Understanding Adoption Subsidies: An Analysis of AFCARS Data

Prepared by:

Barbara Dalberth, Deborah Gibbs, and Nancy Berkman
RTI International
RTI Project Number 07578.006

Prepared for:
Laura Radel
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE)
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

"

Introduction

Adoption subsidies are perhaps the single most powerful tool by which the child welfare system can encourage adoption and support adoptive families. Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) data indicate that 88 percent of children adopted from public welfare agencies in 2001 received subsidies (DHHS, 2003). Yet our understanding of the patterns of adoption subsidies is limited. Little is known about factors associated with the receipt and amount of subsidy at the time of adoption. Although some evidence suggests that subsidies are associated with greater adoption stability (Barth, 1993), the extent to which subsidy receipt and amount influence the number and timing of adoption finalization among children free for adoption is unknown.

The Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act (AACWA) was enacted in 1980 to ensure that families who want to adopt children with special needs could do so without reducing or exhausting their resources. Building on concepts implemented at the state level, AACWA created a federal adoption subsidy program that would entitle all families caring for children with special needs, who could not meet their needs, to obtain subsidy support. Federal expenditures for adoption subsidy expenditures have grown more than 2000 times in the last two decades, from less than $400,000 in fiscal year 1981 to $1.3 billion in fiscal year 2002, and are expected to approach $2.5 billion by FY 2008 (U.S. House of Representatives, 2004).

Researchers project that the rate of growth in the average monthly number of children under age 18 who have been adopted from foster care will exceed the rate of growth of the foster care population for at least the next two decades (Wulczyn & Hislop, 2002). Similarly, the Congressional Research Service projects that, within the Title IV-E Adoption Assistance Program, the adoption population nationwide will have exceeded the number of children in foster care by 2003 (Spar & Devere, 2001).

AFCARS data offer an opportunity to examine how states use adoption subsidies to help achieve goals of permanency and well-being for children. Of particular interest to this analysis are patterns of subsidy receipt, the role of federal support for adoption subsidies under Title IV-E, and the relationship between adoption subsidies and the number and timeliness of adoptions from foster care.

Background

In order to be eligible for federal matching (Title IV-E) subsidies (federal plus state funds), children must have been removed from families that would have met income criteria for the Aid for Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program, and have special needs that would preclude their adoption without subsidies (U.S. House of Representatives, 2004). Each state defines their criteria for special needs within broad federal guidelines. Under Title IV-E adoption assistance, a portion of the subsidy payment is federally funded, with the remaining share subsidized with state and/or county dollars. The federal medical assistance percentage (FMAP), or Medicaid matching rate, is used to determine the federal share of maintenance payments. This rate is between 50 percent and 83 percent (Spar and Devere, 2001). States with low per capita income have higher matching rates while high per capita income states have lower matching rates. If the child does not meet Title IV-E criteria, then a state may use state and/or county funds to provide a subsidy.

Adoption subsidies, up to the amount of the maintenance payment the child would have received if in foster care, are eligible for federal matching funds; higher adoption subsidies can be paid using state and or county dollars. Most states offer deferred payment agreements, which allow families the option of negotiating a subsidy at a later date even if they do not need one at the time of adoption.

Studying adoption subsidies is complicated by the fact that jurisdictions vary widely in the assumptions that underlie the design of their subsidy programs. Some consider that subsidies should be set at a rate sufficient to provide general support for needed services. Others set subsidy amounts at a level that can only support the basic care for a child, unless there are time-limited requests for subsidy funds to address specific problems. According to a recent report from the North American Council on Adoptable Children (NACAC), analysis of NACAC's State Subsidy Profiles⁽¹⁾ found that the subsidy rate in four states slightly exceeded the USDA rate needed to raise a family in a low-income family. In three states, however, the typical state subsidy is just half the USDA estimate (Bower and Laws, 2002). These disparities may be offset to some extent by options for one-time payments or by use of augmented subsidies that supplement the typical rate.

Research Questions

The goal of the analyses is to describe patterns of subsidy receipt by adoptive families and to explore how receipt and amount of subsidy may be related to adoption outcomes. Specific questions of interest include:

• What are the characteristics of adoptive children and families that may affect subsidy patterns?
• Does receipt of adoption subsidy vary by children's characteristics or foster care experiences?
• Does the amount of adoption subsidy vary by children's characteristics or foster care experiences?
• To what extent do states vary in their practices regarding adoption subsidies?
• Do adoption subsidies affect the timing or likelihood of adoption?

Figure 1-1 shows possible relationships among individual and state-level factors that may influence subsidy receipt and amount, and how subsidies may in turn affect the likelihood and timing of adoption. In the absence of previous analyses in this area, these hypothesized relationships were identified through discussions with federal and state agency staff.

Figure 1-1. Hypothesized Influences on Subsidy Practices and Adoption Outcomes

Reading from right to left, the model proposes that adoptions of foster children, and the timeliness of these adoptions, may be influenced by both the likelihood that the family will receive a subsidy and the amount of the subsidy. The most likely determinants of subsidy receipt are the characteristics of adopted children, including age, race/ethnicity, special needs and membership in sibling groups. In addition children who are eligible for federal support under Title IV-E, based on special needs and income, may be more likely to receive subsidies since federal support would decrease the cost of the subsidy to the state.

Subsidy amount is also influenced by the child's characteristics. In addition, states may also adjust subsidy amount (but not whether a subsidy is given) based on the circumstances of the adoptive parents. Since most foster children are adopted by foster parents, the amount of the adoption subsidy may be related to the level of support received by the foster parent prior to adoption. However, Title IV-E adoption subsidies cannot exceed the foster care payment amounts. Finally, states with higher FMAP rates may be able to offer higher subsidies than other states, since the federal share of the subsidy's cost will be greater.

Many of these relationships cannot be thoroughly assessed using AFCARS data, for two reasons. First the data elements included in the data set provide limited information about factors such as children's special needs and adoptive parent characteristics. In addition, the structure of the data set does not allow linking information about children's experiences in foster care (such as time in care) to information about their adoption (such as subsidy receipt and amount). However, the comprehensive nature of the data set, including all children adopted from foster care during the year, offers an important opportunity to describe national trends and variations among states with respect to adoption subsidies.

