A National p For t Adoption · 13. Presenting the Adoption Option in America’s Schools 263 by Melissa M. Clement 14. Providing Safe Havens as a Compassionate Alternative to Infanticide

Adoption Factbook IV


Data n Issues n Regulations n Resources

NationalCouncilForAdoption

The most comprehensive sourcefor adoption statistics nationwide.

Adoption FactbookIV

National C

ouncil For Adoption

The most important tool for policy makers, educators, practitioners,families, and anyone who seeks to understand the issue of adoption.

NCFA’s Adoption Factbook – a trusted source for those who need toknow.

“The National Council For Adoption’s Adoption Factbook is essential read-ing for those who care and need to know about adoption. – Senator MaryLandrieu (D-LA)

“The Adoption Factbook is a comprehensive tool for those who are inter-ested in adoption and have a hard time knowing where to find informa-tion about it.” – Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX)

“I am delighted that the National Council For Adoption has updated itscomprehensive Adoption Factbook. This impressive publication will serveas a valuable resource for policymakers as well as families seeking toadopt. I congratulate the NCFA for it’s stalwart commitment to adoption,and am confident that all friends of adoption will benefit from thisauthoritative guide.” – Rep. James L, Oberstar (D-MN)

“I have worked closely with the National Council For Adoption since Icame to Congress in 1992 and have witnessed firsthand their commit-ment to the safety and well-being of the child. As an adoptive mother, Iam very appreciative of the work they do to ensure that the adoptionprocess will be as child-friendly as possible. NCFA’s new book will mostcertainly be a welcome resource for all families considering adoption.” –Rep. Deborah Pryce (R-OH)

“Nobody who cares about adoption should be without NCFA’s latest edi-tion of the Adoption Factbook.” – Tony Blankley, Editorial Page Editor,Washington Times

National Council For Adoption225 N. Washington StreetAlexandria, VA 22314www.adoptioncouncil.org $34.95

Additional funding for Adoption Factbook IV provided by: LDS Family Services, Lou and Ralph Davidson, Delia and James Stroud, International Assistance Group,Adopt-A-Child, Christian World Adoption, Bethany Christian Services, Mona Charenand Robert Parker, Bill and May Cunningham Agee, Allan Neustadt and the ClaymanFamily Foundation.

Adoption Factbook IVThe most comprehensive source for adoption statistics nationwide.

Thomas C. Atwood, Executive Editor

Lee A. Allen and Virginia C. Ravenel, Editors

Nicole F. Callahan, Assistant Editor

NationalCouncilForAdoption


Copyright 2007 by the National Council For Adoption

All rights reserved. No part of this publication reproduced or transmitted in any form, electronic ormechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system nowknown or to be invented, without permission in writing from the publisher, except by a review whowishes to quote brief passages in an article or a review written for inclusion in a magazine, newspaper,or broadcast.

The opinions and statements published are the responsibility of the authors, and such opinions andstatements do not necessarily represent the policies of the NCFA.

Current Printing (last digit)10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

ISBN: 0-9785488-0-9

Design by: World Composition Services, Sterling, VA 20166

Printed by: PMR Printing Company, Inc., Sterling, VA 20166

Foreword

■

What a phenomenally successful social institu- love transcends racial and national boundaries,and promotes cultural diversity and tolerance.tion adoption is. Since the founding of the Na-

tional Council For Adoption (NCFA) in 1980, Through adoption, families thrive and compas-sion abounds.approximately two and a half million adoptions

have occurred in this country. Through adop- There is a bit of irony in adoption. Somesort of human frailty generally precedes thetion, two and a half million children have en-

joyed the love and security that come with hav- beauty and rightness of adoption, making it inthe best interests of the child. Because we caning parents and families of their own.

There are about six million adopted persons always expect human weakness to exist, adop-tion will always be a vital institution for manyin the U.S. Considering the parents and siblings

of these adopted persons, there are more than children.For a healthy institution of adoption, wetwenty million Americans with close family

members through adoption. Add to that grand- need the principles, expertise, and advocacy ofNCFA. If not NCFA, who will serve children,parents, aunts, uncles, and cousins, and there

is an adoptive-family population of many tens of birthparents, and families by:millions. Add further the birthparents, spouses,and children of adopted persons, and there are ■ Advocating adoption as a loving option

for unplanned pregnancy;many millions more with close personal adop-tion experiences. ■ Upholding the adoptive family as the

adopted person’s true and permanentAdoption has a profoundly positive impacton our people and country. Infants placed for family;

■ Preserving the principle of mutual con-adoption grow up in a loving family with both afather and mother. Older children and children sent in deciding issues of privacy in

adoption;with special needs adopted out of foster caregain the stability and normalcy of a loving, per- ■ Honoring birthparents for choosing adop-

tion in the best interests of their children;manent family. Children languishing in orphan-ages around the world are adopted and grow ■ Challenging foster care systems to find

forever families for all waiting children;up in loving families. Our whole society benefitsfrom having these children mature with much ■ Promoting children’s rights to the best

possible parents in all adoptions;better social, economic, and behavioral out-comes than they otherwise would have. ■ Making adoption more affordable

through tax and fiscal policies;Birthparents who are not ready to parentmove forward with their lives and have the ■ Fighting nationalistic opponents of adop-

tion who would keep children trapped inassurance that their children have stable, loving,and permanent families. Adoptive parents know foreign orphanages;

■ Educating and training adoption agenciesthe joys of parenting and the satisfaction ofdoing the right thing for children in need. and professionals to follow best practices

in adoption;Through transracial and international adoption,

Foreword iii

■ And holding media and corporate giants tion experts and professionals, laying out a posi-tive agenda for adoption as we move forward.accountable for their portrayals of

adoption? It is our hope at National Council For Adoptionthat this reference will serve as an effective toolAdoption Factbook IV is the newest editionfor all who are inspired by NCFA’s mission ofof a tradition started more than 20 years ago;promoting the well-being of children, birthpar-a tradition of providing the latest adoption sta-ents, and adoptive families by advocating fortistics – including some available nowhere else,the positive option of adoption.such as our infant adoption data – along with

policy and practice ideas to serve the best inter-ests of children through adoption. Inside, you Thomas C. Atwood

President and Chief Executive Officerwill find a wealth of relevant data and analysis,and a rich diversity of topics covered by adop- National Council For Adoption

iv Foreword

Table of Contents

■

Foreword by Thomas C. Atwood iii

Acknowledgments v

Table of Contents vii

Part 1: Adoption Statistics

1. National Adoption Data 3by Paul Placek

2. Adoption Petitions in Courts: 1985-2002 71by Victor E. Flango

3. How Many Children Were Adopted in 2000 and 2001? 79by National Adoption Information Clearinghouse

4. Adopted Children and Stepchildren: Census 2000Special Reports 109by Rose M. Kreider

5. Foreign-born Adopted Children in the U.S., 2000 133by Rose M. Kreider

6. Interracial Adoptive Families in the U.S., 2000 155by Rose M. Kreider

7. Adoption and Demand to Adopt by Women:2002 National Survey of Family Growth 173

Part 2: Domestic Infant Adoption

8. NCFA’s Infant Adoption Awareness Training Program:A Successful Model 187by Paul Devantier

9. The Evaluator’s Report on NCFA’s Infant AdoptionAwareness Training Program 205by Edmund V. Mech

Table of Contents vii

10. The State of Birthmother Counseling in Policy and Practice 217by Chuck Johnson

11. American Public Attitudes Toward Infant Adoption 223by Richard Wirthlin

12. Toward a National Putative Father Registry Database 229by Mary Beck

13. Presenting the Adoption Option in America’s Schools 263by Melissa M. Clement

14. Providing Safe Havens as a Compassionate Alternative toInfanticide and Abandonment 269by Kodie Ruzicka

15. Secret Safe Place for Newborns: How an Alabama TragedySparked Infant Safe Haven Programs 273by John M. Tyson, Jr.

Part 3: Adoption and Foster Care

16. Fostering the Future: Safety, Permanence and Well-Being forChildren in Foster Care 279by The Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care

17. Judicial Leadership to Ensure Sound Permanency Decisionsfor Children in Foster Care: Practical Guidelines for Juvenileand Family Courts 289by Thomas C. Atwood, Nicole Ficere Callahan, and Virginia C. Ravenel

18. Performance Measures for Courts:The Next Step in Foster Care Reform 303by Thomas C. Atwood and Virginia C. Ravenel

19. Federal Foster Care Financing Reform: NCFA Statementto the U.S. House Subcommittee on Human ResourcesCommittee on Ways and Means 317by Thomas C. Atwood

20. Improving Child Protective Services: NCFA’s Testimonybefore the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommitteeon Human Resources Committee on Ways and Means 319by Thomas C. Atwood

21. The Uses of Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and ReportingSystem Data: 1997–2005 325by Penelope L. Maza

viii Table of Contents

22. The AFCARS Report on Preliminary FY 2005 Estimatesas of September 2006 329by U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

23. Responding to the Challenge of Finding Adoptive Homes forChildren in Foster Care: Initiatives of the U.S. Administrationfor Children and Families 337by Wade F. Horn

24. Adoption from the Foster Care System:Findings from the Child and Family Services Review 341by Linda Mitchell, Will Hornsby, Jacqueline Smollar, and Jerry Milner

25. Collaborative Partnerships to Recruit Adoptive andFoster Parents and Place Children in Permanent Homes 347by William Blacquiere

26. How to Improve the Likelihood of Successful Family Reunification 351by Joan R. Rycraft

Part 4: International Adoption

27. The Hague Convention and the United State’s Ratification Journey 359by Meghan D. Hendy

28. A Holistic Approach to International Adoption and ChildWelfare Advocacy: NCFA Testimony before the East Asian andPacific Affairs Subcommittee of Senate Foreign Relations Committee 365by Thomas C. Atwood

29. Adoption: General Principles 373by General Secretariat ISS/IRC

30. Facilitating Behavioral Change in Adopted Children Sufferingfrom Sensory Processing Disorder 375by K. B. Purvis and D.R. Cross

31. Health Issues for Internationally Adopted Children 381by Laurie C. Miller

32. How to Adopt Internationally 393by Marshall Williams

Table of Contents ix

Part 5: The Adoption Process

33. Choosing an Adoption Agency 399by Heidi Cox

34. Affording Adoption: The Adoption Tax Credit andIncome Exclusion Benefit 409by Harlan Tenenbaum

35. How Employers Can Promote Adoption 415by Carrie Boerio

36. The Proposed New Interstate Compact on thePlacement of Children: A Missed Opportunity 419by Chuck Johnson

37. The Pros and Cons of the Internet’s Impacts onAdoption Practice 425by Nathan Gwilliam

38. Facilitators and Their Effects on Adoption Practice 431by Lynn J. Bodi

Part 6: Mutual Consent and Openness in Adoption

39. Openness in Adoptions: Outcomes for Adolescents withinTheir Adoptive Kinship Networks 439by Harold D. Grotevant, Yvette V. Perry, Ruth G. McRoy

40. The Jury is in Regarding Adoption Openness 453by Thomas C. Atwood

41. Telling the Truth about Adoption: An AdoptedPerson’s Perspective 455by Nicole Callahan

42. A Birthmother’s Perspective: Without the Confidential Option,I Would Never Have Made My Open Adoption Plan 459by Courtney Lewis

43. Consent or Coercion? How Mandatory Open RecordsHarm Adoption 461by Thomas C. Atwood

44. How Court-Enforceable Contact Agreements Underminethe Adoptive Family 469by J. Douglas Lecheminant

Index 473

x Table of Contents

Acknowledgments

■

The National Council For Adoption wishes to thank those whose financial support made AdoptionFactbook IV possible.

■ Birthmother Ministries, Inc.■ LDS Family Services■ Lou and Ralph Davidson■ Delia and James Stroud■ International Assistance Group■ Adopt-a-Child■ Christian World Adoption■ Bethany Christian Services■ Mona Charen and Robert Parker■ Bill and Mary Cunningham Agee■ Allan Neustadt, and■ The Clayman Family Foundation■ Other financial contributors

The editors thank all of the contributing authors (and their assistants) for their willingness,cooperation, and most importantly, their patience during the publication of this book.

Acknowledgments v

Part 1■

Adoption Statistics

1 National Adoption DataBy Paul Placek, Ph.D.†

■

Six kinds of national data were assembled Reporting System (AFCARS) on childrenadopted under the auspices of state publicby the National Council For Adoption

(NCFA) to construct the 18 statistical child welfare agencies.tables soon to be described:

The federal government regularly collects1. 2002 NCFA survey of state-by-state adop- and maintains data on live births, nonmarital

tion statistics, combined into national esti- live births, public agency adoptions, intercoun-mates. try adoptions, and relative visa issuances. The

2. Annual immigrant-orphan data, collected by federal statistics are accurate, and their method-the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s ologies are well described in their reports.Office of Immigration Statistics (OIS) (with However, national data on all adoption itemsnotes in methodology section on why State collected in the 2002 NCFA survey are not rou-Department data were not used for table 1 tinely collected by any federal agency, with theand tables 10-16). exception of adoptions of children from foster

3. Annual data on immediate relative visas care. (A copy of the survey is reproduced inissued by the U.S. Department of State. this chapter.) Due to this vacuum, NCFA has

4. Annual data on total and nonmarital live collected data directly from the states.1 The databirths, collected by the National Center for are presented below.Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control By mail, email, fax, and telephone, NCFA’sand Prevention. statistical consultant, Dr. Paul Placek, contacted

5. Annual data on abortions, collected by the state health, welfare, and vital statistics officesAlan Guttmacher Institute (with notes in for 2002 data on the following types ofmethodology section on why Centers for adoptions:Disease Control and Prevention data were

■ Total domestic adoptions.not used).■ Related domestic adoptions (legal adop-6. Adoption data collected by the Administra-

tions in which at least one of the adoptivetion on Children and Families of the Depart-parents or guardians is related to the childment of Health and Human Services throughby blood or marriage to the child’s biolog-the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis andical parent).

■ Unrelated domestic adoptions by publicagencies (those child placing agencies† Paul Placek, Ph.D., worked as a senior statistician at the Na-

tional Center for Health Statistics of the Centers for Disease that are supported by public funds andControl from 1993 to 2005. Dr. Placek has directed a num-ber of national surveys on natality and mortality. His workon the Adoption Factbook IV has been in a private, non-gov-ernmental consulting capacity. Dr. Placek provided statisti-cal and data collection services for NCFA’s Adoption Fact- 1. For purposes of the state survey, “state” includes the Dis-

trict of Columbia.book III.

National Adoption Data 3

administered by public officials and However, all state and federal adoption datacollection processes need fine tuning. States dotheir personnel).

■ Unrelated domestic adoptions by private not collect the same types of data. For instance,some states do not differentiate between “pri-agencies (generally non-profit agencies

that are supported by private funds and, vate agency adoptions” and “independent adop-tions,” while others do. Also, there are not uni-in some cases, also by some public funds

under “purchase of service” agreements). form definitions of adoption terminology,which makes it difficult to compare data. Al-■ Unrelated domestic adoptions by private

individuals (independent placements though the federal AFCARS system providesrich adoption data, there is a need for moremade without agency involvement that

are sometimes referred to as “private” or information, such as the number of adoptiondisruptions and the number of adoptions by“independent” adoptions).

■ Unrelated domestic adoptions of infants relatives versus non-relatives.(infants under two years of age adopted

Overview of adoptions in 2002by persons not related to the infant byNCFA’s 2002 national adoption survey, andblood or marriage).additional data collection processes, reveal

■ Unrelated domestic adoptions of childrenthe following:with special needs (those children who

may be difficult to place due to racial/eth- ■ Both domestic adoptions and intercoun-try adoptions increased from 1996.nic background or age; being part of a sib-

ling group; or due to the presence of a ■ In 2002, a greater percentage of domesticadoptions were unrelated (adoptions ofphysical, emotional, or mental disability).

■ Interstate Compact on the Placement of children by nonrelatives), than were re-lated (adoptions of children by relatives),Children adoptions (children born or liv-

ing in one state and adopted by families as compared to 1996.■ In 2002, the percentage of intercountryliving in another state).

adoptions as compared to all unrelatedadoptions increased significantly fromNCFA also asked states to provide data on the

number of related adoptions from foster care. Due 1996. (Most intercountry adoptions areunrelated adoptions.)to a low response rate to this question, these

data do not appear in any of the 18 tables. ■ There was a significant increase in thenumber and percentage of unrelated2002 was the most recent base year for

which it was feasible for NCFA to collect these adoptions of foster children from 1996.■ There was a slight increase in the numberdata, because there are time lags for state data

processing. NCFA conducted its 2002 survey of unrelated domestic private agencyadoptions since 1996. At the same time,for the same reasons that it conducted the 1982,

1986, 1992, and 1996 surveys. There continues unrelated domestic private agency adop-tions decreased in proportion to all unre-to be a lack of current, comprehensive, reliable

adoption data. Adoption data are needed by lated domestic adoptions since 1996.■ Unrelated domestic independent adop-policy makers, legislators, adoption agencies,

social workers, attorneys, health professionals, tions increased from 1996. While thenumber of these adoptions still laggedresearchers, adopted persons, biological par-

ents, potential adoptive parents, and others. the number of comparable private agencyplacements, the percentage increase inFederal government efforts to collect compre-

hensive national adoption data are limited, peri- unrelated domestic independent adop-tions, from 1996 to 2002, was muchodic, and/or single-purposed. NCFA’s 1982,

1986, 1992, 1996, and 2002 surveys demon- greater than the percentage increase inprivate agency placements.strate that it is feasible to collect these data.

4 Adoption Factbook IV

■ Unrelated domestic infant adoptions de- 119,766 adoptions (Adoption Factbook III, table2). Intercountry adoptions comprised a greatercreased in number from 1996, as well as

in proportion to all unrelated domestic percentage of all unrelated adoptions in 2002(21.7 percent) (table 3), than they did in 1996adoptions.

■ There was a significant increase in the (17.2 percent) or in 1992 (10.5 percent) (AFBIII, table 5).number and percentage of unrelated do-

mestic adoptions of children with specialRelated and unrelated domesticneeds from 1996.adoptions■ There was little change in the number ofThe number of “related” domestic adoptionschildren adopted across state lines(54,256) (table 1), in 2002, did not changethrough the Interstate Compact on Place-significantly from 1996, when there werement of Children (ICPC) from 1996.53,971 (AFB III, table 2). The 2002 survey re-■ Births to unmarried women increasedquested that states distinguish between relatedfrom 1996, while the rate of infant adop-adoptions of children in foster care and othertion placements by unmarried womenrelative adoptions. Few were able to provide thisdecreased.detail, so table 1 does not include informationabout this question. The data would have beenDomestic and intercountryuseful to analyze the extent to which childrenadoptionsliving in foster care are being adopted by rela-There were 130,269 domestic adoptions andtives, and would also help NCFA track trends21,063 intercountry adoptions in 2002, for ain non-public, relative adoptions.total of 151,332 adoptions in 2002 (table 1).2

“Unrelated” domestic adoptions changedThis represents an increase from 1996, whendramatically from 1996, when there werethere were 108,463 domestic adoptions and54,492 such adoptions (AFB III, table 2), to11,303 intercountry adoptions, for a total of2002, when there were 76,013 unrelated do-mestic adoptions (table 1, column 3). Publicagencies processed the greatest number2. A recent study authored by the National Adoption Informa-

tion Clearinghouse (NAIC), How Many Children Were (42,942) (table 1, column 4).3 The increase inAdopted in 2000 and 2001?, reported that, in 2001, there unrelated public agency adoptions can be at-were a total of 127,407 domestic and intercountry adop-

tributed in part to the Adoption and Safe Fami-tions combined, almost 24,000 fewer adoptions than re-ported by NCFA. The sizeable difference between the fig- lies Act of 1997’s (ASFA) Adoption Incentivesures is due to the way NCFA and NAIC collected data.

Program, which awards financial incentives toNAIC collected data on “total adoptions” from court re-cords under the assumption that all adoptions—domestic states for placing foster children into adoptiveand intercountry—would be accounted for in state courtadoption files. On the other hand, NCFA obtained domes-tic adoption data from the states through a variety of re-sources, including court records, as well as from othersources, such as vital records and child welfare agency re- 3. NCFA’s count of 42,942 unrelated public agency adoptions

in 2002 (table 1, column 4), which was obtained from thecords. NCFA obtained international adoption data from theDepartment of Homeland Security’s Office of Immigration states, is much lower than the AFCARS data count of

52,136 adoptions (table 18). Two factors account for muchStatistics. While some international adoptions are processedthrough the courts, most are not. The adoptions of chil- of the difference between the state and federal public

agency counts. First, NCFA data on public agency adop-dren entering on an IR-3 visa do not, in general, require re-adoption or other finalization by a U.S. state court. Chil- tions (table 1, column 4) are restricted to unrelated adop-

tions; the data do not account for related adoptions.dren adopted from China and the Russian Federation can,in most cases, enter with an IR-3 visa; these are the two AFCARS data include all adoptions of children from foster

care, by nonrelatives and relatives alike. Second, somecountries from which U.S. citizens adopt the most chil-dren. NCFA’s instructions to the state adoption experts, to states partner with private child welfare agencies to place

children from foster care into adoptive homes. NCFA ac-whom the surveys were sent, stated clearly not to includeinternational adoption data in the figures provided. The dif- counted for these adoptions as unrelated domestic adop-

tions by private agencies (table 1, column 5), rather thanference between NCFA’s and NAIC’s data is 23,925, whichis close to 21,063, the figure provided by the OIS for inter- unrelated domestic adoptions by public agencies (table 1,

column 4). AFCARS data would include these adoptions.national adoptions in 2002.


1982 1986 1992 1996 2002 1982 1986 1992 1996 2002 1982 1986 1992 1996 20020

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

19,428 20,064

22,392

24,366

42,942

14,549 15,06316,178 16,791 17,007 16,743 16,040

17,136

13,335

16,058

■ Figure 1. Trend in Public Agency, Private Agency, and Individual Domestic Adoptions

Public Agency Adoptions Private Agency Adoptions Private Individual Adoptions

National Council For Adoption Surveys

homes. Private agencies processed 17,007 unre- adoptions by private individuals trailed privateagency adoptions by 949 placements in 2002.lated domestic adoptions in 2002, while private

individuals, often attorneys, processed 16,058 However, independent adoptions increased byapproximately 20 percent from 1996, a muchunrelated domestic adoptions (table 1).

As mentioned above (figure 1), there were more dramatic change than for private adop-tion agencies.76,013 unrelated domestic adoptions in 2002.

Of these, 56.5 percent were processed by publicUnrelated domestic adoptionsagencies, 22.4 percent were handled by private

agencies, and 21.1 percent were processed by of infantsIn 2002, there were 22,291 unrelated domesticprivate individuals (table 2). In 2002, state

adoption experts in nine states reported that infant adoptions, which accounted for 29.3percent of all unrelated domestic adoptionsthere were no independent adoptions (Massa-

chusetts, Connecticut, Wisconsin, North Da- that year (table 6). In 1996, while there wereonly slightly more unrelated domestic infantkota, Delaware, Indiana, Illinois, Minnesota,

and West Virginia). adoptions (23,537), they accounted for 43.2percent of all unrelated domestic adoptionsThe unprecedented rise in unrelated public

agency adoptions, from 1996 to 2002, repre- (AFB III, table 9). In 1992, there were 26,672unrelated domestic infant adoptions, whichsents a 76 percent increase over the intervening

half-decade (figure 2). In 1996, there were accounted for 47.9 percent of all unrelateddomestic adoptions (AFB III, table 9). It is24,366 unrelated public agency adoptions (AFB

III, table 2), while in 2002, there were 42,942 evident that while the number of unrelateddomestic infant adoptions is not changingof these adoptions (table 1). Unrelated domestic

adoptions by private agencies remained flat dramatically, their proportion to overallunrelated domestic adoptions is decreasingsince 1996, increasing by only 216 adoptions—

or less than two percent. Unrelated domestic (figure 3) largely because of the rise in public


1996 2002 1996 2002 1996 20020

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

24,366

42,942

16,791 17,007

13,335

16,058

Public Agency Adoptions(76% Increase)

Private Agency Adoptions(2% Increase)

Private Individual Adoptions(20% Increase)


■ Figure 2. Changes in Adoption from 1996 to 2002, by Type

1982 1986 1992 1996 2002 1982 1986 1992 1996 20020

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

50,720 51,157

55,706 54,492

76,013

17,602

24,58926,672

23,53722,291

■ Figure 3. Trend in Domestic Adoptions

Unrelated Domestic Adoptions Unrelated Domestic Adoptions of Infants



1982 1986 1992 1996 2002

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

14,005

36,715

13,568

37,589

25,855

29,851

26,434

28,058

45,584

30,429

50,720 51,157

55,70654,492

76,013

■ Figure 4. Special Needs Adoptions as Portion of Total Unrelated Domestic Adoptions

Total Unrelated Domestic Adoptions


Special Needs Adoptions

agency adoptions. Few children are adopted Domestic adoptions through thefrom foster care as infants (under the age interstate compact on theof two). placement of children

The placement of a child born in one state withUnrelated domestic adoptions of a family who lives in another state requires

adherence to the Interstate Compact on thechildren with special needsAs shown here (figure 4), adoptions of children Placement of Children (ICPC). The number of

these placements, indicated in table 1 (columnswith special needs comprised 60 percent(45,584) of unrelated domestic adoptions in 9 and 10), did not change significantly from

1996. In 1996, there were 7,174 children who2002 (table 4). In 1996, they constituted 48.5percent (26,434) of unrelated domestic adop- entered and exited states for adoption through

the ICPC (AFB III, table 2). In 2002, 6,616tions (AFB III, table 6). ASFA has played a sig-nificant role in the increase in unrelated adop- entered states for adoption (table 1, column 9),

while 7,524 exited states for adoption (table 1,tions of children with special needs over the pastdecade, because many of the children placed for column 10). The difference in the number of

children entering a state versus children leavingadoption by public agencies have one or morespecial needs. Under state and federal law, chil- a state under the ICPC reflects some shortcom-

ings of the Compact in its administration, anddren may be considered to have “special needs”due to their race/ethnicity; if they are older; if raises questions about the Compact’s continued

appropriateness and relevance for adoptionthey are part of a sibling group; or if they havea physical, developmental, or emotional disabil- practice in the twenty-first century. The meth-

odology section explains in detail NCFA’s dataity. The presence of one or more of these factorsis not uncommon with children in foster care. collection and verification processes with re-


spect to ICPC data. It is worth noting here that agency and independent placements continues.In 2002, public agency adoptions accountedthe federal Office of Inspector General con-

cluded in a 1998 report that state ICPC data for more than private agency and independentplacements combined.were poor and inconsistent due to different state

tracking techniques and poor recordkeepingRatios of adoptions, live births,practices. Also, in 2005, the American Publicnonmarital live births, andHuman Services Association, which oversees

matters pertaining to interstate adoptions, abortions—2002Ratios are useful devices for standardizing datadrafted a proposed, revised Compact for review

and ratification by the states to address some and indicating the relative sizes of two quanti-ties to be compared. It is helpful to standardizeof the ICPC’s weaknesses. (See p. 419.)“per 1,000” as in table 5, so that the relativemagnitude of adoptions, births, and abortionsAdoption trends: 1951 to 2002

Table 8 provides data on trends in related and to each other can be compared. The ratio ofabortions per 1,000 live births, also called theunrelated domestic adoptions since 1951.

