Most states temporarily house foster children in hotels, offices 22%

By Robbie Sequeira11%

8/5/2026, 4:32:53 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including Unattributed Quote, False Dilemma, and Negativity Bias, with Hasty Generalization as the most egregious example at 17% saturation with 80 hits. Analysis detected 675 faulty-reasoning hits from 470 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 28.5% and a BS Rank of 22% (23,933 of 30,584 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 78.30% of the article peer group.

More than 9,000 children in foster care had to temporarily stay in hotels, office buildings and other potentially unsafe settings when states couldn’t find suitable places for them, according to a new federal audit. 
The inspector general’s office of the U.S. 
Department of Health and Human Services found that states had an especially difficult time placing older children and children with complex behavioral and mental health needs. 
The pandemic and the opioid abuse epidemic also created challenges during the period covered by the audit, which was January 1, 2022, to June 30, 2023. 
When a court determines that a child should be removed from a home because remaining would be a risk to the child’s well-being, the responsibility for placement and care of the child is transferred to a state child welfare agency. 
The preferred option in most cases is kinship care, or placement with relatives. 
When kinship care is not available, states may place children with nonrelative caregivers, or in child care institutions. 
Licensed foster care locations must meet certain safety and health standards and be approved by the state. 
But of the 49 state agencies (including the District of Columbia) that responded to the inspector general’s questionnaire , 34 reported that they had to temporarily place children in unlicensed settings that are not designed to care for children. 
Of those, 30 provided enough information for the agency to associate the stays with individual children. 
Of the 15,705 temporary emergency placements tracked by HHS, 59% lasted four or fewer days and 28% lasted for five days or longer. 
The longest stay, in a hotel, lasted 251 days. 
The average length of stay across all reported placements was one week. 
Seventeen states reported a total of 1,922 hotel room stays; 22 reported a total of 2,698 office stays; and 16 reported 4,412 stays at other unlicensed facilities, such as cabins in state parks. 
Arizona and Texas alone accounted for nearly half of all the reported temporary stays. 
Arizona reported 3,907 placements involving 3,481 children, while Texas reported 3,923 temporary placements involving 1,977 children. 
Other states with a high number of emergency placements included Tennessee (1,845), Illinois (812) and Washington state (612). 
Eight states (Alaska, Hawaii, Indiana, Missouri, Nebraska, New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania) did not track their use of emergency temporary placements, and Delaware and Montana did not submit any data. 
Seven states (Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Utah and Wyoming) said they did not place any children in emergency temporary settings. 
Stateline reporter Robbie Sequeira can be reached at rsequeira@stateline.org . 
This story was originally produced by Stateline , which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Daily Montanan, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 8.3%Robbie Sequeira: 0.8%Daily Montanan: 2.3%Confirmation Bias8.3%This article: 7.4%Robbie Sequeira: 1.1%Daily Montanan: 0.5%Anchoring Bias7.4%This article: 9.1%Robbie Sequeira: 2.8%Daily Montanan: 2.5%Availability Heuristic9.1%This article: 3.0%Robbie Sequeira: 0.3%Daily Montanan: 0.6%Representativeness Heuristic3.0%This article: 0.0%Robbie Sequeira: 0.0%Daily Montanan: 0.1%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Robbie Sequeira: 0.0%Daily Montanan: 0.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 1.9%Robbie Sequeira: 1.2%Daily Montanan: 3.7%Framing Effect1.9%This article: 0.0%Robbie Sequeira: 0.0%Daily Montanan: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 2.8%Robbie Sequeira: 0.3%Daily Montanan: 0.5%Status Quo Bias2.8%This article: 0.0%Robbie Sequeira: 0.0%Daily Montanan: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 4.9%Robbie Sequeira: 0.5%Daily Montanan: 1.9%Optimism Bias4.9%This article: 0.0%Robbie Sequeira: 0.0%Daily Montanan: 1.7%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 11.1%Robbie Sequeira: 2.7%Daily Montanan: 6.4%Negativity Bias11.1%This article: 7.9%Robbie Sequeira: 0.8%Daily Montanan: 1.0%Self-Serving Bias7.9%This article: 0.0%Robbie Sequeira: 0.0%Daily Montanan: 0.