This project was funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. Research was conducted by RTI International.

AFCARS data used in this publication were made available by the National Data Archive on Child Abuse and Neglect, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, and have been used with permission. AFCARS data were originally collected by the Children's Bureau. AFCARS is supported by the Children's Bureau, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The collector of the original data, the funder, the Archive, Cornell University and their agents or employees bear no responsibility for the analyses or interpretations presented here.

Methodology

Data Source

National data from the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) provide child-level information on children in foster care and children adopted from foster care during a one year reporting period. Foster care and adoption data reside in two separate data files. No identifying information links these two sets of data, nor is there identifying information linking data from one year to another.

All 50 states, as well as Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia, submitted usable adoption and foster care data to AFCARS for each of the years (1999-2001) reported on in this report. States are required to report data on all children in out-of-home care for whom the state child welfare agency has the responsibility for placement, care, or supervision. The adoption data file contains one record for each child who was adopted during a reporting period; the foster care data file contains one record for each child who was in out-of-home care during the reporting period, including children who entered and exited care during this period. The majority of analyses were conducted using the adoption file, although selected analyses use 2001 foster care data in conjunction with the adoption data.

The following variables of interest are included in the adoption file:

• Child's characteristics (e.g., age, sex, race, ethnicity, special needs classification);
• Adoptive family's characteristics (e.g., family structure; preadoptive parent-child relationship; mother's age, race and ethnicity; father's age, race, and ethnicity);
• Subsidy data (e.g., source of subsidy, subsidy amount); and
• Case characteristics (e.g., months from termination of parental rights (TPR) to adoption, reporting state, reporting period).

The following variables of interest are included in the foster care file:

• Child's characteristics (e.g., age);
• Foster care payment and adoption subsidy data (e.g., source of subsidy, subsidy amount); and
• Case characteristics (e.g., date of most recent entry into out-of-home care, discharge reason and date, reporting state, reporting period).

AFCARS data are cross-sectional, meaning that they represent data at a single point in time. Cross-sectional adoption data provide a valuable snapshot of the children who were adopted during the reporting period while the foster care data provide a snapshot of children who were in out-of-home care during at least part of the reporting period.

The analysis population for the adoption file comprised children who were less than 18 years of age at the time of their adoption; the foster care analysis population comprised children who were less than 18 at the end of the reporting period.

While the AFCARS data elements are straightforward, the analysis took into account potential concerns regarding the reliability of specific variables. Appendix tables note items for which more than 10 percent of cases have missing or invalid data for the variable of interest. Additional steps to prepare the analysis files included identifying outliers for continuous variables that appear to be data errors and setting them to missing. For example, there were several cases where the monthly subsidy amount was reported as greater than $10,000. Although this amount may be valid for a small number of cases, the patterns we observed led us to believe that many of these were due to errors in the states' data reporting. Staff from DHHS assisted in identifying and resolving other issues that might obscure the interpretation of these data and suggesting, as much as possible, ways of using the data to narrow the range of interpretations.

These analyses use the most recent available AFCARS data set to describe patterns of adoption subsidy receipt and amount and compare these data with foster care data. Subsidy amounts in relation to child characteristics, adoptive parent characteristics, and adoption timeliness are described. Of particular interest are patterns of variation among states and factors that may explain these. We also describe patterns of subsidy receipt and amount for the three most recent years for which we have data (1999-2001). The analysis files excluded 57 children who resided in another country and were not a United States citizen prior to the adoptive placement. A small number of included cases were reported to be placed by an independent person or birth parent (146 cases in 2001), 90 cases were missing the placing entity information, and 904 were placed by a private agency. The analyses include both District of Columbia and Puerto Rico with the state-level data.

The analyses are conducted at two data levels:

1. National data are summarized for most of the analyses.
2. State-level data are presented in tabular form (i.e., listing of all states with their data).

Variables Used in Analyses

Variables were selected from the AFCARS files to address the goals and hypotheses described above. This section describes the creation and analysis of key variables.

Variables describing time to adoption should be interpreted with caution. These variables represent time to adoption for those children who have exited to adoption during the reporting year, but do not represent the experience of all children who will eventually be adopted. In particular, if the number of adoptions fluctuates from one year to the next (as seems to be the case in some states), these rates will be unstable. These estimates are used as comparisons among states rather than actual estimates of time to adoption, which would ideally be based on analysis of entry cohorts.

Child's age.

Children less than 18 years of age at time of adoption are included in the adoption population. Age at adoption was used for most of these analyses. Children less than 18 years of age as of the end of the reporting period were included in analyses using foster care data. We stratified most of the analysis results by three age groups (0 to 5, 6 to 12, and 13 to 17). These age groups were defined based on developmental stages and their similarities with respect to subsidy needs.

Race/ethnicity.

Multiple race designations could apply to each child, beginning with the FY 2000 data. The ethnicity variable was dichotomous: Hispanic and non-Hispanic. After initial analyses shown in Table 3-1, researchers consolidated race and ethnicity categories for simplicity and consistency with other analyses conducted by ACYF. The consolidated categories include white, non-Hispanic; African American, non-Hispanic; Hispanic; and other race/ethnicity. The other category includes non-Hispanic American Indians, Asians, Native Hawaiians, and children with more than one race designation. Researchers used race/ethnicity to describe the children adopted from out-of-home care and to stratify analysis of time from TPR to adoption and subsidy amounts received.

Special needs criteria.

Special needs status with respect to adoption subsidies defines characteristics that would make adoption difficult if a subsidy were not available. Categories broadly defined by the federal government, include race, age, sibling group, medical condition, and other. AFCARS allows only one factor to be assigned to an individual child for reporting purposes. Each state has the latitude to set their own criteria for classifying children as special needs children and to specify a priority for classifying children if they meet multiple criteria. Some caseworkers may report the special needs criteria that is the easiest to document. For these reasons and because states may specify more specific criteria for each special needs category using the other category, special needs data are not entirely comparable across states. Further specification of medical conditions include mental retardation, visually or hearing impaired, physically disabled, emotionally disturbed, and other diagnosed condition. The proportion of adopted children meeting special needs criteria is presented overall and by state and the relationship between time from TPR to adoption and special needs status was examined.

Adoptive family characteristics.