Adoptions rose from 72,000 in 1951, to a peak “abortion ratio” in demographic studies, repre-sents an indication of abortions in relation to theof 175,000 in 1970, declined to 104,088 in

1986, and rose to 130,269 in 2002. For more frequency of live births occurring to residents ofeach state. Therefore, in 2002, there were 326.5than 20 years (1951 through 1970), unrelated

adoptions accounted for slightly more than one- abortions for every 1,000 live births, or about33 abortions per 100 live births in the Unitedhalf of all adoptions. During the 1970s and into

the 1980s, related adoptions exceeded unre- States. The magnitude of the ratios is affectedby the distribution of both live births and abor-lated adoptions, by as much as 28 percent. The

gap began to close and, in 1996, adoptions were tions in relation to such characteristics of thefemale population as marital status, state policyalmost evenly divided between unrelated and

related. In 2002, unrelated domestic adoptions on public funding of family planning and abor-tion, availability of services (family planning,accounted for 58 percent of all domestic adop-

tions, while related adoptions comprised 42 maternity homes) for pregnant women, preva-lence of certain religious groups from state-to-percent of all domestic adoptions. The increase

in unrelated adoptions is likely the reflection state, and even proximity to other states withcertain services and facilities.of several factors, such as a greater acceptance

of adoption and adoptive families, increased In the Adoption Factbook II, NCFA first usedthree new types of ratios based on the standardinterest in adopting due to more childless cou-

ples, and, as discussed in previous sections, demographic technique described above. Theratio of infant adoptions per 1,000 abortionsASFA’s impact on increasing public agency

adoptions. represents an indication of infant adoptions inrelation to the frequency of abortions. ThereTable 9 provides data on trends in the types

of agencies or individuals making unrelated do- were only 17.0 infant adoptions per 1,000 abor-tions in 2002 (table 5), as compared with 19.4mestic adoptive placements since 1951. During

the 1950s, and into the 1960s, independent infant adoptions per 1,000 abortions in 1996(AFB III, table 8). NCFA takes no position onplacements exceeded private agency and public

agency placements. Private adoption agencies abortion, except to suggest that many womenwould not choose abortion if there were betterbegan to place more and more children in the

1960s and 1970s, than did public agencies or pregnancy counseling, better social services,and more maternity homes. If women knewindividuals. Beginning in the 1970s, and more

sharply in the 1980s, public agency adoptions that there are many couples hoping to adoptfor every one adoptable infant and that adoptionexceeded private agency placements. The trend

of public agency placements exceeding private can be beneficial to adopted persons and birth-


mothers who make an adoption plan, there book II. It uses statistical data from NCFA’ssurvey on domestic infant adoptions, countswould arguably be an increase in adoptions.

The ratio of infant adoptions per 1,000 of births to unmarried women from U.S. vitalstatistics, and abortion counts reported by thelive births represents an indicator of infant

adoptions in relation to the frequency of live Alan Guttmacher Institute (all shown in table5) to show the relative frequency of infantbirths. There were only 5.5 domestic infant

adoptions per 1,000 live births in America in adoptions per 1,000 abortions and births tounmarried women.2002 (table 5); only one-half of one percent of

live births were relinquished for adoption atbirth that year. In 1996, there were 6 domestic Domestic Infant Adoptions

Abortions + Births to Unmarried Womeninfant adoptions relinquished per every 1,000× 1,000 = NCFA’s Adoption Option Indexlive births (AFB III, table 8).

The ratio of infant adoptions per 1,000The United States Adoption Option Index fornonmarital live births is a better yardstick,2002 (table 7) is calculated as follows:because unmarried women are more likely to

place a child for adoption than would be mar-22,291

1,313,030 + 1,365,966× 1,000 = 8.3ried women, and this ratio indicates infant

adoptions in relation to the frequency of non-marital live births. There were 16.3 adoptions In 1996, the Adoption Option Index was 9.5per 1,000 nonmarital live births in 2002 (AFB III, table 10).(table 5), down from 18.7 in 1996 (AFB III, NCFA’s Adoption Option index was the firsttable 8). This reflects that less than two percent tool ever constructed to indicate the relativeof unmarried mothers chose adoption for their frequency of infant adoptions to that group ofinfants in 2002, and over 98 percent parented pregnancy outcomes that could potentially yieldthe baby. adoptions. The index has both strengths and lim-

Note in table 5 the three states with the itations.highest ratios of infant adoptions per 1,000 Its strengths are that:nonmarital live births in 2002 (Wyoming,Maryland, and Alaska). All of these states have 1. It is an objective index based on counts of

actual events.ratios ranging from 50.3 to 70.1, or three-to-four times the national average of 16.3. These 2. It is a ratio, which standardizes events “per

1,000,” so large states and small states alikestates, therefore, have four times the relativesuccess as the national average with respect can be compared with regard to adoption

activity in relation to the pool of pregnanciesto unmarried women choosing adoption whowould otherwise parent the baby. These same that potentially could yield adoptable in-

fants.three states also have high ratios of infant adop-tions per 1,000 abortions. This means these 3. It allows statistically standardized compari-

sons of trends for all time periods and loca-states also have much more relative success withrespect to women choosing adoption who tions for which the three data items of infant

adoptions, abortions, and births to unmar-would otherwise choose abortion.ried women are available.

NCFA’s “Adoption Option 4. It is a summary measure that reflects thetypes of adoption choices made by adoptiveIndex”

NCFA’s “Adoption Option Index” indicates couples, pregnant women who choose toterminate their pregnancies, and unmarriedthe number of infant adoptions per 1,000

nonmarital live births and abortions com- pregnant women who carry their pregnan-cies to term and deliver. It also reflects thebined. The Adoption Option Index was created

by NCFA and first used in the Adoption Fact- varying quality and availability of adoption


facilities, counseling, and regulations in a the level of adoption services and to obtainmore resources to make the adoption option agiven geographic area.choice selected more often.

Its limitations are: As indicated above, NCFA takes neither a“pro-choice” nor a “pro-life” position on abor-1. The index will vary with a substantial changetion. However, NCFA stresses the importancein any one of the three data components.for open dialogue between those of different2. Social factors, attitudes, and legislation canpersuasions. NCFA recognizes that someaffect any of the three data components.aborted fetuses, if allowed to gestate to term,3. It applies to domestic infant adoptions, andwould not result in live births. Also, marriedexcludes foreign adoptions.women who obtain abortions are not likely to4. For tables 5 and 7, year 2000 abortion datarelinquish a child for adoption if their pregnan-had to be used, because complete U.S. abor-cies were carried to term. Nor does NCFA sug-tion counts were not available for 2002 atgest that all unmarried women should choosepress time.adoption for their babies.

It is a fact that 98 percent of unmarriedTable 7 ranks all states with respect to theAdoption Option Index in 2002. The index is women now choose to parent their live born ba-

bies. The opportunity to choose among various8.3 for the U.S. as a whole, and indicates thatthere were about eight domestic infant adop- appropriate options is an important element of

our democratic, pluralistic society. But all too of-tions for every 1,000 abortions and births tounmarried women. If converted to a base of ten adoption is forgotten as one of the available

options that could have major benefits for all100, it means that there is less than one adop-tion for every 100 abortions and births to un- concerned. Rather, the focus is on abortion or

parenting. Pregnant women who choose to abortmarried women.In 2002, five states stood out with Adoption may not have maternity homes in their commu-

nities; access to adequate counseling; or the so-Option Indexes at least three times higher thanthe national average—Wyoming, Alaska, Utah, cial, financial, and medical support available to

carry their pregnancies to term and then makeMaryland, and Vermont. There were two to fiveadoptions for every 100 abortions and births an adoption plan for their babies. Women with

unintended pregnancies, who do not have a sup-to unmarried women in these states. It can beargued that these states may have better coun- portive male partner and are otherwise unready

to parent the child, may not know that adoptionseling, services, and facilities to orient pregnantwomen about adoption—among other factors. can be a positive option for both birthmother

and child. An NCFA survey indicates that thereOn the other hand, five states had indexesthat are one-half the national average, indicating are ten million married couples in America who

would be interested in adopting an infant if theya much lower level of adoption activity thanthe national average. NCFA does not wish to felt they had a realistic prospect of doing so.

The fact that NCFA’s Adoption Option Index“point a finger” at these states, because thereare many fine agencies in these areas struggling varies so greatly across different geographic ar-

eas indicates that adoption choices may dependto do excellent work with very limited re-sources. Resources may in fact be the key. State on both the quality and availability of support

services. The index reflects there is much roomlegislatures should take a close look at existingfunding levels for public agencies. Additional for improvement in certain locations, and the

adoption community should examine serviceresources should be made available to privateagencies by churches, foundations, corpora- quality and activity levels in the field of preg-

nancy counseling and other services for preg-tions, and public-spirited citizens. Hopefully,NCFA’s Adoption Option Index will become nant women to increase the number of infants

placed for adoption.an objective measure used henceforth to gauge


The total count for 2004 (22,867) is higherStates of destination for than the count for 2003 (21,270) (table 11).intercountry adoptions—2002, In 2004, the difference in the number of immi-

grant-orphan girls (14,813) and immigrant-2003, 2004Tables 10, 11, and 12 present data obtained orphan boys (8,054) adopted continued.from the Office of Immigration Statistics on the

Trends in countries of origin“states of destination” of immigrant orphansfor international adoptions:adopted internationally, by age and gender.

Table 10 data show the states of destination, 1998-2004Table 13 shows countries of origin for immi-by age and gender, for 2002. The first column

of table 10 is the same information as shown grant-orphans adopted from 1998 through2004, based on data collected from the Office ofin table 1, but the gender and age columns in

table 10 represent new information. In 2002, Immigration Statistics. This updates the 1989-1997 trend table 14 in AFB III. For these andadopted immigrant orphans tended to be female

(13,597 of the 21,063 total), and almost half earlier years, including the current update, theannual number of international adoptions to theof all foreign-born adopted children (9,233)

were under one year of age. Note also that 1,010 United States per fiscal year has fluctuated. In2004, it reached an all time high of 22,911, thewere over 9 years old. Four states (New York,

Pennsylvania, Texas, and California) all had largest number recorded in the past 26 years.(The 2002, 2003, and 2004 counts in table 13more than 1,000 immigrant-orphan adoptions

and together absorbed more than one-fourth of differ slightly than totals inearlier tables,becausetable 13 includes immigrant orphans destinedall immigrant-orphan adopted children. These

are large population states where the demand for armed services and U.S. Possessions.)Table 13 shows that the Russian Federationfor adoption is numerically large. It is worth

noting that these four states scored below the and mainland China have been the most preva-lent countries of origin for intercountry adop-U.S. average on NCFA’s Adoption Option Index

for domestic adoption. This suggests that in tions. More than 5,000 adopted children camefrom each of these two countries in 2004, or astates where domestic infants are less available,

the demand for international adoptions will be total of nearly 13,000 adoptions. In the 1980s,South Korean adoptions were most prevalent,higher. It is possible that in areas where the

Adoption Option Index is low, due to fewer but these adoptions have been stable at 1,700+ or – for the past seven years. Immigrant-domestic adoptions, couples alternatively pur-

sue the international adoption option. orphan adoptions from Guatemala have morethan tripled in the past seven years, to a highUnlike state adoption data, there is less of

a lag in time before federal adoption data are of 3,252 in 2004.Some countries show decreases in inter-available. This made it possible to obtain and

publish data comparable to table 10 for both country adoptions that are significant to inter-national adoption policy. Adoptions of children2003 and 2004. Table 11 shows 2003 data for

immigrant-orphans adopted children, by age from Vietnam decreased from 736, in 2002,to only 25 in 2004. However, a new bilateraland intended state of residence. The total count

for 2003 (21,270) is only slightly higher than agreement signed in June, 2005, will hopefullyresult in increased adoptions there in the com-for 2002 (21,063) (table 10). In 2003, there

continued to be a larger number of immigrant- ing years. The adoption of Romanian childrenhas decreased yearly since 2000, when thereorphan girls (13,852) adopted than immigrant-

orphan boys (7,418). No dramatic shifts were were 1,103 international adoptions, to only 58in 2004. A moratorium on Romanian adoptionsnoted in any state when 2002 (table 10) and

2003 (table 11) are compared. Table 12 shows was instituted in 2001, and in 2004, Romaniapassed a law that effectively banned intercoun-the 2004 data for immigrant-orphan adopted

children by age and intended state of residence. try adoptions.


Year Number of Adoptions“Countries of origin”1979 4,864

intercountry adoption data 1980 5,139Tables 14, 15, and 16 show data on all countries 1981 4,868of birth from which foreign-born children were 1982 5,749adopted in 2002, 2003, and 2004 by age and 1983 7,127

1984 8,327gender. The data were obtained from the Office1985 9,286of Immigration Statistics. Since the three tables1986 9,945are similar, the focus will be on 2004. Of the1987 10,097older groups of children (ages 5-9, over 9), the1988 9,120majority were adopted from Europe (Russian1989 7,948

Federation, Ukraine, Kazakhstan). Of the youn-1990 7,088

gest age group (under 1 year), the majority were 1991 9,008Asia-born (China, Korea). The sex ratios are bal- 1992 6,536anced in most groups of countries, except for 1993 7,348China where females outnumber males 20 to 1. 1994 8,200

1995 9,384Total intercountry adoptions, OIS 1996 11,316

1997 12,596data: 1973-20041998 14,867Looking at intercountry adoptions as a whole1999 16,037for the past 30+ years, the OIS data show:2000 18,120

Year Number of Adoptions 2001 19,0871973 4,323 2002 21,1081974 5,446 2003 21,3201975 6,290 2004 22,9111976 7,0511977 6,854 (See: Figure 5. Source: Office of Immigration Statis-

tics, Department of Homeland Security).1978 5,652

■

■■

■ ■

■■ ■ ■

■

■

■

■■ ■

■

■■

■

■■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■

■ ■

■

1973 1978 1983 1988 1993 1998 20030

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

■ Figure 5. Trend in Intercountry Adoptions



(1982, 1986, 1992, and 1996). In those previ-Total intercountry adoptions,ous surveys, NCFA staffers collected the dataState Department visa data:from state adoption experts, and Dr. Paul Placek2000-2005cleaned and summarized the data. For the 2002Table 17 represents visa issuance data,survey, Dr. Paul Placek collected, cleaned, andmaintained by the U.S. Department of State,summarized the data.for the six most recent years. This table updates

For the 2002 national survey, NCFA presi-earlier visa data in AFB III. The U.S. Departmentdent and CEO Thomas C. Atwood signed aof State maintains data on immediate relativecover letter, which was mailed with the surveyvisas issued. IR-3 visas are issued for orphansto the adoption experts in all 50 states and theadopted abroad by U.S. citizens and thenDistrict of Columbia. (Copies of the cover letterbrought back to the U.S. IR-4 visas are issuedand survey follow the methodology section.).for orphans brought to the U.S. for the purposeThe 2002 survey data collection was conductedof adoption, and then the child is adopted, orin 2004 and 2005, using a first mailing, emailreadopted, here in the United States by a U.S.reminder, second mailing, faxes, and repeatedcitizen. Table 17 shows a steady increase in thetelephone follow-ups. The state adoption ex-number of visas issued for immigrant orphansperts variously relied on their own data systems,over the past six years, from 17,718 in 2000state vital statistics, court records, and calls toto 22,728 in 2005. Table 17 also shows thatprivate agencies and adoption attorneys in orderChina, Russia, Guatemala, and South Korea ac-to supply the needed information. Survey datacounted for almost four out of every five visaswere collected from every state. (The reportedissued in 2005. The same four countries ac-data sources appear following the methodol-counted for just over 70 percent of adoptionsogy.) As indicated in the narrative, because ofin 2000.an extremely low response rate for the secondNote that the visas issued by the State De-part of question 2, (“Of related adoptions onpartment may not be used at all, or may notline 2, how many came out of foster care?”),be used until the following year. OIS immigrantno statistics were generated for that item.orphan data is compiled based on entry into

State statistics were cleaned, imputed, andthe United States, not based on visas issued.then combined into nationally-representativeFor this reason, the Department of State visaU.S. statistics. The following internal and exter-counts differ slightly from OIS/Department ofnal consistency checks were performed:Homeland Security counts. State Department

visa data are not always higher (or lower) than1. If figures were provided for related domesticthe OIS data. The discrepancies vary.

adoptions (survey item #2) and unrelatedData from the past five years show:domestic adoptions (survey item #3), checkswere made that they added to the reportedDepartment of Department of

State Adoption Homeland Security total of related and unrelated domestic adop-Year Data Adoption Data tions (survey item #1).2000 17,718 18,120 2. If figures were reported for unrelated domes-2001 19,237 19,087 tic adoptions by public agencies (survey item2002 20,099 21,108

#4), private agencies (survey item #5), and2003 21,616 21,320private individuals (survey item #6), checks2004 22,884 22,911were made that they added to the reported

Methodology for 2002 National total of unrelated domestic adoptions (sur-vey item #3).Council For Adoption Survey

The methodologies for collecting and cleaning 3. If a figure was reported for unrelated domes-tic adoptions of infants (survey item #7),the 2002 survey data were similar to those used

in previous NCFA national adoption surveys checks were made that this figure was less


than the figure reported for unrelated do- more consistent with the total set of theirreported data.mestic adoptions (survey item #3).

4. If a figure was reported for unrelated domes-Posting, tabulation, verification, and calcula-

tic adoptions of children with special needstions of data were completed by NCFA’s statisti-

(survey item #8), checks were made thatcal consultant Dr. Paul Placek, with interactive

this figure was less than the figure reportedreview for completeness and consistency by

for unrelated domestic adoptions (surveyNCFA president/CEO Thomas Atwood and

item #3).staffer Virginia Ravenel. Calculations and statis-

5. The 2002 “total adoptions” data (survey itemtical typing were 100 percent red dot verified,

#1) collected in the NCFA survey were com-and computer calculations were performed by

pared with state court data recently collectedExcel and sample-checked with a manual

in a separate project by Eugene Flango,calculator.

Ph.D., of the National Center for StateData gaps or holes still remained. These

Courts. Dr. Flango’s 2002 data became avail-missing data were imputed by NCFA statistician

able for 40 states in 2004, after the 2002Dr. Paul Placek, using procedures previously

NCFA survey began. In the case of a state’sdeveloped by the same statistician for the earlier

“nonresponse” about total unrelated and re-NCFA surveys. Standardized statistical proce-

lated domestic adoptions, the Flango courtdures were then used to complete the missing

data were shown to state adoption expertsdata cells in order to make reasonable estimates

and used unless more credible and consis-of complete and comprehensive state and na-

tent data were reported by the state adoptiontional adoption data.

experts. NCFA used the Flango court dataThe basic procedure used to complete the

only after attempting many follow-ups withmissing data count was that of proportional

these state adoption experts and providingdistribution, often called “raking” or “imputa-

them many opportunities to submit data. Ation.” The basic assumption underlying imputa-

number of state vital statistics offices weretion is that the adoption patterns in each nonre-

contacted in an attempt to obtain the totalporting state are similar to those in all reporting

unrelated and related domestic adoptionstates summed together. Partial reported data

figure (survey item #1), because originalwere always retained, and the imputed data

birth certificates are often amended to reflectwere always made consistent internally with the

the adoptive family surname. A figure forreported data within each state. The “Sources

total domestic adoptions (survey item #1)of Data for Table 1: 2002 NCFA Survey” in

was obtained for every state.this chapter identifies the data items that were

6. NCFA used, when necessary, provisionalreported by a state and those that were imputed

2002 data on public agency adoptions madeby NCFA. The combination of reported and

available by the Administration on Childrenimputed state data is reported in Table 1.

and Families (ACF’s) Adoption and FosterGreatly simplified, the missing Table 1 data

Care Analysis Reporting System (AFCARS),were imputed as follows.

which is accessible on the ACF Web site(http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/ ■ All states provided a count for total do-

mestic adoptions (column #1). Twentysystems/afcars/about.htm). In follow-ups fornonresponse about public agency adop- states reported data on related (column

#2) and unrelated (column #3) domestictions, these provisional ACF data wereshown to state adoption experts, who were adoptions. The related/unrelated ratio for

reporting states was applied to the totalgiven the option to agree, disagree, or pro-vide an alternate statistic. The ACF data were domestic adoptions data for the states that

did not report related/unrelated domesticused for these states unless state adoptionexperts provided a final number or a number adoption data, in order to impute col-


umns #2 and #3 data for nonreporting NCFA has reported them as such. Also, missingstate data were estimated based on the propor-states.

■ Data breakdowns for public (column #4), tional distributions for those data in reportingstates. This procedure yields reliable nationalprivate (column #5), and individual (col-

umn #6) adoptions were examined for estimates, but sometimes causes extreme vari-ability in counts within individual states, be-reporting states. The observed ratios were

then applied to unrelated domestic adop- cause the reported data and the estimated dataexist side by side within a state.tions for the nonreporting states in order

to impute these states’ unreported data Despite these limitations, NCFA feels thatthe best possible survey was completed in 2002,for columns #4, #5, and #6.

■ Similar procedures were used to impute given the circumstances. A standardized surveyquestionnaire with clear instructions was used,missing data for infants (column #7) and

children with special needs (column #8), and a high degree of statistical rigor was used incollecting, calculating, verifying, and presentingbased on observed ratios of these items

to unrelated domestic adoptions counts the data.in reporting states.

Comments on three data collectionitems

Because most states are neither required byfederal law nor reimbursed by the federal gov- ICPC data on children exiting and entering

states for purposes of adoptionernment to collect, analyze, or disseminatesome of the specific adoption data sought in Columns 9 and 10 of Table 1 present data on

the number of children entering and exitingNCFA’s survey, there is great variability in stateactivity in this area. There is no comprehensive states for purposes of adoption under the Inter-

state Compact on the Placement of Childrenuniform minimum data set that all states pro-duce similar to the data that NCFA collects. (ICPC). Forty-one states, over 80 percent, re-

ported 2002 ICPC data. (In the previous Fact-Furthermore, privacy and confidentiality guar-antees are embodied in many state laws. This book, there was a response rate of 69 percent.)

The ICPC “Entered state for adoption” (col-further restricts the release of detailed case-by-case individual data unit statistical information umn #9) and “Left state for adoption” (column

#10) data for the nonreporting states were im-and restricts the availability of public use datatapes with individual records for secondary puted separately, and, similar to the other im-

putations, the ratios for these two items, inanalysis. Finally, budget cuts in state statisticaloffices have often led to maintenance of only relation to unrelated domestic adoptions in re-

porting states, were used to impute data missingthe legally-required statistical systems, leavingadoption statistics to be variously produced by from nonreporting states.

At a national level, the number of childrenmany states on an “as needed” basis only forpolicy and record-keeping purposes. These entering states for purposes of adoption should

equal the number of children exiting states forwere realistic constraints affecting NCFA’s col-lection of adoption data for the 2002 data year. adoption. NCFA’s 2002 survey data show, how-

ever, that, nationally, 6,616 children enteredNCFA believes that some of the reportednumbers were minimum counts or under- states for adoption and 7,524 children exited

states for adoption. For the reasons discussedcounts, and has tried to note so whenever sus-pected. Furthermore, NCFA’s instructions to below, NCFA used the survey findings, despite

the discrepancy in the two numbers.states in the survey asked states to report actualcounts whenever possible, but also to estimate According to Ursula Gilmore, researcher an-

alyst with the American Public Human Servicesdata, use provisional data, use the judgment ofstate adoption experts, and/or use other reason- Association (APHSA), current state ICPC track-

ing and reporting techniques—some of whichable sources, if actual counts were not available.When these types of estimates were made, are described below—likely result in errors and


omissions in counting children who leave and and approval. (For more information, visitAPHSA’s Web site, found at http://www.enter a jurisdiction. This impacts the data qual-

ity and accuracy. In addition, after auditing aphsa.org/).)states about their ICPC practices in the late Intercountry adoption data: Department of1990s, federal officials raised questions about Homeland Security versus State DepartmentICPC data quality. Below is a summary of vari- NCFA used data from the Office of Immigrationables considered by NCFA in deciding to use Statistics (OIS), of the Department of Homelandthe NCFA survey ICPC data counts. Security, in table 1, column 11, and in tables

10 through 17, rather than State Department1. The Office of Inspector General (OIG), of the visa issuance data, because there was a much

Department of Health and Human Services, greater level of detailed adoption data availablereviewed state ICPC practices and issued a from OIS, such as data on intercountry adop-report dated November 1998 (OEI-02—95- tions by age and intended state of residence.0041) http://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-02- OIS provided NCFA customized tabulations,95-0041.pdf (“OIG report”), which con- generated specifically for the Adoption Factbookcluded that the quality of state ICPC data IV. NCFA provides State Department visa datawas poor and inconsistent due to differing in table 17, and provides relevant comparisonsreporting standards among states and inef- with OIS data. Note that OIS and State Depart-fective tracking techniques. ment data do not vary significantly. See narra-

2. As noted in the OIG report, ICPC applies tive for further discussion.not only to interjurisdictional adoptive

Abortion data: Centers for Disease Controlplacements, but also to interjurisdictional

and Prevention (CDC) versus Alanfoster care and residential placements. Con-

Guttmacher Institute (AGI)sidering the 1998 OIG finding that states

There are two sources of national and statehave poor data reporting and tracking capa-

abortion data—the Centers for Disease (CDC)bilities, it is highly likely that some data

and the Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). Thereported by states on NCFA’s 2002 survey

CDC data are collected annually, and at pressconcerning children who entered/exited the

time, the latest available data were for 2001.state for purposes of adoption may include

CDC 2002 data were expected to be releasedfoster care and residential placements.

at the end of 2005. CDC data are collected from3. The OIG report found that private agencies

central state health departments, rather thanplace more children into adoption through

from local health departments that may serveICPC than do public agencies. It is likely

clients. The AGI survey is periodic, generallythat states do not track the private agency

every four years, and the year 2000 was theICPC adoptions as carefully as they would

most recent data collection. The AGI data areICPC foster care placements.

collected from abortion service providers.4. Some states may have reported “requests” (or

NCFA regards the 2000 AGI data of signifi-referrals), rather than “approved requests.”

cantly higher quality and completeness than the5. Some states may have used fiscal years rather

2001 CDC data, and so chose to use 2000 AGIthan calendar years.

data in the various tables that provide abortion6. Most states have no requirements to count

data and in calculating the Adoption Optionprivate agency or independent adoptions,

Index for 2002, despite it being one year older.only public agency-involved adoptions.

