Explosion In Tower Before Jet Hit By Furlong And Ross

Adoption, Adoption Seeking, and Relinquishment forAdoption in the United States

by Anjani Chandra, Ph.D., Joyce Abma, Ph.D., Division of Vital Statistics, National Center for Health Statistics,Penelope Maza, Ph.D., Administration for Children and Families, Christine Bachrach, Ph.D.,

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development

a,

heo

5

O

ldoa

oln

ar

, a

f

Number 306 + May 11, 1999

From Vital and Health Statistics of the CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION/National Center for Health Statistics

Abstract

Objectives—This report presents national data on adoption and adoption-relbehaviors among ever-married women 18–44 years of age in the United Statesaccording to selected characteristics of the women. Trends are shown in theprevalence of adoption and relinquishment of children for adoption. For 1995, treport shows demand for adoption and women’s preferences for characteristicsthe child.

Methods—Data are based on nationally representative samples of women 1years of age from the 1973, 1982, 1988, and 1995 National Surveys of FamilyGrowth (NSFG).

Results—The percent of ever-married women 18–44 years of age who haveever adopted a child declined from 2.1 percent in 1973 to 1.3 percent in 1995.the 9.9 million women who had ever considered adoption, 16 percent had takensteps toward adoption, and 31 percent of these had actually adopted a child. Owomen, nulliparous women, women with fecundity impairment, and women whhave used infertility services were more likely to have considered adoption, to htaken concrete steps toward adoption, and to have actually adopted a child. Inresponse to the questions about preferred characteristics of an adopted child, wexpressed strong preferences with respect to age, sex, race, and disability levethe child, but were willing to accept children with the less-desired traits. Betwee1989 and 1995, about 1 percent of babies born to never-married women wererelinquished for adoption, down from 9 percent among such babies born before1979.

Conclusions—Federally supported adoption data collection sources corroborthe decline in adoption shown by the NSFG over the past 25 years. Demand foadoption in the United States varies, depending on whether demand isconceptualized liberally as ‘‘ever having considered adoption’’ or more narrowly‘‘currently taking concrete steps toward adoption.’’ The narrow definition wasfulfilled by 232,000 ever-married women in 1995.

Keywords: adoption c relinquishmentc population characteristics

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SECenters for Disease Control and Prevention

National Center for Health Statistics

ted

f

–44

f

er

ve

menof

te

s

Introduction

Adoption has long served as ameans of providing care for childrenwhose birth parents could not raise themfor economic or other reasons. It hasalso represented an alternative means ofamily formation for individuals unableto have their own children. Thelegalization of abortion in 1973 and thedevelopment of new reproductivetechnologies over the last two decadeshave presented further options to peoplefacing unwanted pregnancy andinfertility. Yet there remains a need tocollect information on adoption trends,adoption demand, and characteristics ofchildren waiting to be adopted or placedin permanent care arrangements. Thisinformation is crucial for formulatingadoption and child welfare policies atthe Federal, State, and local levels.

Despite the recognized importanceof these issues, information on adoptionin the United States is fairly limited(1,2). The primary focus of datacollection has been on the collection ofdata on finalized adoptions (1,2). Theseefforts have included a federallymanaged system that was operationalfrom the 1940’s through the early1970’s (3). This enterprise was followedby a variety of federally supported data

RVICES

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROLAND PREVENTION

nd

s

4nal

th

rd

t

2 Advance Data No. 306 + May 11, 1999

collection efforts that focused primarilyon children being adopted from thepublic foster care system (4). Inaddition, one federally funded project(5–7) and a major advocacy groupcollected data on all types of adoptions(public, private, independent) (8,9).Almost all of these efforts involved thecollection of aggregate data from Stateagencies on finalized adoptions. In mocircumstances coverage was incomple(not all adoptions were reported) andinconsistent (States reported adoptionsusing different definitions and criteria).Because the data were aggregated atState level, they provided very limitedinformation about the correlates ofadoption at the individual level.

In 1986, Congress amended TitleIV–E of the Social Security Act toestablish a reporting system for fostercare and adoption. The Adoption andFoster Care Analysis and ReportingSystem (AFCARS) became operationain Fiscal Year 1995. It mandates Statesto report case-specific information on achildren in foster care and all childrenadopted from the public child welfaresystem. States may voluntarily reportdata on children adopted through privaagencies or independently. Although thdata collected through this systempromise to be a substantial improvemeover past efforts, they still only addressnarrow aspects of adoption.

Since 1973, the National Survey oFamily Growth (NSFG) has filled manyof the gaps in the available data onadoption by providing additionalinformation on various aspects of theadoption triad, that is, the child, thebirth parents, and the adoptive parentsThese include the characteristics ofadopted children (10), infantrelinquishment for adoption (11,12),adoption demand and the relationshipbetween infertility and adoption(13–15), and other aspects of adoptionincluding trends over time (16).Although the NSFG data are limited bysmall subgroup sizes due to the rarenature of adoption-related events, thesurvey has proved a valuable source odata for studying the individual-leveldeterminants of adoption and adoptiverelinquishment, and for documentingtrends in aspects of adoption for whichno other national data are available. Th

stte

the

l

ll

tee

nt

f

.

,

f

e

NSFG Cycle 5, conducted in 1995,provides an opportunity to continue toenrich our understanding of adoption,particularly our knowledge about thecharacteristics of relinquishing andadopting women, adoption demand, anadoption preferences (17).

Methods

Using data from nationallyrepresentative samples of women 15–4years of age, this report presents theproportions of ever-married women18–44 years of age who have everadopted a child as of 1973, 1982, 1988and 1995. Demand for adoption andpreferences for the characteristics of thadopted child are shown for 1995. Thiswas the first survey year in whichpreferences for the characteristics of thchild were collected. The report alsopresents time-trend data onrelinquishment of births to never-married women. The estimates ofrelinquishment are limited to births tonever-married women because this is tgroup most at risk of adverseconsequences with respect tosocioeconomic well-being of the childand parent. Relinquishment also occuramong the formerly married and thecurrently married, but it is very rare.Ever-married women, particularlycurrently married women, tend to havedifferent (and better) social andeconomic circumstances than never-married women that render theirdecision-making process when facedwith an unintended pregnancy distinctfrom that of never-married women.Furthermore, presenting estimates ofrelinquishment limited to never-marriedmothers will best parallel the numerousreports on premarital childbearing thathave been published in recent years.

Data in this report are presented bkey demographic and socioeconomiccharacteristics of the woman at the timof the interview, such as age, income,education, and race and Hispanic origiBecause fertility problems have beenfound to be related to the pursuit ofadoption (14,18), data are shown byfecundity status at time of interview,which describes the woman’s physicalcapacity to conceive or bear a child.Data are also shown according to the

d

4

,

e

e

he

s

y

e

n.

receipt of infertility services. With theexception of relatively unchangingattributes such as self- reported race aHispanic origin, it is acknowledged thatmany of these characteristics may havebeen different at the time of theadoption or the adoption-seekingbehavior being reported and that someof the associations noted in this reportmay be affected by using characteristicat the time of interview.