The family structure of the adoptive family (i.e., married couple, unmarried couple, single female, and single male) and the preadoptive parent-child relationship (i.e., foster parent, stepparent, other relative, and nonrelative) is presented. The adoptive mother and father's age and the proportion of children who are adopted by parents of a different race and ethnicity are displayed. These analyses are presented stratified by age.

Time from TPR to adoption.

If available, both the mother's and father's TPR data were reported in the AFCARS adoption file as well as the date the adoption was legalized. For these analyses, we designated the most recent of the two TPR dates to calculate the time from TPR to adoption. These analyses were stratified by child's age at TPR, race/ethnicity, and special needs status.

Time from most recent entry to adoption.

Because the adoption file does not include dates of entry into out-of-home care, we used data from the foster care file to calculate the most recent time in continuous care prior to adoption. This measure was used to describe the population, stratified by age and state.

Proportion of children receiving adoption subsidies.

The proportion of children adopted from public child welfare agencies who receive a monthly subsidy of any kind (i.e., federal or state) is presented at the national level and by state. Tables show the proportion of children receiving federal plus state subsidies, state-only subsidies, and no subsidies. The proportion of children who receive monthly payments and those with deferred agreements are presented. Although AFCARS does not include a field to explicitly indicate a deferred subsidy agreement is in place, we considered cases that were reported to be receiving a subsidy and the amount of subsidy was either $0 or $1 to have deferred payments for these analyses. Because only a small number of cases met this definition, it is likely that these analyses undercount the number of actual deferred agreements since some states may not distinguish between cases with deferred agreements and those without subsidies in AFCARS. In addition, the proportion of adoption subsidies with federal matching funds were compared across states. To examine trends in the federal plus state subsidy rate, data for the three most recent years were analyzed for each state and the percent change from year to year and from 1999 to 2001 is presented.

Proportion of children receiving federal foster care payments.

The proportion of children in nonrelative foster care placement (either current or most recent placement) receiving federal matching funds is calculated from the foster care data and compared to the equivalent adoption variable by state. Children in relative care were excluded from these analyses due to state variability in practices regarding foster care payments to relative caregivers.

Adoption subsidy amounts.

The median subsidy amount is presented for the past 3 years and by state. The state-level data were stratified by age, since foster care payments tend to increase with children's age in most states (likely due to their greater material and service needs) and we hypothesize a correlation between foster care payments and adoption subsidies. To examine trends in the average federal matching monthly subsidy amount, data for the three most recent years were analyzed for each state and the percent change from year to year and from 1999 to 2001 was calculated. Subsidy amounts greater than $10,000 per month were considered invalid data due to the likelihood of errors in the states' data for this field and were treated as missing values.

Foster care payment amounts.

Because the adoption data file does not include the amount the child received in foster care payments, we used the foster care data file to compare foster care payments to adoption subsidy amounts. For this analysis, we compared the subsidy amounts of all adopted children who were adopted by their foster family or by a nonrelative with the monthly payments for children in nonrelative foster care or pre-adoptive homes. Limiting the analysis to children who had been, or were currently placed, in nonrelative foster care excludes those children who were in a group care facility and might be receiving unusually high stipends and eliminates the likelihood that state variability in practices regarding relative caregivers will bias the results. Thus the analysis is reduced to the two groups of children who are most similar. These analyses are also presented for each state. Foster care payments greater than $10,000 were considered invalid data and were treated as missing values due to the likelihood that they were reported in error.

Foster care adoption rate.

Adoption rates are defined as the percentage of eligible children in out-of-home care who were adopted, derived from the foster care data file. Eligible children are defined as those who had a goal of adoption and/or had parental rights terminated, excluding those aged 16 and older with a goal of emancipation.

Deferred subsidy payments.

The proportion of adopted children with deferred subsidy payments are presented for each state. Deferred payments were defined as payments of $0 or $1 for cases where a subsidy was indicated.

Analysis Plan

The analyses in this report are descriptive, using tables and graphical representations of data to present results. Initial analyses presented in Section 3.1 describe the adopted child's demographic characteristics (gender, age, race, and ethnicity), time from TPR to adoption, and characteristics of the adoptive family (family structure, preadoptive parent-child relationship, mother's age, father's age, race/ethnicity differentials between child and parent). Section 3.2 presents analyses of special needs and the factors most commonly reported to satisfy the special needs criteria. Section 3.3 describes subsidy receipt rates, separately for federal plus state-funded and state only-funded subsidies and stratified by age group. Section 3.4 presents monthly subsidy amounts over the past 3 years, describes subsidy amounts by age and other factors to discern differences in amount received, and compares adoption subsidy amounts with foster care payment amounts.

Analyses in Section 3.5 use correlations among state-level measures to assess relationships among the practice and outcome measures identified in the model in Section 1-2. Finally, multivariate analyses described in Section 3.6 model the influence of child, adoptive family and state variables on subsidy receipt and subsidy amount.

To show the variation among states, many of the analyses presented in the report are also presented by state. State tabulations are shown in Tables A-1 through A-10 in Appendix A. States with high levels of missing or invalid data for specific variables are identified on each table.

Text discussion describes variation among states and patterns among the 10 states with the largest number of adoptions during FY 2001 (in order, California, Illinois, New York, Michigan, Texas, Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Washington). Although the composition of this group varies slightly from one year to the next, these 10 states also had the largest number of adoptions across the FY 1999-2001 period. These states together account for more than 60 percent of adoptions nationally. According to CWLA, four states have a larger general population of children compared to Washington; two of these have a larger population compared to North Carolina (Child Welfare League of America, 2004). And although six states have a larger number of children in out-of-home care compared to Washington; Washington has a higher percentage of children in out-of-home care who were adopted compared to those six states. The number of children in out-of-home care in North Carolina was not reported on this Web site.

Findings

Characteristics of Adopted Children

Males comprised one-half of the 50,703 children under 18 years of age who were adopted in the 2001 reporting period (Table 3-1). Less than 2 percent were under one year, about 45 percent were between 1 and 5 years, 24 percent were between 6 and 8, 21 percent were between 9 and 12, and about 9 percent were older children, aged 13 to 17. These proportions have remained relatively steady from 1999 to 2001.

