Wednesday, May 28, 2008

Blacks nearly 12 times as likely as Asians to have kids placed in foster care

++Addition++Commenter Marc adds:
I had the AFCARS raw dataset from 2004 open on my competer, so I ran an analysis to see if I could answer my own earlier question regarding rates of kinship care among black and white children in foster care. Here's what I found (again, all stats from 2004):

Of the 94,483 black children discharged from foster care, 12,860, or 13%, were discharged to a relative guardian. Of the 182,941 white children discharged from foster care in 2004, 20,453, or 11%, were discharged to a relative guardian.Of the 15,087 black children adopted from foster care, 4077, or 27%, were adopted by a relative. Of the 29,244 white children adopted from foster care, 5861, or 20%, were adopted by a relative.

Of the 279,421 black kids living in foster care for some portion of the year, 69,888 or 25% were living with relatives. Of the 474,734 white children living in foster care for some portion of the year, 101,300, or 21%, were living with relatives.

So black children getting adopted from foster care are somewhat more likely to be adopted by relatives than white kids (27% vs. 20%), black kids exiting foster care are slightly more likely to be discharged to a relative guardian than white kids (13% to 11%), and black kids in foster care are slightly more likely to be living with relatives than white kids (25% vs. 21%). The differences support the hypothesis that blacks are more likely to utilize kinship care networks, but not by a lot, at least in regard to the foster care system.
So basically the tendency of black grandparents and other kin support network members to take in children isn't that overwhelming. I knew it was a relatively more common occurence among blacks than whites, but as you say, not by much. Nowhere near enough to explain the 'abandonment' gap--it's not as though the non-relative abandonment rates are similar between blacks and whites.

---

The table below presents an index of the frequency of having a child placed in foster care by major racial/ethnic catergory in the US. Only domestic forfeitures are included (international adoptions are excluded). It is computed by simply taking the percentage of children of a group entering foster care and dividing it by that group's percentage of the national population. Adjustments for unknown or two-plus race are made in both cases; these categories are excluded from the analysis. A 1.00 score indicates the national average:

RaceAbandonment
Native American2.26
Black2.20
Hispanic1.36
Pacific Islander1.36
n-H White0.72
Asian0.19

For HBD-realists, the relative 'performances' aren't terribly surprising. The likelihood of raising one's own kids isn't the elusive desirable attribute that correlates inversely with IQ. So the search will continue.

The adoption data comes from the US Department of Health and Human Services, which aggregates data submitted by states over a period covering six months. The data are sometimes incomplete or must be revised and consequently the total figures are estimates. All the numbers are from '06.

15 comments:

Steve Sailer said...

Fosstering out your children to relatives or others is common in West Africa, so it's hardly surprising to see it among African-Americans.

James Q. Wilson wrote:

"Children in West Africa are often raised by people who are not their parents. In some communities, more than half of all of the children spend much of their young lives away from their parents, often living with close kin but sometimes with adults who are not related to them at all. This practice is called fostering. So far as we can tell, fostering in West Africa is a centuries-old tradition… It occurs for many reasons, but mostly because one parent is dead or missing. ...

"If the husband is dead, the mother may find it difficult to remarry, especially if she brings another man's child into the new household… Whatever the motives, many West Africans regard fosterage as a perfectly acceptable means of raising children. Families there approve of delegating parental roles to other people, often beginning at a quite early age, especially if the mother is unmarried or is part of a polygamous family. But even when they remain at home, children in much of Africa, especially south of the Sahara, grow up pretty much on their own… The father is usually absent."

Anonymous said...

"Blacks nearly 12 times as likely as Asians to have kids placed in foster care"

Whites end up taking care of blacks throughout the rest of their lives too. African America indeed.

Audacious Epigone said...

Interesting. It's sort of like the child swapping that occured in the Northeast during the 17th and 18th Centuries (except fathers were almost always present in the case of the colonies):

Fosters are more selective of female children than males, more rural than urban in origin, mainly related to their foster parents, and are more likely than non-fosters to be enrolled in schools. A wide spectrum of women send out their children and receive the children of others.

