The DKEC Student Wellness Crisis Index™
A State-by-State Analysis of Dropout Risk, Chronic Absenteeism, and Teen Suicide, and What Educational Leaders Can Do About It
Download the Executive Brief | Download the Chart
Download the Complete White Paper
America's schools are confronting a student wellness crisis that can no longer be understood through academic achievement alone. Educational leaders are increasingly responsible for responding to rising chronic absenteeism, student disengagement, mental health concerns, behavioral challenges, and uneven graduation outcomes. These issues are often reported separately, yet they are deeply connected and frequently reflect the same underlying conditions: weakened school connectedness, unmet student needs, inconsistent support systems, and organizational structures that identify concerns too late.
The DKEC Student Wellness Crisis Index™ was developed to help educational leaders see the larger picture. The Index places three critical statewide indicators on a common 0–100 concern scale and then combines them into one weighted composite score:
Estimated Dropout Risk — 33.3%
The Estimated Dropout Risk is calculated by subtracting a state's four-year Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate (2021–22) from 100 percent. This measure provides a consistent national proxy for the proportion of students who do not earn a regular high school diploma within four years.
Chronic Absenteeism — 33.3%
Chronic absenteeism represents the percentage of public school students who miss 10 percent or more of the school year for any reason, as reported through the federal EDFacts system for 2022–23. In a typical 180-day school year, this equals approximately eighteen missed days.
Teen Suicide Rate — 33.4%
The teen suicide rate reflects deaths by suicide per 100,000 young people ages 15–19, pooled across 2021–2023 to improve the stability of state estimates. Its inclusion recognizes that student wellness must extend beyond attendance and academic completion to include emotional health, safety, hope, and survival.
Together, these three indicators answer three essential leadership questions:
Are students staying in school?
Are students attending school consistently?
Are students emotionally healthy enough to live, learn, and thrive?
The resulting Student Wellness Crisis Index™ score ranges from 0 to 100. Higher scores indicate greater overall concern relative to other states. Forty-four states had complete data for all three indicators and received a composite Index score. Six states lacked one required indicator because the federal data were unavailable or officially suppressed and are designated Not Ranked (NR). The District of Columbia is not included because its teen suicide rate is suppressed. No missing values were estimated or imputed. The Index is intended to help leaders compare statewide conditions, identify broad patterns, prioritize strategic attention, and initiate deeper local inquiry.
The Index is not designed to label states, districts, schools, or educators as successful or unsuccessful. It is a leadership tool. Its purpose is to make fragmented data more understandable and to help leaders move from isolated responses toward coherent systems of student support.
Why Graduation Rate Is Used to Support the Dropout Conversation
State-reported dropout rates are not always directly comparable. States may differ in how they classify transfers, alternative education placements, students pursuing equivalency credentials, students remaining enrolled beyond four years, and other enrollment outcomes.
The four-year Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate provides a more consistent national measure because states report it through a common federal framework. For that reason, DKEC estimates dropout risk using the following calculation:
Estimated Dropout Risk = 100% − Four-Year Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate
DKEC recognizes that not every student who fails to graduate within four years has permanently dropped out. Some students graduate in five or six years, continue receiving services, remain enrolled, or earn a certificate of completion. Therefore, the dropout-risk measure should be understood as an estimate of on-time noncompletion, not as an exact count of students who permanently leave school. Despite that limitation, the four-year graduation rate remains one of the strongest and most consistent indicators of whether educational systems are successfully supporting students through high school completion.
How the Index Is Calculated
Each indicator is first placed on a common 0–100 scale using min-max normalization across the 44 ranked states. The state with the most favorable value receives 0, the state with the least favorable value receives 100, and every other state is placed proportionally between them. The three scaled values are then combined using the weights above. The indicators are weighted essentially equally (33.3%, 33.3%, and 33.4%, so that the weights total 100%), reflecting DKEC's judgment that completion, attendance, and survival each deserve equal standing in a picture of student wellness.
Three features of this approach matter for interpretation:
Scores are relative. A low score does not mean a state has no concern. Connecticut, the lowest-scoring state, still has roughly one in five students chronically absent. Tier labels describe a state's position compared with other states, not an absolute or clinical level of crisis.
Scores depend on the states ranked. Because each indicator is scaled to the highest and lowest ranked states, scores would shift if Not Ranked states later gained complete data.
Indicators differ in timing and population. Dropout risk reflects the 2021–22 four-year graduation cohort; chronic absenteeism reflects all public K–12 students in 2022–23; and teen suicide reflects all young people ages 15–19, in or out of school, pooled across 2021–2023.
The rankings are robust to the scaling method. Recalculating the Index with z-score standardization changes almost no ranks, and the same eleven states remain at the top.
A note on chronic absenteeism data. The Index uses federal EDFacts data so that every state is measured the same way. EDFacts rates are often higher than the rates states publish on their own report cards, in part because EDFacts includes students enrolled for as few as 10 days, while many states count only students enrolled for a longer period. The U.S. Department of Education cautions that state definitions vary. Leaders should expect some differences between these figures and their state's own reports.