There was a marked increase over a 3-year period of the proportion of adopted children who were white (44 percent to 54 percent), an increase of 6,700 children. The number of adopted children who were African-American remained somewhat steady over the past 3 years, the number of American Indian/Alaskan Native children increased from 553 in 1999 to 1,177 in 2001, and the number of Asian/Pacific Islanders increased from 477 to 658. There was a slight increase in the number of adopted children who were Hispanic over the 3-year period (6,552 to 8,253). For the most recent reporting period, white children comprised 54 percent of the adopted children followed by African-Americans at 38 percent. American Indian/Alaskan Natives and Asian/Pacific Islanders, combined, comprised almost 4 percent of adopted children.

Table 3-2 shows that while African-American children comprise only 15 percent of the population under 18 years of age, they represent a disproportionate number of children in foster care (39 percent). And while approximately the same number of white and African-American children were in foster care as of the end of the AFCARS 2001 reporting period, more African-American children were waiting for an adoptive home and fewer were adopted compared to white children. Hispanic children are the 2nd largest group, comprising nearly 16 percent of the population of children less than 18 years of age. Hispanic children represented 17 percent of the foster care population, 13 percent of those waiting for adoption and 16 percent who were adopted.

Table 3-3 shows the race and ethnicity variables combined to present the proportion of white non-Hispanics, African-American non-Hispanics, and Hispanics who were adopted, stratified by their age at the time of adoption. Children classified as American Indian, Asian, Native Hawaiians and those with more than one race designation are included in the other category. The proportion who were white was steady or increased with each successive age group (whites comprised 40 percent of adopted children less than 5 years old, 40 percent of children between 6 and 12 years of age, and 45 percent of those aged 13 to 17). In contrast, African-Americans comprised 35 percent of adopted children less than 5 years old, 39 percent of those aged 6 to 12, and 37 percent of those aged 13 to 17. An almost equal number of adopted children aged 6 to 12 years of age were white and African-American. The proportion of adopted children who were Hispanic was 18 percent for children less than 5 years of age and decreased by 2 percent for each of the successively higher age groups.

Table 3-4 shows the number of months from TPR to legalized adoption stratified by the child's age at TPR, race/ethnicity, and special needs status. Children 6 to 12 years old comprise the second largest group of adopted children and generally wait longer from TPR to adoption compared to younger and older children. Generally, the youngest children have better prospects for quicker placements with an adoptive family; therefore, they experience shorter wait times until they are adopted. Because finding families for children over the age of 12 is often particularly challenging, some agencies delay TPR for these children until an adoptive family is identified (Gibbs et al., 2004). This practice would shorten the time from TPR to adoption for older children. TPR for children in out-of-home care for only a short time could indicate also that these children had been placed in care by abandoning parents (most likely for younger children), that this was not their first or second spell in care, or that the courts had acted expeditiously based on one of the aggravated circumstances, under which ASFA and states' laws allow child welfare agencies to forego reunification efforts and proceed to TPR, although there is little evidence that states routinely invoke this last option.

The median number of months from TPR to adoption is lowest for whites (11.2), slightly higher for Hispanics (12.6) and even higher for African-Americans (13.9). Most children in this population are classified as having special needs with respect to adoption, such as age, race or membership in a sibling group. These children wait slightly longer for adoption after their parental rights have been terminated compared to children without special needs (12.8 vs. 10.6 months, respectively). This delay is perhaps indicative of the challenge of finding families for these hard to place children, as well as negotiating financial agreements that cover needed services for these special needs children.

Examining the time from TPR to adoption only tells part of the story since the time from entry to TPR varies greatly among states. States with a short time from TPR to adoption may reflect a practice pattern in which parental rights are not terminated until an adoptive home is identified, after which TPR is executed and the child is adopted in a relatively short time period. However, these same children may have spent a prolonged amount of time in out-of-home care prior to TPR. AFCARS adoption data does not include the date of entry into out-of-home care. Therefore, to present the larger picture to show the time children spent in out-of-home care until adoption, we analyzed data from the foster care data file. This file includes information on entry and exit dates and the population is theoretically identical to the population in the adoption file.⁽²⁾

Table A-1 in the appendix presents the median months that children wait from their most recent entry into out-of-home care to the date their adoption was finalized, by age at adoption⁽³⁾ for each state. The national median number of months from the most recent entry into out-of-home care was 38.1. The youngest children are adopted the most quickly (29.7 months for children less than 6), children aged 6 to 12 wait a median of about 20 months longer (49.3 months), and the oldest children wait about 10 months longer than those 6 to 12 (59.0 months).

Most states followed a similar pattern of older children waiting longer for adoption compared to their younger counterparts; however there was much variation in their ability to move children quickly to adoption. Among the largest states the median months in out-of-home care ranged from 23.9 (Texas) up to 59.2 (New York).

Characteristics of the child's adoptive family are presented in Table 3-5, stratified by the child's age at adoption. Two-thirds of these children were adopted by married couples. Among children less than 5 years of age, almost 72 percent were adopted by married couples. This proportion dropped with each successive age group to 62 percent for children aged 6 to 12 and 60 percent for children 13 to 17. Single females comprised the next largest proportion of adoptive parents (30 percent). Only one-quarter of younger children (aged 0 to 5) were adopted by single females, which increased to more than one-third of the older children adoptions (aged 13 to 17). Single males adopted just over 1,000 children (2 percent of all adoptions) while unmarried couples adopted 636 children (1 percent).

Table 3-5 also shows the relationship between the child and the adoptive parent prior to the adoption. Slightly more than one-half (52 percent) of the children were adopted by a foster parent, 21 percent were adopted by a nonstepparent relative, 15 percent were adopted by a nonrelative, and the remaining were stepparent adoptions (less than 1 percent). The proportion of children less than 6 years old adopted by a foster parent was higher (56 percent) compared to the proportion adopted by foster parents among the oldest age group (47 percent). A higher proportion of older children aged 13 to 17 were adopted by relatives other than stepparents compared to the proportion of younger children (less than 6 years) adopted by these other relatives (23 percent and 19 percent, respectively).

Slightly fewer than one-half of the children were adopted by women aged 30 to 39, followed by 37 percent adopted by women aged 18 to 29 and 15 percent aged 40 and over. Generally, younger women tended to adopt younger children. Among children less than 6 years old, 56 percent of their adoptive mothers were less than 30 years old, while these younger women comprised only 2 percent of the women who adopted a child older than 12.

