was family support.

Indiana scored above most states in this study, with 66 out of 100. Its strongest factor was family support; its weakest was waiting-list access.

We did not assign Iowa a final score because its waiting-list reporting was not comparable under the KFF eligibility-screening rule. Among the available factors, funding was strongest and family support was weakest.

Kansas had one of the lower measured-access scores in this study, with 18 out of 100. Its strongest factor was funding; its weakest was family support.

Kentucky scored above most states in this study, with 61 out of 100. Its strongest factor was family support; its weakest was waiting-list access.

Louisiana landed near the middle of the scored states, with 53 out of 100. Its strongest factor was family support; its weakest was waiting-list access.

Maine landed near the middle of the scored states, with 49 out of 100. Its strongest factor was funding; its weakest was family support.

Maryland scored below the middle of the states we could compare, with 32 out of 100. Its strongest factor was provider access; its weakest was waiting-list access.

We did not assign Massachusetts a final score because its waiting-list reporting was not comparable under the KFF eligibility-screening rule. Among the available factors, provider access was strongest and family support was weakest.

Michigan scored above most states in this study, with 61 out of 100. Its strongest factor was waiting-list access; its weakest was funding.

We did not assign Minnesota a final score because its waiting-list reporting was not comparable under the KFF eligibility-screening rule. Among the available factors, funding was strongest and provider access was weakest.

Mississippi landed near the middle of the scored states, with 46 out of 100. Its strongest factor was family support; its weakest was provider access.

Missouri landed near the middle of the scored states, with 59 out of 100. Its strongest factor was waiting-list access; its weakest was provider access.

Montana scored below the middle of the states we could compare, with 38 out of 100. Its strongest factor was family support; its weakest was provider access.

Nebraska scored below the middle of the states we could compare, with 42 out of 100. Its strongest factor was waiting-list access; its weakest was family support.

Nevada scored below the middle of the states we could compare, with 40 out of 100. Its strongest factor was waiting-list access; its weakest was funding.

We did not assign New Hampshire a final score because its waiting-list reporting was not comparable under the KFF eligibility-screening rule. Among the available factors, provider access was strongest and funding was weakest.

New Jersey landed near the middle of the scored states, with 60 out of 100. Its strongest factor was waiting-list access; its weakest was family support.

Yes, by the measures in this study. New Mexico scored 76 out of 100 and ranked among the stronger states. Its strongest factor was waiting-list access; its weakest was provider access.

Yes, by the measures in this study. New York scored 85 out of 100 and ranked among the stronger states. Its strongest factor was funding; its weakest was provider access.

North Carolina scored below the middle of the states we could compare, with 34 out of 100. Its strongest factor was provider access; its weakest was waiting-list access.

North Dakota scored above most states in this study, with 69 out of 100. Its strongest factor was funding; its weakest was provider access.

Yes, by the measures in this study. Ohio scored 74 out of 100 and ranked among the stronger states. Its strongest factor was waiting-list access; its weakest was provider access.

We did not assign Oklahoma a final score because its waiting-list reporting was not comparable under the KFF eligibility-screening rule. Among the available factors, family support was strongest and provider access was weakest.

We did not assign Oregon a final score because its waiting-list reporting was not comparable under the KFF eligibility-screening rule. Among the available factors, funding was strongest and provider access was weakest.

Pennsylvania scored above most states in this study, with 60 out of 100. Its strongest factor was funding; its weakest was waiting-list access.

We did not assign Rhode Island a final score because its waiting-list reporting was not comparable under the KFF eligibility-screening rule. Among the available factors, provider access was strongest and family support was weakest.

We did not assign South Carolina a final score because its waiting-list reporting was not comparable under the KFF eligibility-screening rule. Among the available factors, family support was strongest and funding was weakest.

South Dakota landed near the middle of the scored states, with 56 out of 100. Its strongest factor was waiting-list access; its weakest was provider access.

Tennessee scored below the middle of the states we could compare, with 42 out of 100. Its strongest factor was waiting-list access; its weakest was funding.

We did not assign Texas a final score because its waiting-list reporting was not comparable under the KFF eligibility-screening rule. Among the available factors, provider access was strongest and funding was weakest.

Utah had one of the lower measured-access scores in this study, with 19 out of 100. Its strongest factor was provider access; its weakest was waiting-list access.

We did not assign Vermont a final score because its waiting-list reporting was not comparable under the KFF eligibility-screening rule. Among the available factors, family support was strongest and funding was weakest.

Virginia had one of the lower measured-access scores in this study, with 27 out of 100. Its strongest factor was provider access; its weakest was waiting-list access.

Washington scored above most states in this study, with 63 out of 100. Its strongest factor was waiting-list access; its weakest was funding.

West Virginia landed near the middle of the scored states, with 57 out of 100. Its strongest factor was funding; its weakest was provider access.

Wisconsin scored below the middle of the states we could compare, with 39 out of 100. Its strongest factor was funding; its weakest was family support.

Wyoming landed near the middle of the scored states, with 51 out of 100. Its strongest factor was family support; its weakest was provider access.