Data for 1973, 1982, 1988, and1995 are from Cycles 1, 3, 4, and 5 ofthe NSFG, conducted by the NationalCenter for Health Statistics (NCHS).Each cycle of the NSFG was based onmulti-stage probability samples of thecivilian, noninstitutionalized populationof women in the United States, yieldingestimates that are representative of thenational population of women 15–44years of age. Further details on thesample design and data collectionprocedures for these surveys can befound in several published reports(19–23).

The 1995 NSFG was based onpersonal, in-home interviews with anational sample of 10,847 women 15–4years of age. Computer-assisted persointerviews (CAPI) were conductedbetween January and October 1995 wi1,553 Hispanic women, 6,483 non-Hispanic white women, 2,446 non-Hispanic black women, and 365 womenof other races and ethnic origins. Earliecycles of the NSFG were not conducteusing CAPI, but still relied uponpersonal interviews in the women’shomes: the 1988 NSFG included 8,450women 15–44 years of age, the 1982NSFG included 7,969 women 15–44years of age, and the 1973 NSFGincluded 9,797 women 15–44 years ofage.

The 1973 NSFG was targeted atwomen who were currently or formerlymarried (‘‘ever-married’’). The 1982NSFG was the first in this series ofsurveys to include never-marriedwomen. In order to show adoptiontrends from 1973 to 1995,table 1islimited to women who were ever-married at time of interview. Becauseadoption is extremely rare and often noconsidered or allowed among never-married women and young women15–17 years of age, this report focuseson adoption and adoption-seeking

e

i

f

d

f

Table 1. Number of ever-married women 18–44 years of age and percent who have everadopted a child, according to selected characteristics: United States, 1973–95

Characteristic 1973 1982 1988 1995

Number in thousands

All women . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30,701 34,632 36,689 37,448

Percent who ever adopted

Total1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 2.2 1.6 1.3

Age at interview

18–24 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.4 0.6 – 0.225–34 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.8 2.0 0.5 0.435–39 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 2.1 2.2 1.940–44 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.0 4.3 4.3 2.5

Parity

0 births . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.9 6.6 3.8 3.61 birth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7 2.2 1.5 0.82 births . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 1.3 0.7 0.93 or more births . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.8 0.6 1.3 0.5

Marital status at interview

Currently married. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 2.1 1.8 1.3Formerly married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 2.4 0.9 1.2

Fecundity status at interview2

Surgically sterile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 2.1 2.1 1.3Impaired fecundity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.7 9.2 6.1 4.1Fecund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.8 0.8 0.2 0.5

Ever used infertility services

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5 6.6 3.7No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.0 0.6 0.6

Education at interview3

No high school diploma or GED4 . . . . . . . . 1.8 1.7 1.8 0.8High school diploma or GED. . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 2.4 1.5 1.2Some college, no bachelor’s degree . . . . . . 1.6 2.2 1.2 1.4Bachelor’s degree or higher . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6 3.1 2.4 1.7

Poverty level income at interview3

0–149 percent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 1.8 0.7 0.5150–299 percent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.0 2.5 1.9 1.0300 percent or higher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.0 2.4 1.8 1.8

Race and Hispanic origin

Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 0.7 0.8 0.6Non-Hispanic white . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 2.4 1.8 1.4Non-Hispanic black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.6 1.5 1.6 1.9

. . . Data not available.– Quantity zero.1Total includes women with missing or inapplicable data on some variables. Also includes women of other race and ethnicorigins, not shown separately.2Fecundity status in 1973 was measured only as surgically sterile, subfecund, and fecund. In 1982, 1988, and 1995, fecunditystatus differentiated surgically sterile women based on contraceptive versus noncontraceptive reasons. Fecundity status alsoincluded three subcategories of impaired fecundity—nonsurgically sterile, subfecund, and long interval.3Limited to women 22–44 years at interview.4GED is general equivalency diploma. GED was explicitly asked about in only the 1988 and 1995 surveys.

Advance Data No. 306 + May 11, 1999 3

among ever-married women 18–44 yeaof age. This focus results in theexclusion of very few cases from theanalysis. For example, the number ofnever-married sample women who havever adopted a child is often zero inmany of the age groups shown in the

rsreport, and the number of never-marriedwomen who have considered adoptionalso too small in the NSFG to permitseparate analysis. The following tableshows the number of ever-marriedsample cases of women 18–44 years oage in each survey year.

s

Survey yearEver-married women18–44 years of age

1973 9,6621982 4,6231988 5,2801995 6,833

In all four surveys, women wereasked if they had ever adopted a child,either related or unrelated to them.However, the specific question seriesyielding this information varied acrosssurveys. The greatest change in thequestion series occurred in the 1995NSFG, in which adoption was askedabout in the context of a series onnonbiological children (those to whomshe did not give birth) that the womanever raised.Table 1shows thepercentages of ever-married women18–44 years of age who have everadopted a child, based on survey datafrom 1973–95.Figure 1shows the trendin adoption of related children (that is,related by blood or marriage) from1982–95 among ever-married womenwho have adopted a child.

In this report, data are presentedfrom the 1995 NSFG on the demand foradoption and preferences for the adoptechild. Information on demand foradoption is garnered from three series oquestions in the 1995 interview.

+ Women may report that they haveadopted or are trying to adopt anonbiological child that they raised inthe past or are currently raising attime of interview (series 1).

+ Women may report that they arecurrently seeking to adopt a child,apart from any nonbiological childthey have raised or are raising(series 2).

+ And finally, women who are notcurrently seekingto adopt may reportthat they haveconsidered adoption inthe past(apart from any nonbiologicchild they have raised or are raising)(series 3).

Compiling information from thesethree series of questions,figures 2and3andtables 2and3 showdemand foradoptionamong ever-married women18–44 years of age in several ways:

Ever considered adoption—Theproportion of ever-married women

e r

s )

Figure 1. Percent who have adopted a related child among ever-married women 18–44years of age who have ever adopted a child: United States, 1982–95

Figure 2. Outcome of considering adoption among ever-married women 18–44 years ofage: United States, 1995


18–44 years of age who ever consideradoption includes those who haveadopted or are trying to adopt anonbiological child they have raised orare raising (series 1). It also includeswomen who have considered adoptionin the past (series 3) and those who ar

d

e

currently seeking to adopt a child (othethan a previously mentionednonbiological child) (series 2). Thus thiis the broadest definition of adoptiondemand, based on past and currentbehavior and attitudes.

Ever took steps—Based on allwomen who ever considered adoption,tables 2and3 show the proportion whoever took steps toward adoption. Womenwho have adopted or are currentlytrying to adopt a nonbiological childthey have raised or are raising (series 1)are counted as having ‘‘taken steps’’toward adoption. Also included arewomen who reported taking any stepstoward adoption elsewhere in theinterview (series 2 or 3). Steps towardadoption included contacting anadoption agency or lawyer, placing anewspaper ad, and other actionsindicating an interest in adoption beyond‘‘just considering.’’ This group is asubset of the group who ‘‘everconsidered adoption.’’

Currently seeking or planning toadopt—Tables 2and3 show theproportion of women who are currentlyseeking or planning to adopt (a) anonbiological child they are raising or(b) some other child. This group is asubset of the group who ‘‘everconsidered adoption.’’

Have taken steps (among currentseekers/planners)—Among women whoare currently seeking or planning toadopt,tables 2and3 show theproportions who have taken specificsteps toward adoption, as defined above.