A 2004 report, “Abortion Surveillance—United7. The American Public Human Services Asso-

States, 2001,” in Morbidity and Mortality Weeklyciation (APHSA) is in the process of rewrit-

Report,4 lists limitations about CDC data. Theseing the ICPC for reasons that reflect, in part,its concern about the reliability of state ICPC

4. Lilo T. Strauss et al., “Adoption Surveillance—Uniteddata. APHSA circulated a draft, revised com- States, 2001,” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 53, no.SS-9 (Nov. 2004).pact among the states in 2005, for review


include that: (1) CDC abortion data are reported abortion service providers. A 2003 article,“Abortion Incidence and Services in the Unitedby the central health department of the state in

which the abortion was performed, rather than States in 2000,” appearing in Perspectives onSexual and Reproductive Health,6 provides detailby the county or other local area in which the

woman resided; (2) three states (California, about AGI’s data collection methods for its 2000data, which included repeated mail, fax, andAlaska, and New Hampshire) did not report

data to the CDC for 2001; (3) data reported by phone contact attempts with 2,442 abortionproviders, and estimates made or obtained forabortion providers to health departments may

be incomplete; and (4) CDC numbers for 2000 those not responding, for each provider. In year2000, AGI reported 1,312,990 abortions. Inare 20 percent lower than AGI numbers for that

same year.5 that same year, CDC reported only 857,475abortions.AGI data are collected from those with the

most knowledge and control over the data:6. Lawrence B. Finer and Stanley B. Henshaw, “Abortion Inci-

dence and Services in the United States in 2000,” Perspec-tives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 35, no. 1 (Jan./Feb.2003).5. Ibid.


March 1, 2004

RESPONSE COORDINATOR FOR STATE

Name Please correct informationAddress at left if necessary.City, State, Zip Thank you!Tel, Email, website

The time is long overdue to publish ADOPTION FACTBOOK IV with updated statistics andmore current resource information. There is no other private agency or Federal organizationwhich collects or compiles adoption statistics and resource information in the form achievedby the National Council For Adoption (NCFA).

The questionnaire responses from state adoption experts such as you have led directly toADOPTION FACTBOOKS I, II, and III and helped make these books valuable resources formembers of Congress considering legislation, and for others needing accurate informationconcerning adoption—including the media, statisticians, adoption agencies, attorneys, socialworkers, birthparents and prospective adoptive parents.

Please complete the ten statistical items for 2002. We realize that the information which weneed for your state may come from several different experts in your state. If you willcoordinate within your state report those ten items and cite the source and person for eachitem, we would greatly appreciate it. If you need guidance in completing the survey, pleasecontact Dr. Placek. He was our data consultant in all of our previous adoption surveys.

Also, would you please furnish us with your lists of organizations and resources?

Please return this information to NCFA’s survey staff person by May 1, 2004:

Paul J. Placek, Ph.D.103 Big Holly Ct.Stevensville, MD 21666-3333Tel 410-643-2817Fax [email protected]

We have made the survey information from ADOPTION FACTBOOK III widely availableon NCFA’s website—just click on “Facts and Statistics” or on “Adoption Factbook III” atwww.adoptioncouncil.org. You will see how your answers to our survey questions are notonly of significance to your state, but also for our nation. The information you give yieldsa state portrait as well as a national picture on adoption statistics, regulation and policies.

Sincerely,

Thomas AtwoodPresident and CEONational Council For Adoption225 N. Washington St.Alexandria, VA 22314(703) 299-6633 (phone)(703) 299-6004 (fax)[email protected]


NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION SURVEY—2002 STATE STATISTICS

ADOPTION STATISTICS FOR , 2002

INSTRUCTIONS FOR ADOPTION STATISTICS LINES 1-10

A. Please exclude all adoptions of children from other countries. (NFCA has already receivedthis information from the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization for your state for 2002).

B. Please estimate 2002 data if you do not have an exact count. If necessary, use 2001 data,provisional data, the judgment of your state adoption experts, summaries assembled fromadoption agencies, or other source which you consider reasonable. For example, if youdetermine that the number is 200-250, report 225. It is far more preferable for you toestimate based on your expertise with state statistics than to have us estimate based onpatterns observed in neighboring states. Make sure your counts are consistent forlines 1-10.

C. Please reference the source of your numbers entered on lines 1-10 as precisely as possible.Please attach any reports, technical documents or related material used to derive yourcounts and estimates. Specify whether each number you provide is an exact count or anestimate. If it is an estimate, describe the method used to derive the estimate. Note on anyattached material which of the ten data lines to which it refers.

(The numbers filled in for 1996 for your state were previously reported to NCFA by an adoptionspecialist in your state. They may help you as a point of reference).

PART 1. ADOPTION STATISTICS FOR , 2002

1996 2002

1. Total number of adoptions.

Source:

2. Of total adoptions reported on line 1, how many were relatedadoptions (the child of one member of the couple, or related in some otherway to the adoptive parents)?

Source:

Of these related adoptions on line 2, how many came out of fostercare? (number)

Source:

3. Of total adoptions on line 1, how many were unrelated to the adoptiveparents? Note: Related adoptions (line 2) plus unrelated adoptions (line 3)must equal total adoptions (line 1).

Source:

4. Of unrelated adoptions reported on line 3, how many were unrelatedadoptions handled by public agencies?

Source:

5. Of unrelated adoptions on line3, how many were unrelated adoptionshandled by private agencies?

Source:


6. Of unrelated adoptions on line 3, how many were unrelated adoptionshandled by private individuals? Note: The sum of public agency adoptionsreported on line 4, private agency adoptions on line 5, and private individ-ual adoptions on line 6 must equal unrelated adoptions total on line 3.

Source:

7. Of unrelated adoptions on line 3, how many were “infants”? (Sinceplacements are often not finalized until after babies pass their first year,include in this number infants up to the age of two. The number you reporthere will be less than the number on line 3 because many unrelatedadoptions are age two and over).

Source:

8. Of unrelated adoptions reported on line 3, how many were unrelatedadoptions of children with special needs? Note: Unrelated special needsadoptions are usually defined as disabled physically or emotionally, siblinggroups, older children, or children of minority or ethnic backgrounds.

Source:

9. How many children entered your state for the purpose of adoption fromanother state in 2002? (Processed through the Interstate Compact on thePlacement of Children)

Source:

10. How many children left your state for the purpose of adoption inanother state in 2002? (Processed through the Interstate Compact on thePlacement of Children)

Source:

PART II. ORGANIZATIONS AND RESOURCES

INSTRUCTIONS:

Please supply us with lists of your state’s adoption specialists, adoptive parent support groups,photo listing books, Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children, administrators, adoptionexchanges, and interracial and intercultural support groups. Key contact persons, phonenumbers, email addresses, and websites should be included whenever available.

Thank you for completing this survey. Should we need to re-contact you, please insure thatyour contact information on the cover is correct. If other specialists assisted in completingthis survey, please provide their complete contact information.

OTHER SPECIALISTS?

Name:

Address:

Phone:

Fax:

E-mail:

Please return to:

Paul J. Placek, Ph.D. Tel: 410-643-2817103 Big Holly Court Fax: 410-643-0390Stevensville, MD 21666-3333 [email protected]


■T

able

1.R

elat

edan

dun

rela

ted

dom

estic

adop

tions

and

inte

rcou

ntry

adop

tions

:U

nite

dS

tate

s,20

02N

atio

nalC

ounc

ilF

orA

dopt

ion

Sur

vey

Unre

late

ddo

mes

ticad

optio

nsIn

ters

tate

Com

pact

on1

Plac

emen

tofC

hild

ren*

*Re

late

d11

and

28

910

Inte

r-co

untry

unre

late

dRe

late

d3

45

67

Ofch

ildre

nEn

tere

dLe

ftst

ate

adop

tions

***

dom

estic

dom

estic

(sub

tota

lBy

publ

icBy

priv

ate

Bypr

ivat

eOf

infa

nts

with

spec

ialn

eeds

stat

efo

rfo

r(n

otin

clud

edGe

ogra

phic

divi

sion

and

stat

ead

optio

nsad

optio

ns4+

5+6)

*ag

enci

esag

enci

esin

divi

dual

s(in

clud

edin

3)(in

clud

edin

3)ad

optio

nad

optio

nin

1-10

)

Unite

dSt

ates

130,

269

54,2

5676

,013

42,9

4217

,007

16,0

5822

,291

45,5

846,

616

7,52

421

,063

New

Engl

and

6,13

62,

219

3,91

72,

176

1,39

334

81,

030

2,98

240

226

51,

831

Mai

ne78

032

445

628

590

8113

030

530

3499

New

Ham

psh

ire68

628

540

110

215

714

211

416

554

1616

5

Ver

mon

t36

210

352

137

117

9886

147

807

79

Mas

sach

uset

ts2,

722

1,13

01,

592

785

807

038

21,

560

106

117

910

Rho

de

Isla

nd53

222

131

125

430

2789

228

1212

123

Con

nect

icut

1,05

425

080

461

319

10

229

577

120

7945

5

Mid

dle

Atla

ntic

17,6

648,

329

9,33

57,

196

1,13

21,

006

2,34

86,

338

1,12

084

73,

606

New

Yor

k10

,079

4,18

35,

896

3,94

11,

028

926

1,68

03,

945

391

435

1,57

2

New

Jers

ey2,

603

1,08

01,

523

1,36

583

7543

41,

019

277

131

822

Pen

nsyl

vani

a4,

982

3,06

61,

916

1,89

021

523

41,

375

452

281

1,21

2

East

North

Cent

ral

24,8

8110

,187

14,6

948,

595

3,73

22,

365

4,39

08,

007

804

819

3,85

7O

hio

5,86

62,

434

3,43

22,

165

666

600

978

2,29

622

725

380

8

Ind

iana

3,68

11,

528

2,15

381

367

966

181

180

612

214

051

6

Illin

ois

7,65

03,

175

4,47

53,

427

531

517

1,27

52,

994

114

124

984

Mic

hig

an5,

847

2,42

73,

420

1,30

31,

530

587

975

927

227

252

956

Wis

cons

in1,

837

624

1,21

388

732

60

351

984

114

5059

3

Wes

tNor

thCe

ntra

l10

,318

4,00

06,

318

3,31

71,

818

1,18

31,

636

4,05

029

738

21,

977

Min

neso

ta1,

307

521

786

515

271

038

847

737

4177

6

Iow

a1,

690

592

1,09

878

116

715

031

378

127

4524

6

Mis

sour

i3,

701

1,53

62,

165

1,10

755

750

135

51,

448

116

120

577

Nor

thD

akot

a39

222

370

137

233

039

8322

921

Sou

thD

akot

a37

114

322

815

240

3665

142

1531

41

Neb

rask

a88

936

952

026

213

612

214

834

873

5111

9

Kan

sas

1,96

881

71,

151

363

415

373

328

770

785

197

Sout

hAt

lant

ic21

,955

9,02

912

,926

6,75

12,

011

4,16

44,

175

8,64

21,

271

1,17

23,

725

Del

awar

e24

897

151

114

370

2910

358

3756

Mar

ylan

d4,

465

1,85

32,

612

168

285

2,15

91,

415

1,74

717

319

358

9

Dis

tric

tof

Col

umb

ia46

419

327

125

210

977

182

1820

81


Virg

inia

2,72

71,

359

1,36

860

418

657

835

039

591

101

753

Wes

tV

irgin

ia90

137

452

736

881

7815

035

350

8070

Nor

thC

arol

ina

3,22

51,

350

1,87

51,

483

204

188

550

1,68

850

4060

8

Sou

thC

arol

ina

1,64

813

21,

516

337

620

558

432

1,01

416

842

204

Geo

rgia

2,46

71,

260

1,20

789

013

318

420

388

649

318

652

9

Flor

ida

5,81

02,

411

3,39

92,

535

454

409

969

2,27

417

047

383

5

East

Sout

hCe

ntra

l7,

812

3,79

84,

014

1,89

91,

076

1,04

01,

140

2,54

734

030

592

9K

entu

cky

1,53

979

574

454

998

9723

049

811

110

728

4

Tenn

esse

e3,

240

1,74

41,

496

922

374

200

404

862

132

9536

5

Ala

bam

a2,

218

920

1,29

824

955

249

737

086

886

9620

1

Mis

siss

ipp

i81

533

847

717

952

246

136

319

117

79

Wes

tSou

thCe

ntra

l13

,725

5,83

67,

889

3,00

22,

586

2,30

12,

168

2,69

561

31,

125

1,38

7A

rkan

sas

1,93

080

11,

129

281

446

402

328

197

6417

76

Loui

sian

a1,

869

916

953

485

324

144

272

638

108

168

152

Okl

ahom

a1,

533

636

897

576

169

152

179

511

155

355

129

Texa

s8,

393

3,48

34,

910

1,66

01,

647

1,60

31,

389

1,34

928

658

51,

030

Mou

ntai

n9,

808

4,26

05,

548

2,73

31,

572

1,24

31,

617

3,53

186

890

11,

191

Mon

tana

671

278

393

234

8375

112

263

4671

43

Idah

o78

632

646

092

193

174

131

308

178

3710

9

Wyo

min

g46

530

016

550

5065

100

6038

3826

Col

orad

o3,

035

1,26

01,

775

840

492

443

506

1,18

811

813

145

8

New

Mex

ico

702

162

540

213

250

7711

421

356

3787

Ariz

ona

1,63

067

695

479

384

7627

263

814

718

928

1

Uta

h1,

787

764

1,02

333

136

033

229

268

420

221

615

4

Nev

ada

732

493

239

180

590

9117

883

182

33

Paci

fic17

,970

6,59

911

,371

7,27

31,

688

2,40

93,

786

6,79

290

21,

708

2,56

0W

ashi

ngto

n2,

799

1,16

21,

637

748

468

421

467

1,09

557

047

259

2

Ore

gon

2,82

01,

405

1,41

572

836

831

940

365

214

983

432

5

Cal

iforn

ia10

,708

3,42

87,

280

5,27

561

01,

395

2,52

54,

456

132

285

1,47

9

Ala

ska

718

221

497

173

141

183

237

340

1543

89

Haw

aii

925

384

541

349

101

9115

424

936

7475

NO

TES

:*C

olum

ns4+

5+6

may

not

exac

tlyeq

ualt

his

tota

ldue

toes

timat

es,

whi

chw

ere

roun

ded

toth

ene

ares

tw

hole

num

ber

.Th

em

axim

umd

iscr

epan

cyis

limite

dto

one

adop

tion

per

stat

ein

colu

mns

4,5,

or6.

Col

umn

6in

clud

esad

optio

nsha

ndle

db

yat

torn

eys

actin

gon

beh

alf

ofad

optiv

ep

aren

ts.

**Th

enu

mb

erof

child

ren

ente

ring

(6,6

16)

and

exiti

ng(7

,524

)st

ates

for

adop

tion

are

not

equa

l,in

larg

ep

art,

bec

ause

ofst

ate

reco

rd-k

eep

ing

pra

ctic

es.

Ref

erto

Met

hod

olog

yfo

rm

ore

det

ail.

***I

nter

coun

try

adop

tions

inco

lum

n11

are

from

the

Offi

ceof

Imm

igra

tion

Sta

tistic

s,D

epar

tmen

tof

Hom

elan

dS

ecur

ity(f

orm

erly

,U

.S.

Imm

igra

tion

and

Nat

ural

izat

ion

Ser

vice

).Th

elin

kis

<us

cis.

gov

/gra

phi

cs/s

hare

d/

stat

istic

s/in

dex

.htm

>fo

rth

eY

earb

ook

ofIm

mig

ratio

nS

tatis

tics.


■ Table 2. Number and percentage distribution of types of unrelated domestic adoptions for each state, division, andthe United States: 2002 National Council For Adoption Survey

Unrelated domestic adoptions

By public By private By privateGeographic division and state Number Percent agencies agencies individuals

United States 76,013 100.0 56.5 22.4 21.1

New England 3,917 100.0 55.5 35.6 8.9Maine 456 100.0 62.5 19.7 17.8

New Hampshire 401 100.0 25.4 39.2 35.3

Vermont 352 100.0 38.9 33.2 27.8

Massachusetts 1,592 100.0 49.3 50.7 0.0

Rhode Island 311 100.0 81.6 9.7 8.7

Connecticut 804 100.0 76.2 23.8 0.0

Middle Atlantic 9,335 100.0 77.1 12.1 10.8New York 5,896 100.0 66.8 17.4 15.7

New Jersey 1,523 100.0 89.6 5.4 4.9

Pennsylvania 1,916 100.0 98.6 1.1 0.3

East North Central 14,694 100.0 58.5 25.4 16.1Ohio 3,432 100.0 63.1 19.4 17.5

Indiana 2,153 100.0 37.8 31.5 30.7

Illinois 4,475 100.0 76.6 11.9 11.6

Michigan 3,420 100.0 38.1 44.7 17.2

Wisconsin 1,213 100.0 73.1 26.9 0.0

West North Central 6,318 100.0 52.5 28.8 18.7Minnesota 786 100.0 65.5 34.5 0.0

Iowa 1,098 100.0 71.1 15.2 13.7

Missouri 2,165 100.0 51.1 25.7 23.1

North Dakota 370 100.0 37.0 63.0 0.0

South Dakota 228 100.0 66.7 17.5 15.8

Nebraska 520 100.0 50.4 26.1 23.5

Kansas 1,151 100.0 31.5 36.0 32.4

South Atlantic 12,926 100.0 52.2 15.6 32.2Delaware 151 100.0 75.5 24.5 0.0

Maryland 2,612 100.0 6.4 10.9 82.7

District of Columbia 271 100.0 92.8 3.8 3.4

Virginia 1,368 100.0 44.2 13.6 42.3

West Virginia 527 100.0 69.8 15.4 14.8

North Carolina 1,875 100.0 79.1 10.9 10.0

South Carolina 1,516 100.0 22.2 40.9 36.8

Georgia 1,207 100.0 73.7 11.0 15.2

Florida 3,399 100.0 74.6 13.4 12.0

(continued)


■ Table 2. Number and percentage distribution of types of unrelated domestic adoptions for each state, division, andthe United States: 2002 National Council For Adoption Survey (continued)

Unrelated domestic adoptions

By public By private By privateGeographic division and state Number Percent agencies agencies individuals

East South Central 4,014 100.0 47.3 26.8 25.9Kentucky 744 100.0 73.8 13.2 13.0

Tennessee 1,496 100.0 61.6 25.0 13.4

Alabama 1,298 100.0 19.2 42.5 38.3

Mississippi 477 100.0 37.5 10.9 51.6

West South Central 7,889 100.0 38.1 32.8 29.2Arkansas 1,129 100.0 24.9 39.5 35.6

Louisiana 953 100.0 50.9 34.0 15.1

Oklahoma 897 100.0 64.2 18.8 16.9

Texas 4,910 100.0 33.8 33.5 32.6

Mountain 5,548 100.0 49.3 28.3 22.4Montana 393 100.0 59.6 21.2 19.1

Idaho 460 100.0 20.0 42.1 37.9

Wyoming 165 100.0 30.3 30.3 39.4

Colorado 1,775 100.0 47.3 27.7 25.0

New Mexico 540 100.0 39.4 46.3 14.3

Arizona 954 100.0 83.2 8.9 8.0

Utah 1,023 100.0 32.4 35.2 32.5

Nevada 239 100.0 75.3 24.7 0.0

Pacific 11,371 100.0 64.0 14.8 21.2Washington 1,637 100.0 45.7 28.6 25.7

Oregon 1,415 100.0 51.4 26.0 22.5

California 7,280 100.0 72.5 8.4 19.2

Alaska 497 100.0 34.8 28.4 36.8

Hawaii 541 100.0 64.5 18.7 16.8

NOTES: Unrelated domestic adoptions category does not include intercountry adoptions. Percentages may not add to 100.0 due torounding.


■ Table 3. Total unrelated (domestic and intercountry) adoptions, and total intercountryadoptions as a percentage of total unrelated adoptions for each state, division, and theUnited States: 2002 National Council For Adoption Survey

2002

Total unrelated adoptions Intercountry adoptions(Unrelated domestic adoptions as a percentage of total

Geographic division and state plus intercountry adoptions) unrelated adoptions

United States 97,076 21.7

New England 5,748 31.9Maine 555 17.8

New Hampshire 566 29.1

Vermont 431 18.3

Massachusetts 2,502 36.4

Rhode Island 434 28.3

Connecticut 1,259 36.1

Middle Atlantic 12,941 27.9New York 7,468 21.0

New Jersey 2,345 35.1

Pennsylvania 3,128 38.7

East North Central 18,551 20.8Ohio 4,240 19.1

Indiana 2,669 19.3

Illinois 5,459 18.0

Michigan 4,376 21.8

Wisconsin 1,806 32.8

West North Central 8,295 23.8Minnesota 1,562 49.7

Iowa 1,344 18.3

Missouri 2,742 21.0

North Dakota 391 5.4

South Dakota 269 15.2

Nebraska 639 18.6

Kansas 1,348 14.6

South Atlantic 16,651 22.4Delaware 207 27.1

Maryland 3,201 18.4

District of Columbia 352 23.0

Virginia 2,121 35.5

West Virginia 597 11.7

North Carolina 2,483 24.5

South Carolina 1,720 11.9

Georgia 1,736 30.5

Florida 4,234 19.7

(continued)


■ Table 3. Total unrelated (domestic and intercountry) adoptions, and total intercountryadoptions as a percentage of total unrelated adoptions for each state, division, and theUnited States: 2002 National Council For Adoption Survey (continued)

2002

Total unrelated adoptions Intercountry adoptions(Unrelated domestic adoptions as a percentage of total

Geographic division and state plus intercountry adoptions) unrelated adoptions

East South Central 4,943 18.8Kentucky 1,028 27.6

Tennessee 1,861 19.6

Alabama 1,499 13.4

Mississippi 556 14.2

West South Central 9,276 15.0Arkansas 1,205 6.3

Louisiana 1,105 13.8

Oklahoma 1,026 12.6

Texas 5,940 17.3

Mountain 6,739 17.7Montana 436 9.9

Idaho 569 19.2

Wyoming 191 13.6

Colorado 2,233 20.5

New Mexico 627 13.9

Arizona 1,235 22.8

Utah 1,177 13.1

Nevada 272 12.1

Pacific 13,931 18.4Washington 2,229 26.6

Oregon 1,740 18.7

California 8,759 16.9

Alaska 586 15.2

Hawaii 616 12.2


■ Table 4. Adoptions of children with special needs as a percentage of unrelated domesticadoptions for each state, division, and the United States: 2002 National Council For AdoptionSurvey

2002

Unrelated domestic adoptions Unrelated PercentGeographic division and state of children with special needs domestic doptions special needs

United States 45,584 76,013 60.0

New England 2,982 3,917 76.1Maine 305 456 66.9

New Hampshire 165 401 41.1

Vermont 147 352 41.8

Massachusetts 1,560 1,592 98.0

Rhode Island 228 311 73.3

Connecticut 577 804 71.8

Middle Atlantic 6,338 9,335 67.9New York 3,945 5,896 66.9

New Jersey 1,019 1,523 66.9

Pennsylvania 1,375 1,916 71.8

East North Central 8,007 14,694 54.5Ohio 2,296 3,432 66.9

Indiana 806 2,153 37.4

Illinois 2,994 4,475 66.9

Michigan 927 3,420 27.1

Wisconsin 984 1,213 81.1

West North Central 4,050 6,318 64.1Minnesota 477 786 60.7

Iowa 781 1,098 71.1

Missouri 1,448 2,165 66.9

North Dakota 83 370 22.4

South Dakota 142 228 62.3

Nebraska 348 520 66.9

Kansas 770 1,151 66.9

South Atlantic 8,642 12,926 66.9Delaware 103 151 68.2

Maryland 1,747 2,612 66.9

District of Columbia 182 271 66.9

Virginia 395 1,368 28.9

West Virginia 353 527 66.9

North Carolina 1,688 1,875 90.0

South Carolina 1,014 1,516 66.9

Georgia 886 1,207 73.4

Florida 2,274 3,399 66.9

(continued)


■ Table 4. Adoptions of children with special needs as a percentage of unrelated domesticadoptions for each state, division, and the United States: 2002 National Council For AdoptionSurvey (continued)

2002

Unrelated domestic adoptions Unrelated PercentGeographic division and state of children with special needs domestic doptions special needs

East South Central 2,547 4,014 63.4Kentucky 498 744 66.9

Tennessee 862 1,496 57.6

Alabama 868 1,298 66.9

Mississippi 319 477 66.9

West South Central 2,695 7,889 34.2Arkansas 197 1,129 17.4

Louisiana 638 953 66.9

Oklahoma 511 897 57.0

Texas 1,349 4,910 27.5

Mountain 3,531 5,548 63.6Montana 263 393 66.9

Idaho 308 460 66.9

Wyoming 60 165 36.4

Colorado 1,188 1,775 66.9

New Mexico 213 540 39.4

Arizona 638 954 66.9

Utah 684 1,023 66.9

Nevada 178 239 74.5

Pacific 6,792 11,371 59.7Washington 1,095 1,637 66.9

Oregon 652 1,415 46.1

California 4,456 7,280 61.2

Alaska 340 497 68.4

Hawaii 249 541 46.0


■ Table 5. Number of domestic infant adoptions, abortions, live births, and nonmarital live births, and ratios for eachstate, division, and the United States: 2002

Number Ratios

InfantDomestic Infant Infant adoptions

infant Nonmarital adoptions adoptions per 1,000 AbortionsGeographic division adoptions Abortions* Live births live births per 1,000 per 1,000 nonmarital per 1,000

and state 2002 2000 2002 2002 abortions live births live births live births

United States 22,291 1,313,030 4,021,726 1,365,966 17.0 5.5 16.3 326.5

New England 1,030 58,570 169,928 48,438 17.6 6.1 21.3 344.7Maine 130 2,650 13,559 4,419 49.1 9.6 29.4 195.4

New Hampshire 114 3,010 14,442 3,546 38.0 7.9 32.3 208.4

Vermont 86 1,660 6,387 2,036 51.8 13.5 42.2 259.9

Massachusetts 382 30,410 80,645 21,620 12.6 4.7 17.7 377.1

Rhode Island 89 5,600 12,894 4,604 15.8 6.9 19.3 434.3

Connecticut 229 15,240 42,001 12,213 15.0 5.5 18.8 362.8

Middle Atlantic 2,348 266,980 509,016 171,213 8.8 4.6 13.7 524.5New York 1,680 164,630 251,415 89,840 10.2 6.7 18.7 654.8

New Jersey 434 65,780 114,751 33,625 6.6 3.8 12.9 573.2

Pennsylvania 234 36,570 142,850 47,748 6.4 1.6 4.9 256.0

East North Central 4,390 174,010 612,950 211,413 25.2 7.2 20.8 283.9Ohio 978 40,230 148,720 52,677 24.3 6.6 18.6 270.5

Indiana 811 12,490 85,081 30,929 64.9 9.5 26.2 146.8

Illinois 1,275 63,690 180,622 62,890 20.0 7.1 20.3 352.6

Michigan 975 46,470 129,967 44,366 21.0 7.5 22.0 357.6

Wisconsin 351 11,130 68,560 20,551 31.5 5.1 17.1 162.3

West North Central 1,636 47,230 264,085 81,703 34.6 6.2 20.0 178.8Minnesota 388 14,610 68,025 18,668 26.6 5.7 20.8 214.8