About 44 percent of children were adopted by men aged 30 to 39, 33 percent were adopted by men 40 and older, and 22 percent were adopted by men less than 30 years of age. While younger women (less than 30) comprised the highest proportion of women adopting children younger than 6; men between 30 and 39 comprised the highest proportion of men adopting the youngest children. Similar to the trend for mothers, the older men tended to adopt older children. Similar percentages of children aged 13 to 17 were adopted by women 30 to 30 and men 40 and over, likely reflecting the marriages of slightly older men to younger women.

We examined whether the child was the same race/ethnicity as at least one of his adoptive parents and found that overall, 93 percent of children were of the same race/ethnicity as at least one of his or her adoptive parents. Slightly fewer same race adoptions occurred among younger children (91 percent) compared to each of the successively older age groups (94 percent and 96 percent). The percentage of transracial adoptions reported here may be lower than that reported elsewhere due to differences in how this variable is calculated.

Special Needs Classification

Nearly 88 percent of adopted children were classified as having special needs with respect to adoption. The lowest proportion of children with special needs was found in the youngest age group; 84.5 percent among those less than 6 years of age. The 6 to 12 and 13 to 17 age groups had similar proportions (90.5 percent and 90.6 percent, respectively).

Table A-2 shows the proportion of children meeting the state's special needs criteria for each age group and for each state. Among the larger states the proportions of children with special needs ranged from a low of 55.1 percent (Pennsylvania) up to 99.9 percent in Ohio. These differences may be due to state policy and practice in how they define their criteria for special needs within federal guidelines.

To assess whether variation in the proportion of children classified as special needs is associated with state policy, we compared the proportion of children classified as special needs with a recent analysis of state special needs definitions (Bower and Laws, 2002). We hypothesized that states with stringent definitions would classify a smaller proportion of their children as special needs while states who defined special needs in broader terms would have higher proportions of children classified as special needs. The analysis classified states as having narrow, moderate or broad special needs definitions based on how categories are defined within federal guidelines and on the inclusion of additional categories such as children who have experienced prior adoptive disruptions.

This analysis found that the relationship between special needs definitions and the proportion of children classified as having special needs was not clear. The median percentage of children classified as special needs among states with narrow, moderate, and broad special needs definitions was 90, 90, and 94 percent, respectively. Both Pennsylvania and Ohio⁽⁴⁾ were among the states with the broadest special needs definitions; however, these two states were at the lower and upper range, respectively, among large states with respect to the proportion of children with special needs.

Although AFCARS includes a field for the primary factor or condition that meets the special needs definition, states vary in how they apply criteria for determining which factor they report in AFCARS. For example, if a child meets multiple special needs criteria, some states prioritize the criteria and report the first one that applies while other states may not be as stringent.⁽⁵⁾ Therefore, analysis of these data are not presented in this report.

Subsidy Receipt

Source of Subsidies

Table 3-6 shows that nearly all children adopted in FY 2001 received subsidy assistance (88.1 percent). The proportion of children less than 6 years old who received subsidies was slightly lower compared to the two older age groups (85.7 percent vs. 90.5 percent and 90 percent, respectively). The largest group of children were those receiving subsidies with federal matching funds (74.3 percent); 13.8 percent of children received state only-funded and 11.9 percent received no subsidy. Thus, 84 percent of children who received subsidies used Federal matching funds. As expected, the proportion of children in each age group receiving subsidies is similar to the proportion classified with special needs (shown in Table 3-4).

Families with deferred subsidy agreements have the option of negotiating payments in the future, should the child's needs or family's circumstances warrant a monetary subsidy. AFCARS data indicate that nationally, only 398 children have a deferred payment agreement according to our definition for these analyses (children identified as receiving a subsidy, with the subsidy amount equal to $0 or $1). Because AFCARS does not include a field to explicitly indicate deferred status, it is likely that this number represents an undercount of the actual number of cases with no subsidies may include children with deferred agreements. Table A-3 in the appendix shows that only four states reported that at least 5 percent of their children had deferred agreements, perhaps another indication that states differ in how or whether they report deferred agreements in ACFARS. Only one of these was a large state (Washington with 5.7 percent).

Table A-4 presents the proportion of adopted children receiving federal matching funds, state subsidies only, or no subsidies for each state. The percentage of subsidies with federal matching funds are presented in the last column. A wide range of proportions of children with subsidies was observed among states. At one end of the spectrum, Puerto Rico and Connecticut reported only 13.2 percent and 16.4 percent, respectively, of their children received any subsidies. At the other end, South Carolina reported that all of their adopted children receive subsidies; and 16 states reported that at least 95 percent of adopted children received subsidies.

The percent of subsidies that were matched with federal funds varied widely among states as well. Nine states reported less than 70 percent of subsidies provided were federally funded; these were all small states with fewer than 1,000 children receiving subsidies. Six states reported 100 percent of their subsidies were federally funded; five of these were smaller states.

Eight of the 10 largest states reported at least 90 percent of their children had subsidies; however, two large states reported rates of 64.2 percent and 72.6 percent (Florida and Texas, respectively). Among the 10 largest states, two (New York and Ohio) reported that at least 90 percent of their caseload receive subsidies with federal matching funds; Florida and Texas reported the lowest proportion of children receiving federal subsidies (56.6 percent and 55.6 percent, respectively).

Trends

Table A-5 presents the federal plus state subsidy receipt trends from 1999 to 2001 for each state. The total row at the bottom of the table shows that there is little change on a national level in federal subsidy receipt in the last 3 years for which data are available (1999 to 2001). At the state level, the table shows considerable instability, with substantial increases and decreases between years. Examining the data for just the 10 largest states, we observe that four of them showed at least a 20 percent change in the proportion of children receiving federal subsidies from 1999 to 2001. Three of these states reported an increase in the percent of children receiving subsidies (California, Florida, and Washington); one reported a decrease (Texas).