Here's Steve's VDare article from five years back where he excerpts James Wilson.

Marc said...

Fosstering out your children to relatives or others is common in West Africa, so it's hardly surprising to see it among African-Americans.

Steve, I think you might be a little confused on this. Foster care isn't voluntary. Children in foster care have been removed from their homes due to abuse and neglect. It's not like those kids in foster care are being "fostered" out willingly by their parents.

Having said that, we do see much higher rates of kinship foster care among African-Americans then among whites. In other words, black kids taken from their homes are much more likely to go live with an aunt than white kids. There is a legislative push right now to get the government to recognize kinship care as a permanency option (like adoption). If successful, it would greatly reduce the number of African-American children in foster care, since once a child achieves a form of permanency (presently, just adoption) he is no longer considered in the system.

Kinship caregivers would still get government subsidies, of course... :-)

Audacious Epigone said...

Marc,

Will you point me to numbers on that if you are able? I had a similar impression based on personal experience (esp black grandparents taking in their grandchildren) but I'm not aware of hard numbers. The AFCARS report shows that just under one-quarter who entered foster care were sent to a relative of some kind, but it doesn't give racial/ethnic details.

Marc said...

The Urban Institute estimates that 43% of children in kinship care are black, but this includes children in non-foster kinship care as well as children in foster kinship care, if that makes sense.

http://www.urban.org/publications/900661.html

I tried to find foster-care specific percentages but couldn't, sorry. I have seen studies showing that race is the primary predictor of whether a child in the foster care system will be placed with a family member.

Audacious Epigone said...

Marc,

Thanks for the link. It looks like black children are more likely to end up in kinship care, but not at a substantially higher proportion relative to non-blacks than they are likely to end up in foster care generally.

43% of those in kinship care (according to the Urban Institute link) are black, compared to 26% of those entering foster care in '06. 37% of those in kinship care are white, to 45% of those entering foster care. But clearly non-foster kinship care is much more prevalent, as the UI's numbers total 2.2 million kinship care for '02, while AFCARS shows only 125,000 in foster kinship care during '06.

E.C. said...

First,
Jewish people are the most intelligent. They win almost 40% of the Nobel Prize's and they have a small population of only 14 million. So by far they exceed the other races in intelligence. The other races having huge numbers and such small contributions.

Second,
IQ tests, test intellectual conformity, not creativity and originality. This would explain the Asian high IQ's. They as a people are the ultimate conformists.

In IQ tests there is typically only one answer to the problem. That problem being a social conformity to reason. But everyone knows that Genius's and all of the greatest developments in the world are not the product of conformity. Conformity never breeds creativity. We can see this in the lack of influence the Asian population has had on Science. China used to be called the "sick man" of Asia. Their population is massive and their contribution to innovation is almost nil. We can see this lack of originality in their adoptation of European philosophies, I.e. Communism.

Friedrich Nietzsche and other Philosophers have critized Asians. Nietsche used the words "Pallid osification" to describe Orientals.

Pallid: lacking sparkle or liveliness.

Osification: The process of becoming set and inflexible in behavior, attitudes, and actions. Inflexible conformity, rigid unthinking acceptance of social conventions.

The reality is Asian people have yet to understand that laws and rules are arbitrary. Europeans make the rules and Asian's follow them.

It also doesn't make sense that Asian's are considered smart because of the fact that they have destroyed their own countries. This is due to over-population and their basic lack of enviromental understanding.

It is also common scientific fact that women who have many children are ignorant, and those who have less children are more intelligent. This has already been proven in studies. So it seems strange to say that Asians are smart when the obviousness of their backwards countries, and medieval lifestyle makes them contrary to that premise.

Europeans have the most advanced civilizations and every other race has yet to meet these levels other than the Japanese. The Japanese only being good at copying other people's inventions and making them better. Other than that their original creativity is lacking as well. They took American cars and made them better. They took the German camera and made it better. And they took German steel and made it better. Otherwise the greatest advances still come from Europeans and Jews. Other than that the Orientals have yet to produce an Einstein or a Thomas Edison.