Iowa 313 5,970 37,559 11,022 52.4 8.3 28.4 158.9

Missouri 355 7,920 75,251 26,511 44.8 4.7 13.4 105.2

North Dakota 39 1,340 7,757 2,250 29.1 5.0 17.3 172.7

South Dakota 65 870 10,698 3,744 74.7 6.1 17.4 81.3

Nebraska 148 4,250 25,383 7,259 34.9 5.8 20.4 167.4

Kansas 328 12,270 39,412 12,249 26.7 8.3 26.8 311.3

South Atlantic 4,175 262,130 723,079 265,254 15.9 5.8 15.7 362.5Delaware 29 5,440 11,090 4,505 5.3 2.6 6.4 490.5

Maryland 1,415 34,560 73,323 25,530 40.9 19.3 55.4 471.3

District of Columbia 77 9,800 7,498 4,236 7.9 10.3 18.3 1,307.0

Virginia 350 28,780 99,672 30,233 12.2 3.5 11.6 288.7

West Virginia 150 2,540 20,712 6,811 59.1 7.3 22.1 122.6

North Carolina 550 37,610 117,335 40,669 14.6 4.7 13.5 320.5

South Carolina 432 8,210 54,570 22,026 52.6 7.9 19.6 150.4

Georgia 203 32,140 133,300 50,401 6.3 1.5 4.0 241.1

Florida 969 103,050 205,579 80,843 9.4 4.7 12.0 501.3

(continued)


■ Table 5. Number of domestic infant adoptions, abortions, live births, and nonmarital live births, and ratios for eachstate, division, and the United States: 2002 (continued)

Number Ratios

InfantDomestic Infant Infant adoptions

infant Nonmarital adoptions adoptions per 1,000 AbortionsGeographic division adoptions Abortions* Live births live births per 1,000 per 1,000 nonmarital per 1,000

and state 2002 2000 2002 2002 abortions live births live births live births

East South Central 1,140 41,320 232,200 86,118 27.6 4.9 13.2 178.0Kentucky 230 4,700 54,233 18,011 48.9 4.2 12.8 86.7

Tennessee 404 19,010 77,482 28,039 21.3 5.2 14.4 245.3

Alabama 370 13,830 58,967 20,515 26.7 6.3 18.0 234.5

Mississippi 136 3,780 41,518 19,553 35.9 3.3 6.9 91.0

West South Central 2,168 115,190 525,146 183,450 18.8 4.1 11.8 219.3Arkansas 328 5,540 37,437 13,891 59.2 8.8 23.6 148.0

Louisiana 272 13,100 64,872 30,498 20.7 4.2 8.9 201.9

Oklahoma 179 7,390 50,387 18,357 24.2 3.6 9.8 146.7

Texas 1,389 89,160 372,450 120,704 15.6 3.7 11.5 239.4

Mountain 1,617 61,040 304,330 97,691 26.5 5.3 16.6 200.6Montana 112 2,510 11,049 3,627 44.6 10.1 30.8 227.2

Idaho 131 1,950 20,970 4,595 67.2 6.2 28.5 93.0

Wyoming 100 100 6,550 1,987 1,000.0 15.3 50.3 15.3

Colorado 506 15,530 68,418 18,320 32.6 7.4 27.6 227.0

New Mexico 114 5,760 27,753 13,020 19.8 4.1 8.8 207.5

Arizona 272 17,940 87,837 35,494 15.1 3.1 7.7 204.2

Utah 292 3,510 49,182 8,465 83.1 5.9 34.4 71.4

Nevada 91 13,740 32,571 12,183 6.6 2.8 7.5 421.8

Pacific 3,786 286,560 680,992 220,686 13.2 5.6 17.2 420.8Washington 467 26,200 79,028 22,780 17.8 5.9 20.5 331.5

Oregon 403 17,010 45,192 13,976 23.7 8.9 28.8 376.4

California 2,525 236,060 529,357 174,681 10.7 4.8 14.5 445.9

Alaska 237 1,660 9,938 3,379 142.8 23.8 70.1 167.0

Hawaii 154 5,630 17,477 5,870 27.4 8.8 26.3 322.1

State counts of abortions were rounded to the nearest 10 by Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI) and may not add to total.SOURCES: Domestic infant adoptions from 2002 National Council For Adoption Survey; Live births from U.S. vital statistics: 2002 Livebirths and Nonmarital live births from National Vital Statistics Reports. Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Sutton PD. Births: Final data for 2002.vol 52 no 10. Hyattsville, Maryland: National Center for Health Statistics. Dec. 17, 2003.*2000 abortions data from Finer LB and Henshaw SB: Abortion Incidence and Services in the United States in 2000. Perspectives onSexual and Reproductive Health, vol. 35, no 1, Jan/Feb 2003, based on the AGI survey of 2000. See discussion at end of this chapterfor NCFA’s rationale for using 2000 AGI abortion data.


■ Table 6. Number of unrelated domestic adoptions of infants and as a percentage of unrelated domestic adoptions,live births, and births to unmarried women for each state, division, and the United States: 2002

2002

...as a percentage ...as a percentage ...as a percentageUnrelated domestic of unrelated of 2002 live of 2002 births to

Geographic division and state adoptions of infants... domestic adoptions U.S. births* unmarried women*

United States 22,291 29.3 0.6 1.6

New England 1,030 26.3 0.6 2.1Maine 130 28.5 1.0 2.9

New Hampshire 114 28.5 0.8 3.2

Vermont 86 24.4 1.3 4.2

Massachusetts 382 24.0 0.5 1.8

Rhode Island 89 28.5 0.7 1.9

Connecticut 229 28.5 0.5 1.9

Middle Atlantic 2,348 25.2 0.5 1.4New York 1,680 28.5 0.7 1.9

New Jersey 434 28.5 0.4 1.3

Pennsylvania 234 12.2 0.2 0.5

East North Central 4,390 29.9 0.7 2.1Ohio 978 28.5 0.7 1.9

Indiana 811 37.7 1.0 2.6

Illinois 1,275 28.5 0.7 2.0

Michigan 975 28.5 0.8 2.2

Wisconsin 351 28.9 0.5 1.7

West North Central 1,636 25.9 0.6 2.0Minnesota 388 49.4 0.6 2.1

Iowa 313 28.5 0.8 2.8

Missouri 355 16.4 0.5 1.3

North Dakota 39 10.5 0.5 1.7

South Dakota 65 28.5 0.6 1.7

Nebraska 148 28.5 0.6 2.0

Kansas 328 28.5 0.8 2.7

South Atlantic 4,175 32.3 0.6 1.6Delaware 29 19.2 0.3 0.6

Maryland 1,415 54.2 1.9 5.5

District of Columbia 77 28.5 1.0 1.8

Virginia 350 25.6 0.4 1.2

West Virginia 150 28.5 0.7 2.2

North Carolina 550 29.3 0.5 1.4

South Carolina 432 28.5 0.8 2.0

Georgia 203 16.8 0.2 0.4

Florida 969 28.5 0.5 1.2

(continued)


■ Table 6. Number of unrelated domestic adoptions of infants and as a percentage of unrelated domestic adoptions,live births, and births to unmarried women for each state, division, and the United States: 2002 (continued)

2002

...as a percentage ...as a percentage ...as a percentageUnrelated domestic of unrelated of 2002 live of 2002 births to

Geographic division and state adoptions of infants... domestic adoptions U.S. births* unmarried women*

East South Central 1,140 28.4 0.5 1.3Kentucky 230 30.9 0.4 1.3

Tennessee 404 27.0 0.5 1.4

Alabama 370 28.5 0.6 1.8

Mississippi 136 28.5 0.3 0.7

West South Central 2,168 27.5 0.4 1.2Arkansas 328 29.1 0.9 2.4

Louisiana 272 28.5 0.4 0.9

Oklahoma 179 20.0 0.4 1.0

Texas 1,389 28.3 0.4 1.2

Mountain 1,617 29.1 0.5 1.7Montana 112 28.5 1.0 3.1

Idaho 131 28.5 0.6 2.9

Wyoming 100 60.6 1.5 5.0

Colorado 506 28.5 0.7 2.8

New Mexico 114 21.1 0.4 0.9

Arizona 272 28.5 0.3 0.8

Utah 292 28.5 0.6 3.4

Nevada 91 38.1 0.3 0.7

Pacific 3,786 33.3 0.6 1.7Washington 467 28.5 0.6 2.0

Oregon 403 28.5 0.9 2.9

California 2,525 34.7 0.5 1.4

Alaska 237 47.7 2.4 7.0

Hawaii 154 28.5 0.9 2.6

*Domestic infant adoptions from 2002 National Council For Adoption Survey. Natality data on live births and births to unmarried womenobtained from the National Center for Health Statistics: 2002 Live births and Nonmarital live births from National Vital Statistics Reports.Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Sutton PD. Births: Final data for 2002. vol 52 no 10. Hyattsville, Maryland: National Center for Health Statistics.Dec. 17, 2003.NOTE: Unrelated domestic adoptions of infants category does not include intercountry adoptions.


■ Table 7. State rankings using “Adoption Option Index” from the National Council For Adoption: 2002

2002 2002

ADOPTION ADOPTIONOPTIONOPTION

INDEX* Rank INDEX* Rank

Ohio 10.5 26United States 8.3Wyoming 47.9 1 Missouri 10.3 27

Kentucky 10.1 28Alaska 47.0 2

Utah 24.3 3 Illinois 10.1 29

Washington 9.5 30Maryland 23.5 4

Vermont 23.3 5 Rhode Island 8.7 31

Tennessee 8.6 32Idaho 20.0 6

Indiana 18.7 7 Connecticut 8.3 33

Massachusetts 7.3 34Iowa 18.4 8

Maine 18.4 9 North Carolina 7.0 35

Oklahoma 7.0 36Montana 18.2 10

New Hampshire 17.4 11 New York 6.6 37

Texas 6.6 38Arkansas 16.9 12

West Virginia 16.1 13 Louisiana 6.2 39

California 6.1 40Colorado 14.9 14

South Carolina 14.3 15 New Mexico 6.1 41

Virginia 5.9 42South Dakota 14.1 16

Hawaii 13.4 17 Mississippi 5.8 43

District of Columbia 5.5 44Kansas 13.4 18

Oregon 13.0 19 Florida 5.3 45

Arizona 5.1 46Nebraska 12.9 20

Minnesota 11.7 21 New Jersey 4.4 47

Nevada 3.5 48Wisconsin 11.1 22

North Dakota 10.9 23 Delaware 2.9 49

Pennsylvania 2.8 50Alabama 10.8 24

Michigan 10.7 25 Georgia 2.5 51

*NCFA’s “Adoption Option Index” is a standardized ratio calculated by dividing the number of domestic infant adoptions by the sumof abortions and births to unmarried women, x 1,000. Ties in ranks were broken by carrying the index to three decimals.


■ Table 8. National estimates of related and unrelated adoptions: United States 1951 to 2002

Percentage PercentageTotal Unrelated Related unrelated related

Year adoptions adoptions adoptions adoptions adoptions

1951 72,000 33,800 38,200 47 53

1955 93,000 48,400 44,600 52 48

1957 91,000 48,200 42,800 53 47

1958 96,000 50,900 45,100 50 50

1959 102,000 54,100 47,900 53 47

1960 107,000 57,800 49,200 54 46

1961 114,000 61,600 52,400 54 46

1962 121,000 62,900 58,100 52 48

1963 127,000 67,300 59,700 53 47

1964 135,000 71,600 63,400 53 47

1965 142,000 76,700 65,300 54 46

1966 152,000 80,600 71,400 53 47

1967 158,000 83,700 74,300 53 47

1968 166,000 86,300 79,700 52 48

1969 171,000 88,900 82,100 52 48

1970 175,000 89,200 85,800 51 49

1971 169,000 82,800 86,200 49 50

1972 148,701 65,335 83,366 44 56

1973 148,000 59,200 88,800 40 60

1974 138,000 49,700 88,300 36 64

1975 129,000 47,700 81,300 37 63

1982 141,861 50,720 91,141 36 64

1986 104,088 51,157 52,931 49 51

1992 115,689 55,706 59,870 48 52

1996 108,463 54,492 53,971 50 50

2002 130,269 76,013 54,256 58 42

Data for years 1951, 1955, 1973, 1974, and 1975 are estimates developed by Penelope Maza (“Adoption Trends: 1944-1975,” ChildWelfare Research: Notes #9, August 1984, Administration for Children, Youth, and Families, Washington, D.C.). All other 1955-1971estimates are as originally published, with appropriate references cited by Maza (1984). The terms “unrelated petitioners” and “relatedpetitioners” were used 1951 through 1975; unrelated and related adoptions are used in 1986 and thereafter. 1972 data were adaptedfrom Hoeppner (1977) by the National Committee For Adoption as specified in table 6 of NCFA’s 1985 Adoption Factbook. Data for1982, 1986, 1992, 1996, and 2002 were collected by the National Council For Adoption and exclude intercountry adoptions.


■ Table 9. National estimates of domestic unrelated adoptions and type of agency making adoptive placement:United States 1951 to 2002

Total Percentage Percentageunrelated Public Private public private Percentage

Year adoptions agency agency Independent agency agency independent

1951 33,800 6,100 9,800 17,900 18 29 53

1955 48,400 9,700 14,000 24,700 20 29 51

1957 48,200 10,600 14,500 23,100 22 30 48

1958 50,900 10,200 16,800 23,900 20 33 47

1959 54,100 11,400 16,800 25,900 21 31 48

1960 57,800 13,300 20,800 23,700 23 36 41

1961 61,600 15,400 22,200 24,000 25 36 39

1962 62,900 14,500 25,800 22,600 23 41 36

1963 67,300 17,500 26,900 22,900 26 40 34

1964 71,600 18,600 29,400 23,600 26 41 33

1965 76,700 20,700 32,200 23,800 27 42 31

1966 80,600 23,400 33,800 23,400 29 42 29

1967 83,700 25,100 36,800 21,800 30 44 26

1968 86,300 26,800 37,100 22,400 31 43 26

1969 88,900 28,400 38,300 22,200 32 43 25

1970 89,200 29,500 40,100 19,600 33 45 22

1971 82,800 29,800 35,600 17,400 36 43 21

1972 65,335 24,853 26,794 13,688 38 41 21

1973 59,200 22,500 23,700 13,000 38 40 22

1974 49,700 19,400 17,900 12,400 39 36 25

1975 47,700 18,600 18,100 11,000 39 38 23

1982 50,720 19,428 14,549 16,743 38 29 33

1986 51,157 20,064 15,063 16,040 39 29 31

1992 55,706 22,392 16,178 17,136 40 29 31

1996 54,492 24,366 16,791 13,335 45 31 24

2002 76,013 42,942 17,007 16,058 56 22 21

Data for years 1951, 1955, 1973, 1974, and 1975 are estimates developed by Penelope Maza (“Adoption Trends: 1944-1975,” ChildWelfare Research: Notes #9, August 1984, Administration for Children, Youth, and Families, Washington, D.C.). All other 1955-1971estimates are as originally published, with appropriate references cited by Maza. 1972 data were adapted from Hoeppner (1977) bythe National Committee For Adoption as specified in table 6 of NCFA’s 1985 Adoption Factbook. 1982, 1986, 1992, 1996, and 2002data represent domestic adoption information collected by the National Committee For Adoption and exclude intercountry adoptions.Percentages may not add to 100.0 due to rounding.


■ Table 10. Immigrant Orphans adopted by U.S. citizens by gender, age, and state of intended residence:Fiscal year 2002, Office of Immigration Statistics*

Gender Age

Under 1 1-4 5-9 Over 9Geographic division and state Total** Male Female year years years years Unknown

United States 21,063 7,466 13,597 9,233 9,072 1,744 1,010 4

New England 1,831 625 1,206 893 786 92 59 1Maine 99 30 69 48 45 3 3 -

New Hampshire 165 62 103 77 64 11 13 -

Vermont 79 21 58 39 33 4 3 -

Massachusetts 910 293 617 445 395 47 23 -

Rhode Island 123 40 83 62 56 4 1 -

Connecticut 455 179 276 222 193 23 16 1

Middle Atlantic 3,606 1,251 2,355 1,719 1,431 269 187 0New York 1,572 570 1,002 758 643 100 71 -

New Jersey 822 280 542 394 331 65 32 -

Pennsylvania 1,212 401 811 567 457 104 84 -

East North Central 3,857 1,439 2,418 1,713 1,775 282 87 0Ohio 808 316 492 375 366 51 16 -

Indiana 516 158 358 201 248 52 15 -

Illinois 984 355 629 444 459 57 24 -

Michigan 956 340 616 432 423 74 27 -

Wisconsin 593 270 323 261 279 48 5 -

West North Central 1,977 802 1,175 885 819 172 100 1Minnesota 776 317 459 388 295 54 38 1

Iowa 246 112 134 85 105 40 16 -

Missouri 577 244 333 256 246 42 33 -

North Dakota 21 7 14 9 8 4 - -

South Dakota 41 14 27 15 20 5 1 -

Nebraska 119 40 79 58 53 7 1 -

Kansas 197 68 129 74 92 20 11 -

South Atlantic 3,725 1,380 2,345 1,571 1,656 324 173 1Delaware 56 16 40 38 15 2 1 -

Maryland 589 242 347 255 253 55 26 -

District of Columbia 81 29 52 40 29 7 5 -

Virginia 753 275 478 321 321 75 36 -

West Virginia 70 34 36 32 28 5 5 -

North Carolina 608 247 361 269 278 50 11 -

South Carolina 204 69 135 71 107 14 11 1

Georgia 529 196 333 203 249 53 24 -

Florida 835 272 563 342 376 63 54 -

(continued)


■ Table 10. Immigrant Orphans adopted by U.S. citizens by gender, age, and state of intended residence:Fiscal year 2002, Office of Immigration Statistics* (continued)

Gender Age

Under 1 1-4 5-9 Over 9Geographic division and state Total** Male Female year years years years Unknown

East South Central 929 336 593 395 436 67 31 0Kentucky 284 105 179 140 123 16 5 -

Tennessee 365 133 232 135 189 31 10 -

Alabama 201 67 134 87 85 16 13 -

Mississippi 79 31 48 33 39 4 3 -

West South Central 1,387 467 920 540 666 109 72 0Arkansas 76 21 55 31 39 2 4 -

Louisiana 152 58 94 83 62 7 - -

Oklahoma 129 43 86 51 59 9 10 -

Texas 1,030 345 685 375 506 91 58 -

Mountain 1,191 387 804 487 489 141 74 0Montana 43 20 23 17 21 2 3 -

Idaho 109 27 82 44 45 11 9 -

Wyoming 26 8 18 8 17 1 - -

Colorado 458 135 323 234 186 21 17 -

New Mexico 87 25 62 43 33 10 1 -

Arizona 281 104 177 92 105 60 24 -

Utah 154 54 100 38 65 36 15 -

Nevada 33 14 19 11 17 - 5 -

Pacific 2,560 779 1,781 1,030 1,014 288 227 1Washington 592 171 421 208 265 75 44 -

Oregon 325 123 202 125 129 40 31 -

California 1,479 442 1,037 635 547 155 141 1

Alaska 89 24 65 24 43 16 6 -

Hawaii 75 19 56 38 30 2 5 -

*Intercountry adoption data were collected by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) in FY02. In FY03, intercountry adoptionresponsibilities were transferred to the Office of Immigration Statistics in the Department of Homeland Security.**Total excludes the following 37 adoptions: 10-Armed Forces Europe; 3-Armed Forces Pacific; 3-Guam; 20-Puerto Rico; and 1-U.S.Virgin Islands.

- Represents zero

Acknowledgement: This table is based on a special tabulation prepared for NCFA by: Nancy Rytina, Ph.D., Office of ImmigrationStatistics, DHS, 425 I Street, N.W., Room 4030, Washington, D.C., 20536, 202/305/1599.


■ Table 11. Immigrant Orphans adopted by U.S. citizens by gender, age, and state of intended residence:Fiscal year 2003, Office of Immigration Statistics*

Gender Age

Under 1 1-4 5-9 Over 9Geographic division and state Total** Male Female year years years years

United States 21,270 7,418 13,852 9,710 8,824 1,611 1,033

New England 1,719 635 1,084 867 695 110 38Maine 99 27 72 35 48 9 7

New Hampshire 164 58 106 77 68 13 6

Vermont 79 29 50 36 34 D D

Massachusetts 821 312 509 432 330 50 9

Rhode Island 104 40 64 59 45 - -

Connecticut 452 169 283 228 170 38 16

Middle Atlantic 3,449 1,176 2,273 1,717 1,376 200 156New York 1,504 503 1,001 738 600 89 77

New Jersey 761 264 497 387 305 36 33

Pennsylvania 1,184 409 775 592 471 75 46

East North Central 4,164 1,525 2,639 1,952 1,756 315 141Ohio 887 312 575 438 376 44 29

Indiana 584 219 365 258 256 52 18

Illinois 1,086 387 699 504 460 82 40

Michigan 962 355 607 458 366 97 41

Wisconsin 645 252 393 294 298 40 13

West North Central 1,987 775 1,212 903 789 174 109Minnesota 756 291 465 368 294 60 34

Iowa 246 93 153 116 91 25 14

Missouri 559 215 344 238 238 47 36

North Dakota 14 5 9 7 D D -

South Dakota 49 16 33 25 19 D D

Nebraska 112 51 61 58 42 8 4

Kansas 251 104 147 91 105 34 21

South Atlantic 3,620 1,284 2,336 1,545 1,610 236 201Delaware 56 21 35 25 25 D D

Maryland 595 241 354 278 228 50 39

District of Columbia 74 20 54 30 29 7 8

Virginia 721 248 473 298 333 42 48

West Virginia 50 17 33 21 21 4 4

North Carolina 530 192 338 241 227 32 30

South Carolina 240 97 143 105 113 D D

Georgia 538 203 335 210 257 41 30

Florida 816 245 571 337 377 60 42

(continued)


■ Table 11. Immigrant Orphans adopted by U.S. citizens by gender, age, and state of intended residence:Fiscal year 2003, Office of Immigration Statistics* (continued)

Gender Age

Under 1 1-4 5-9 Over 9Geographic division and state Total** Male Female year years years years

East South Central 959 343 616 456 414 46 20Kentucky 311 114 197 165 131 D D

Tennessee 370 132 238 173 157 25 15

Alabama 199 66 133 82 91 21 5

Mississippi 79 31 48 36 35 D D

West South Central 1,370 478 892 612 576 100 71Arkansas 87 28 59 37 39 D D

Louisiana 159 60 99 91 59 6 3

Oklahoma 121 47 74 52 58 7 4

Texas 1,003 343 660 432 420 87 64

Mountain 1,379 424 955 551 550 161 114Montana 58 21 37 14 18 13 13

Idaho 95 25 70 30 52 9 4

Wyoming 20 7 13 11 6 D D

Colorado 568 145 423 274 226 43 25

New Mexico 78 27 51 30 38 4 6

Arizona 282 99 183 104 98 47 33

Utah 213 76 137 67 87 38 21

Nevada 65 24 41 21 25 7 12

Pacific 2,623 778 1,845 1,107 1,058 269 183Washington 637 184 453 231 282 71 53

Oregon 315 103 212 141 113 44 17

California 1,497 431 1,066 672 580 135 110

Alaska 88 33 55 19 47 19 3

Hawaii 86 27 59 44 36 D D

*Intercountry adoption data were collected by the Immigration and Naturalization Service into FY03, at which time, responsibilities weretransferred to the Office of Immigration Statistics of the Department of Homeland Security.**Total excludes 22 adoptions to U.S. Armed Services Posts and 25 to U.S. Possessions.

D - Disclosure standards not met in any cell that would show a count of 1 or 2, or in any associated cell that might be used to revealsuch a count through calculation. The process of suppression does not change the marginal totals, so the integrity of the data is notaffected.

- Represents zero

Acknowledgment: This table is based on a special tabulation prepared for NCFA by Nancy Rytina, Ph.D., Office of ImmigrationStatistics, DHS, 425 I Steet, N.W., Room 4030, Washington, D.C., 20536, Tel: 202/305/1599.


■ Table 12. Immigrant Orphans adopted by U.S. citizens by gender, age, and state of intended residence:Fiscal year 2004, Office of Immigration Statistics

Gender Age

Under 1 1-4 5-9 Over 9Geographic division and state Total* Male Female year years years years

United States 22,867 8,054 14,813 9,183 10,362 2,052 1,207

New England 1,807 630 1,177 748 878 115 59Maine 114 40 74 41 58 10 5

New Hampshire 180 68 112 72 82 21 5

Vermont 77 28 49 29 41 D D

Massachusetts 876 299 577 368 426 51 31

Rhode Island 136 52 84 60 64 5 7

Connecticut 424 143 281 178 207 28 11

Middle Atlantic 3,634 1,232 2,402 1,508 1,627 307 192New York 1,626 576 1,050 675 712 130 109

New Jersey 835 302 533 361 360 78 36

Pennsylvania 1,173 354 819 472 555 99 47

East North Central 4,399 1,612 2,787 1,897 2,014 327 161Ohio 906 309 597 425 417 47 17

Indiana 613 209 404 256 287 53 17

Illinois 1,166 424 742 484 540 83 59

Michigan 1,039 393 646 439 462 85 53

Wisconsin 675 277 398 293 308 59 15

West North Central 2,030 788 1,242 839 893 177 112Minnesota 897 353 544 383 400 68 46

Iowa 198 77 121 65 92 29 12

Missouri 541 202 339 224 223 56 38

North Dakota 31 13 18 6 20 D D

South Dakota 49 15 34 28 17 D D

Nebraska 113 51 62 56 42 9 6

Kansas 201 77 124 77 99 15 10

South Atlantic 4,094 1,508 2,586 1,569 1,895 388 214Delaware 71 22 49 28 38 D D

Maryland 583 242 341 225 262 59 37

District of Columbia 69 27 42 29 26 D D

Virginia 778 284 494 311 372 63 32

West Virginia 92 42 50 39 44 D D

North Carolina 605 222 383 238 288 50 29

South Carolina 272 105 167 109 128 27 8

Georgia 655 241 414 253 317 53 32

Florida 969 323 646 337 420 136 76

(continued)


■ Table 12. Immigrant Orphans adopted by U.S. citizens by gender, age, and state of intended residence:Fiscal year 2004, Office of Immigration Statistics (continued)

Gender Age

Under 1 1-4 5-9 Over 9Geographic division and state Total* Male Female year years years years

East South Central 1,156 386 770 525 503 85 34Kentucky 396 124 272 205 163 23 5

Tennessee 448 163 285 188 190 50 20

Alabama 204 64 140 91 92 12 9

Mississippi 108 35 73 41 58 D D

West South Central 1,503 552 951 533 692 153 125Arkansas 71 30 41 32 29 7 3

Louisiana 191 67 124 92 85 10 4

Oklahoma 143 60 83 43 66 14 20

Texas 1,098 395 703 366 512 122 98

Mountain 1,452 483 969 523 617 203 107Montana 61 24 37 17 28 11 5

Idaho 122 40 82 34 56 20 12

Wyoming 19 7 12 9 8 D D

Colorado 576 161 415 266 257 41 12

New Mexico 85 25 60 27 41 10 7

Arizona 350 145 205 109 123 77 41

Utah 171 58 113 45 73 33 20

Nevada 68 23 45 16 31 11 10

Pacific 2,792 863 1,929 1,041 1,243 297 203Washington 661 198 463 204 337 70 50

Oregon 326 112 214 117 152 36 21

California 1,621 509 1,112 656 656 180 129

Alaska 69 20 49 22 33 11 3

Hawaii 115 24 91 42 65 D D

*Total excludes adoptions to U.S. Armed Services Posts and to U.S. Possessions.