In the 1995 NSFG, a subset ofwomen were asked for the first time in anational survey about their preferencesfor the adopted child. The characteristicsthat were asked about included sex,race, age, physical/mental disability,number of children (single child versusbrothers and sisters), and religion.(Definitions of disability were notprovided in the survey but left to therespondent’s own interpretation.) Amongwomen currently seeking to adopt achild (series 2), those who did notindicate that they were seeking to adopta particular child they already knewwere asked to specify the characteristicsthey would preferin an adopted child.Among women who previouslyconsidered adoption (but were notcurrently seeking), those who had takensteps toward adoption (as defined abovewere asked to specify the characteristicsthey would have preferred. Only thesesubsets of women were asked aboutpreferences because they were

v

d

r

d

.

Figure 3. Current adoption demand among ever-married women 18–44 years of age,United States, 1995


considered to best represent the pool oadoptive parents for the vast majority ochildren waiting to be adopted, and thewere deemed most likely to actaccording to their stated preferences.Also, these women were thought to haadvanced far enough in the adoptionprocess to have considered and formepreferences for what type of child theywished to adopt.

With all characteristics, womencould indicate that they wereindifferent—that is, they had noparticular preference. If womenexpressed a preference for a givencharacteristic, they were then askedfollowup questions about each of theother characteristics to determinewhether they ‘‘would accept’’ anotherchild. For example, women whoexpressed a preference for adopting aboy were asked if they ‘‘would accept’’a girl. Among those women who wereasked the questions on preferences foan adopted child,table 4shows thepercentages who ‘‘would accept’’ a chilwith a given characteristic and who

ffy

e

‘‘would prefer’’ a child with a givencharacteristic. The former groupincludes all those who expressedindifference about that characteristic, awell as those who expressed apreference but stated that they ‘‘wouldaccept’’ another child. This broaderclassification gives an indication of theacceptability of characteristics that maynot be generally preferred (for examplemild disability, older children).

Table 5shows the percent ofchildren born to never-married womenunder 45 years of age who wererelinquished for adoption in several timperiods. Information on childrenrelinquished for adoption was obtainedfrom two sources within the 1995survey. The first source was thequestionnaire series that asked for thebaby’s name for each of the woman’sbirths; in response to this question, somwomen, usually those who never nametheir babies, volunteered that they hadplaced the baby for adoption. A secondsource was a question later in theinterview asking the woman directly if

s

,

e

ed

she had ever placed a child for adoptionThis method of obtaining relinquishmentinformation differs slightly fromprevious years of the survey, which arealso used to produce the trend datashown intable 5. In 1982 and 1988,relinquishment was obtained fromwomen’s reports of the status of eachbiological child who was not living inher household at the time of theinterview. Children reported as livingwith adoptive parents were consideredto have been relinquished.Relinquishment may be underreported ina survey such as this, as acknowledgedin previous studies (12). However, thereis no reason to believe thatunderreporting would varysystematically by survey year due to thequestions used to obtain therelinquishment information.Underreporting would most likely occurat the point of enumeration of allpregnancies, rather than at the reportingof the status of already-identifiedpregnancies that resulted in live births.The method of ascertaining pregnancieswas consistent across survey years.Despite probable underreporting, theNSFG remains an important andexclusive source of national level datathat permits individual-level analysis ofthe determinants and consequences ofrelinquishment.

Results

Ever adopted a child

Table 1shows the percent ofever-married women 18–44 years of agewho have ever adopted a child, from1973 to 1995. The data suggest that thepercent who have ever adopted a childdeclined between these survey years,from 2.1 percent in 1973 to 1.3 percentin 1995. The factors associated withhaving adopted remain the same:adoption has been more common amongnulliparous women, those with impairedfecundity, and those who have ever usedinfertility services. The prevalence ofadoption increases with age, education,and income. Adoption by black womenhas remained relatively stable, but thedata suggest that adoption by whitewomen has declined.

Table 2. Demand for adoption among ever-married women 18–44 years of age:United States, 1995

CharacteristicEver consider

adoption

Took steps(based onthose who

ever consideredadoption)

Currentlyseeking orplanningto adopt

Took steps(based on

those currentlyseeking orplanningto adopt)

Number in thousands

All women in denominator . . . . . . . . 37,448 9,893 37,448 472(unweighted). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6,833) (1,856) (6,833) (89)

All women in numerator. . . . . . . . . . 9,893 1,573 472 232

Percent

Total1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.4 15.9 1.3 49.2

Age at interview

18–24 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.4 7.6 0.5 62.825–34 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.5 9.6 0.9 40.735–39 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28.7 16.7 1.6 33.940–44 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.0 25.3 1.8 69.5

Parity

0 births . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.5 21.7 2.2 52.11 birth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.8 13.9 1.4 58.62 births . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.8 13.4 0.6 27.73 or more births . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.9 14.7 0.4 49.0


Currently married. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.7 16.2 1.3 53.9Formerly married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.5 14.5 1.1 27.7

Fecundity status at interview

Surgically sterile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.6 18.0 1.5 52.4Impaired fecundity . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44.9 23.2 2.7 54.8Fecund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.5 9.2 0.7 38.0


Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41.1 27.0 2.0 59.4No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.2 9.9 1.1 43.6


No high school diploma or GED3 . . . . 21.6 21.0 2.7 55.2High school diploma or GED. . . . . . . 25.6 14.8 1.0 52.2Some college, no bachelor’s degree . . 31.0 16.2 1.2 53.0Bachelor’s degree or higher . . . . . . . 26.5 16.4 1.3 34.7


0–149 percent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.2 12.0 1.3 54.1150–299 percent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.9 16.0 0.9 38.0300 percent or higher . . . . . . . . . . . 29.4 17.4 1.5 51.8


Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.8 11.6 2.4 58.4Non-Hispanic white . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.9 16.4 0.9 52.6Non-Hispanic black . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.6 17.2 2.5 34.8

1Total includes women with missing or inapplicable data on some variables. Also includes women of other race and ethnicorigins, not shown separately.2Limited to women 22–44 years at interview.3GED is general equivalency diploma.


In the 1982, 1988, and 1995surveys, questions were included todetermine how each adopted child warelated to the respondentat the timewhen he or she first came to live with

s

the respondent—for example, was thechild a stepchild, a child of a sibling orother relative, or did the child have noprior relationship with the respondent.While the specific wording and respon
se
choices varied across surveys, it ispossible to define a comparable variablefor each year to indicate whether thewoman had ever adopted a related child.A ‘‘related’’ child is defined as any childwith whom the respondent had arelationship before the child came tolive with her. This relationship may bethrough blood (as with a sister’s child)or through marriage (as with ahusband’s child); children of acohabiting partner or boyfriend werealso counted as ‘‘related’’ because theywere likely to have had a relationshipwith the respondent at the time theybegan living with her.Figure 1showsthe percent who have adopted a relatedchild among ever-married women 18–44who have ever adopted a child, byrace/origin and survey year. Theprevalence of related adoption increasedsignificantly between 1988 and 1995.For example, among all women, theprevalence more than doubled from26 percent in 1988 to 56 percent in1995; this rise was driven largely by theincrease in related adoptions amongnon-Hispanic white women who everadopted, from 19 percent in 1988 to54 percent in 1995. In 1982 and 1988,related adoptions comprised asignificantly larger percentage ofadoptions for ever-married non-Hispanicblack women than for their whitecounterparts who had adopted a child.By 1995, the prevalence of relatedadoptions was comparable among whiteand black women who ever adopted achild.