A note on small numbers. Teen suicide rates in less populous states are based on relatively few deaths, even when pooled across three years. Small differences in rank among these states should not be over-interpreted.
The Central Leadership Message
Student wellness is not a separate initiative. It is the outcome of leadership, culture, relationships, instructional quality, organizational design, and the strength of student support systems.
When these systems are coherent, students are more likely to attend, engage, persist, graduate, and seek help when they are struggling.
When these systems are fragmented, students are more likely to become disconnected long before their needs appear in a final accountability report.
What the Data Show
Five patterns stand out in the 2026 results.
1. Concern is concentrated in the West and Northern Plains.
Ten of the eleven highest-scoring states are in the West or the Northern Plains: Alaska, Arizona, Wyoming, Montana, Oregon, Nevada, Colorado, South Dakota, Washington, and Idaho. Michigan, ranked ninth, is the only exception.
2. High-scoring states tend to struggle on several fronts at once.
Eight of the eleven highest-scoring states are above the median of ranked states on all three indicators. The remaining three are above the median on two.
3. Teen suicide rates shape the top of the rankings.
Teen suicide rates vary more than sevenfold across ranked states, from 5.1 per 100,000 in New Jersey to 36.7 in Montana. The suicide indicator accounts for nearly half of Montana's and South Dakota's Index scores. Without it, Montana would rank ninth rather than fourth, and South Dakota sixteenth rather than eighth. These positions reflect, in part, conditions that extend well beyond schools, such as rural isolation and access to mental health care.
4. Chronic absenteeism remains high everywhere.
No ranked state had a chronic absenteeism rate below 16 percent in 2022–23, and fifteen of the 44 ranked states had rates of 30 percent or higher.
5. The three indicators are related but distinct.
States with higher dropout risk tend to have higher chronic absenteeism and teen suicide rates, but the relationships are moderate (correlations between 0.29 and 0.49). Each indicator contributes information the others do not, which is why a composite view is useful.
What Educational Leaders Need to Know
The DKEC Student Wellness Crisis Index™ is built on the premise that student wellness must be viewed as a connected system rather than as a collection of unrelated problems. Attendance, graduation, and mental health are not separate concerns competing for attention. They are interdependent indicators of whether students experience school as a place where they are known, supported, challenged, and valued.
Three Leadership Implications
1. Chronic Absenteeism Is One of the Earliest and Most Actionable Warning Signs
Graduation is a long-term outcome. Attendance is a daily indicator.
Research has long linked chronic absence to lower achievement and a greater likelihood of not completing high school (Balfanz & Byrnes, 2012). Students who become chronically absent often demonstrate academic difficulty, weakened school connection, increased behavioral concerns, and greater risk of noncompletion. Attendance data therefore provide leaders with one of the clearest opportunities to intervene before disengagement becomes permanent.
Attendance should not be treated simply as a matter of compliance. Persistent absence may reflect anxiety, depression, bullying, transportation barriers, housing instability, family responsibilities, health concerns, academic frustration, or a lack of belonging.
The leadership question is not simply, "Why is the student absent?" The more important question is, "What is the student's absence telling us about the system, the student's experience, or the barriers surrounding that student?"
2. Teen Suicide Represents the Most Severe Outcome of a Broader Wellness Crisis
Youth suicide is not solely a school issue, and schools cannot control every factor affecting adolescent mental health. Family circumstances, trauma, community conditions, social isolation, health care access, substance use, violence, and other forces all play a role.
However, schools remain one of the most influential environments in the lives of young people. Trusted adults, strong peer relationships, school connectedness, psychological safety, and accessible mental health supports can all serve as powerful protective factors. National survey data identify school connectedness as one of the factors associated with lower suicide risk among high school students (Verlenden et al., 2024).
The inclusion of teen suicide within the Index reflects a fundamental belief: educational success cannot be separated from student survival, dignity, belonging, and hope.
If a student, colleague, or anyone you know is in crisis: call or text 988 to reach the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline, available 24 hours a day by phone, text, and chat (988lifeline.org).
3. Student Wellness Is a Systems and Leadership Issue
Districts often respond to complex problems by adding isolated programs. An attendance initiative is launched. A new behavioral platform is purchased. A mental health curriculum is introduced. A graduation intervention is created.
These efforts may be valuable, but they are unlikely to produce lasting improvement unless they are connected through strong leadership and coherent systems.
Student wellness improves when leaders align expectations, people, data, interventions, communication, family engagement, and community partnerships around a shared purpose.
Programs may support the work. Leadership determines whether the work becomes embedded, sustained, and effective.
How Leaders Should Use the Index
The DKEC Student Wellness Crisis Index™ should be used to begin conversations, not end them.
District and school leaders can use the Index to:
place local data within a larger statewide and national context;
inform strategic planning and resource allocation;
examine the alignment of attendance, graduation, and wellness efforts;
strengthen Multi-Tiered Systems of Support;
identify student groups experiencing disproportionate challenges;
guide board, cabinet, and leadership team discussions;
determine where more detailed local analysis is required; and
monitor whether leadership actions are improving student experiences over time.