Comparison of Adoption Subsidy and Foster Care Payment Receipt

The relationship between foster care payments with federal matching funds and adoption subsidies with federal matching funds was examined to determine whether variations in the use of federal matching adoption subsidies were related to state variations in establishing children's IV-E eligibility at the time of entry to foster care. Table A-6 shows that 74.3 percent of adopted children receive subsidies while only 48.3 percent of children in nonrelative foster care placements receive payments with federal matching funds. Examination of state data shows us that only 11 states reported the proportion of adopted children with federally-supported subsidies was within 10 percent of the proportion of foster children with federal matching payments.

The remaining states varied widely in these two measures, as illustrated by the last column in the table, the ratio of foster care payments to adoption subsidies. At one extreme, Connecticut reported that their proportion of children receiving federal support for foster care payments was nine times higher that of the proportion of adopted children receiving federal plus state subsidies. Other states reported that the federal adoption subsidy rate was significantly higher compared to the federal foster care payment rate, e.g., Washington DC and Michigan. Data reported for Nevada and Texas also indicate that the proportion of adopted children receiving federal adoption subsidies is significantly higher compared to the proportion of foster care children in nonrelative care who receive foster care payments. However, these data should be interpreted with caution due to possible reporting errors. All of the ten largest states reported higher federal adoption subsidy rates compared to foster care payments. The following section compares the amount of subsidies and payments provided to adopted and foster care children.

Adoption Subsidy Amounts

Child Characteristics

The median subsidy amount for children adopted in 2001 was $444 a month (Table 3-7); a 10 percent increase from the median of $404 provided in 1999. At the same time, 33,655 children were adopted in 1999 and 39,135 children were adopted in 2001, a 16 percent increase.

Table 3-8 shows the relationship between child-related factors and subsidy amount received. As would be expected, adoption subsidies increase as children get older, presumably reflecting their greater need for services (also seen on Table A-7). Children less than 6 years old receive a median of $406 compared to $522 for children aged 13 to 17. Whites, African-Americans, and Hispanics had an identical median subsidy amount ($444), while children of other races received slightly higher subsidies ($469).

Children in nonrelative foster homes received higher median subsidies compared to other preadoptive placements (excluding stepparent adoptions)   a monthly median of $471 vs. $450 for foster parents and $441 for other relatives.

Children who waited longer from TPR to adoption (more than 18 months) received a higher median subsidy compared to children who were adopted more quickly after TPR.

Table A-7 in the appendix shows that median monthly adoption subsidy amounts vary substantially among states. Overall, median subsidies ranged from a low of $174 and $241 (Puerto Rico and Alabama, respectively) to a high of $856 (Iowa) and $741 (Washington, DC). Among the nine largest states,⁽⁶⁾ median subsidy amounts ranged from $300 in Florida up to $591 in Michigan.

The national data shows subsidy amounts tend to increase for older children (see bottom row on A-7). We examined the nine largest states6 to determine whether this pattern was consistent on a state-level basis. All of these large states, with the exception of one, showed a similar pattern. Texas was the exception, which reported the same median subsidy amount for each of the three age groups. These findings are consistent with state policies that tend to have higher basic subsidy rates for older children (U.S. House of Representatives, 2004). Nevertheless, results should be interpreted with caution due to the differences in how states structure their subsidy payments (i.e., what is included in basic rates vs. special supplemental payments).

Trends Over Time

Table A-8 examines state-level trends in the median subsidy amount between 1999 and 2001 to assess whether the national increase seen in Table 3-7 occurred consistently across states.⁽⁷⁾ Eight states reported the same median subsidy amounts for the past 3 years. Between 1999 and 2001, 26 states increased their mean subsidy amounts, with the amount of increases ranging from 3 percent up to 66.5 percent. Eight states showed decrease in their subsidy amounts, ranging from 1.1 percent to 27.2 percent and two reported no change from 2000 to 2001. Eight of the nine largest states⁽⁸⁾ showed an increase in subsidy amounts from 1999 to 2001, ranging from 5.8 (North Carolina) to 27.7 percent increase in Florida. Washington reported such an insignificant change from 1999 to 2001 as to be considered no change in subsidy amount.

Comparison of Adoption Subsidy and Foster Care Payment Amounts

For adoption subsidies funded by Title IV-E, the subsidy amount is capped at the level of the foster care payment that a family would receive on behalf of a child. However, adoption subsidy rates that are set lower than foster care payments could represent a disincentive for foster families to adopt a child if foster parents are concerned about whether they could meet a child's needs after adoption. To assess whether this potential barrier exists, we compared the median adoption subsidy amounts with the median amount received by children in foster care on a national and state level.

This analysis uses data from the AFCARS foster care file (for foster care payments) and adoption file (for adoption subsidy amounts). Because individual children who exit foster care to adoption cannot be traced from one file to another, the population examined in each file was restricted in order to increase their comparability to the extent possible. Analysis of foster care data was limited to those in a pre-adoptive home or non-relative foster home. The analysis of adopted children includes only those who were adopted by a non-relative.

Table A-9 shows that nationally, the ratio of median adoption subsidies to median foster care payments was 0.8 (bottom row of table). However, when we examine these data for each state, the ratio of adoption amounts to foster care amounts varies widely among one-half the states. Twenty-one states show a difference greater than 10 percent between adoption and foster care median amounts. Fifteen of these states have a lower median adoption amount compared to foster care median; the lowest ration was 0.2 in Kansas. However, the foster care data in Kansas should be interpreted with caution due to possible errors in data reporting. Six states⁽⁹⁾ showed higher median adoption amounts compared to foster care payments, with the highest ratio (1.3) seen in Arizona (median adoption subsidy was $479; foster care median was $358). This may reflect state supplementation of adoption subsidies beyond the level eligible for federal support, population differences between children in foster care and adopted children, or data quality issues. Patterns were consistent across age groups with few exceptions.

None of the eight largest states,⁽¹⁰⁾ reported higher median adoption subsidies compared to median foster care payments; four reported the same or less than a 10 percent change in amounts, and four states reported lower median adoption subsidies compared to foster care payments.

A previous comparison of states' basic monthly adoption assistance rates and basic foster care rates found that 33 states allow adoption subsidy rates to be equal to or greater than their foster care rates (Bower and Laws, 2002). They reported that in twelve states monthly adoption subsidies were higher than monthly foster care payments, possibly due to the addition of county or state funds or the use of more recent adoption subsidy data in conjunction with older foster care data. These data do not reflect supplemental payments that may be made for children with higher levels of needs in either foster care or adoption.