D - Disclosure standards not met in any cell that would show a count of 1 or 2, or in any associated cell that might be used to revealsuch a count through calculation. The process of suppression slightly changes the marginal totals.

Acknowledgment: This table is based on a special tabulation specifically prepared for NCFA by: Nancy Rytina, Ph.D., Office ofImmigration Statistics, Department of Homeland Security, 425 I Steet, N.W., Room 4030, Washington, D.C., 20536, Tel: 202/305/1599.


■ Table 13. Immigrant Orphans adopted by United States citizens by selected country of birth:Fiscal years 1998-2004, Office of Immigration Statistics*

Fiscal years

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004Region and country of birth INS INS INS INS INS INS/OIS OIS

All countries 14,867 16,037 18,120 19,087 21,100 21,320 22,911

Europe 5,457 6,159 6,911 7,637 7,796 7,652 8,158Belarus 2 23 41 129 163 187 200

Bulgaria 147 213 207 288 261 196 112

Georgia 7 2 3 15 56 124 22

Hungary 29 20 24 13 21 17 8

Kazakhstan 54 108 392 664 801 819 824

Latvia 73 58 25 26 34 13 15

Lithuania 71 60 30 30 21 15 29

Moldova 57 60 78 47 7 12 30

Poland 70 97 81 89 102 92 102

Romania 388 887 1,103 781 169 197 58

Russia 4,320 4,250 4,210 4,210 4,904 5,134 5,878

Ukraine 168 307 645 1,227 1093 691 772

Other Europe 71 74 72 118 164 155 108

Asia 7,393 7,816 8,639 8,642 9,721 10,018 9,797Cambodia 241 238 368 384 275 143 47

China, total 4,030 4,049 4,981 4,699 6,122 6,755

China, People’s Republic 3,988 4,009 4,943 4,629 6,062 6,638 7,033

Taiwan 18 26 24 44 41 104

Hong Kong 24 14 14 26 19 13

India 462 486 491 540 459 466 394

Japan 35 37 35 38 41 35 44

Korea 1,705 1,956 1,711 1,863 1,713 1,793 1,708

Philippines 189 185 176 220 208 218 188

Thailand 78 77 85 75 65 67 67

Vietnam 576 704 709 730 736 393 25

Other Asia 3,953 3,965 4,898 4,606 6,020 6,607 291

Africa 171 200 217 343 337 417 580Ethiopia 88 100 103 160 102 166 277

Liberia 9 20 20 50 23 22 88

Other Africa 74 80 94 133 212 229 215

Oceania 3 6 6 19 22 52 51

North America 1,344 1,387 1,890 2,015 2,750 2,773 3,869Canada - 2 - 2 6 - 8

Mexico 170 145 115 105 71 67 98

Caribbean 170 179 205 266 269 325 447

Dominican Republic 9 18 14 16 17 25 20

Haiti 113 93 136 187 192 246 355

Jamaica 34 51 42 55 43 39 51

Other Caribbean 156 162 192 258 252 310 21

(continued)


■ Table 13. Immigrant Orphans adopted by United States citizens by selected country of birth:Fiscal years 1998-2004, Office of Immigration Statistics* (continued)

Fiscal years

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004Region and country of birth INS INS INS INS INS INS/OIS OIS

Central America 1,004 1,061 1,570 1,642 2,404 2,381 3,316

Belize 4 5 8 6 8 12 12

Costa Rica 5 7 17 8 4 3 10

El Salvador 14 9 9 8 13 6 15

Guatemala 938 987 1,504 1,601 2,361 2,327 3,252

Honduras 9 11 9 4 6 13 9

Nicaragua 16 17 9 11 7 8 12

Panama 18 25 14 4 5 12 6

Other North America 1,316 1,385 1,954 2,158 2,908 3,001 3,742

South America 497 459 452 429 466 406 452Bolivia 69 46 60 35 15 7 5

Brazil 86 67 26 33 26 30 72

Chile 23 20 12 4 3 9 5

Colombia 221 226 246 261 329 275 279

Ecuador 53 62 57 51 48 44 30

Paraguay 7 5 1 1 2 D -

Peru 22 25 43 22 21 15 23

Other South America 16 8 7 22 22 26 38

-Data not available.D Disclosure standards not met.2004 total includes four cases with unknown or not reported country of birth.Note: Until FY 2003, intercountry adoption data were collected by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). On March 1, 2003,these responsibilities were transferred to the Office of Immigration Statistics of the Department of Homeland Security. The INSStatistical Yearbook was renamed the Yearbook of Immigration Statistics.



■ Table 14. Immigrant Orphans adopted by U.S. citizens by gender, age, and region and country of birth:Fiscal year 2002, Office of Immigration Statistics*

Gender Age

Under 1 1-4 5-9 Over 9Total Male Female year years years years Unknown

All countries 21,100 7,481 13,619 9,242 9,095 1,747 1,012 4

Europe 7,796 3,807 3,989 1,827 4,214 1,168 583 4Albania 22 13 9 1 17 1 3 -

Armenia 27 9 18 17 7 - 3 -

Azerbaijan 48 21 27 12 31 2 3 -

Belarus 163 76 87 47 99 14 3 -

Bosnia-Herzegovina 3 - 3 1 - - 2 -

Bulgaria 261 123 138 5 192 49 15 -

Croatia 5 1 4 1 - 2 2 -

Czech Republic 1 1 - - 1 - - -

Czechoslovakia** 2 1 1 - 2 - - -

Estonia 10 4 6 1 4 - 5 -

Georgia 56 32 24 54 1 1 - -

Germany 2 1 1 1 1 - - -

Hungary 21 10 11 3 11 5 2 -

Kazakhstan 801 356 445 273 343 144 41 -

Latvia 34 15 19 5 22 3 4 -

Lithuania 21 9 12 2 15 3 1 -

Macedonia 4 2 2 3 - 1 - -

Moldova 7 4 3 - 7 - - -

Poland 102 52 50 4 54 37 7 -

Portugal 1 1 - - - - 1 -

Romania 169 71 98 2 101 29 37 -

Russia 4,904 2,401 2,503 1,301 2,621 579 400 3

Slovak Republic 19 12 7 - 16 3 - -

Tajikistan 2 - 2 - 2 - - -

Tukmenistan 1 - 1 - 1 - - -

Ukraine 1,093 586 507 92 656 292 52 1

United Kingdom 7 1 6 2 3 2 - -

Uzbekistan 1 - 1 - 1 - - -

Yugoslavia** 9 5 4 - 6 1 2 -

Asia 9,721 1,999 7,722 5,213 4,093 271 144 -Afghanistan 2 1 1 1 1 - - -

Bangladesh 6 3 3 4 1 1 - -

Burma

Cambodia 275 118 157 163 102 8 2 -

China, People’s Republic 6,062 236 5,826 2,607 3,305 128 22 -

Hong Kong 19 8 11 3 8 4 4 -

India 459 124 335 168 230 40 21 -

Indonesia 7 3 4 2 4 - 1 -

Iran 10 7 3 3 5 - 2 -

Israel 1 - 1 - 1 - - -

Japan 41 24 17 26 14 - 1 -

Jordan 3 2 1 1 1 - 1 -

Korea 1,713 989 724 1,590 114 5 4 -

Laos 2 - 2 - - 2 - -

Lebanon 14 5 9 14 - - - -

Malaysia 2 1 1 1 1 - - -

(continued)


■ Table 14. Immigrant Orphans adopted by U.S. citizens by gender, age, and region and country of birth:Fiscal year 2002, Office of Immigration Statistics* (continued)

Gender Age


Mongolia 8 4 4 2 6 - - -

Nepal 12 4 8 5 7 - - -

Pakistan 29 11 18 12 5 3 9 -

Philippines 208 99 109 13 115 39 41 -

Singapore - - - - - - - -

Sri Lanka 4 2 2 4 - - - -

Taiwan 41 19 22 24 9 5 3 -

Thailand 65 28 37 4 44 10 7 -

Turkey 2 1 1 - - 2 - -

Vietnam 736 310 426 566 120 24 26 -

Africa 337 151 186 44 120 80 93 -Algeria 1 - 1 1 - - - -

Botswana - - - - - - - -

Cameroon 2 2 - 1 - 1 - -

Cape Verde - - - - - - - -

Chad - - - - - - - -

Congo, Republic 6 2 4 - - 1 5 -

Cote d’Ivoire 1 - 1 - - - 1 -

Egypt 1 1 - - 1 - - -

Eritrea 2 1 1 - 1 - 1 -

Ethiopia 102 42 60 14 30 35 23 -

Gambia, The 1 - 1 - - 1 - -

Ghana 11 4 7 1 2 3 5 -

Guinea-Bissau 1 1 - - - - 1 -

Kenya 35 18 17 - 19 6 10 -

Lesotho 6 3 3 1 - 3 2 -

Liberia 23 14 9 1 6 9 7 -

Madagascar 5 2 3 1 2 2 - -

Malawi - - - - - - - -

Morocco 6 3 3 3 2 - 1 -

Mozambique 3 2 1 - - 1 2 -

Namibia - - - - - - - -

Niger 1 1 - - - - 1 -

Nigeria 41 19 22 11 19 3 8 -

Rwanda - - - - - - - -

Senegal 1 1 - 1 - - - -

Sierra Leone 33 13 20 - 12 14 7 -

Somalia 1 1 - - - - 1 -

South Africa 28 13 15 8 20 - - -

Tanzania 3 - 3 - 1 - 2 -

Tunisia 1 - 1 1 - - - -

Uganda 19 7 12 - 3 1 15 -

Zambia 2 - 2 - 1 - 1 -

Zimbabwe 1 1 - - 1 - - -

Oceania 22 7 15 6 5 7 4 -American Samoa 2 2 - 2 - - - -

Australia 2 1 1 - - 2 - -

Fiji 6 - 6 2 - 2 2 -

(continued)



Gender Age


Marshall Islands 4 2 2 - 2 2 - -

Northern Mariana Islands 1 1 - 1 - - - -

Samoa 7 1 6 1 3 1 2 -

Tonga - - - - - - - -

North America 2,750 1,296 1,454 1,881 558 167 144 -Canada 6 2 4 1 2 1 2 -

Mexico 71 28 43 15 20 17 19 -

Caribbean 269 105 164 30 100 60 79 -

Antigua-Barbuda - - - - - - - -

Barbados 1 1 - - - - 1 -

British Virgin Islands 1 1 - - - 1 - -

Dominican Republic 17 5 12 3 3 6 5 -

Grenada - - - - - - - -

Guadeloupe - - - - - - - -

Haiti 192 74 118 24 86 37 45 -

Jamaica 43 17 26 2 9 11 21 -

St. Kitts-Nevis 1 - 1 - 1 - - -

St. Lucia 3 2 1 - - 2 1 -

St. Vincent & the Grenadines 4 3 1 1 - 1 2 -

Trinidad & Tobago 7 2 5 - 1 2 4 -

Central America 2,404 1,161 1,243 1,835 436 89 44 -

Belize 8 4 4 4 1 2 1 -

Costa Rica 4 3 1 2 1 - 1 -

El Salvador 13 11 2 - 8 2 3 -

Guatemala 2,361 1,135 1,226 1,828 419 81 33 -

Honduras 6 3 3 - 3 1 2 -

Nicaragua 7 3 4 - 1 3 3 -

Panama 5 2 3 1 3 - 1 -

South America 466 219 247 268 101 53 44 -Bolivia 15 7 8 5 8 1 1 -

Brazil 26 12 14 1 8 8 9 -

Chile 3 2 1 - 2 1 - -

Colombia 329 161 168 243 42 33 11 -

Ecuador 48 24 24 12 32 2 2 -

Guyana 18 5 13 2 1 2 13 -

Paraguay 2 1 1 - - 2 - -

Peru 21 5 16 5 8 4 4 -

Suriname 2 - 2 - - - 2 -

Venezuela 2 2 - - - - 2 -

Unknown or not reported 8 2 6 3 4 1 - -

*Intercountry adoption data were collected by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) in FY02. In FY03, intercountry adoptiondata responsibilities were transferred to the Office of Immigration Statistics in the Department of Homeland Security.**Former. Current country not reported. See OIS Notice of Special Geographic Definitions.

Acknowledgment: This table is based on a special tabulation specifically prepared for NCFA by: Nancy Rytina, Ph.D., Office ofImmigration Statistics, Department of Homeland Security, 425 I Steet, N.W., Room 4030, Washington, D.C. 20536, Tel: 202/305/1599.



Gender Age

Under 1 1-4 5-9 Over 9Total Male Female Unknown year years years years Unknown

All countries 21,320 7,435 13,884 1 9,728 8,853 1,680 1,059 -Europe 7,652 3,694 3,958 - 2,067 3,934 1,028 623 -

Albania 7 D D - - 4 - 3 -

Armenia 43 11 32 - 27 13 3 - -

Azerbaijan 61 27 34 - 28 30 3 - -

Belarus 187 86 101 - 41 109 24 13 -

Bosnia-Herzegovina D D D - - D - - -

Bulgaria 196 87 109 - 3 154 24 15 -

Croatia D D D - - D D - -

Czechoslovakia1 D D - - - D - D -

Estonia 13 8 5 - - D 6 D -

Georgia 124 61 63 - 115 9 - - -

Greece 3 D D - D - D - -

Hungary 17 7 10 - D 11 D 3 -

Kazakhstan 819 389 430 - 270 355 138 56 -

Latvia 13 4 9 - - 6 3 4 -

Lithuania 15 5 10 - - 11 D D -

Moldova 12 7 5 - D 9 D - -

Poland 92 46 46 - D 35 36 19 -

Portugal D D D - - D D D -

Romania 197 88 109 - 9 130 35 23 -

Russia 5,134 2,513 2,621 - 1,559 2,559 608 408 -

Serbia and Montenegro2 7 3 4 - D D - - -

Slovak Republic D - D - - - - D -

Tajikistan 4 D D - D D - - -

Ukraine 691 337 354 - 3 479 138 71 -

United Kingdom3 4 D D - D D D - -

Uzbekistan D D D - - D - D -

Asia 10,018 1,990 8,028 - 5,519 4,000 328 171 -Afghanistan 3 D D - - - - D -

Bangladesh 9 D D - 6 - D D -

Bhutan D - D - D - - - -

Burma D - D - - - - D -

Cambodia 143 62 81 - D 105 30 D -

China, People’s Republic 6,638 313 6,325 - 3,262 3,206 140 30 -

Hong Kong 13 6 7 - D 7 D 3 -

India 466 153 313 - 114 250 57 45 -

Indonesia 4 D D - - D - - -

Iran 12 6 6 - D 4 D 4 -

Japan 35 18 17 - 28 7 - - -

Jordan4 10 7 3 - 5 D - D -

Korea 1,793 1,026 767 - 1,683 97 7 6 -

Laos D D - - - D - - -

Lebanon 7 4 3 - 7 - - - -

Malaysia D D - - D - - - -

Mongolia 26 13 13 - 3 23 - - -

Nepal 42 18 24 - 26 D D D -

Pakistan 21 10 11 - 9 8 - 4 -

(continued)



Gender Age


Philippines 218 107 111 - 12 113 47 46 -

Sri Lanka 6 D D - 3 D D - -

Taiwan 104 56 48 - 62 30 9 3 -

Thailand 67 36 31 - D 49 13 D -

Turkey D - D - - - D D -

Vietnam 393 143 250 - 283 75 17 18 -

Africa 417 190 227 - 59 146 108 104 -Algeria D D - - D - - - -

Burundi D D - - - D - - -

Cameroon 7 4 3 - - - D D -

Congo, Republic 6 3 3 - - - 3 3 -

Cote d’Ivoire 3 - 3 - - - D D -

Egypt D - D - - D - - -

Eritrea 6 D D - - D D 3 -

Ethiopia 166 75 91 - 18 50 60 38 -

Ghana 6 5 D - - 3 D D -

Kenya 33 11 22 - 7 12 5 9 -

Liberia 22 11 11 - D 7 D 8 -

Madagascar 3 D D - D D - - -

Malawi 3 - 3 - - D D - -

Morocco 8 5 3 - D 4 - - -

Mozambique D D D - - D - - -

Nigeria 46 24 22 - D 22 D 11 -

Rwanda D - D - - D - - -

Senegal D - D - D - - - -

Seychelles D - D - - - - D -

Sierra Leone 56 25 31 - - 27 21 8 -

South Africa 26 12 14 - 14 7 D D -

Sudan 6 D D - D - D D -

Tanzania D D D - - D - - -

Uganda 3 D D - - D D - -

Zambia 4 D D - - - D D -

Zimbabwe 3 D D - - - - 3 -

Oceania 52 21 31 - 22 17 12 D -American Samoa 5 D D - D D D - -

Fiji D D - - D - D - -

Marshall Islands 6 D D - 6 - - - -

Micronesia, Federated States D D - - - D - - -

Northern Mariana Islands D D - - - - D - -

Samoa 37 14 23 - 13 14 D D -

North America 2,773 1,348 1,424 1 1,830 672 162 109 -Mexico 67 33 34 - 26 19 11 11 -

Caribbean 325 127 198 - 29 153 72 71 -

Antigua-Barbuda D - D - - - - D -

Bahamas, The D D - - - - D - -

Barbados D D - - - - - D -

Dominican Republic 25 10 15 - D D D 8 -

(continued)



Gender Age


Grenada D D D - - - - D -

Haiti 246 96 150 - 21 133 60 32 -

Jamaica 39 14 25 - D 9 D 22 -

St. Lucia D D D - - D - D -

St. Vincent & the Grenadines 3 D D - - D D - -

Trinidad & Tobago 5 D D - - - D 4 -

Central America 2,381 1,188 1,192 1 1,775 500 79 27 -

Belize 12 7 5 - - 6 D D -

Costa Rica 3 D D - D D - - -

El Salvador 6 D D - D D 3 - -

Guatemala 2,327 1,163 1,163 1 1,766 480 65 16 -

Honduras 13 6 7 - D D 4 4 -

Nicaragua 8 D D - D 3 D D -

Panama 12 8 4 - 4 4 D D -

South America 406 192 214 - 231 82 42 51 -Bolivia 7 D D - 3 4 - - -

Brazil 30 14 16 - 6 8 7 9 -

Chile 9 D D - - D D 4 -

Colombia 275 134 141 - 206 29 23 17 -

Ecuador 44 24 20 - 14 26 D D -

Guyana 22 6 16 - D D 6 13 -

Paraguay D D - - - D - - -

Peru 15 9 6 - D D D 7 -

Venezuela 3 - 3 - - 3 - - -

Unknown or not reported D - D - - D - - -

*Intercountry adoption data were collected by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) in FY02. In FY03 intercountry adoptiondata responsibilities were transferred to the Office of Immigration Statistics in the Department of Homeland Security.1 Data are for unknown republic only.2 Yugoslavia (unknown republic) prior to February 7, 2003.3 Includes Northern Ireland.4 Palestine included in unknown.

- Represents zero.

D Disclosure standards not met.




Gender Age


All countries 22,911 8,070 14,841 - 9,195 10,384 2,100 1,232 -

Europe 8,158 4,024 4,134 - 2,144 4,068 1,320 626 -Albania 10 7 3 - - 7 D D -

Armenia 29 14 15 - 22 D D - -

Azerbaijan 26 13 13 - 11 10 5 - -

Belarus 200 91 109 - 26 147 13 14 -

Belgium - - - - - - - - -

Bosnia-Herzegovina D D - - - D - - -

Bulgaria 112 57 55 - D 90 15 D -

Croatia D - D - D - - - -

Czech Republic D D - - - D - - -

Czechoslovakia, former - - - - - - - - -

Estonia 12 9 3 - - D D 8 -

Georgia 22 6 16 - 13 D D - -

Germany D - D - - D - D -

Greece D D - - - - - D -

Hungary 8 D D - - 8 - - -

Ireland D - D - - D - - -

Kazakhstan 824 394 430 - 290 349 128 57 -

Kyrgyzstan D - D - D - - - -

Latvia 15 7 8 - - D D 8 -

Lithuania 29 20 9 - - 20 D D -

Macedonia D D - - D - - - -

Moldova 30 12 18 - - 21 6 3 -

Poland 102 47 55 - D 35 42 D -

Portugal 5 D D - - D D D -

Romania 58 22 36 - D 48 D 5 -

Russia 5,878 2,937 2,941 - 1,768 2,823 883 404 -

Serbia and Montenegro D - D - - D D - -

Slovak Republic D D - - - D - - -

Soviet Union, former - - - - - - - - -

Spain D D D - - - - D -

Tajikistan 6 - 6 - D D - - -

Turkmenistan - - - - - - - - -

Ukraine 772 372 400 - D 478 207 D -

United Kingdom D D - - - - - D -

Uzbekistan 3 D D - - D D - -

Asia 9,797 1,817 7,980 - 4,596 4,758 281 162 -Afghanistan D - D - - - - D -

Bangladesh 10 5 5 - D D - - -

Bhutan - - - - - - - - -

Burma D D D - - - - D -

Cambodia 47 17 30 - - 43 D D -

China, People’s Republic 7,033 350 6,683 - 2,742 4,116 133 42 -

Cyprus - - - - - - - - -

Hong Kong 15 9 6 - D 12 D - -

India 394 126 268 - 84 239 52 19 -

Indonesia D - D - - D - - -

(continued)



Gender Age


Iran 5 D D - D - - D -

Iraq - - - - - - - - -

Israel - - - - - - - - -

Japan 44 24 20 - 31 D - D -

Jordan 5 D D - D D - - -

Korea 1,708 1,020 688 - 1,599 92 11 6 -

Laos 4 D D - - - - 4 -

Lebanon 11 5 6 - D - - D -

Malaysia D D - - D - - - -

Mongolia 22 14 8 - D D - - -

Nepal 72 27 45 - 27 37 D D -

Pakistan 30 9 21 - 12 3 3 12 -

Philippines 188 99 89 - 14 83 43 48 -

Saudi Arabia - - - - - - - - -

Singapore - - - - - - - - -

Sri Lanka 13 5 8 - 6 D D 4 -

Syria 3 D D - - - - 3 -

Taiwan 89 49 40 - 47 25 D D -

Thailand 67 28 39 - D 52 9 D -

Turkey 5 D D - D D D D -

Vietnam 25 15 10 - - 15 D D -

Yemen D - D - - - - D -

Africa 580 254 326 - 95 178 159 148 -Algeria 3 D D - D D - - -

Benin D D - - - D - - -

Botswana - - - - - - - - -

Burundi 3 D D - - - D D -

Cameroon 6 3 3 - - - D D -

Cape Verde D D - - - D - - -

Chad - - - - - - - - -

Congo, Republic D - D - - - D - -

Cote d’Ivoire - - - - - - - - -

Djibouti D D D - D - - D -

Egypt - - - - - - - - -

Equatorial Guinea - - - - - - - - -

Eritrea 5 D D - - D D D -

Ethiopia 277 123 154 - 55 67 87 68 -

Gambia, The - - - - - - - - -

Ghana 11 4 7 - - D D 5 -

Guinea-Bissau - - - - - - - - -

Kenya 18 7 11 - D 9 4 D -

Lesotho D - D - D - - - -

Liberia 88 38 50 - 11 31 21 25 -

Libya - - - - - - - - -

Madagascar 3 D D - - - 3 - -

Malawi - - - - - - - - -

Mali D - D - - D - - -

Mauritius - - - - - - - - -

(continued)



Gender Age


Morocco 7 D D - D D D D -

Mozambique 3 - 3 - - D - D -

Namibia - - - - - - - - -

Niger - - - - - - - - -

Nigeria 59 25 34 - 13 33 4 9 -

Rwanda 3 D D - - - - 3 -

Senegal D D D - - D - - -

Seychelles D - D - - - D - -

Sierra Leone 36 11 25 - - D 21 D -

Somalia 4 D D - - - D D -

South Africa 12 6 6 - 9 D D - -

Sudan - - - - - - - - -

Swaziland D - D - - D - - -

Tanzania 4 - 4 - - - - 4 -

Togo D D - - - - D - -

Tunisia - - - - - - - - -

Uganda 14 9 5 - - D D 10 -

Zambia 9 4 5 - - D D 4 -

Zimbabwe 3 3 - - - - D D -

Oceania 51 24 27 - 19 20 8 4 -American Samoa - - - - - - - - -

Australia - - - - - - - - -

Fiji D D - - - D - - -

Marshall Islands 16 D D - D D D 4 -

Micronesia, Federated States - - - - - - - - -

Northern Mariana Islands - - - - - - - - -

Papua New Guinea - - - - - - - - -

Samoa 30 12 18 - D 13 D - -

Tonga 4 D D - D D - - -

North America 3,869 1,732 2,137 - 2,156 1,270 240 203 -Canada 8 4 4 - - 5 D D -

Mexico 98 41 57 - 27 21 D D -

United States - - - - - - - - -

Caribbean 447 182 265 - 17 212 97 121 -

Antigua-Barbuda D - D - - - - D -

Bahamas, The - - - - - - - - -

Barbados D D - - - - - D -

Bermuda - - - - - - - - -

British Virgin Islands - - - - - - - - -

Cuba - - - - - - - - -

Dominica 3 - 3 - - - D D -

Dominican Republic 20 11 9 - D D D 7 -

Grenada D - D - - - - D -

Guadeloupe - - - - - - - - -

Haiti 355 145 210 - 11 194 85 65 -

Jamaica 51 18 33 - D 9 D 34 -

St. Kitts-Nevis - - - - - - - - -

(continued)



Gender Age


St. Lucia D - D - - D - D -

St. Vincent & the Grenadines D D D - - - D D -

Trinidad & Tobago 10 D D - - D D 7 -

U.S. Virgin Islands D D - - - - - D -

Central America 3,316 1,505 1,811 - 2,112 1,032 132 40 -

Belize 12 3 9 - D 4 D 4 -

Costa Rica 10 D D - - 3 3 4 -

El Salvador 15 4 11 - - 10 5 - -

Guatemala 3,252 1,491 1,761 - 2,109 1,002 118 23 -

Honduras 9 D D - - 3 - 6 -

Nicaragua 12 3 9 - - 6 3 3 -

Panama 6 - 6 - - D D - -

South America 452 217 235 - 185 88 91 88 -Bolivia 5 4 1 - 1 - 2 2 -

Brazil 72 38 34 - 12 18 21 21 -

Chile 5 3 2 - - 2 2 1 -

Colombia 279 120 159 - 165 35 50 29 -

Ecuador 30 20 10 - 2 20 2 6 -

Guyana 36 18 18 - 2 2 12 20 -

Paraguay - - - - - - - - -

Peru 23 13 10 - 3 11 2 7 -

Suriname - - - - - - - - -

Venezuela 2 1 1 - - - - 2 -

Unknown or not reported 4 2 2 - - 2 1 1 -

*Intercountry adoption data were collected by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) in FY02. In FY03, intercountry adoptiondata responsibilities were transferred to the Office of Immigration Statistics in the

- Represents zero.