When it comes to Black people. It makes sense that they have low intellectual comformity, I.e. IQ tests. They are far too creative to be trapped in this unoriginal form of conditioning. You can tell their creative capacity in their athletics, music, dance, and the way they talk. They by far exceed the Asiatic races in these areas. Being better singers, musicians ect. Blacks far exceed Asians in emotive expression. In all of North America there is only one or two famous high-paid Asian actors.

Reality, Europeans rule the world and they have allowed others to exist only out of desire for economic bennifet. They, (Europeans) are also the physically strongest, winning the Strongest Man competitions again and again.

The greater the conformity, the weaker the race. Thus we see the races as they are today. The wild animal being bred out of man, and the physically impotent, conformist thriving.

Otherwise "Group psychology" is the most destructive thing in the world. All these stereotypes are false when it comes to the individual. Individualism is the most important thing for this time. All countries, Religions, groups need to dissolve for man to live in peace.

www.truenewspaper.blogspot.com

Audacious Epigone said...

EC,

Who among the world's greatest scientists has not had an astronomical IQs?

Re: Asians, the question of European innovative superiority has had lots of attempted answers. My predilections are pretty similar to yours, and I like Toby Huff's take as well, though I've nothing original at all to add. Even in the video game industry, which will soon surpass the movie industry in total sales (game sales already obliterate box office figures), Japan was a late-comer. It wasn't until the mid-eighties that Japan took the ball and ran with it.

Marc said...

Ok, I know this is a late post, but I had some free time on my lunch break AND I had the AFCARS raw dataset from 2004 open on my competer, so I ran an analysis to see if I could answer my own earlier question regarding rates of kinship care among black and white children in foster care. Here's what I found (again, all stats from 2004):

Of the 94,483 black children discharged from foster care, 12,860, or 13%, were discharged to a relative guardian. Of the 182,941 white children discharged from foster care in 2004, 20,453, or 11%, were discharged to a relative guardian.

Of the 15,087 black children adopted from foster care, 4077, or 27%, were adopted by a relative. Of the 29,244 white children adopted from foster care, 5861, or 20%, were adopted by a relative.

Of the 279,421 black kids living in foster care for some portion of the year, 69,888 or 25% were living with relatives. Of the 474,734 white children living in foster care for some portion of the year, 101,300, or 21%, were living with relatives.

So black children getting adopted from foster care are somewhat more likely to be adopted by relatives than white kids (27% vs. 20%), black kids exiting foster care are slightly more likely to be discharged to a relative guardian than white kids (13% to 11%), and black kids in foster care are slightly more likely to be living with relatives than white kids (25% vs. 21%).

The differences support the hypothesis that blacks are more likely to utilize kinship care networks, but not by a lot, at least in regard to the foster care system.

Audacious Epigone said...

Marc,

Wow, thanks for that. So basically the tendency of black grandparents and other kin support network members to take in children isn't that overwhelming. I knew it was a relatively more common occurence among blacks than whites, but as you say, not by much. Nowhere near enough to explain the 'abandonment' gap--it's not as though the non-relative abandonment rates are similar between blacks and whites.

Suspicious of Social Services said...

Obviously, this comment is coming very late, but let me remind you that social science statistics are very difficult to interpret. For starters, someone previously posted that children are not placed in foster care voluntarily. This is untrue. Occasionally single mothers with no local extended family voluntarily place young children in foster care because they have issues with childcare, finding a job, and most of all, housing. The difficulty is in getting Social Services to return the children to you when you have solved your housing problem, etc.

Sometimes parents of mentally ill or behaviorally disordered children attempt to place the child in foster care, but Social Services tries very hard to avoid taking these children, as the cost of caring for mentally ill children exceeds the level of government reimbursement.