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Robbie Sequeira: 0.0%Daily Montanan: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Robbie Sequeira: 0.0%Daily Montanan: 1.0%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Robbie Sequeira: 0.0%Daily Montanan: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Robbie Sequeira: 0.0%Daily Montanan: 0.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Robbie Sequeira: 0.0%Daily Montanan: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Robbie Sequeira: 0.0%Daily Montanan: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.8%Robbie Sequeira: 0.4%Daily Montanan: 1.1%Recency Bias3.8%This article: 0.0%Robbie Sequeira: 0.0%Daily Montanan: 0.1%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Robbie Sequeira: 0.0%Daily Montanan: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Robbie Sequeira: 0.0%Daily Montanan: 1.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Robbie Sequeira: 0.0%Daily Montanan: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 5.5%Robbie Sequeira: 0.6%Daily Montanan: 2.4%Appeal to Authority5.5%This article: 12.3%Robbie Sequeira: 3.2%Daily Montanan: 1.0%False Dilemma12.3%This article: 0.0%Robbie Sequeira: 0.5%Daily Montanan: 0.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Robbie Sequeira: 0.0%Daily Montanan: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 17.0%Robbie Sequeira: 3.0%Daily Montanan: 2.9%Hasty Generalization17.0%This article: 0.0%Robbie Sequeira: 0.0%Daily Montanan: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Robbie Sequeira: 0.5%Daily Montanan: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Robbie Sequeira: 0.0%Daily Montanan: 3.8%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 2.8%Robbie Sequeira: 0.8%Daily Montanan: 0.6%Begging the Question2.8%This article: 5.5%Robbie Sequeira: 0.6%Daily Montanan: 1.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)5.5%This article: 0.0%Robbie Sequeira: 0.0%Daily Montanan: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Robbie Sequeira: 0.5%Daily Montanan: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Robbie Sequeira: 0.0%Daily Montanan: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 7.0%Robbie Sequeira: 0.7%Daily Montanan: 0.2%Composition/Division7.0%This article: 0.0%Robbie Sequeira: 1.0%Daily Montanan: 1.0%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Robbie Sequeira: 0.0%Daily Montanan: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 5.3%Robbie Sequeira: 0.5%Daily Montanan: 0.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)5.3%This article: 0.0%Robbie Sequeira: 0.0%Daily Montanan: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Robbie Sequeira: 0.0%Daily Montanan: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Robbie Sequeira: 0.0%Daily Montanan: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Robbie Sequeira: 0.0%Daily Montanan: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Robbie Sequeira: 0.0%Daily Montanan: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 12.8%Robbie Sequeira: 1.3%Daily Montanan: 1.3%Unattributed Quote12.8%This article: 0.0%Robbie Sequeira: 0.0%Daily Montanan: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 7.2%Robbie Sequeira: 1.5%Daily Montanan: 1.7%Biased Writer Voice7.2%This article: 7.9%Robbie Sequeira: 0.8%Daily Montanan: 0.8%Indoctrination7.9%This article: 0.0%Robbie Sequeira: 0.0%Daily Montanan: 0.9%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Robbie Sequeira: 0.0%Daily Montanan: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Robbie Sequeira: 0.5%Daily Montanan: 0.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

470 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers13%attributed speech407writer words
Selected voice

States Newsroom

100%flagged-word coverage
37 attributed words59% of attributed speech80% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Indoctrination+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%States Newsroom: 100.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote-8.4 ptsWriter: 8.4%States Newsroom: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-8.4 ptsWriter: 8.4%States Newsroom: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.