D Disclosure standards not met.

Acknowledgment: This table is based on a special tabulation specifically prepared for NCFA by: Nancy Rytina, Ph.D., Office ofImmigration Statistics, Department of Homeland Security, 425 I Steet, N.W., Room 4030, Washington, D.C. 20536, Tel: 202/305/1599.


■ Table 17. Immigrant visas issued to orphans coming to the United States for top countries of origin:Fiscal years 2000-2005, U.S. Department of State

Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal yearTop countries of origin 2005 Top countries of origin 2004 Top countries of origin 2003

Total 22,728 Total 22,884 Total 21,616

China (mainland) 7,906 China (mainland) 7,044 China (mainland) 6,859

Russia 4,639 Russia 5,865 Russia 5,209

Guatemala 3,783 Guatemala 3,264 Guatemala 2,328

South Korea 1,630 South Korea 1,716 South Korea 1,790

Ukraine 821 Kazakhstan 826 Kazakhstan 825

Kazakhstan 755 Ukraine 723 Ukraine 702

Ethiopia 441 India 406 India 472

India 323 Haiti 356 Vietnam 382

Colombia 291 Ethiopia 289 Colombia 272

Philippines 271 Colombia 287 Haiti 250

Haiti 231 Belarus 202 Philippines 214

Liberia 182 Philippines 196 Romania 200

China (Taiwan born) 141 Bulgaria 110 Bulgaria 198

Mexico 98 Poland 102 Belarus 191

Poland and Thailand both 73 Mexico 89 Ethiopia 135

Brazil 66 Liberia 86 Cambodia 124

Nigeria 65 Nepal 73 Poland 97

Jamaica 63 Nigeria 71 Thailand 72

Nepal 62 Thailand and Brazil both 69 Azerbaijan 62

Moldova 54 Romania 57 Mexico 61

Rest of world 760 Rest of world 984 Rest of world 1,173

Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal yearTop countries of origin 2002 Top countries of origin 2001 Top countries of origin 2000

Total 20,099 Total 19,237 Total 17,718

China (mainland) 5,053 China (mainland) 4,681 China 5,053

Russia 4,939 Russia 4,279 Russia 4,269

Guatemala 2,219 South Korea 1,870 South Korea 1,794

South Korea 1,779 Guatemala 1,609 Guatemala 1,518

Ukraine 1,106 Ukraine 1,246 Romania 1,122

Kazakhstan 819 Romania 782 Vietnam 724

Vietnam 766 Vietnam 737 Ukraine 659

India 466 Kazakhstan 672 India 503

Colombia 334 India 543 Cambodia 402

Bulgaria 260 Colombia 407 Kazakhstan 399

Cambodia 254 Bulgaria 297 Colombia 246

Philippines 221 Cambodia 266 Bulgaria 214

Haiti 187 Philippines 219 Philippines 173

Belarus 169 Haiti 192 Haiti 131

Romania 168 Ethiopia 158 Mexico 106

Ethiopia 105 Belarus 129 Ethiopia 95

Poland 101 Poland 86 Thailand 88

Thailand 67 Thailand 74 Poland 83

Peru 65 Mexico 73 Moldova 79

Mexico 61 Jamaica and Liberia both 51 Bolivia 60

Rest of world 960 Rest of world 815 Rest of world 0

NOTE: The “Rest of world” total was calculated by adding the countries listed and subtracting from the total. For FY 2000, the “Rest ofworld” was calculated as “0”. NCFA suspects an error on the Department of State Web site.

SOURCE: http://travel.state.gov/family/adoption/stats/stats_451.html


■ Table 18. Adoptions of children with public child welfare agency involvement by state: Fiscal years 1995-2002

Geographic division and state 1995* 1996* 1997* 1998** 1999** 2000** 2001** 2002**

United States 25,693 27,761 31,030 36,585 46,291 50,499 49,776 52,136

New England 1,685 1,886 1,865 1,930 2,020 2,213 2,064 2,259Maine 85 144 96 125 202 379 364 311

New Hampshire 51 59 24 51 62 97 95 114

Vermont 62 83 80 118 139 117 116 153

Massachusetts 1,073 1,113 1,161 1,100 922 861 778 808

Rhode Island 216 341 226 222 292 260 267 256

Connecticut 198 146 278 314 403 499 444 617

Middle Atlantic 6,213 6,395 7,075 7,150 7,050 6,778 6,528 7,189New York 4,579 4,590 4,979 4,819 4,864 4,234 3,934 3,791

New Jersey 616 678 570 815 732 832 1,030 1,378

Pennsylvania 1,018 1,127 1,526 1,516 1,454 1,712 1,564 2,020

East North Central 5,558 6,238 7,264 9,366 12,743 12,395 10,946 10,824Ohio 1,202 1,258 1,400 1,015 1,868 2,044 2,230 2,396

Indiana 520 373 592 795 759 1,147 878 920

Illinois 1,759 2,146 2,695 4,656 7,028 5,664 4,104 3,633

Michigan 1,717 1,950 2,047 2,257 2,446 2,804 2,980 2,847

Wisconsin 360 511 530 643 642 736 754 1,028

West North Central 1,622 1,795 1,988 2,179 3,318 3,571 3,292 4,111Minnesota 232 239 302 429 633 614 567 626

Iowa 227 383 440 525 764 729 661 882

Missouri 538 600 533 640 849 1,265 1,102 1,542

North Dakota 42 41 57 111 143 108 145 137

South Dakota 42 72 55 55 84 94 97 145

Nebraska 208 168 180 - 279 293 292 308

Kansas 333 292 421 419 566 468 428 471

South Atlantic 2,714 3,296 3,513 4,747 5,331 6,200 6,215 7,180Delaware 38 46 33 62 33 103 117 133

Maryland 324 413 290 478 593 549 815 938

District of Columbia 86 113 132 139 166 319 230 252

Virginia 320 298 276 235 326 448 495 424

West Virginia 139 188 220 211 312 352 362 361

North Carolina 289 417 694 882 949 1,337 1,327 1,324

South Carolina 231 220 318 465 456 378 384 344

Georgia 383 537 558 726 1,141 1,085 977 1,097

Florida 904 1,064 992 1,549 1,355 1,629 1,508 2,307

(continued)


■ Table 18. Adoptions of children with public child welfare agency involvement by state: Fiscal years 1995-2002(continued)

Geographic division and state 1995* 1996* 1997* 1998** 1999** 2000** 2001** 2002**

East South Central 892 798 684 833 1,132 1,317 1,698 1,957Kentucky 197 214 222 211 360 396 548 559

Tennessee 458 330 195 337 382 431 646 922

Alabama 128 153 136 115 153 202 238 249

Mississippi 109 101 131 170 237 288 266 227

West South Central 1,406 1,623 1,965 2,676 3,557 3,919 4,110 4,092Arkansas 84 185 146 258 318 325 362 297

Louisiana 292 321 310 311 356 476 470 487

Oklahoma 226 371 418 505 829 1,073 959 1,011

Texas 804 746 1,091 1,602 2,054 2,045 2,319 2,297

Mountain 1,292 1,412 1,706 1,347 2,566 2,871 3,009 3,001Montana 104 98 143 150 187 238 275 247

Idaho 46 40 47 57 107 140 132 118

Wyoming 10 20 16 32 45 61 46 50

Colorado 338 454 458 577 716 698 656 919

New Mexico 141 148 152 197 258 347 369 275

Arizona 215 383 474 - 761 853 938 793

Utah 283 124 268 334 369 303 349 346

Nevada 155 145 148 - 123 231 244 253

Pacific 4,311 4,318 4,970 6,357 8,574 11,235 11,914 11,523Washington 645 521 656 878 1,047 1,141 1,204 1,077

Oregon 427 468 441 665 765 831 1,071 1,115

California 3,094 3,153 3,614 4,418 6,344 8,781 9,101 8,741

Alaska 103 112 109 95 137 202 278 224

Hawaii 42 64 150 301 281 280 260 366

*The data for FY 1995-FY 1997 were reported by states to set baselines for the Adoption Incentive Program. They came from a varietyof sources, including the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS), court records, file reviews, and legacyinformation systems.**Unless otherwise noted, the data for FY 1998-FY 2002 came from the AFCARS adoption database. Because AFCARS adoption dataare continuously being updated and cleaned, the numbers reported here may differ from data reported elsewhere. In addition, datareported for the Adoption Incentive Program will differ from these data, because adoptions reported for that program are identifiedthrough a different AFCARS data element and must qualify in other ways to be counted toward the award of incentive funds. Countsinclude adoptions reported as of 02/01/2004. Where appropriate, AFCARS data have been adjusted for duplication.

-Data useable for this purpose are not available.

NOTE: The Connecticut, Idaho, and Louisiana FY 1998 data were obtained from data reported for the Child Welfare Outcomes AnnualReport.For more information, go to www.acf.hhs.gov/program/cb.


ArizonaSources of Data for Table 1:1. 1,630 – Reported from Arizona Superior Court2002 NCFA Survey

Administrative Offices per Carole Linker, Adop-tion Manager, Arizona Departmetn of EconomicAlabamaSecurity. (D.E.S.) Administration for Children,1. 2,218 – (2,411 less 193 foreign birth adoptions)Youth, and Families, Site Code 940A, Phoenix,reported by Nicole A. Henderson, Director, SpecialAZ 85005.Services Division, Center for Health Statistics,

2. Est.Department of Public Health, 201 Monroe Street,3. Est.Suite 1150, Montgomery, AL 36103. The 2,2184. 793 – ACFcompares with 1,857 for 2000 reported by

USDHHS. The Alabama Department of Human 5. Est.Resources website (http://www. dhr.state.al.us/ 6. Est.Facts.asp shows Table 15 with this footnote: “A 7. Est.total of 1,904 petitions were referred to the State 8. Est.Department of Human Resources . . .” 9. 147 – Ruby Pittman, ICPC Coordinator, Depart-

2. Est. ment of Economic Security, P.O. Box 6123, Phoe-3. Est. nix, AZ 85005.4. 249 – ACF 10. 189 – Pittman, op. cit.5. Est. 11. 281 – OIS/DHS6. Est.7. Est. Arkansas8. Est. 1. 1,930 – Reported by Flango from Arkansas Circuit9. Est. – ICPC data are not available for Alabama for Court filings and dispositions. Concurrance by

2002, but 2005 data will be available in the future, Gloria Aboagye, Adoption Manager, Arkansasaccording to Phyllis Mattews, Alabama Depart- Department of Human Services, Division of Chil-ment of Human Resources, ICPC Coordinator, 50 dren and Family Services, Slot S-565, Little Rock,North Ripley Street, Montgomery, AL. Arkansas 72203-1437.

10. Est. 2. Est.11. 201 – OIS/DHS 3. Est.

4. 281 – Aboagye, op. cit. This compares well withAlaska297 reported by ACF.

1. 718 – reported by Michael Matthews, Research5. Est.Analyst, Bureau of Vital Statistics, Division of Pub-6. Est.lic Health, Juneau, AK. This compares with 6117. Est.reported for 2002 by Flango from the Alaska Supe-8. 197 – Aboagye, op. cit.rior Court.9. 64 – ICPC Unit, per Gloria Aboagye, Adoption2. 221 – BVS, Matthews – mother or father related

Manageronly, op. cit.10. 17 – ICPC Unit, Aboagye, op. cit.3. 497 – BVS, Matthews, op. cit.11. 76 – OIS/DHS4. 173 – BVS, Matthews, op. cit. This compares well

with the provisional estimate of 190 in 2002 byCaliforniaACF.

5. 141 – BVS, Matthews, op. cit. 1. 10,708 – Reported in “Adoptions in California”.6. 183 – BVS, Matthews, op. cit. Annual Statistical Report. July 1, 2001–June 30,

2002. October 2003. Data Systems and Survey7. 237 – BVS, Matthews, op. cit.Design Bureau, California Department of Social8. 340 – BVS, Matthews, op. cit. Note: ReportedServices. This compares well with 10,045 reportednumber is for children with a natural mother ofby Sheri Mazuka and Janet Strickland, Californiaminority race only. All of the children adoptedOffice of Vital Records, Department of Health Ser-through OCS in FY02 were special needs, accord-vices, MS 5103, Sacramento, CA 95899-7410.ing to Kristen Tromble, Research Analyst, Office

of Children’s Services. 2. 3, 428 – “Adoptions in California”, op. cit.9. 15 – Reported by Marcia Pickering, ICPC Program 3. 7,280–By subtraction of item #2 from item #1.

Coordinator, Office of Children’s Services, Alaska 4. 5,275-According to experts in the Data SystemsDepartment of Health and Human Services, 130 and Survey Design Bureau, 58% of agency adop-Seward St. Juneau, AK 99811-0630 tions were unrelated, and 42% were related.

10. 43 – Reported by Marcia Pickering, op. cit. Note: Nearly all of the related adoptions were from pub-Data collection coordinated by Linda West, Alaska lic agency adoptions were assigned to item 2, re-Department of Family and Youth Services, 350 lated adoptions. California’s website (http://Main Street, Juneau, Alaska 99811-0630. www.dss.cahwnet.gov/research/default.htm>

specifies 610 licensed private agency adoptions11. 89 – OIS/DHS


(for line 5) and 1,395 independent adoptions (for 8. 577 – Del Vecchio, op. cit.line 6). By adding these two (610 + 1,395 = 2,005) 9. 120 – Reported by Sandra Mattlock, ICPC Coordi-then subtracting from 7,280, a total of 5,275 unre- nator, Connecticut Department of Children andlated public agency adoptions is derived. Families, 505 Hudson Street, Hartford, Connecti-

cut. The 120 were further broken down as 365. 610public agency and 84 private agency adoptions.6. 1,395

10. 79 – Matlock, op. cit. The 79 were further broken7. 2,525down as 27 public agency and 52 private8. 4,456agency adoptions.9. 132 – “Adoptions in California”, op. cit.

11. 455 – OIS/DHS10. 285 – “Adoptions in California”, op. cit.Notes: The California Department of Social Ser- Delawarevices Report entitled “Characteristics of Agency

1. 248 – Reported from AFCARS FY2002 by FrankAdoptions in California” – July 1, 2000-June 30,Perfinski, Adoption Program Manager, Depart-2001 states that 92.4% of agency adoptions arement of Services for Children, Youth and Theirspecial needs and 27.4% of agency adoptions areFamilies, 1825 Faulkland Road, Wilmington, DEinfants (under age 2). There are no parallel statis-19805-1195 This compares well with 269 re-tics for independent adoptions. For the indepen-ported by Flango for Family Court filings and dis-dent adoptions, it is reasonable to assume thatpositions.29.4% are special needs (the same as for private

2. 97 – Perfinski, op. cit. AFCARS, Elements 29, 30.agency adoptions), and that at least 95% are in-fants. Applying these estimates to the statistics 3. 151 – Perfinski, op. cit. AFCARS, Elements 31, 32already derived yields estimates of 2,525 infant 4. 114 – Perfinski, op. cit. AFCARS, Elements 31,adoptions for line 7 and 4,456 special needs adop- 32, 34. This compares well with 133 reportedtions for line 8. by USDHHS.

11. 1,479 OIS/DHS 5. 37 – Perfinski, op. cit. AFCARS, Elements 31,32, 34

Colorado 6. 0 – Perfinski, op. cit. AFCARS, Elements 31, 32,1. 3,035 – Reported by Flango. 34. Note also that Delaware law requires that all

adoptions must be handled by agencies and go2. Est.through Family Court.3. Est.

7. 29 – Perfinski, AFCARS, Elements 31, 32, 21, 54. 840 – ACF8. 103 – Perfinski, op. cit. AFCARS, Elements 31,5. Est.

32, 96. Est.9. 58 – Perfinski, op. cit. ICPC Unit Data Base.7. Est.

10. 37 – Perfinski, op. cit. ICPC Unit Data Base.8. Est.11. 56 – OIS/DHS9. Est. – Per Shauntel Smith, the ICPC Coordinator

at Colorado Department of Social Services does District of Columbianot have this information.1. 464 – Reported by Flango from 2002 D.C. Supe-10. Est.

rior Court filings and dispositions.Note: A total of 12 attempts to collect information2. Est.from five persons in Colorado were made by3. Est.NCFA, yet no useable statistics were obtained from4. 252 – ACFColorado resource persons contacted.5. Est.11. 458 – OIS/DHS6. Est.

Connecticut 7. Est.1. 1,054 – Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 8 were reported by 8. Est

Diane Del Vecchio, Office of Foster and Adoption 9. Est.Services, Department of Children and Families, 10. Est.505 Hudson Street, Hartford, Connecticut 06106, 11. 81 – OIS/DHSbased on DCF LINK Database. The 1,054 reportedby Del Vecchio for item 1 is less than 1,304 re- Floridaported by Flango based on Probate Court Records. 1. 5,810 – Reported by Ken Jones, Florida Office of

2. 250 – Del Vecchio, op. cit. Vital Statistics, Florida Department of Health,3. 804 – Del Vecchio, op. cit. 1217 Pearl St., Jacksonville, FL 32231-0042 for4. 613 – The 613 reported by Del Vecchio, op. cit. for children born in the state of Florida. The actual

item 4 compares well with 617 reported by ACF. adoption could have occurred anywhere, not just5. 191 – Del Vecchio, op. cit. in Florida. These are completed amendments done

to Florida birth certificates.6. 0 – Del Vecchio, op. cit.7. Est. 2. Est.


3. Est. 7. 154– 66 of 167 (40%) children in Kasama’s com-puter tabulations were infants up to age 2. The4. 2,535 – Reported by Susan K. Chase, Data Support40% estimate was applied to the line 3 estimateAdministrator, Department of Children and Fami-to derive that total of 154.lies, 1317 Winewood Blvd., Bldg. 8, Tallahassee,

FL 32399-0700. This compares well with 2,206 8. 249 – Computer tabulations from Lynn Kasamareported by ACF. for 10/2001 – 3/2002 (a 6 month period) reported

that 77 of 167 adopted children (46%) had a5. Est.disability. The 167 number was doubled for an6. Est.estimate of 349 for item 4. The 46% was applied7. Est.to the line 3 total to derive an estimate for line 8.8. Est.

9. 36 – Reported by Kathleen Swink, ICPC Coordina-9. 170 – Reported by Taffy Compain, Compact Ad-tor, Hawaii Department of Human Resources, 810ministrator, ICPC Dept. of Children and Families,Richards St., Suite 40, Honolulu, HI 96813Tallahassee, FL 32231-0042.

10. 74 – Swink, op. cit.10. 473 – Compain, op. cit.11. 75 – OIS/DHS11. 835 – OIS/DHS

IdahoGeorgia1. 786 – Reported from Idaho Office of Vital Statis-1. 2,467 is the mean of 3,499 reported by USDHHS

tics, by Meri Brennan, Adoption Program Special-for 2001 and 1,335 reported by Melinda Mills-ist, Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, Divi-Walker (see citation for item #3). Placek was ad-sion of Family and Community Services, Boise, IDvised by Georgia Office of Vital Records to resolve83720. This does not compare closely with thethis large discrepancy in his own manner.count of 1,052 reported by Flango from Idaho2. 1,260 – Derived by subtraction (2,467 for itemMagistrates Court.#1 minus 1,207 for item #3).

2. Est.3. 1,207 – Reported by Melinda Mills – Walkey,3. Est.Office of Adoptions, Division of Family and Chil-

dren Services, Georgia Dept. of Human Resources, 4. 92 – Reported in Facts/Figures/Trends/2002-2003,2 Peachtree St., N.W., Atlanta, GA 30303, based Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, p. 36.on “Adoptions 1.5.4 (ADAM = Adoption Data This compares with 118 reported by ACF.and Matching). 5. Est.

4. 890 – Reported by Mills, op. cit. based on “Adop- 6. Est.tions 1.5.4 (ADAM). This count compares well 7. Est.with 939 reported by ACF. 8. Est.

5. 133 – Reported by Mills, op. cit., based on “Adop- 9. 178 – Reported by Brennan, op. cit.tions, 1.5.4 (ADAM)”

10. 37 – Reported by Brennan, op. cit.6. 184 – Reported by Mills, op. cit., based on “Adop-

11. 109 – OIS/DHStions, 1.5.4 (A-files)”7. 203 – Reported by Mills, op. cit., based on “Adop- Illinois

tions, 1.5.4 (ADAM)”1. 7,650 – From the Department of Public Health,8. 886 – Reported by Mills, op. cit., based on “Adop-

and reported by letter from Judy Pence, MSW,tions, 1.5.4 (ADAM)”Post Adoption Services Liaison, Division of Service9. 493 – Reported by John Hutto, Office of Adop-Intervention. Illinois Department of Children andtions, Division of Family and Children Services,Family Services, 100 West Randolph, 6-200,Georgia Department of Human Resources, 2Chicago, IL 60601-3249. By comparison, FlangoPeachtree St., N.W., Atlanta, GA 30303reports 6,649 adoptions recorded by the Illinois10. 186 – Hutto, op. cit.Circuit Court.

11. 529 – OIS/DHS2. Est.3. Est.Hawaii4. 3,427 – Reported by Pence, op. cit. This compares1. 925 – Reported by Flango based on Hawaii Circuit

well with 3,585 reported by ACF.Court filings and dispositions5. Est.2. Est.6. Est.3. Est.7. Est.4. 349 – Reported by USDHHS. Kasama’s computer8. Est.tabulation suggests 334 for the 2001-2002 period9. 114 – Reported by Mary Donley, ICPC Coordina-(see item 8 below). Lynn Kazama, Adoption Spe-

tor, Illinois Dept. of Children and Family Services,cialist, Hawaii Department of Human Services, 810406 Monroe St., Springfield, IL 62701-1498Richards St., Suite 400, Honolulu, HI 96813

10. 124 – Mary Donley, op. cit.5. Est.6. Est. 11. 984 – OIS/DHS


10. 45 – Stark, op. cit.Indiana11. 246 – OIS/DHS.1. 3,681 – Reported by Flango based on Indiana

Court filings and dispositions. Kansas2. Est.

1. 1,968 – Reported by Flango from Kansas court3. Est.filings and dispositions.

4. 813 – Reported by Angela Smith Grossman, Pro-2. Est.gram and Policy Manager, Indiana Division of3. Est.Family and Children, Bureau of Family Protection4. 363 – Reported by Patricia Long, Senior Adminis-and Preservation, 402 W. Washington St., W-364,

trator, Kansas Dept. of Social and RehabilitationIndianapolis, IN 46204. Note that Grossman re-Services, Child Welfare/Permanency Services,ported 966 public agency adoptions, but 153 wereSRS–Div. ofChildren and FamilyServices, Dockingrelated and 813 were unrelated. Also note thatState Office Building, 915 SW Harrison, 5th FloorACF reported 920 adoptions of children with pub-South,Topeka,KS66612-1570.Longreported499lic child welfare agency involvement for Indianaadoptions handled by her public agency (136 re-in FY2002, but these may have included somelated, 363 unrelated), and her count compares wellrelated adoptions. Therefore, the Grossman andwith 450 reported by ACF.ACF numbers compare well.

5. Est.5. Est.6. Est.6. Est.7. Est. – Long, op. cit., reported that 33 of 3637. 811 – Grossman, op. cit.

adoptions were infants, but this refers only to pub-8. 806 – Grossman, op. cit.lic agency adoptions. Private agency adoptions are9. 122 – Reported by Nancy Ingle, Program Managermuch more likely to include higher numbers offor Indiana ICPC, Indiana Division of Family andinfants, and the number of private agency adop-Children, 402 Washington St., Indianapolis, INtions is unknown in Kansas.46201, based on Interstate Compact Tracking Da-

8. Est. – Long, op. cit., reported that 316 of 363tabase.public agency unrelated adoptions were special10. 140 – Ingle, op. cit.needs. It is likely that private agency unrelated11. 516 – OIS/DHSadoptions are less likely to include such a highproportion of special needs adoptions.

Iowa 9. 7 – Long, op. cit.1. 1,690 – Reported by Flango from Iowa District 10. Est.

Court filings and dispositions. 11. 197 – OIS/DHS.2. 592 – Derived by subtracting item #3 from item

#1. Kentucky3. 1,098 – Carey, op. cit. 1. 1,539 – Reported by Charla Pratt, Branch Man-4. 781 – Reported by Charlcie Carey, Adoption Pro- ager, Cabinet for Families and Children, Depart-

gram Manager, Adult, Children and Family Ser- ment of Community Based Services, Division ofvices, Iowa Dept. of Human Services, Hoover State Protection and Permanency, 275 East Main Street,Office Bldg., 5th Floor, 1305 East Walnut, Des 3 C-E, Frankfort, KY 40621. The Pratt count isMoines, IA 50319-0114. 871 – ACF. Note: The based on Access Database Petitions and Judge-Iowa Department of Human Services Website ments Resttmi Folder. The Pratt count does nothttp://www.dhs.state.ia.us/ACFS/ACFS.asp re- compare closely with 2,209 reported by Flangoports 683 DHS adoptions in FY99. based on Kentucky Circuit Court filings and dispo-Note: Carey reported a total of 317 private agency sitions.plus independent adoptions. These were appor- 2. 795 – Pratt, op. cit.tioned to items #5 and #6 based on patterns in

3. 744 – Pratt, op. cit.reporting states.

4. 549 – Pratt, op. cit. Note: Pratt’s count of 5495. Est.compares well with 552 reported by ACF.

6. Est.5. 98 – Pratt, op. cit.

7. Est.6. 97 – Pratt, op. cit.

8. 781 – Carey, op. cit., for public agency adoptions.7. 230 – Pratt, op. cit.The Iowa DHS website stated that in FY99, 80%8. 498 – Pratt, op. cit.of IA public agency adoptions had a diagnosed9. 111 – Pratt, op. cit.physical, mental, or emotional disturbance. The

10. 107 – Pratt, op. cit.proportion of private agency and independent11. 284 – OIS/DHSadoptions with special needs is probably much

less, according to Carey, op. cit.Louisiana9. 27 – Sarah Stark, 515-281-5730, ICPC Director,

Iowa DHS, 1305 East Walnut, DesMoines, Iowa 1. 1,869 – Connie Billiodeau, LCSW, Child WelfareSpecialist, Adoption Program Section, Office of50319.