Secondly, you assume that social workers generally offer custody to nearly all grandparents, and that black grandparents are more likely to step up to the plate and accept the children. This is absolutely wrong. Because there is a huge disparity in the proportion of black children in foster care, various black pressure groups and federal officials keep a close eye on the percentages. This gives the social work staff a big incentive to place black children with relatives, but does NOT give them a reason to seek out family placements for white children. Just the opposite -- their racial balance is improved if they take lots of white children into care. This effect is compounded by the fact that there are more foster homes available for the children who are "highly adoptable," which generally translates to "young, white, cute, blond & female." Children who are highly adoptable are often NOT allowed to spend more than an hour per week of supervised visitation with their grandparents, even if the grandparents are eager to foster them. The reason generally given is that the grandparents can't be trusted not to say negative things about Social Services in front of the children.

Social workers often place the "best" children with foster parents with whom they have some sort of relational bond -- their infertile cousin or college roommate, etc. Or they find "cute" kids for a social worker from the next county to adopt, knowing that the social workers in the next county would do the same for them. There are all sorts of official procedures in place to prevent Social Services from snatching desirable children and adopting them themselves, but they have their ways of working around these regulations.

Go to the PBS website and search for "Logan Marr." In the Logan Marr case, social workers in the state of Maine placed two little girls (sisters) with a fellow social worker (against the rules) and let the case drag on endlessly. They obviously hoped that the bio mother would either give up and abandon the girls, or, failing that, that they would eventually be able to trump up enough "evidence" to terminate her parental rights. The bio mother was an intelligent, but down-on-her-luck working class single mother who had bad taste in boyfriends, but who had NEVER abused or neglected her children.

Eventually, "Logan Marr" age 5 or 6 died when the foster mother/social worker put her in a high chair in the basement and covered her mouth with duct tape, causing her to suffocate. The spooky thing about the video is that the social worker/foster mother who killed Logan Marr STILL saw herself as the good, upwardly mobile adoptive mommy, while looking down on the biological family as being poor, trashy, and uneducated.

If this had been a sibling group of black children, especially black boys, they never would have been taken in to foster care in the first place. Because these little girls were white and adorable, Social Services shut out the entire biological family while they tried to ram through a phony adoption.

Social Services probably doesn't get too many phone calls from Asian neighborhoods, even though abuse by Asian parents is not unknown. Social Services doesn't want to get involved with foreign embassies, Asian-American activist groups, etc.

Similarly, Social Services generally steers well clear of Jewish families, as they are associated with no-holds-barred legal representation, hidden video cameras, complaints about children being brainwashed by Christian foster parents, lack of kosher food, etc., that tend to leave Social Services looking crummy in general, as well as culturally insensitive.

Audacious Epigone said...

SoSS,

Do you have any hard data corrobarating this? Do we have any way to gauge its prevalency based on a few high-profile anecdotes? Also, did you read Marc's comments--blacks and whites are almost equally likely to adopt the offspring of their extended kin. Wouldn't we expect it to be much higher for blacks if that's where social workers always pushed black kids to, while hogging the white kids for themselves?

Andrew Oh-Willeke said...

"Abandonment" even it if may be the legal term in some cases, is misleading in this context. Most kids end up in foster care after being involuntarily removed from their parents by the Department of Social Services based upon allegation of abuse and/or neglect (basically, for bad parenting).

The removals are IMHO routinely well justified, but they are rarely truly voluntary on the part of the parents, even in the case where parents formally agree to relinquish paternity, as even then this is often done in light of threatened legal action to terminate parental rights.

Anonymous said...

Black Americans and Native Americans are the only real Americans. The rest of you are moochers from Europe or Asia. Whites in this country think more like Europeans fresh off of the boat than Americans. They've always been jealous and feared their countrymen. Most black people in this country are farther away culturally and ancestrally from Africa than than whites are from Europe.Most black families have a history of having been here 400+ years while most white families came in the early 20th century. Seriously black people have lived up to all of America's values... have whites? NOPE. They've just been along for the ride, taking credit for the natural genius of black people. what a lazy bunch! And communism was NOT a European invention. don't you all read? ever? Marx and the hundreds of others he read were making contributions to a struggle for human rights. and that is NOT a European ideology.