Same-Year Adoption Rates and Time to Adoption

The model in Figure 1-1 hypothesizes that states with high subsidy rates and/or high median subsidy amounts will have a higher proportion of children in foster care exit to adoption. To examine this theory, we obtained a same year foster care adoption rate for each state, defined as the proportion of eligible children⁽¹¹⁾ who were adopted. We presented this adoption rate, the adoption subsidy rate, and the median monthly adoption subsidy in Table A-10, in the appendix.

The national adoption rate was 22 percent in 2001. Six of the nine largest states⁽¹²⁾ reported a rate matching or exceeding the national average. Each reported that at least 90 percent of their cases received a subsidy and all but one reported a median subsidy close to or exceeding the national median. Of the three large states with adoption rates lower than the national average, one (Michigan) reported more than 90 percent of their cases receive subsidies (with a median exceeding the national median); one state reported a subsidy rate of 64.2 percent (Florida) with a median subsidy below the national median and the third state reported an adoption rate just below the national average, a subsidy rate of 72.6 percent, and a higher median subsidy amount compared to the national median (Texas).

State Subsidy Practices and Adoption Outcomes

Pearson correlation coefficients were used to further examine the relationships among state-level variables representing subsidy practices and adoption outcomes, as shown in Table 3-9. The table shows significant correlations between the percent of children who received an adoption subsidy and the rate of adoptions among eligible children. The percent of children receiving any subsidy was, in turn, significantly correlated with the percent of children for whom a federal IV-E subsidy was used. This suggests that adoption assistance under Title IV-E expands states' ability to offer adoption subsidies, rather than substituting for subsidies that would otherwise be supported by state funds. Since special needs status is a prerequisite for federal adoption assistance, it is not surprising that both receipt of federal subsidy and receipt of any subsidy (federal or state only funded) were significantly correlated with the percentage of children who are classified as special needs.

Other than the correlation between adoption subsidies and adoptions of eligible children, few of the hypothesized relationships shown in Figure 1-1 could be supported by analysis of state-level variables. No significant correlation was found between the percentage of children receiving adoption subsidy and the median time from most recent entry to foster care and adoption. The median amount of adoption subsidy was not correlated to either the rate of adoption or median time to adoption. Several other hypothesized relationships described in Section 1.2 were not found to be significant, including the relationship between either the percentage of foster children eligible for IV-E foster care support or state FMAP rates and the percentage of children receiving federal plus state adoption subsidies.

Figure 3-1 shows the model from Section 1, with significant correlations indicated by a heavier line. Since the relationships between special needs status, IV-E eligibility and subsidy receipt are as expected, the most interesting correlation is that between the percentage of children receiving an adoption subsidy and the foster care adoption rate (proportion of eligible children adopted).

Figure 3-1.
Correlations Between Subsidy Practices and Adoption Outcomes^(a)

^(a)  Heavy lines indicate correlations significant at the 0.05 or 0.01 levels.

Multivariate Analyses of Subsidy Receipt and Amount

Multivariate analyses used AFCARS data to answer the following two research questions:

1. What individual- and state-level characteristics are associated with whether a child receives an adoption subsidy?
2. Among those children who received a subsidy, what individual- and state-level characteristics are associated with the amount of their subsidy?

The first question was addressed with a logistic regression analysis, since the outcome is a 0/1 binary variable indicating whether children adopted in FY 2001 received a subsidy. To answer the second question, analysts used multiple regression analysis, because the amount of the subsidy is a continuous variable ranging from $1 to $8,000 (the highest subsidy value) monthly. If the factors that determine subsidy receipt are different from those that determine subsidy amount, then the estimation requires a two-stage structural equation model. However, a two-stage model requires an explanatory variable in the first-stage equation that is not a predictor in the second stage. Since no such variable was identified, two separate equations were used. Because this approach may cause our estimation to be less efficient, explanatory variables that would have been statistically significant may not appear to be so.

Nearly all children in the 2001 adoption file (88 percent) received a subsidy. The sample size used to answer the first research question was 25,744. The sample size used to answer the second research question, including only those children who received a subsidy, was 22,150. Explanatory variables are considered statistically significantly at the p < 0.05 level of significance or better. Due to limitations in the data in four states (Mississippi, Nevada, New York, and West Virginia), the analyses were limited to children in the remaining 46 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.

The equations used to answer both research questions contain the same explanatory variables and were modeled in two ways. All equations include individual level descriptive variables. In the first estimation (Models 1A and 2A, Table 3-10), two state-level descriptive variables are also included in the model. In the second estimation (Models 1B and 2B, Table 3-11), the state-level variables are replaced by dummy variables representing each of the states included in the study. Using two sets of estimations allows comparison of how variations in outcomes are explained by identified factors on the state level, as well as unexplained variations between states.

The explanatory variables included in all models describing the child are

• age at adoption (0 to 17.99 years of age);
• race/ethnicity categorized as non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic African American, Hispanic, and other;
• sex;
• preadoptive relationship between the child and adopting parents, categorized as foster care, other (nonparental) relative or nonrelative (other than foster parents);
• special needs status with respect to eligibility for IV-E adoption assistance (yes/no);
• IV-E adoption assistance claimed for adoption subsidy (yes/no);
• adopting mother's race/ethnicity, categorized as non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic African American, Hispanic, and other; and
• adopting family's structure categorized as married couple, unmarried couple, single female, single male, and not applicable.

The state-level explanatory variables included in Models 1A and 2A are as follows:

• Median time from the most recent foster care entry to adoption, including all children in the AFCARS foster care file who exited foster care to adoption in FY 2001. While these should be the same children who were adopted during FY 2001, it is not possible to link individual entries in the foster care and adoption files. Because this information is not available for individual children in the adoption file, the state-level aggregate is used in the model.
• Federal share of subsidies for children receiving adoption assistance under Title IV-E, the Federal Medicaid Assistance Percentage (FMAP) for FY2001 (DHHS, 2000).

Subsidy Receipt

In predicting whether a child received a subsidy in our model containing state-level explanatory variables (Model 1A), several factors were associated with increased likelihood of receiving a subsidy. Age was a significant factor: the older the child, the more likely he or she was to receive an adoption subsidy. The probability of receiving a subsidy was also greater for a child who was IV-E eligible, designated as special needs, or adopted by a single woman rather than a married couple. Children in states with longer mean times in foster care prior to adoption were more likely to receive subsidies.