Community Services, Louisiana Dept. of Social a FY01 report which states that there were 852adoptions in that time period. ACF states that thereServices, 5700 Florida Blvd., 8th Floor, Baton

Rouge, LA 70821. This count is about one-fifth were 631 Maryland public agency adoptions inFY02, and this number does not compare welllarger than 1,527 reported by Flango for 2002

(1,051 District Court filings plus 476 Family and with the Lee report of 168. To the extent that theACF numbers include private and internationalJuvenile Court filings).adoptions, the ACF numbers would be closer to2. 916 – Billiodeau, op. cit.Lee’s numbers.3. 953 – Billiodeau, op. cit.

5. 285 – Lee, op. cit.4. 485 – Billiodeau, op. cit. This compares well with6. Est., and see discussion in item 4, since logic would487 reported by ACF.

dictate a number of magnitude by subtraction as5. 324 – Billiodeau, op. cit.well.6. 144 – Billiodeau, op. cit.

7. 1,415 – Lee, op. cit., did not have available how7. Est.many unrelated adoptions were infants, but he did8. Est.report on adoption services (counseling, postcare,9. 108 – Leola McClinton – ICPC Administrator,placement, etc.) by age. This revealed that 54.2%Office of Community Services, Louisiana Dept. ofof these services were to infants up to the age of 2.Social Services, 5700 Florida Blvd., BatonTherefore, 54.2% of the line 3 unrelated domesticRouge, LAadoptions (2,612) is 1,415, which is the best esti-

10. 168 – McClinton, op. cit.mate for infant adoptions in Maryland.

11. 152 – OIS/DHS8. Est.9. Est.Maine

10. Est.1. 780 – Reported by Don Lemieux, State Registrar11. 589 – OIS/DHSand Director, Maine Office of Data, Research and

Vital Statistics, 221 State Street, 11 State HouseMassachusettsStation, Augusta, ME. Lemieux noted a total of1. 2,722 – Reported by Flango from 2,212 Probate804 adoptions, of which 124 were foreign born,

and Family Court filings plus 510 Juvenile Courtleaving a residual of 780 U.S. born childrenDepartment filings for 2002.adopted in Maine in 2002.

2. Est.2. Est.3. Est.3. Est4. 785 – Reported from Massachusetts Family Net4. 285 – Virginia Marriner, Adoption Program Man-

System by Leo Farley, Director, Adoption supportager, Child and Family Services, Department ofServices, Massachusetts Department of Social Ser-Health and Human Service, 221 State Street, Sta-vices, 24 Farnsworth Street, Boston, MA 02210.tion #11, Augusta, ME. This coincides with theThis compares well with 808 reported by ACF.ACF count of 285.

5. Est.5. Est.6. 0 – Independent adoptions are not legal in Massa-6. Est.

chusetts, so the true count is zero.7. Est.7. 382 – Once a count for item 3 was estimated, the8. Est.

number of infants for line 7 was estimated from9. Est.2003 data provided by Leo Farley, which esti-10. Est.mated that 24% of public agency adoptions in that11. 99 – OIS/DHSyear were of infants up to age 2. This is a minimalestimate since it applies to public agency adop-Marylandtions, whereas private agency adoptions typically

1. 4,465 – Reported by Flango from 2002 Marylandinclude a greater proportion of infants.

Circuit Court filings.8. 1,560 – Mr. Farley estimated that 98% of public

2. Est.agency adoptions were special needs. This percent-

3. Est. age was applied to the item 3 count, but it probably4. 168 – Reported in a published report by Bill Lee, over estimates special needs for item 3 since private

LCSW, Licensing Coordinator, “Private Child agency adoptions are typically less likely to bePlacement Adoption Agency Statistics, Calendar special needs.Year 2002”, Maryland Department of Human Re- 9. Est.sources, Social Service Administration, 311 West

10. Est.Saratoga Street, Baltimore, MD 21201. Note: The11. 910 – OIS/DHSLee report states that in 2002, there were 168

public agency adoptions, 285 private agency adop-Michigantions, and 357 international adoptions. The report

does not sum these three numbers (168 + 285 + 1. 5, 847 – Reported by Flango based on MichiganCircuit Court filings and dispositions.357 = 810), but the 810 total compares well with


2. Est. 2. Est.3. Est.3. Est

4. 1,303 – FIA (Family Independence Agency) 4. 179 – MAGWIS data reported by Robin Wilson,Mississippi Department of Human Services, 750adoptive placements, from table on “Adoptive

Placements: 1995-2004” http://www.michigan. North State Street, Jackson, MS 39202 Note: ACFreports 216 adoptions in Mississippi with publicgov/dhs/child welfare agency involvement, which is some-5. 1,530 – FIA, op. cit. Note: ACF reports 2,826what higher than the 179 reported by Robinadoptions in Michigan with public agency involve-Wilson.ment. Michigan presents its FIA and private agency

data in parallel, which leads us to suspect that 5. 52 – MACWIS data, Robin Wilson op. cit.data reported to ACF (2,826) was, in all likelihood, 6. Est.public agency plus private agency (1,303 + 1,530 = 7. Est. – Of 179 public agency adoptions, only 172,833) data combined. were infants. Of 52 private agency adoptions, an

6. Est. unknown number were infants. MACWIS data,Robin Wilson, op. cit.7. Est.

8. 927 – Based on Report No. A00030 Run 11/29/ 8. Est. – Of 179 public agency adoptions, 145 werespecial needs. Of 52 private agency adoptions, an2004, 29.7% of FIA adoptions and 24.4% private

agency adoptions were special needs. Therefore, unknown number were infants. MACWIS data,Robin Wilson, op. cit.these two percentages were averaged, and 27.1%

of the total of line 3 adoptions were estimated to 9. 11 – Wilson, op. cit.be special needs adoptions. 10. 7 – Wilson, op. cit.

9. Est. 11. 79 – OIS/DHS10. Est. – Note: Per Dale Murray, Michigan ICPC

Coordinator, Michigan Family Independence MissouriAgency, 235 South Grand Ave., Lansing, MI 48909 1. 3,701 – Based on amended birth certificates, and“There is no Statistical information on ICPC counts reported by Bureau of Health Data Analysis, Mis-for Michigan”. souri Department of Health, Jefferson City, MO

11. 956 – OIS/DHS 651032. Est.

Minnesota3. Est.

1. 1,307 – Reported by Connie Caron, Acting Super- 4. 1,107 – Reported by Julie Nance, MSW, Programvisor, Adoption and Guardianship Section, Minne- Development Specialist, Adoptions, Division ofsota Department of Human Services, Human Ser- Family Services, Missouri Department of Socialvices Building, 444 Lafayette Road North, St. Paul, Services, 615 Howerton Court, Jefferson City, MOMN 55155. This is significantly less than the 2,318 65103. This does not compare well with the ACFfilings reported by Flango from District Court in- report of 1,542. Note, however, that ACF countsformation from Minnesota. Because the other in- may include private agency and/or internationalformation reported by Caron was complete and adoptions.consistent, the Caron information was used. If the 5. Est.Flango is correct, it is likely to include related

6. Est.and international adoptions, which may have been

7. 355 – Reported by Nance, op. cit.included in item 1.8. Est. – Nance, op. cit., reported that “all children2. 521 – Caron, op. cit.

in Children’s Division Custody are considered to3. 786- Caron, op. cit.

be special needs as of 1999.” Therefore, 1,107 of4. 515 – Caron, op. cit. Note that ACF reports 626 1,107 adoptions in item 4 are special needs, plus

for item 4. some unknown number of special needs adoptions5. 271 – Caron, op. cit. among private agency and independent adoptions.6. 0 – Caron, op. cit. 9. 116 – Reported by Mary C. Klie Thermes, ICPC7. 388 – Caron, op. cit. Compact Administrator, Children’s Division,8. 477 – Caron, op. cit Missouri Department of Social Services, 615

Howerton Court, Jefferson City, MO 651039. 37 – Erin Sullivan, ICPC Administrator, MinnesotaDepartment of Human Services, Human Services 10. 120 – Klie Thermes, op. cit.Building, 444 Lafayette Road North, St. Paul, 11. 577 – OIS/DHSMN 55155

10. 41 – Sullivan, op. cit. Montana11. 776 – OIS/DHS 1. 671 – Reported from the Montana Bureau of Vital

Statistics from amended birth certificates by LyndaMississippi Korth, Adoption Program Manager, Child and

Family Services Division, Montana Department of1. 815 – Reported by Flango based on 814 adoptionsin Chancery Court and 1 adoption in Circuit Court Public Health and Human Services, P.O. Box


8005, Cogswell Building, Helena, MT 59604- 6. 0-Wanda Scott noted that the only time that adop-tions can be completed without public or private8005. This is higher than 580 reported by Flango

from Montana District Court records. agency involvement is with a relative adoption.7. 91 – Wanda Scott, op. cit.2. Est.8. 178 – Wanda Scott, op. cit.3. Est.9. 83 – Wanda Scott, op. cit.4. 234 – ACF

10. 182 – Wanda Scott, op. cit.5. Est.11. 33 – OIS/DHS.6. Est.

7. Est. – Per Linda Korth, 38 infants were placed byprivate agencies. New Hampshire

8. Est. 1. 686 – Reported by Flango, based on 686 Probate9. 46 – Reported by Kandice Morse, ICPC Adminis- Court filings and disposition in 2002.

trator, Child and Family Services Division, Dept. 2. Est.of Public Health and Human Services, P.O. Box 3. Est.8005, Helena, MT 59604-8005

4. 102 – Reported by Linda Bombaci, Adoption Pro-10. 71 – Marge, op. cit. gram, Div. for Children, Youth and Families,11. 43 – OIS/DHS Department of Health and Human Services, 129

Pleasant Street, Brown Building, Concord, NHNebraska 03301. This compares well with 114 reported

by ACF.1. 889 – Reported by Mary Dyer, Adoption Specialist,5. Est.Office of Protection and Safety, Nebraska Depart-6. Est.ment of Health and Human Services, P.O. Box7. Est. – Of the 102 adoptions in item #4, 10 were95044, Lincoln, NE 68509-5044, based on Su-

infants, according to Bombaci.preme Court counts on all adoptions finalized,per <http://court.nol.org/> Note that this agrees 8. Est. – Of the 102 adoptions in item #4, 10 wereexactly with 889 reported by Flango based on special needs, according to Bombaci.Nebraska Court filings and dispositions for 2002. 9. 54 – Reported by Catherine Atkins, ICPC Admin-

istrator, Adoption Program, Division for Children,2. Est.Youth and Families, Department of Health and3. Est.Human Services, 129 Pleasant St., Concord, NH4. 262 – Dyer, op. cit. Note that ACF reported 30803301adoptions with public agency involvement.

10. 16 – Atkins, op. cit.5. Est.11. 165 – OIS/DHS6. Est.

7. Est. New Jersey8. Est.

1. 2,603 – Reported by Flango based on Superior9. 73 – Dyer, op. cit., from “HHS stats.” Court filings and dispositions.

10. 51 – Dyer, op. cit., from “HHS stats.” 2. Est.11. 119 – OIS/DHS 3. Est.

4. 1,365 – ACFNevada 5. Est.

6. Est.1. 732 – Reported by Wanda Scott, from the NevadaDistrict Court Administration Office, this com- 7. Est.pares well with 816 reported. The contact informa- 8. Est.tion for Wanda Scott is: Social Services Program 9. 277 – Reported by Karen Moyer-Shapiro, Adop-Specialist, 4220 S. Maryland Parkway Building tion Agency Program Inspector, Division of YouthB-300, Las Vegas, NV 89119 and Family Services, Department of Human Ser-

2. 493-Since 239 was obtained by addition for item vices, 50 East State Street, 5th Floor, CN717, Tren-3, the difference between item 3 and item 1 (re- ton, NJ 08625-0717ported as 732) is 493. 10. 131 – Moyer-Shapiro, op. cit.

3. 239-Since the total of items 4, 5, and 6 was re- 11. 822 – OIS/DHSported (180+59+0=239) this addition yields a totalof 239 for item 3. New Mexico

4. 180-Reported by Wanda Scott, Note that 270 was 1. 702 – Reported by Linda McNall, Placement Ser-reported on Nevada’s Division of Child and Family vices Administrator, Protective Services Division,Services Website http://www.dcfs.state.nv.us/ P.O. Drawer 5160, 1120 Paseo de Peralta, PERApage60.html. ACF reported 251. Building, Room 254, Santa Fe, NM 87502, based

on Family Automated Client Tracking System and5. 59 – Reported by Wanda Scott. This compareswith 35 reported on the Nevada website, op. cit. Adoption Data Base. This number compares well


with 723 reported by Flango from District Court 8. 1,688 – High, op. cit., stated: “The majority ofadoptions of special needs children are placed byfilings and dispositions.the public agency. We estimate that in 2002, ap-2. 162 – McNall, op. cit.proximately 90% of the children were children3. 540 – McNall, op. cit.with special needs.”4. 213 – McNall, op. cit. Note: ACF reports 275

9. 50 – High, op. cit., estimate.adoptions of children with public child welfare10. 40 – High, op. cit., estimate.agency involvement.11. 608 – OIS/DHS5. 250 – McNall, op. cit.

6. 77 – McNall, op. cit.North Dakota7. 114 – McNall, op. cit.1. 392 – From “CES Statistical Bulletin”, reported8. 213 – McNall, op. cit.

by Tom Pomonis; Adoption Administrator, North9. 56 – McNall, op. cit.Dakota Department of Human Services, State10. 37 – McNall, op. cit.Capitol Building, 600 East Boulevard Avenue,11. 87 – OIS/DHSBismarck, ND 58505. This number is larger thanthe 298 adoptions reported by Flango, based onNew YorkND District Court filings and dispositions.

1. 10,079 – Reported by Flango based on NY Family2. 22 – Pomonis, op. cit.Court Adoptions (5,113) plus NY Surrogates3. 370 – Pomonis, op. cit.Court adoptions (4,966).4. 137 – Pomonis, op. cit. Note that this agrees2. Est.

exactly with 137 reported by ACF.3. Est.5. 233 – Pomonis, op. cit.4. 3,941 – ACF Reported by Marc Minick, Office6. 0 – Pomonis, op. cit.of Children and Family Services, State Adoption7. 39 – Pomonis, op. cit.Service, New York State Department of Family8. 83 – Pomonis, op. cit.Assistance, 52 Washington St., Room 323 N.,9. 22 – From “Agency Licensing Files”, Pomonis,Renssalaer, NY 12144. ACF reported 3,160.

op. cit.5. Est.10. 9 – From “Agency Licensing Files”, Pomonis,6. Est.

op. cit.7. Est. - Minick, op. cit., reported that only 97 of11. 21 – OIS/DHS3,941 public agency adoptions were infants. He

suggested that relatively more private agency andOhioindependent adoptions would include infants.

8. Est. - Minick, op. cit., reported that 3,272 of 3,941 1. 5,866 – Reported by Flango based on Ohio Courtpublic agency adoptions were special needs. of Common Pleas filings and petitions.

9. Est. 2. Est.10. Est. 3. Est.11. 1,572 – OIS/DHS 4. 2,165 – Reported on Ohio website http://jfs.ohio.

gov/oapl/adoptohi.htm. This compares with 2,396North Carolina reported by ACF.1. 3,225 – Based on the Adoption Indexing Manage- 5. Est.

ment System, and reported by Esther High, ICPC 6. Est.Administrator, North Carolina Department of 7. Est.Health and Human Services, Division of Social 8. Est. – According to Ohio website http://jfs.ohio.-Services, 325 Salisbury Street, 2409 Mail Service gov/oapl/adoptohi.htm, 21% of 2002 publicCenter, Raleigh, NC 27699-2409. agency adoptions were infants.

2. 1,350 – High, op. cit. 9. Est.3. 1,875 – High, op. cit. 10. Est.4. 1,483 – High, op. cit. Note: ACF reports 1,324 11. 808 – OIS/DHS

adoptions of children with public child welfareagency involvement by North Carolina.

Oklahoma5. 204 – High, op. cit.6. 188 – High, op. cit., who stated: “This number 1. 1,533 – Reported by Flango based on Oklahoma

reflects the number of independent/non-related District Court filings and dispositions. Note thatadoptions. However, in NC, all adoptions must 1,206 children were placed with adoptive familiesbe handled by a private or public agency. in 2002 per Table 4, Adoptive Home Placements,

Oklahoma Department of Human Services7. 550 – High, op. cit., stated that this is a roughestimate of 30% since most of the private agencies Website <http://www.okdhs.org>. The larger

number reported by Flango was selected becauseand independent adoptions were infants, andabout 10% of children adopted from the public states have a strong tendency to mainly report

adoptions handled by government agencies, andagencies are under age 2.


miss reporting on private agency and indepen- 2. 3,066 – Derived by subtraction of item 3 fromitem 1 (4,982-1,916=3,066).dent adoptions.

2. Est. 3. 1,916 – Reported by Cathy A. Utz, Director, Pro-gram Policy Section, Office of Children, Youth,3. Est.and Families, Department of Public Welfare, 7th4. 576 – ACF reports 987 Oklahoma adoptions withand Forster Streets, Harrisburg, PA 17105-2675.public child welfare agency involvement. Simi-

4. 1,890 – Utz, op. cit. Note that ACF reports 2,020,larly, 994 Oklahoma adoptions were reported forbut Utz reported that 104 of 2,020 adoptions wereFY2002 (10/01/2001-9/30/2002) by Roberts ofrelated, leaving a residual of 1,916 unrelated. OfOklahoma DHS. However, Roberts adds that, ofthe 1,916, 1,890 were handled by public agencies,the 994, 418 were related, and 576 were unrelated.21 by private agencies, and 5 by private individualsTherefore, 576 is the correct number for item 4.(Utz, AFCARS, FY2002).5. Est.

5. 21 – Utz, op. cit.6. Est.6. 5 – Utz, op. cit.7. 179 – The Oklahoma Department of Human Ser-7. 234 – Utz, op. cit.vices website (Table 4) reports that 40% of the

1,206 adoptive home placements were age 0-4, 8. 1,375 – Utz, op. cit.so we extrapolate that 20% were age 0-2 (infants). 9. 452 – Utz, ICPC Database FY2002.This 20% estimate, is applied to the item 3 estimate 10. 281 – Utz, ICPC Database FY2002.of 897, would yield an estimate of 179 infant 11. 1,212 – OIS/DHSadoptions.

Rhode Island8. 511 – Reported by Elizabeth Roberts, Division ofChildren and Family Services, Oklahoma Depart- 1. 532 – Reported by email from Roberta Chevoya,ment of Human Services, 2400 North Lincoln Bou- Rhode Island Division of Vital Statistics, Provi-levard, P.O. Box 25352, Oklahoma City, OK dence, Rhode Island [email protected]. This agrees well with 524 reported by Flango from

9. 155 – Reported by Elizabeth Roberts, op. cit., Family court adoption filings and dispositions.based on ICPC Database with Heritage Family Ser- 2. Est.vices. 3. Est

10. 355 – Roberts, op. cit. 4. 254 – Reported by Maureen Robbins, Chief Case11. 129 – OIS/DHS Work Supervisor and Everett Thornton, ICPC

Administrator, Rhode Island Department of Chil-Oregon dren, Youth and Families, 101 Friendship Street,1. 2,820 – Reported from Adoption Information Da- Providence, RI 02903. ACF reported a nearly iden-

tabase (AID) by Kathleen J. Ledesma, Program tical total of 256.Manager for Adoption Services, Office of Safety 5. Est.and Permanency for Children, Oregon Depart- 6. Est.ment of Human Services, 500 Summer Street, NE 7. Est.E-71, Salem, OR 97310. Flango reported 1,993 8. 228 – Estimate by Robbins and Thornton, op. cit.adoptions based on Circuit Court filings and dis-

9. 12 – Robbins and Thornton, op. cit.positions. The Ledesma count was accepted be-

10. 12 – Robbins and Thornton, op. cit.cause all survey items were completely reported11. 123 – OIS/DHSand internally consistent.

2. 1,405 – Ledesma, op. cit. South Carolina3. 1,415 – Ledesma, op. cit. 1. 1,648 – As of April 2005, the latest information4. 728 – Ledesma, op. cit. Note that ACF reported available on total adoptions was from a 2001

1,115 Oregon adoptions of children with public study, per Carolyn Orf, Assistant Director for Fos-child welfare agency involvement, but the ter Care and Adoption, Division of Human Ser-Ledesma count was accepted because all survey vices, Department of Social Services, P.O. Boxitems were completely reported and internally 1520, Columbia, SC 29202-1520. JoAnne Good-consistent. ing, Director of the South Carolina Office of Vital

5. 368 – Ledesma, op. cit. Records, estimated “about 2,000” total adoptions6. 319 – Ledesma, op. cit. for 2002, but was not able to produce an exact7. Est. count from amended vital records.8. 652 – Ledesma, op, cit. 2. 132 – In FY98, related adoptions accounted for 8%9. 149 – Ledesma, op. cit., Oregon ICPC Database. of total adoptions, per http://www.%20state.sc.us/

dss/adoption/index.html This percentage was ap-10. 834 – Ledesma, op. cit., Oregon ICPC Database.plied to 1,648 in item 1 to derive 132 for item 2.11. 325 – OIS/DHSThe 132 was subtracted from 1,648 to derive the

Pennsylvania 1,516 in item 3.3. 1,516 – op. cit., http://www.state.sc.us (see1. 4,982 – Reported by Flango based on Court of

Common Pleas filings and dispositions. website above)


4. 337 – Orf, op. cit., for 2001. ACF specified 340, Support, Texas Department of Protective and Reg-ulative Services, P.O. Box 149030, Austin, TXa nearly identical count.78714-9030. Also, 490 was derived by addition5. Est.information provided by Miller to Virginia Ravenel6. Est.of NCFA for item 5. This does not agree with7. Est.2,297 reported by ACF. However, the Department8. Est.PRS Data Book states: “increased collaboration9. 168 – Orf, op. cit.with private child-placing agencies, child-specific

10. 42 – Orf, op. cit. recruitment activities, and supporting foster family11. 204 – OIS/DHS adoptions” and reports 1,513 PRS and 735 Private

Agency (total 2,248) as total consummations. TheSouth Dakota 2,248 count includes 588 adoptions by relatives.1. 371 – Reported by DiAnn Kleinsasser, Adoption In that way, the 2,248 may agree closely with

Specialist, South Dakota Department of Social Ser- 2,297 reported by ACF.vices, 700 Governor’s Drive, Pierre, SD 57501- 5. 1,647 – Estimated as follows. Item 1 was reported2291. This compares well with 354 reported by as 8,393, and items 2 and 3 were estimated asFlango from Circuit Court filings and dispositions. 3,483 and 4,910 based on proportional distribu-

2. 143 – Kleinsasser, op. cit. tion from patterns in reporting states. Item 4 was3. 228 – Kleinsasser, op. cit. reported as 1,660. Since items 4+5+6=item 3, by

subtraction, the total of 5+6= is 3,250. The 3,2504. 152 – Kleinsasser, op. cit. This compares well withfor items 5 and 6 was distributed proportionally145 reported by ACF.based on reporting states as 1,647 and 1,603,5. Est.respectively.6. Est.

6. 1,603 – Est. (see above explanation).7. Est.7. Est.8. 142 – Kleinsasser, op. cit. This may be an under-8. 1,349 – Miller, op. cit.estimate to the extent that it may refer only to9. 286 – Miller, op. cit.public agency adoptions.

10. 585 – Miller, op. cit.9. Est.11. 1,030 – OIS/DHS10. 9 – Kleinsasser, op. cit.

11. 41 – OIS/DHSUtah1. 1,787 – Reported from Utah Vital Statistics byTennessee

Marty Shannon, Child and Family Services, Ad-1. 3,240 – “Estimate” by Anita Cowan, Department ofministration Office, Department of Human Ser-Children’s Services, 436 6th Ave., N.W., Nashville,vices, 120 North 200 West, Suite 225, Salt LakeTN 37243-1290. This estimate is higher than theCity, UT 84103-1500. Flango reported 1,4932,794 reported by Flango from Circuit Court fil-based on Utah District Court filings and disposi-ings and dispositions. The Cowan estimate wastions.accepted because her subsequent counts reported

2. 764 – Shannon, op. cit.were internally consistent.3. 1,023 – Shannon, op. cit.2. 1,744 – by Cowan, op. cit.4. 331 – Shannon, op. cit. ACF reports 335.3. 1,496 – Cowan, op. cit.5. 360 – Shannon, op. cit.4. 922 – Cowan, op. cit. ACF count is also 922.6. 328 – Shannon, op. cit.5. 374 – Cowan, op. cit.7. Est.6. 200 – Cowan, op. cit.8. Est.7. 404 – Cowan, op. cit.9. 202 – (39 public, 163 private), per report entitled8. 862 – Cowan, op. cit.

Utah Interstate Compact on the Placement of Chil-9. 132 – Cowan, op. cit.dren, Fiscal Year 1998-2003, by Division of Child

10. 95 – Cowan, op. cit. and Family Services, prepared by Reina Forsythe,11. 365 – OIS/DHS Information Analyst.

10. 216 – (20 public, 196 private), Forsythe report,Texasop. cit.

1. 8,393 – Reported by Debbie Domel, Bureau of 11. 154 – OIS/DHSVital Statistics, Texas Department of Health, P.O.Box 12040, Austin, TX 78711-2040, based on Vermontamended vital records. This coincides well with 1. 362 – Reported from AdoptionRegistry by Richard7,957 for the year 2001 as reported by USDHHS. DiMatteo, Systems Developer III, AHS-DCF-IT,

2. Est. Vermont Department of Social and Rehabilitative3. Est. Services, 103 South Main Street, Waterbury, VT

05671. Flango reports 435 from Probate Court4. 1,660 (1,170+490). 1,170 was reported from PRSData Book by Mary W. Miller, State and Federal filings and dispositions.


2. 10 – DiMatteo, op. cit., Adoption Registry 1,204 but does not break down related and un-related.3. 352 – DiMatteo, op. cit.

5. Est.4. 137 – DiMatteo, op. cit., Adoption Registry6. Est.5. 117 – DiMatteo, op. cit.

6. 98 – DiMatteo, op. cit., Adoption Registry 7. Est.7. 86 – DiMatteo, op. cit., Adoption Registry 8. Est.8. 147 – DiMatteo, op. cit., Adoption TPR Data 9. 570 – Chowen, op. cit., stated: “We received 570

requests from other states for home studies for9. 80 – DiMatteo, op. cit., ICPC Databaseplacement of children in Washington. We don’t10. 7 – DiMatteo, op. cit., ICPC Databaseknow if all requests resulted in a child being placed11. 79 – OIS/DHSfor adoption. These electronic records are closedand we can’t determine reason for closure, i.e., wasVirginiachild placed, or was there some other outcome?”1. 2,727 – Three different estimates are available for

10. 472 – Chowen, op. cit. states same qualificationitem 1. 2,727 adoptions were reported from theas above.ARRIS system by Brenda Kerr, Permanency Pro-

11. 592 – OIS/DHSgram Manager, Virginia Department of Social Ser-vices, 7 North 8th Street, Richmond, VA 23219.2,301 adoptions in 2001 were reported from a West Virginiaspecial study reported by DHHS. 1,782 adoptions 1. 901 – Reported by Flango based on West Virginiain 2002 were reported by Janet Rainey, Office of Circuit Court filings and dispositions.Vital Records, Richmond, VA. The counts supplied

2. Est.by Rainey do not include international adoptions,3. Est.and are for children born in Virginia and adopted4. 368 – Reported by B.J. Miller, Child and Adultin Virginia or another state. The Kerr count was

Services, West Virginia Office of Social Services,accepted because she also supplied other internally350 Capitol St., Room 691, Charleston, WV. Millerconsistent numbers.reported that the 368 included related and unre-2. 1,359 – Kerr, op. cit., based on “Child Welfarelated. Note: 361 adoptions were reported by ACF.Utilities”.