Demand for adoption

Figure 2gives the number ofever-married women 18–44 in 1995 whohaveever consideredadoption (asdefined above in the Methods section),and depicts theoutcome of consideringadoption based on whether or not theytook steps toward adoption and whetheror not they actually adopted a child. In1995, 9.9 million women had everconsidered adoption, representing over aquarter of all ever-married women inthis age range. Of these women,15.9 percent (1.6 million) had ever takensteps toward adoption. Of those whohad taken steps, 31 percent (487,000)had adopted one or more children.

r

)

r

e

Table 3. Number of ever-married women 18–44 years of age and percent distribution byselected characteristics: United States, 1995

CharacteristicAll ever-marriedwomen 18–44

Everconsideredadoption

Everconsidered

adoption ANDtook steps

Currentlyseeking orplanning to

adopt

Number in thousands

All women in denominator . . . . . . . . 37,448 9,893 1,572 472(unweighted). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6,833) (1,856) (290) (89)

Percent distribution

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Age at interview

18–24 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2 *6.4 3.0 3.725–34 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40.3 *37.4 *22.7 29.035–39 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.9 28.2 29.6 33.040–44 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.7 ^28.1 *44.7 34.4

Parity

0 births . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.0 *25.5 *34.9 33.21 birth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.9 23.0 20.1 24.52 births . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.8 30.5 25.6 15.03 or more births . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.3 *21.0 19.4 27.3


Currently married. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79.0 79.8 81.6 82.2Formerly married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.0 20.2 18.4 17.8

Fecundity status at interview

Surgically sterile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40.6 42.4 48.1 47.3Impaired fecundity . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.3 *21.0 *30.7 26.1Fecund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47.1 *36.6 *21.2 26.6


Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.4 *34.9 *59.4 *35.3No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77.6 65.1 40.6 64.7


No high school diploma or GED2 . . . . 11.5 9.3 12.1 24.0High school diploma or GED. . . . . . . 40.9 39.2 35.9 31.4Some college, no bachelor’s degree . . 24.8 *28.8 29.0 22.4Bachelor’s degree or higher . . . . . . . 22.8 22.7 23.1 22.3


0–149 percent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.7 *15.5 11.5 19.4150–299 percent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.6 29.5 29.2 22.2300 percent or higher . . . . . . . . . . . 49.8 *55.0 59.3 58.5


Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.9 11.1 8.1 20.7Non-Hispanic white . . . . . . . . . . . . 75.3 73.9 76.4 *52.7Non-Hispanic black . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.4 10.6 11.5 19.1Non-Hispanic other . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 4.4 4.0 7.5

* Percent is significantly different at the 5-percent level from the percent in column immediately to the left. That is, the 95-percentconfidence intervals for the 2 percent values do not overlap.^ Percent is significantly different at the 10-percent level from the percent in column immediately to the left. That is, the90-percent confidence intervals for the 2 percent values do not overlap.1Limited to women 22–44 years at interview.2GED is general equivalency diploma.

NOTES: Percents may not add to 100 due to rounding. For dichotomous variables (those with only 2 values), confidenceintervals only needed to be evaluated for one set of values.


Figure 3also starts with the numbeof women whoever consideredadoption, but describescurrent demandfor adoption. Over one-half (5.6 million

of women who ever considered adoptioare still seeking or planning to adopt owould consider adoption in the future,even if they may not be currently

n

seeking or planning to adopt. (Note:Some of these women may haveadopted a child already.) Nearly40 percent (3.9 million) of those whoever considered adoption have notadopted a child, are not currentlyseeking or planning to adopt, and wouldnot consider adoption in the future. Theremaining small group of women(3.4 percent; 336,000) are those whohave adopted a child but would notconsider adoption again. The bottomrow of figure 3breaks out the 5.6million women who are still seeking orplanning to adopt or would consideradoption at some point in the future.The vast majority of these women (5.2million; 91.6 percent) are not currentlyseeking or planning to adopt but wouldconsider adoption (again) in the future.The remaining women are currentlyseeking or planning to adopt;approximately one-half of these women(232,000; 4.1 percent) have taken steps,and the other one-half (240,000;4.3 percent) havenot taken steps towardadoption.

Information on adoption seekingwas also collected in the 1988 NSFG,using a shorter sequence of questions onwhether women had ever sought toadopt a child, steps they had takentoward adoption, and whether they werecurrently seeking to adopt. The 1988estimate of the population of womencurrently seeking to adopt and who hadtaken some steps toward adoption was204,000 (14). The 1995 estimate of232,000 is not significantly different,suggesting that current demand foradoption has remained relatively stable.Success in adopting also appears to havremained stable: in 1988, 31 percent ofwomen who had ever ‘‘sought to adopt’’had adopted a child; in 1995, 31 percentof women who had ever ‘‘taken steps toadopt’’ had done so.

Table 2shows the prevalence ofadoption demand in various subgroupsof ever-married women. The firstcolumn in the table is based on allever-married women (6,833 unweightedcases representing 37.4 million women)and includes the percent whoeverconsideredadoption. Column 2 showsthe percent who took steps towardadoption, based on the 9.9 millionwomen who ever considered adoption.

s,

t

Table 4. Preferences for adoption among those asked: National Survey of Family Growth,1995

Currently seekingto adopt

Previously soughtto adopt

Unweighted number

All women . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 2,380Women asked about preferences1 . . . . . . . 88 150

Number in thousands

All women . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 498 12,673Women asked about preferences . . . . . . . . 437 802

Percent who would—

Accept PreferHave

acceptedHave

preferred

Sex of child

Boy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95.4 21.2 97.0 12.8Girl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98.0 33.3 96.5 37.4

Race of child

Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79.1 13.7 65.7 9.5White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94.6 28.8 95.8 46.6Other race . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90.4 15.1 86.9 5.3

White women:Black child . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72.5 1.8 59.2 2.1White child . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 51.0 100.0 56.8Other child . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87.4 9.2 86.0 5.2

Black women:Black child . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 52.1 100.0 51.5White child . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86.4 – 71.3 –Other child . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89.1 11.7 88.5 4.5

Age of child

Less than 2 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96.9 57.5 95.2 63.82–5 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85.5 28.1 76.8 22.66–12 years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56.4 6.8 40.1 4.513 years or older . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.6 0.5 18.0 –

Physical/mental disability of child

None . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 54.2 99.4 69.5Mild . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83.0 24.8 81.1 18.6Severe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33.1 5.5 15.9 11.2

Number of children

Single child . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98.8 64.7 100.0 62.92 or more siblings at once . . . . . . . . . . . . 66.1 26.3 70.7 15.2

Religion of child

Same as respondent or H/P2 . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 17.1 100.0 22.8Different from respondent or H/P2 . . . . . . . 98.8 6.8 94.6 1.2

Protestant women:Same religion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 18.7 100.0 23.3Different religion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98.2 10.2 93.3 1.5

Catholic women:Same religion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 14.1 100.0 29.2Different religion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 – 98.7 –

– Quantity zero.1Current adoption seekers were asked about preferences if they were not seeking to adopt a child they already knew. Previousadoption seekers were asked about preferences if they had taken any steps toward adoption and they were not seeking to adopta child they already knew.2H/P is husband or partner.