The Index should not be used to evaluate individual educators, assign blame, rank districts, label any state as "in crisis" on the basis of its tier alone, or replace local evidence. Statewide conditions cannot capture every district's context, strengths, or challenges. Small differences in rank, particularly among less populous states, should be treated as broadly similar.
The Index is most valuable when leaders pair it with local attendance data, graduation trends, student surveys, behavioral indicators, course performance, referral data, school climate measures, and student and family voice.
From Data to Leadership Action
The value of the DKEC Student Wellness Crisis Index™ is not found in the rankings alone. Its value lies in the action it inspires. Educational leaders cannot change statewide conditions immediately, but they can strengthen the systems students experience every day. The following three priorities provide a practical starting point for district and school leaders.
1. Build a Culture Where Every Student Belongs
Belonging is not an abstract idea. It is an organizational condition shaped by leadership. Students are more likely to attend, engage, persist, and seek help when they believe adults know them, respect them, and care about their future. Leaders should intentionally create systems that ensure every student has access to trusted adults, meaningful relationships, student voice, affirming experiences, and a clear sense of membership within the school community.
Districts should ask whether belonging is left to chance or built into schedules, advisory structures, mentoring, extracurricular opportunities, classroom practices, transitions, and student support systems.
2. Invest in Leadership Capacity
Student wellness efforts succeed or fail through leadership.
Principals shape school culture. District leaders align resources and expectations. Teachers influence daily connection and engagement. Support staff often notice concerns before anyone else. Cabinet members determine whether student wellness is integrated into strategy or treated as a separate initiative.
Leaders need the capacity to interpret data, manage change, build trust, create coherent systems, lead collaborative teams, respond to trauma, strengthen family partnerships, and sustain improvement over time. The quality of leadership determines whether good intentions become better outcomes.
3. Create a Continuous Improvement Cycle
Student wellness should be reviewed through an ongoing cycle of inquiry, action, monitoring, and refinement.
Leaders should regularly examine:
attendance and chronic absenteeism;
school connectedness;
mental health referrals;
course failures and credit accumulation;
graduation and on-time completion;
behavior and discipline;
student and family perceptions;
intervention access and effectiveness; and
patterns across student groups and schools.
The purpose of data review is not simply to report what happened. It is to understand why it happened, determine what can be influenced, and make informed adjustments.
The DKEC Perspective
At DK Education Collaborative, we believe better leadership creates better systems, better systems create better schools, and better schools create better futures for kids.
That belief is central to the DKEC Student Wellness Crisis Index™.
The Index was not created to criticize states or schools. It was created to help leaders confront complex realities with clarity, compassion, and resolve.
As emphasized in When All Means All, a commitment to every student requires more than inclusive language. It requires educational systems capable of recognizing needs early, responding effectively, removing barriers, strengthening relationships, and creating conditions in which every learner can thrive.
Student wellness cannot be delegated to one office, one professional role, or one initiative. It must be embedded within leadership, strategy, culture, instruction, operations, and continuous improvement.
A Call to Lead
Every percentage point represents students. Every absence represents lost connection and learning. Every student who does not graduate represents potential that may never be fully realized. Every life lost represents a family, school, and community permanently changed.
The DKEC Student Wellness Crisis Index™ gives educational leaders a clearer way to understand the challenge. What matters next is how leaders respond. The work begins with better questions, stronger systems, intentional relationships, and the courage to act before warning signs become irreversible outcomes.
That is the purpose of the Index. That is the responsibility of leadership.
That is the #DKECDifference.
Read the Complete White Paper
The full DKEC Student Wellness Crisis Index™ White Paper includes:
the complete state-by-state results for 44 ranked states and six states designated Not Ranked;
a detailed explanation of each indicator;
the Index calculation and weighting methodology;
limitations and appropriate uses of the Index;
an expanded research foundation;
detailed leadership strategies;
technical notes; and
a complete works cited section.
Sources
Estimated Dropout Risk: National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics 2023, Table 219.46 (four-year ACGR, 2021–22).
Chronic Absenteeism: America's Health Rankings analysis of U.S. Department of Education, NCES, EDFacts data, 2022–2023 school year.
Teen Suicide Rate: America's Health Rankings analysis of CDC/NCHS Multiple Cause of Death files via CDC WONDER, 2021–2023.
Balfanz, R., & Byrnes, V. (2012). The importance of being in school: A report on absenteeism in the nation's public schools. Johns Hopkins University Center for Social Organization of Schools.
Verlenden, J. V., et al. (2024). Mental health and suicide risk among high school students and protective factors — Youth Risk Behavior Survey, United States, 2023. MMWR Supplements, 73(4), 79–86.
Originally published July 2026. Updated September 2026 with corrected data citations and an expanded explanation of the Index methodology.
Two things to do when you post it. First, point the three download links to the revised files so readers don't download the old chart, brief, or paper. Second, if your site allows images, the revised chart would work well placed right after the "What the Data Show" section.