5. Est.3. 1,368 – Kerr, op. cit.6. Est.4. 604 – Kerr, op. cit. based on “OASIS” (some entries7. Est.were made after AFCARS data were submitted to

ACF). ACF reports 424. 8. Est.-Miller, op. cit., stated that 99% of publicagency adoptions were special needs, but an un-5. 186 – Kerr, op. cit. from ARRISknown number of private agency and independent6. 578 – subtractions of items 4 and 5. Derived byadoptions are special needs.adding items 4 and 5 and subtracting from item

3, e.g., 1,368-(604+186)=578. 9. 50 – Miller, op. cit., noted that the 50 includesprivate agency adoptions.7. 350– Kerr, reported 175 children age 1 and under

so this number was doubled to 350 include chil- 10. 80 – Miller, op. cit.dren up to the age of 2. 11. 70 – OIS/DHS

8. 395 – Kerr, op. cit., refers to children adoptedfrom foster care system only Wisconsin

9. Est.1. 1,837 – from Human Services Reporting System

10. Est.internal to Department of Children and Family

11. 753 – OIS/DHS Services, reported by Dale W. Langer, Manager,Adoption and Consultant Section, Division ofWashington StateChildren and Family Services, Department of

1. 2,799 – Reported by Flango based on Washington Health and Family Services, 1 West Wilson St.,Superior Court filings and dispositions. There was Madison, WI 53708-8916. This compares wellindependent concurrence with this count by Lois with 1,955 reported by Flango from Circuit CourtChowen, Adoption Program Manager, Children’s filings and dispositions.Administration, Washington Department of Social 2. 624 – Langer, op. cit.and Health Services, P.O. Box 45713, Olympia, 3. 1,213 – Langer, op. cit.WA 98504-5713

4. 887 – Langer, op. cit. Note that ACF reports 1,028.2. Est.

5. 326 – Langer, op. cit.3. Est.6. 0 – Langer, op. cit.4. 748 – Chowen, op. cit. Chowen states that 7487. 351 – Langer, op. cit.were unrelated and 317 were related (total =8. 984 – Langer, op. cit.1,065). ACF reports 1,077 but does not break

down related and unrelated. The DSHS website 9. 114 – Langer, op. cit. notes: “ICPC Tracking Sys-tem, 122 requested, 8 denied.”<www1.dshs.wa.gov/ca/adopt/index.asp> reports


10. 50 – Langer, op. cit., notes: “ICPC Tracking Sys- aften used if state data were not available for courts oftotal adoptions (column #1). The Flango data used intem, 51 requested, 1 denied.”these tables is largely “dispositions”, whereas his article11. 593 – OIS/DHSreports on “filings”. In an August 24, 2005 communica-tion to Paul Placek, Flango stated: “The table in myWyomingarticle reports on adoption FILINGS and I sent you1. 465 – Reported from Wyoming Vital Statistics byadoptions DISPOSITIONS because they are a moreMaureen Clifton, Social Services Contact, Familyaccurate reflection of adoptions that actually tookSuccess Center, Wyoming Department of Familyplace.”Services, 130 Hobbs Avenue, Cheyenne, WY

82009. This compares well with 412 reported by Est.–Estimated by Dr. Paul Placek, Statistical Consul-Flango from Wyoming District Court filings and tant to the National Council for Adoption, based ondispositions. “raking” or proportional distribution based on statisti-

2. 300 – Clifton, op. cit., “DFS estimate” cal distributions in reporting states. See TechnicalAppendix for discussion of methodology.3. 165 – Clifton, op. cit., “DFS estimate”.

4. 50 – Clifton, op. cit., “DFS estimate”. ACF also OIS/DHS–Office of Immigration Statistics/Departmentreports 50. of Homeland Security (formerly, U.S. Immigration and

5. 50 – Clifton, op. cit., “Wyoming State Adoption Naturaliation Statistics) Washington, D.C. Item 11–Council”. “Intercountry Adoptions”, in OIS terms, are “Immi-

6. 65 – Clifton, op. cit., “DFS estimate”. grant Orphans”. For immigration purposes, this is de-fined as a child whose parents have died or7. 100 – Clifton, op. cit., “DFS estimate”.disappeared, or who has been abandoned or otherwise8. 60 – Clifton, op. cit., “DFS estimate”.separated from both parents. An orphan may also be9. 38 – Clifton, op. cit., “DFS estimate”.a child whose sole or surviving parent is incapable of10. 38 – Clifton, op. cit., “DFS estimate”.providing that child with proper care and who has, in11. 26 – OIS/DHSwriting, irrevocably released the child for emigrationand adoption. In order to qualify as an immediateLegend for Sources of 2002 Datarelative, the orphan must be under the age of sixteen

in Table 1 at the time a petition is filed on his or her behalf. Toenter the United States, an orphan must have beenACF–Administration for Children and Families, U.S.adopted abroad by a U.S. citizen (and spouse, if mar-Department of Health and Human Services,ried) or be coming to the United States for adoptionwww.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb rev. October 2003,by a citizen. These data were available for all states,“Adoptions of Children with Public Child Welfareand were used in column #11. The link is <uscis.gov/Agency Involvement By State FY 1995 – FY 2002.graphics/shared/statistics/index.htm> for the Yearbook(2002 data were provisional). Counts may includeof Immigration Statistics.domestic related adoptions and international adoption.

These data were used in column #4 unless state data ASFA–The Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997were more complete and consistent. requires states to develop plans for the effective use of

cross-jurisdictional resources to facilitate timely adop-USDHHS–U.S. Department of Health and Human Ser-tive placements. The Act furthers the Federal initiativevices (2004) “How Many Children Were Adopted into double to annual number of children adopted from2000 and 2001?” National Adoption Informationthe foster care system by the year 2002.Clearinghouse. Washington, D.C. 2000 and 2001 data

were collected for USDHHS under contract with V.E. AFCARS–Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Re-Flango and C. Flango, National Center for State Courts. porting System. Under a Federal mandate, states arehttp://naic.acf.hhs.gov/pubs/s_adopted/s_adopted. required to collect and report case-specific data on allUSDHHS counts may include domestic related adop- children in foster care under the responsibility of thetions and international adoptions. child welfare agencies and the children adopted with

the involvement of these agencies. The first reportingFlango–2002 data collected by Victor Eugene Flangoperiod began October 1, 1994. State submission ofand Carol Flango, National Center for State Courts,data is inconsistent and of poor quality, according to300 Newport Avenue, Williamsburg, Virginia 23185-a 1998 DHHS report.4147, gfango@ncsc. dni.us 757-259-1823. Note that

these counts may or may not include international SACWIS–Statewide Automated Child Welfare Infor-mation Systems. In 1993, a federal grant was set upadoptions. NCFA gratefully acknowledges the Flangos

making these data available for the 2002 NCFA survey. to fund SACWIS to update states’ child welfare infor-mation systems.The Flango data were available for 42 states, and were


2 Adoption Petitions in Courts:1985–2002

By Victor E. Flango†

■

There are many ways to adopt a child. not the total number of adoptions. Like childwelfare agency data, vital records estimates areThese include public agency adoptions;

adoptions by private agencies, under undercounts, because some parents do not re-quest amended birth certificates, especially forcontract with public agencies; private agency

adoptions, without public agency involvement; older children. Moreover, the counts frombureaus of vital records and social service agen-adoptions by individuals, without private or

public agency involvement; and tribal adop- cies may differ, because a child might beadopted in one state, while the birth certificatetions. Unfortunately, there is no single source

that provides the total number of children may be changed in the state where the childwas born.adopted in the United States.

Child welfare agencies with responsibility Court dispositions, then, may be the bestsource of the total number of adoptions in thefor adoptions would seem to be a logical source

of information on adoptions. In many states,1 United States. Because adoption is a legal pro-cess, courts decide not only whether to granthowever, the public child welfare system

focuses its attention on placing children from a petition for adoption, but are also involvedin many of the collateral issues, such as access tofoster care. Child welfare agencies may not be

involved in adoptions that do not require the adoption records and the rights of the biologicalfather. Courts ensure that parties comply withuse of public resources, such as private agency

adoptions and individually-arranged adoptions, all legal requirements, and may, for example,call upon social service agencies to conductespecially adoptions by stepparents and other

relatives. home studies or to provide supervision for inde-pendent placements, including adoptions byBureaus of vital records are another potential

source of adoption information in the states. relatives.Court “dispositions” provide a count of theVital records information is incomplete,

though, as it provides a count of the number of court decisions to grant or deny a petition foradoption. In the few instances where disposi-birth certificates amended because of adoption,tions are not available, “filings”—the writtenrequest to adopt filed with the court—can be

† Victor Eugene Flango, Ph.D., is executive director for pro- used as a surrogate measure. In most states,gram resource development in the president’s office at the

filings are a good estimate of the total numberNational Center for State Courts (NCSC). From February1995 to April 2005, Flango was the vice president of the of adoptions, because they track dispositionsNCSC’s research and technology division. Before joining closely. (See figures at the end of this article.)NCSC, Flango was a professor of political science at North-

There are, however, examples of states whereern Illinois University of the Master of Arts in Public Affairs’degree program in judicial administration. He earned his filings are less useful as estimates, because adop-Ph.D. from the University of Hawaii and is a fellow of the

tion petitions are being filed at a faster rateInstitute for Court Management.

than they can be disposed. Filings will slightly1. For purposes of this article, the reference to “state” includesthe District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. overestimate the total number of adoptions in

Adoption Petitions in Courts: 1985–2002 71

those cases when a court denies a petition for family cases. (In some jurisdictions, small num-bers of other case types, such as terminationadoption, but that is a rare event.

In 2002, 41 states, the District of Columbia, of parental rights matters, are included in theadoption figures.)and Puerto Rico were able to report adoption

filings, four more than were able to report dis- The states used in the illustration vary inpopulation size. Four (New Jersey, New York,position data.2 In the remaining nine states,

courts did not report filings separately but as Pennsylvania, and Ohio) have large popula-tions, two (Arizona and Washington) are me-a subset of a larger case category, such as domes-

tic relations, juvenile, or general civil.3 Thirty- dium sized, and three (Delaware, the Districtof Columbia, and West Virginia) have smalleight (38) states reported both filings and dispo-

sitions.4 populations. Although there are some varia-tions, it seems clear that dispositions track fil-Because filings are so closely related to dis-

positions and are reported for more states, the ings in eight of the nine states, with dispositionsfalling behind filings in New York. With theaccompanying table reports trends in total

adoption petitions filed in state courts between exception of the District of Columbia, most ofthe trend lines are relatively smooth and flat.1985 and 2002. The table also identifies the

particular state courts with jurisdiction over There are a few shortcomings to using courtdata as a source of information about adoptionsadoption. In the vast majority of states, adop-

tion petitions are filed in the trial court of gen- worth mentioning. Courts are the only sourceof information on total adoptions in some states.eral jurisdiction. In nine states (Colorado,

Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mis- In these states, especially ones with large NativeAmerican populations, the totals could be un-sissippi, New York, Tennessee, and Texas), two

or more courts have the authority to hear peti- dercounts. While a large number of adoptionsof Native American children are decided in statetions for adoption, usually one court of general

jurisdiction and one of special jurisdiction. For courts, many others are decided by tribal courts.Consequently, in states with large Native Amer-those states, totals from multiple courts were

added to calculate the total number of adop- ican populations, it is likely that reliance onstate court data will undercount the number oftions. In Connecticut, New Hampshire, Ver-

mont, and Alabama, probate courts have exclu- Native American children adopted.The most serious shortcoming of the use ofsive jurisdiction over adoptions. In Nebraska,

that responsibility falls to the County Court, a court data to estimate total adoptions is the lackof separate adoption information from eightcourt of limited jurisdiction.

The figures show trends in filings and dispo- states. Two of these—California and Texas—have very large populations, and their adoptionsitions in nine states. These were chosen as

examples, because they had complete filing and statistics are critical to establishing a nationaltotal of adoptions. The other six are all locateddisposition data for the 18 years covered in

this article. Their adoption categories were also in the South: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, NorthCarolina, South Carolina, and Virginia. Thisrelatively “uncontaminated” by other types ofmakes it difficult to understand adoption pat-terns in an entire region of the country. It isencouraging that Iowa began reporting adop-2. Alaska, Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, and Nevada reported fil-

ings but not dispositions. Mississippi reported dispositions tion filings in 2002.but not filings. Perhaps the most important limitation on

3. The nine states that did not report adoption filings were Al- using courts as a general source of adoptionabama, California, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Caro-

information, though, is the limited variety oflina, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia.

case characteristics that files contain. Court in-4. The 38 states that reported both filings and dispositionswere: AR, AZ, CO, DE, DC, HI, ID, IL, IN, KS, KY, LA, formation systems rarely record data on theMA, MD, MI, MN, MO, MT, ND, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NY, characteristics of children adopted, or aboutOH, OK, OR, PA, PR, RI, SD, TN, UT, VT, WA, WI, WV,and WY. their adoptive parents or birthparents, because


this information is not necessary to the court dren from foster care available from publicagencies and with counts of amended birth cer-processing of adoption cases.

In sum, court filings and dispositions are an tificates from bureaus of vital records, all ofthese sources of adoption information can helpimportant source of information on the total

number of adoptions in the United States. Used provide a more complete and accurate mosaicof adoptions in the United States.together with information on adoptions of chil-


■T

able

1.N

umbe

rof

Ado

ptio

nP

etiti

ons

File

din

Sta

teC

ourt

s,S

elec

ted

Sta

tes

Stat

eCo

urt

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

AK

Sup

erio

r72

062

759

467

163

961

162

563

359

057

151

750

149

255

151

063

461

661

1

AR

Circ

uit

1,70

51,

637

1,55

11,

628

1,64

71,

641

1,71

61,

697

1,79

21,

792

1,75

01,

598

1,70

41,

754

1,89

51,

969

1,94

81,

944

AZ

Sup

erio

r1,

944

1,70

81,

702

1,57

41,

675

1,77

31,

605

1,54

81,

734

1,45

61,

536

1,51

51,

385

1,74

01,

701

1,53

31,

749

1,67

6

CO

Dis

t.,D

en.

Juv.

,D

en.

Pro

b1,

896

1,92

11,

985

1,79

41,

890

1,89

41,

981

1,98

91,

737

1,70

62,

039

2,38

72,

423

2,62

22,

811

2,89

52,

877

3,03

5

CT

Pro

bat

e98

11,

109

1,08

01,

266

1,25

41,

186

1,26

01,

124

1,00

987

584

785

089

698

61,

198

1,21

01,

164

1,30

4

DC

Sup

erio

r31

629

028

730

926

929

720

533

435

347

524

733

749

224

844

440

665

757

4

DE

Fam

ily21

021

321

119

821

721

119

021

117

619

319

720

219

919

718

923

721

227

6

HI

Circ

uit

770

677

690

717

724

822

620

687

567

458

438

508

641

750

789

757

786

675

IAD

istr

ict

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

1,69

0

IDD

istr

ict

11

03

01

01

21

11

10

00

00

IDM

agis

trat

esC

ourt

1,00

794

61,

014

926

897

908

898

971

935

911

947

967

1,05

21,

036

1,13

11,

056

1,08

51,

035

ILC

ircui

tN

/AN

/AN

/AN

/AN

/AN

/AN

/AN

/AN

/AN

/AN

/A5,

389

6,17

97,

828

8,49

47,

316

7,09

76,

508

INP

rob

ate

100

100

124

119

147

154

135

137

101

106

147

112

8012

214

314

225

490

INS

uper

ior

and

Circ

uit

3,00

03,

000

3,08

23,

196

3,30

43,

295

3,24

63,

058

2,88

33,

138

3,19

03,

081

3,15

63,

306

3,42

93,

799

3,63

13,

582

KS

Dis

tric

t1,

951

1,74

51,

811

1,83

31,

765

1,81

01,

730

1,83

81,

785

1,71

51,

815

1,73

51,

792

1,95

72,

404

2,02

51,

880

1,96

8

KY

Circ

uit

2,23

82,

185

1,82

72,

186

2,12

02,

213

2,09

91,

982

2,13

91,

924

1,95

11,

863

1,58

21,

393

2,22

92,

360

2,34

22,

360

LAD

istr

ict

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

924

1,14

71,

194

997

1,30

21,

101

995

864

949

978

1,01

695

51,

051

LAFa

mily

and

Juve

nile

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

773

773

763

914

802

566

535

575

577

575

608

537

436

476

MA

Juve

nile

Cou

rtD

epar

tmen

tN

/AN

/AN

/AN

/AN

/AN

/AN

/AN

/AN

/A2

5074

193

188

232

318

462

510

MA

Pro

bat

e&

Fam

ilyC

ourt

2,42

82,

334

2,37

12,

630

2,80

92,

986

2,73

62,

946

2,77

33,

035

3,22

33,

067

2,83

62,

702

2,88

63,

036

2,79

72,

564

MD

Circ

uit

2,44

62,

708

2,58

53,

169

3,12

82,

986

2,99

53,

120

3,36

93,

067

3,02

33,

829

3,98

24,

551

4,28

54,

160

4,38

54,

409

ME

Pro

bat

eN

/AN

/AN

/AN

/AN

/AN

/A82

670

7N

/AN

/AN

/AN

/AN

/AN

/AN

/AN

/AN

/AN

/A

MI

Circ

uit

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

6,72

96,

190

6,27

46,

280

MI

Pro

bat

e3,

901

4,11

54,

426

5,30

45,

181

5,29

45,

408

6,09

25,

679

5,06

95,

761

5,58

46,

118

6,08

5N

/AN

/AN

/AN

/A

MN

Dis

tric

t2,

500

2,57

92,

513

2,38

82,

204

2,03

42,

071

2,23

81,

898

1,76

81,

862

1,87

91,

936

2,06

02,

172

2,24

72,

115

2,30

7

MO

Circ

uit

2,20

02,

300

2,36

32,

306

2,42

62,

251

2,35

62,

276

2,35

32,

400

2,18

02,

496

2,47

62,

606

2,71

22,

884

2,88

4N

/A

MT

Dis

tric

t66

868

467

369

669

369

172

973

971

273

471

270

272

560

660

666

564

063

0

ND

Dis

tric

t40

232

340

038

836

933

131

331

330

132

729

127

732

029

031

327

330

931

9


NE

Cou

nty

1,02

798

11,

022

998

1,03

297

697

399

197

796

296

084

686

490

984

092

093

988

9

NH

Pro

bat

e67

072

767

774

372

670

156

255

154

653

452

950

857

664

462

271

864

568

5

NJ

Sup

erio

r2,

204

2,47

72,

265

2,53

82,

613

2,54

42,

400

2,41

02,

274

2,15

82,

047

2,09

72,

034

2,26

52,

306

2,30

12,

425

2,62

0

NM

Dis

tric

tN

/AN

/AN

/AN

/AN

/AN

/AN

/A41

950

071

767

366

166

069

167

076

472

266

6

NV

Dis

tric

tN

/AN

/AN

/A64

168

569

177

973

274

671

772

769

773

570

382

882

776

481

6

NY

Fam

ily3,

980

3,81

33,

814

3,80

94,

241

4,37

34,

473

5,52

04,

963

5,14

86,

372

5,35

86,

509

6,05

06,

352

5,77

74,

916

5,28

2

NY

Sur

rog

ates

’2,

744

2,55

32,

430

2,59

52,

546

2,85

82,

790

2,65

02,

624

2,76

33,

278

2,69

82,

927

2,77

02,

391

2,21

02,

798

3,26

3

OH

Cou

rtof

Com

mon

Ple

as5,

715

5,44

95,

426

5,41

05,

340

5,04

55,

498

5,24

74,

895

4,79

74,

677

4,90

64,

972

5,19

05,

553

5,80

05,

674

5,75

6

OK

Dis

tric

tN

/AN

/AN

/AN

/AN

/AN

/A2,

117

2,26

52,

352

2,19

62,

080

2,09

72,

204

2,20

42,

204

2,20

42,

204

2,20

4

OR

Circ

uit

1,70

31,

834

1,75

11,

893

1,92

91,

828

2,06

52,

022

1,81

61,

786

1,75

21,

714

1,85

81,

968

1,90

32,

010

2,04

62,

013

PA

Cou

rtof

Com

mon

Ple

as4,

690

4,85

04,

905

4,78

24,

712

4,59

74,

362

4,42

13,

760

3,73

74,

090

3,98

34,

178

4,39

44,

495

4,47

64,

865

5,15

0

PR

Cou

rtof

Firs

tIn

stan

ceN

/AN

/AN

/AN

/AN

/AN

/A51

850

850

151

945

047

147

147

641

544

547

248

1

RI

Fam

ily43

7N

/AN

/AN

/AN

/A45

443

341

047

148

953

769

059

859

161

057

049

252

4

SD

Circ

uit

419

419

398

418

398

433

378

462

432

360

360

362

358

363

445

389

419

468

TNC

ircui

t,C

rim.

and

Cha

ncer

y2,

294

2,22

82,

407

2,48

02,

480

2,51

52,

585

2,76

42,

678

2,69

12,

668

2,17

52,

294

2,46

42,

635

2,59

32,

666

2,92

1

UT

Dis

tric

tN

/AN

/AN

/AN

/AN

/AN

/A1,

240

1,37

51,

217

1,40

61,

449

1,47

61,

483

1,58

01,

562

1,58

91,

589

1,57

9

VT

Pro

bat

e51

050

852

149

954

648

450

250

946

640

144

653

235

740

942

143

236

543

0

WA

Sup

erio

r2,

714

2,79

22,

698

2,72

32,

843

2,88

92,

944

2,61

12,

364

2,41

92,

352

2,28

22,

699

2,81

33,

017

3,23

52,

873

3,12

9

WI

Circ

uit

2,29

02,

370

2,32

82,

140

2,07

92,

071

1,99

41,

871

1,71

01,

938

1,93

12,

458

2,48

02,

396

2,38

92,

545

2,55

52,

015

WV

Circ

uit

968

903

898

970

942

816

941

869

788

763

758

800

836

841

926

908

912

927

WY

Dis

tric

tN

/AN

/AN

/AN

/AN

/AN

/AN

/A41

144

444

645

841

140

438

736

643

543

543

5

NO

TES

:H

awai

i:19

85-1

991

dat

ad

ono

tin

clud

ere

open

edfil

ing

sId

aho:

1988

-199

1d

ata

incl

ude

mis

cella

neou

sd

omes

ticre

latio

nsca

ses

Ind

iana

:19

85an

d19

86d

ata

are

estim

ates

Ken

tuck

y:19

85-2

002

dat

ain

clud

ete

rmin

atio

nof

par

enta

lrig

hts

case

sM

aryl

and

:19

85-2

002

dat

ain

clud

eso

me

esta

teca

ses,

but

do

not

incl

ude

som

ead

optio

nca

ses

Min

neso

ta:

1985

dat

aar

ees

timat

edM

isso

uri:

1985

and

1986

dat

aar

ees

timat

esM

onta

na:

1996

dat

ad

ono

tin

clud

ep

artia

lyea

rd

ata

for

one

coun

tyO

klah

oma:

1998

-200

2d

ata

are

carr

y-ov

ernu

mb

ers

from

1997

bec

ause

dat

aw

asno

tp

rovi

ded

for

thos

eye

ars

Wis

cons

in:

2002

dat

ad

ono

tin

clud

eju

veni

led

ivis

ion

case

sW

yom

ing

:19

92-1

999

dat

ad

ono

tin

clud

ed

ata

from

one

coun

ty;

2001

and

2002

dat

aar

eca

rry-

over

num

ber

sfr

om20

00b

ecau

sed

ata

was

not

pro

vid

edfo

rth

ose

year

s

N/A

=D

ata

not

avai

lab

le


Figure 1. Adoption Filings and Petitions by Selected States

1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 20020

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

Ohio# of Adoptions

Filings

Dispositions

1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 20020

2,000

4,000

6,000

Pennsylvania# of Adoptions

Filings

Dispositions

1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 20020

2,000

4,000

6000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

New York# of Adoptions

Filings

Dispositions


Figure 1. Adoption Filings and Petitions by Selected States (continued)

1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 20020

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

New Jersey# of Adoptions

Filings

Dispositions

1985 1986 1987 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 20020

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

Arizona# of Adoptions

Filings

Dispositions

1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 20020

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

Washington# of Adoptions

Filings

Dispositions


Figure 1. Adoption Filings and Petitions by Selected States (continued)

1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 20020

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

West Virginia# of Adoptions

Filings

Dispositions

1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 20020

50

100

150

200

250

300

Delaware# of Adoptions

Filings

Dispositions

District of Columbia# of Adoptions

Filings

Dispositions

1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 20020

100

200

300

400

500

600

700


3 How Many Children WereAdopted in 2000 and 2001?National Adoption InformationClearinghouse

■

Editor’s Note: This study authored by the National Adoption Information Clearinghouse (NAIC) reports that, in 2001, there werea total of 127,407 domestic and intercountry adoptions combined, almost 24,000 fewer adoptions than reported by NCFA. Thesizeable difference between the figures is due to the way NCFA abd NAIC collected data, NAIC collected data on “total adop-tions” from court records under the assumption that all adoptions—domestic and intercountry—would be accounted for in statecourt adoption files. On the other hand, NCFA obtained domestic adoption data from the states through child welfare agency re-cords NCFA obtained international adoption data from the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Immigration Statistics.While some international adoptions are processed through the courts, many are not. The adoptions of children entering on anIR-3 visa do not, in general, require readoption or other finalization by a U.S. state court. Children adopted from China and theRussian Federation can, in most cases, enter with an IR-3 visa; these are the two countries from which U.S. citizens adopt themost children. NCFA’s instructions to the state adoption experts, to whom the surveys were sent, stated clearly not to include in-ternational adoption data in the figures provided. The difference between NCFA’s and NAIC’s data is 23,925, which is close to21,063, the figure provided by the OIS for international adoptions in 2002.

How Many Children Were Adopted in 2000 and 2001? 79















Documents

A National p For t Adoption · 13. Presenting the Adoption Option in America’s Schools 263 by Melissa M. Clement 14. Providing Safe Havens as a Compassionate Alternative to Infanticide