Column 3 is again based on allever-married women (37.4 million) andshows the percent who arecurrentlyseeking or planningto adopt. Column 4shows the percent who have taken stepbased on the 472,000 women who arecurrently seeking or planning to adopt.

Over a quarter of all ever-marriedwomen 18–44 years of age(26.4 percent) have ever consideredadoption, but few of these women(15.9 percent, or 4.2 percent of allever-married women) have takenconcrete steps toward adopting. Only1.3 percent of the 37.4 million ever-married women are currently planningor seeking to adopt, but of these, nearlyone-half (49.2 percent) have takenspecific steps. In general, the factorsrelated to having ever adopted (table 1)are also related in similar fashion tohaving considered adoption and havingtaken concrete steps. For example,having considered adoption is morecommon among older women,nulliparous women, those with currentfecundity impairment, and those whohave ever used infertility services. Thesame tends to be true for the percentcurrently seeking or planning to adopt,but the numbers are often too small toachieve statistical reliability. Thenumbers in column 4 provide a far lessclearcut picture of who actually takesconcrete steps among women currentlyseeking or planning to adopt. It appearsthat the factors most closely tied totaking steps among current seekers/planners are being currently married,having ever used infertility services, andbeing of a racial/ethnic group other thannon-Hispanic black.

In contrast totable 2, which givesthe prevalence of different levels ofadoption demand among groups ofever-married women,table 3comparesthe characteristics of four groups ofever-married women who differ withrespect to their level of adoptiondemand—that is, their current and pastadoption-seeking. As a baseline, the firscolumn describes all ever-marriedwomen 18–44 years of age. Eachsubsequent column presents aprogressively smaller subset of ever-married women in order to explore theselectivity associated withadoption-seeking. Column 2 shows

,

ga

y

ty.

r

to

e

e

y

nd

ts

uld.

t

der

d

dt

,h

d

en

).

s,

Table 5. Among children born to never-married women under 45 years of age, percentwho were relinquished for adoption, by race, according to year of birth

RaceBefore1973 1973–81 1982–881

1989–95(standard error)

All women2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.7 4.1 2 0.9 (.03)

Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 0.2 1.1 –White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19.3 7.5 3.2 1.7 (0.55)

– Quantity zero.1Percentages for before 1973 through 1988 are based on combined data from the 1982 and 1988 NSFG (12).2Includes women of other races, not shown separately.

NOTE: Categories ‘‘Black’’ and ‘‘White’’ include women of Hispanic origin.


ever-married women who everconsidered adoption, column 3 showscolumn 2 women who took concretesteps toward adoption, and column 4shows ever-married women who arecurrently seeking or planning to adoptregardless of whether they have takensteps to adopt. The notations indicatinsignificance testing represent statisticimportant differences between eachcolumn’s figures with the figureimmediately to its left. For example,women who ever considered adoption(column 2) are significantly more likelto be older and nulliparous than allever-married women. They are alsomore likely to have current fecundityimpairment, to have ever used infertiliservices, and to have higher incomesWomen who actually took concretesteps toward adoption (column 3) diffefrom the group who ever consideredadoption (column 2) in that they tendbe older and more likely to benulliparous, fecundity-impaired, andever-users of infertility services. Womcurrently seeking or planning to adopt(column 4) do not differ very muchfrom those women who ever consideradoption and took concrete steps(column 3). They show similardistributions with respect to age, paritmarital status, fecundity status,education, and income. However,current seekers/planners are significalesslikely to be white and to have useinfertility services.

Preferences for the adopted child

As described in the Methodssection, certain women who everconsidered adoption were asked aboutheir preferences for the characteristicof an adopted child.Table 4describes

lly

n

d

,

tly

these preferences among womencurrently seeking or planning to adoptand women who previously sought toadopt. In general, preferences are stronwith regard to age of child, disabilitystatus of child, race of child, andnumber of children. Preferences are lesstrong for sex or religious affiliation ofchild. Although women would equallyaccept boys or girls, they tended toprefer to adopt girls, a finding supportedby field observations. Even whenpreferences are strong, it is sometimesthe case that womenwould acceptachild with the less-preferred attribute.For example, among white womencurrently seeking or planning to adopt,51 percent would prefer to adopt a whitchild, but 73 percent would accept ablack child, and 89 percent would accepa child of another race. Similarly,52 percent of black women currentlyseeking or planning to adopt wouldprefer to adopt a black child, and86–89 percent would accept a whitechild or a child of another race. Amongboth current seekers/planners andprevious seekers, nearly two-thirdspreferred to adopt a single child, butroughly 70 percent were willing toaccept two or more siblings at once.

With respect to age of child, thereis less acceptance of older children.Nearly 60 percent of current seekers/planners would prefer to adopt a childunder 2 years of age. While 86 percentwould accept a child 2–5 years of age,only 37 percent would accept a childolder than 12. Similarly, with regard todisability status, over one-half(54 percent) of current seekers/plannerswould prefer to adopt a nondisabledchild, but only one-third (33 percent)would accept a severely disabled child.Among previous adoption seekers, the

g

s

e

t

acceptance of disability is far less:70 percent would have preferred toadopt a nondisabled child and only16 percent would have accepted aseriously disabled child. It should benoted that 83 percent of currentseekers/planners and 81 percent ofprevious seekers would accept (or wohave accepted) a mildly disabled child

Relinquishment of children foradoption

Table 5shows the percent ofchildren born to never-married womenunder 45 years of age who wererelinquished for adoption, according torace of mother and year of birth. Theplacement of children for adoption hasnever been common, but over the pasfew decades it has grown increasinglyrare. Between 1989 and 1995, just un1 percent of babies born to never-married women were relinquished foradoption. Never-married black womenhave been consistently less likely thannever-married white women torelinquish their babies for adoption, anthis likelihood has remained very lowover the decades. In contrast, thepercent of babies born to never-marriewhite women (that is, never-married atime of birth) who were placed foradoption has declined sharply. In theearly 1970’s, almost 20 percent ofbabies born to never-married whitewomen were relinquished for adoptioncompared with only 1.7 percent of sucbabies born in the first half of the1990’s.

Discussion

Prevalence of adoption

Data from the NSFG suggest adecline over time, particularly betweenthe 1970’s and the 1990’s, in thepercent of ever-married women whohave ever adopted a child. As indicateby figure 1, the decline in adoption isessentially a decline in unrelatedadoptions, that is, adoptions in whichthere was no pre-existing blood ormarital relationship between the childrand the adopting parents (at the timewhen the child began living with themThe dramatic rise in the proportion ofall adoptions that are related adoption

is

r

,

n

5as

n

t

a

e

ar

r

e

s

.

ve

.

t

f


particularly among non-Hispanic whitewomen, may reflect increases in theadoption of stepchildren over thisperiod. While there were some minorwording changes in the adoptionquestion series across survey years, itunlikely that these changes areresponsible for the apparent decline inoverall adoption prevalence. It ispossible that the composition of theever-married population has changedover these survey years, especially withrespect to age, given the patterns ofdelayed marriage in the past 2–3decades. But these changes probablyresulted in a greater proportion ofever-married people being those who ahighly motivated for parenting, whichwould not translate to a decline inadoption prevalence. The decline inadoption reflects trends in the annualnumber of reported adoptions over thepast four decades. This number peakedat 175,000 in 1970, and by 1986 hadfallen to 104,000 (3, 5–7). Althoughestimates of annual adoptions for theperiods since the mid-1970’s are onlyintermittently available, the evidencesuggests that the numbers haveremained fairly low, varying within anarrow range, despite increases in thepopulation of reproductive age. Womenadopting during the years around 1970when adoption rates were higher, havegradually aged out of the NSFG sampleleaving only women who have adoptedduring years when adoption wasrelatively less common.

Adoption demand

Although the prevalence of adoptiohas fallen significantly since the 1973survey, NSFG data from 1988 and 199indicate that the demand for adoption,measured by numbers and percentageof ever-married women seeking toadopt, has remained fairly stable sincethe late 1980’s. In both survey years,there was stability in adoption successas well, with 31 percent of women whoever ‘‘sought to adopt’’ or ‘‘took stepsto adopt’’ having actually adopted achild. This stability in adoption seekingand its ultimate success, along with thepreferences expressed in the 1995survey for younger children and forchildren with no or mild disabilities,

e

,

s

amplifies the challenge of findingadoptive homes for many of the childrein the public foster care system. Thisinformation may help Federal, State, alocal child welfare agencies indeveloping strategies to more efficientlyidentify appropriate prospective adoptivparents for the children in the publicfoster care system who are waiting forpermanent homes.

Another key finding of this report,illustrated by the use of severaldefinitions of adoption demand, is thatthe motivation to adopt is a continuum.With the broadest definition of adoptiondemand, the NSFG data indicate thatover a quarter of ever-married women(9.9 million women) have everconsidered adoption, but only 4 percenof ever-married women (1.6 millionwomen) have taken concrete stepstoward adopting. In 1995, roughly232,000 ever-married women werecurrently seeking or planning to adoptchild and had taken concrete steps,representing about 2 percent of all whohad ever considered adoption. Thissuggests that surveys including a singlitem to capture ‘‘interest in adopting’’would do a poor job of measuring thepotential of individuals to adopt. At thesame time, the numbers of womenactually seeking or planning to adoptmay underestimate potential demandbecause real and perceived barriers mdissuade many from taking steps. Ove5 million women in 1995 were willingto consider adoption again in the futurebut were not currently seeking orplanning to adopt. Between the numbe‘‘willing to consider’’ and the numbers‘‘actually seeking’’ is a vast gulf; little isknown about the readiness of thesepeople to adopt.

The data also suggest that it wouldbe incomplete and potentiallymisleading to assume that all or most othe demand for adoption arises fromindividuals who have experiencedfertility problems. While there is somerelationship between infertility andinterest in adoption, this report andearlier analyses with the NSFG indicatthat the relationship may be weakening(18). As documented intables 1and3,adoption and adoption demand is moreprevalent among nulliparous women anfecundity-impaired women, but many

n

d

e

y

,

s

f

d

women considering or seeking adoptiondo not have these characteristics.Figure 1indicates that a greaterpercentage of adopting women hadadopted a related child as of 1995,compared with earlier survey years. Thitrend reflects increases in the adoptionof stepchildren and children of relatives‘‘Related’’ adoptions are just onesubgroup of what some researchers halabeled ‘‘preferential adoption,’’ that is,adoption motivated by reasons otherthan infertility. The increasingprevalence of preferential adoption hasbeen noted in other studies as well (24)It is also worth noting that thedevelopment and dissemination of newinfertility treatments may delay orreduce demand for adoption. Thus theremay be a much broader market foradoption than indicated by the marketfor infertility services.

Relinquishment

The downward trend inrelinquishment of births occurring tonever-married women that was seen inthe 1980’s continued through themid-1990’s. This decline has paralleleda steady increase in the rate ofnonmarital births (that is, births tounmarried women, of which never-married women are a subset) during thesame period (25). Careful study iswarranted to determine the reasons thaan increasingly large pool of never-married mothers continue to be lesslikely to make the decision to relinquishtheir babies for adoption, but recentdeclines in abortion rates suggest thatthe choice of abortion overrelinquishment is not a significant factorin lower prevalence of relinquishment inrecent years (26).

Variations in the questions acrosscycles of the survey may have an effecton the comparability of therelinquishment estimates across time. Inearlier rounds of the survey,relinquishment was determinedindirectly from a question in thepregnancy history asking where each oa woman’s biological children wascurrently living, if not listed in therespondent’s household roster; thosewho were reported as living withadoptive parents were considered to

F

a

th

l

e

in

f

h

oa

e

,t

g


have been relinquished. The 1995 NSdid not ascertain the living situation ofeach biological child not listed in thehousehold, but still relied uponrespondents to volunteer in the babyname question (in the pregnancyhistory) that they had relinquished ababy. As mentioned earlier, the 1995NSFG also included, for the first time,direct question asking whether thewoman had ever placed a child foradoption in hopes of alleviating thepotential underreporting associated wirelying on respondents to volunteerrelinquishment information in thepregnancy history. Despite thisadditional directness in the survey,reported relinquishments of premaritalbirths declined through 1995 andremained a rare phenomenon. Asupplementary analysis (figures notshown) was conducted that lendscredibility to the estimates produced inthe 1995 NSFG. Using only the 1995NSFG, estimates of relinquishmentamong never-married women werereproduced for time periods comparabto those shown in analyses of earliercycles of the NSFG (12), and theestimates were very similar.

Although there is little time trenddata to support this hypothesis, anothfactor to consider is that informaladoption (that is, relative care or otherchild care arrangements) is occurringplace of formal relinquishment foradoption (27). The 1995 NSFG datasuggest that adopted children accountfor only a small proportion of thenonbiological children cared for bywomen 18–44 years of age. Elevenpercent of women in this age range haever lived with and cared for a child towhom they had not given birth. While3 percent were responsible for astepchild, and nearly 6 percent wereresponsible for a child of a relative,friend, or partner, less than 1 percentactually adopted the child (28). Thephenomenon of transferring custody ochild from the birth mother to anotherperson or persons can take differentforms, and is far from limited topermanent relinquishment of parentalrights and responsibilities and legaladoption of the child by strangers.Transfer of custody can vary alongseveral dimensions such as formal

G

e

r

d

a

versus informal, related versusnonrelated, and temporary versuspermanent (27). It can also vary interms of the degree of agreement of tbirth mother. Thus, survey questionsshould be designed to capture moreexplicitly the variations on childplacement that cannot be classified asformal, permanent relinquishment,including, for example, the temporarytransfer of caretaking responsibilities trelatives, and the court-ordered remov(short or long term) of a child intofoster care. This approach may notresult in the identification of morechildren available for adoption becausmany of these children will neverappear in the adoption pool. Howeverthis will increase our knowledge abouthe prevalence of the transfer ofcaretaking responsibility from thebiological parent(s), and the expandinarray of child care and custodyarrangements that are used.

References

1. Maza PL. What we do and don’tknow about adoption statistics. ChildWelfare League of America:Permanent Families for Children3(2). 1985.

2. Stolley KS. Statistics on adoption inthe United States. The Future ofChildren 3(1):26–42. 1993.

3. Maza PL. Adoption trends 1944–75.Child welfare research notes, no 9.Administration on Children, Youthand Families. 1984.

4. Maza PL. Trends in national data onthe adoption of children withhandicaps. J Children inContemporary Society 21(3/4):119–38. 1990.

5. Flango VE, Flango CR. Adoptionstatistics by state. Child Welfare72(3):311–9. 1993.

6. Flango VE. Agency and privateadoptions. Child Welfare 69(3):263–75. 1990.

7. Flango VE, Flango CR. How manychildren were adopted in 1992. ChildWelfare 74(5):1018–32. 1995.

8. National Committee for Adoption.Adoption factbook: United Statesdata, issues, regulations, andresources. Washington: NationalCommittee for Adoption. 1985.

9. National Committee for Adoption.Adoption factbook: United Statesdata, issues, regulations, and

e

l

resources. Washington: NationalCommittee for Adoption. 1989.

10. Bachrach CA. Children in families:Characteristics of biological, step-and adopted children. J Marr Fam45(1):171–9. 1983.

11. Bachrach CA. Adoption plans,adopted children and adoptivemothers. J Marr Fam 48(2):243–53.1986.

12. Bachrach CA, Stolley KS, LondonKA. Relinquishment of premaritalbirths: Evidence from national surveydata. Fam Plann Perspect 24(1):27–32. January-February. 1992.

13. Bachrach CA. Adoption as a meansof family formation: Data from theNational Survey of Family Growth. JMarr Fam 45(4):859–65. 1983.

14. Bachrach CA, London KA, MazaPL. On the path to adoption:Adoption seeking in the UnitedStates, 1988. J Marr Fam 53(3):705–18. 1991.

15. Bonham GS. Who adopts: Therelationship of adoption and social-demographic characteristics ofwomen. J Marr Fam 39:295–306.May. 1977.

16. Bachrach CA, Adams PF, SambranoS, London KA. Adoption in the1980’s. Advance data from vital andhealth statistics; no 181. Hyattsville,Maryland: National Center for HealthStatistics. 1990.

17. Bachrach CA, Feigelman W, ChandraA, Wilson J. Using archival datasetsto study adoption-related questions.Adoption Research Newsletter, 1.1995.

18. Chandra A, Stephen EH. Impairedfecundity in the United States:1982–95. Fam Plann Perspect30(1):34–42. January–February.1998.

19. Bachrach CA, Horn M, Mosher W,Shimizu I. National Survey ofFamily Growth, Cycle III: Sampledesign, weighting, and varianceestimation. National Center forHealth Statistics. Vital Health Stat2(98). 1985.

20. French D. National Survey of FamilyGrowth, Cycle I: Sample design,estimation procedures, and varianceestimation. National Center forHealth Statistics. Vital Health Stat2(76). 1978.

21. Judkins D, Mosher W, Botman S.National Survey of Family Growth,Cycle IV: Design, estimation, andinference. National Center for Health


Statistics. Vital Health Stat 2(109).1991.

22. Kelly JE, Mosher WD, Duffer AP,Kinsey SH. Plan and operation of the1995 National Survey of FamilyGrowth. National Center for HealthStatistics. Vital Health Stat 1(36).1997.

23. Potter FJ, Iannacchione VG, MosherWD, Mason RE, Kavee JD. Sampledesign, sampling weights, andvariance estimation in the 1995National Survey of Family Growth.National Center for Health Statistics.Vital Health Stat 2(124). 1998.

24. Feigelman W, Silverman AR.Preferential adoption: A new mode offamily formation. Social Casework60:296–305. May. 1979.

25. Ventura SJ, Martin JA, Curtin SC,Mathews TJ. Report of final natalitystatistics, 1996. Monthly vitalstatistics report; vol 46 no 11, supp.Hyattsville, Maryland: NationalCenter for Health Statistics. 1998.

26. Henshaw SK. Abortion incidence andservices in the United States,1995–96. Fam Plann Perspect30(6):263–70, 287. November–December. 1998.

27. Testa MF, Falconnier L. Improvingdata collection on adoption andrelinquishment of children in theNational Survey of Family Growth.Final report prepared for aprofessional services contract.December. 1998.

28. Abma J, Chandra A, Mosher W,Peterson L, Piccinino L. Fertility,family planning, and women’shealth: New data from the 1995National Survey of Family Growth.National Center for Health Statistics.Vital Health Stat 23(19). 1997.

29. Chandra A. Surgical sterilization inthe United States: Prevalence andcharacteristics, 1965–95. NationalCenter for Health Statistics. VitalHealth Stat 23(20). 1998.

c

vn

a

et

s

r

e

e

is

’’

s


Technical notes

Definitions of terms

Currently seeking or planning toadopt—For definition of term, see theMethods section.

Ever considered adoption—Fordefinition of term, see the Methodssection.

Ever relinquished a child—Relinquishment is compiled from twosources in the 1995 NSFG:

1. Each woman who had a live birthwas asked, for each of her live birthwhat she named the baby. If shereported that the baby (usuallyunnamed) had been placed foradoption, this was recorded by theinterviewer.

2. Unless the adoption status of eaof the live births had already beenascertained from the source askingfor the baby’s name, women wereasked ‘‘(Not including the baby(ies)that you already told me about,) hayou ever placed a(nother) child borto you for adoption?’’ She was thenasked to identify which baby hadbeen placed for adoption, sorelinquishment status could be linketo a specific live birth.

A baby is considered to have beenrelinquished if identified as placed foradoption in either of the two sources.

Fecundity status at time ofinterview—Each woman is classifiedaccording to her physical capacity toconceive or bear a child at time ofinterview. The six categories offecundity status are grouped in thisreport as follows:

+ ‘‘surgically sterile’’—whether for‘‘noncontraceptive’’ or‘‘contraceptive’’ reasons

+ ‘‘impaired fecundity’’—includes‘‘nonsurgically sterile,’’ ‘‘subfecund,’’and ‘‘long interval withoutconception’’

+ ‘‘fecund’’—includes all women notclassified as ‘‘surgically sterile’’ or‘‘impaired fecundity.’’

Ever used infertility services—Infertility services are defined as anyform of medical help to become

s,

h

e

d

pregnant or to prevent miscarriage.Women were asked about receipt ofinfertility services at any point in theirlives, therefore this measure does notindicatewhenthese services werereceived.

Preferences for the adoptedchild—For definition of term, see theMethods section.

Selected demographic terms—Age at interviewis based on the

woman’s age (as of her last birthday)the midpoint of the interviewing periodfor each survey year. This date was usto determine whether each respondenwas in the eligible age range for thesurvey.

Education at interviewis based onthe woman’s educational attainment atthe time of interview. College graduateare those with a bachelor’s degree orhigher; they have completed anundergraduate degree program thatnormally takes 4 years to complete,regardless of how long they actuallytook to finish the degree. Women withan associate’s degree, which typicallyrequires 2 years to complete, areclassified as having ‘‘some college.’’Results shown by education in thisreport are limited to women 22–44 yeaof age, in order to allow all women toreport college attendance.

Marital status at interviewindicatesthe woman’s formal (legal) maritalstatus at time of interview. In thisreport, women who were widowed,divorced, or separated are groupedtogether as ‘‘formerly married.’’

Parity is defined as the total numbof live births ever had by the woman.This number is to be distinguished fromgravidity, which is the total number oftimes she has been pregnant.Nulliparous women are those who havhad no live births, and parous womenare those who have given birth to atleast one baby. This term is used in threport instead of ‘‘childless women’’because (a) women may be ‘‘childlesseven though they have given birth (forexample, they relinquished their babiefor adoption or their children died), and(b) women may have children thoughthey have never given birth (forexample, nulliparous women whoadopted a child).

t

d

s

r

Poverty level income at interviewisbased on the poverty index ratiocalculated for each survey year. Povertystatus, measured in this way, adjusts thetotal family income for the number ofpersons in the family and accounts forthe poverty income levels defined by theU.S. Census Bureau for any given year.

Race and Hispanic origincan bedefined in all of the NSFG surveys(1973–95). Women who reported anyHispanic or Spanish ancestry wereclassified as Hispanic. Then all otherwomen were classified according torace, yielding groups for ‘‘non-Hispanicwhite,’’ ‘‘non-Hispanic black,’’ and‘‘non-Hispanic other’’ women.

Further details on most of theseterms have been published elsewhere(28).

Source and description of thedata

Data for 1973, 1982, 1988, and1995 are from the National Survey ofFamily Growth (NSFG), conducted bythe National Center for Health Statistics(NCHS). The NSFG is a periodic surveyof the civilian, noninstitionalizedpopulation of women 15–44 years ofage in the United States. The 1988 and1995 surveys drew their samples fromthe National Health Interview Survey, anongoing household survey alsoconducted by NCHS, in collaborationwith the U.S. Bureau of the Census. The1995 NSFG was the first in the series tobe conducted with computer-assistedpersonal interviewing (CAPI), whichsignificantly improved the quality andtimeliness of the data. Recent cycles ofthe NSFG have been jointly planned andfunded by NCHS, the Office ofPopulation Affairs (OPA), and theNational Institute for Child Health andHuman Development (NICHD), withadditional support from theAdministration for Children andFamilies.

The main purpose of the NSFG isto collect data on factors affectingpregnancy and women’s health in theUnited States. The NSFG supplementsand complements the data from theNational Vital Statistics System onbirths, marriage and divorce, fetal death,and infant mortality (for example, see

l,

iny

Fd

)ns

tn

k

dir

e

h

eeo

/

o

y

e

by


reference 25). The NSFG is also asignificant part of the Centers forDisease Control and Prevention’s pubhealth surveillance for women, infantsand children—particularly oncontraception, infertility, unintendedpregnancy and childbearing, teenagepregnancy, and breastfeeding.

Sampling errors

Because the statistics presentedthis report are based on sample survethey may differ from the statistics thatwould have resulted if all the millionsof women represented by the surveyshad been interviewed. The standarderror of an estimate is a measure ofsuch differences.

Most of the statistics presented inthis report are based on the 1995 NSfor which SUDAAN software was useto estimate standard errors and todetermine statistical significance. It wanot possible (at the time of this writingto use the same statistical software atechniques to estimate standard erroracross all survey years from 1973 to1995. For further details on thetechniques used, consult Appendix II,reference number 29.

In this report, terms such as‘‘higher,’’ ‘‘lower,’’ ‘‘increase,’’ and‘‘decrease’’ indicate that the observeddifferences were statistically significanat the 5-percent level. Statements usiphrases such as ‘‘the data suggest’’indicate that the difference wassignificant at the 10-percent level. Lacof comment about any two statisticsdoes not mean that statisticalsignificance of the difference was ruleout; the significance of all possible paof statistics was not tested.

Statistics in this report may also bsubject to nonsampling error, that is,errors or omissions in responding to tinterview, recording answers, andprocessing data. The NSFG data foreach survey year have been adjustednonresponse by adjustment to thesample weights assigned to each casOther types of nonsampling error werminimized by a series of quality contrmeasures that have been described
elsewhere (19–23).
ic

s,

G,

s

d

g

s

e

for

.

l

Availability of data and relateddata sources

Public-use data files containing datafrom all surveys used in this report areavailable from the National TechnicalInformation Service. Orderinginformation for data and selected reportbased on the data can be found on theNCHS homepage at http://www.cdc.govnchswww/. Paper copies of all NCHSreports based on the NSFG can beordered by contacting the DataDissemination Branch at 301–436-8500or the U.S. Government Printing Officeat 202–512-1800.

The Voluntary CooperativeInformation System (VCIS) begun in1982 is the primary source of nationalaggregate data on adoption and fostercare in the United States. Roughly60 percent of the States and Puerto Ricresponded to this voluntary survey infiscal year 1994, and the data areincomplete and somewhat inconsistentlreported among those responding.Despite these limitations, the VCIS dataprovide the most complete picture of thcircumstances of foster care childrenand children adopted from the fostercare system for the period 1982 through1994.

The Adoption and Foster CareAnalysis and Reporting System(AFCARS) was established by theDepartment of Health and HumanServices (DHHS) in 1990 as amandatory system for collecting data onall children covered by the protectionsof Title IV-B of the Social Security Act(Section 427). States arerequired tocollect data on all children in foster care(for whom the State child welfareagency has responsibility) and on alladopted children who were placed byeither the State child welfare agency orprivate agencies under contract with theState child welfare agency. States areencouragedbut not required to collectdata on all other adoptions finalized inthe State. All information is relayed toDHHS twice a year, approximately 2months after the end of each 6-monthreporting period; the first reportingperiod was October 1, 1994–March 31,1995.

s

In addition to the NSFG, theNational Longitudinal Survey of Youthand selected Supplements of theNational Health Interview Survey alsoprovide information on adopted childrenand prospective adoptive parents orcaregivers. For further details on thesedata sources, please see the summaryBachrach and colleagues (17).

Suggested citation

Chandra A, Abma J, Maza P, Bachrach C.Adoption, adoption seeking, andrelinquishment for adoption in the UnitedStates. Advance data from vital and healthstatistics; no. 306. Hyattsville, Maryland:National Center for Health Statistics. 1999.

Copyright information

All material appearing in this report is in thepublic domain and may be reproduced orcopied without permission; citation as tosource, however, is appreciated.

National Center for Health Statistics

DirectorEdward J. Sondik, Ph.D.

Deputy DirectorJack R. Anderson

U.S. DEPARTMENT OFHEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and PreventionNational Center for Health Statistics6525 Belcrest RoadHyattsville, Maryland 20782-2003

OFFICIAL BUSINESSPENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300

To receive this publication regularly, contactthe National Center for Health Statistics bycalling 301-436-8500E-mail: [email protected]: www.cdc.gov/nchswww/

DHHS Publication No. (PHS) 99-12509-0349 (5/99)


FIRST CLASS MAILPOSTAGE & FEES PAID

CDC/NCHSPERMIT NO. G-284

http://www.cdc.gov/nchswww/mail/mail.htm

www.cdc.gov/nchswww/

Self Improvement

Explosion In Tower Before Jet Hit By Furlong And Ross