In contrast, Hispanic children, and children who were adopted by Hispanic mothers (rather than white non-Hispanic mothers) were less likely to have received a subsidy. A child adopted by a relative or a non-relative who was not a foster parent was less likely to receive a subsidy than a child adopted by foster parents. The percentage of the subsidy provided by the federal government was not a significant determinant of subsidy receipt.

The second specification estimated whether a child received a subsidy, controlling for state variation by including a dummy variable representing each state (Model 1B). As in Model 1A, the child's age, IV-E eligibility, and special needs status were all positively and significantly related to subsidy receipt, while adoption by a non-relative (other than a foster parent) was negatively associated. However, in this specification, a child's and a mother's ethnicity, and the adoptive family's structure (other than it being unknown) were no longer significant determinants of whether a child received a subsidy. There were significant differences associated with state, compared to being from California (our comparison state). Significant positive or negative differences were found for 36 of 48 jurisdictions (46 states, District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico). State practice is clearly a major determinant of subsidy receipt.

The difference between Models 1A and 1B suggests that some of the distinctions seen in Model 1A (an apparent disadvantage for Hispanic children and Hispanic adoptive mothers, and a greater likelihood of subsidy receipt for single female adoptive mothers) may be an artifact of demographics and adoptive family characteristics in some states. Even after controlling for variations among states, age, IV-E eligibility, and special needs status are significantly associated with subsidy receipt. The latter two associations are unremarkable, since both IV-E eligibility and special needs status are required for federal adoption assistance. Although states are not bound by these requirements when determining state-funded subsidies, 74 percent of all subsidies for FY 2001 included federal funds, as seen in Table 3-6.

Subsidy Amount

In the first model of subsidy amount, which includes state-level variables (Model 2A), subsidy amount was positively related to the age of the child; the older the child, the larger the subsidy. Increased subsidies were also associated with being IV-E eligible, being male, and being adopted by non-relatives rather than by foster parents. The structure of the adopting family was also a significant factor; being adopted by an unmarried couple or a single female compared to a married couple was significantly related to the child's receiving a larger subsidy.

While the child's race/ethnicity was not a significant factor, being adopted by a Hispanic mother compared to a non-Hispanic white mother was significantly related to receiving a smaller subsidy. Children adopted by single females (but not by single males) received higher subsidies than those adopted by married couples, as did children adopted by unmarried couples. The latter category represents just over 1 percent of adoptions. Children adopted by relatives received smaller subsidies than those placed with foster parents, as did children with special needs.

The two state-level variables included in the model were significant predictors of subsidy amount. Children in states where the mean time in foster care prior to adoption was higher received higher subsidies. Children in states with higher FMAP rates, where the proportion of the subsidy paid with federal funds for IV-E eligible children is higher, had lower predicted subsidies. Since FMAP is inversely related to per capita income in the state, this finding indicates that less wealthy states offer lower subsidies, even with augmented federal support.

For Model 2B, which predicts the amount of the subsidy while controlling for state variation with the use of state dummy variables, most results were similar. However, subsidy amount was no longer significantly related to IV-E eligibility or special needs status. Significant positive or negative differences were found for 42 of the 48 dummy variables representing jurisdiction, indicating that unmeasured state-level factors also played an important role in the amount of the subsidy.

The differences between Models 2A and 2B suggest that the apparent disadvantage for children with special needs, seen in Model 2A, may reflect variations in the extent to which states classify children as having special needs. Table A-2 shows that the proportion of children classified as having special needs ranges from less than 50 percent to 100 percent.

Discussion

The multivariate models confirm the importance of state-level practice variations in determining both subsidy receipt and amount. These differences persist even after controlling for variations in the characteristics of adopted children and adoptive families. Children in states where the time to adoption was longer were more likely to receive subsidies, and to receive higher subsidies. Children in states with higher federal matching rates received lower subsidies.

Even after controlling for state-practice variations, several child characteristics were associated with subsidy decisions. Based on odds ratios calculated from logit results, each additional year of age increases the odds of a child receiving a subsidy by 7.8 percent. Among children who received a subsidy, each additional year of age was related to an increase of $12.53 per month. Adopted boys are no more likely to receive a subsidy than adopted girls, but among children receiving a subsidy, boys receive slightly higher subsidies. Child race and ethnicity were not significant determinants of subsidy receipt or amount.

Characteristics of adoptive families also influenced subsidies. After controlling for state-level variation, neither race nor ethnicity was associated with subsidy receipt; however, among children receiving subsidies, those adopted by Hispanic mothers received, on average $45 less than did children adopted by white, non-Hispanic mothers. Children adopted by non-relatives (other than foster parents) were less likely to receive subsidies. Children adopted from foster care by relatives received subsidies that were, on average, $93 per month less than those adopted by foster parents. Children adopted by single females received higher subsidies than those adopted by married couples. While the latter finding could be based on greater material needs within single-parent families, other associations between family characteristics and subsidies suggest the impact of variations among adoptive parents in their ability to advocate for subsidies. In particular, the lower subsidy amount for children adopted by relatives would seem to be at odds with the current goal of encouraging such adoptions.

Summary and Conclusions

Subsidies have become an essential tool in moving children to permanent homes and supporting adoptive families. At the national level, subsidy practice shows some clear patterns in relation to characteristics of adopted children and adoptive families. However, the variations among states are equally striking. Although some extreme values may result from incomplete data provided to the AFCARS system, the state-level tables in the Appendix suggest divergent practice among states in most aspects of adoption subsidy practice. The following key findings represent both national patterns and variations among states:

• Nearly all children adopted from foster care in recent years received an adoption subsidy. Nationally, 88 percent of children adopted in FY 2001 received an adoption subsidy. However, practice varied widely among states, with subsidy receipt ranging from 13 percent to 100 percent. Nearly all adopted children (88 percent) were identified as having special needs that would prevent adoption without financial assistance.
• Nationally, the median monthly adoption subsidy was $444 per month. This figure represents a 10-percent increase between FY 1999 and FY 2001. Across states, median subsidy varied widely_from $171 to $876 monthly. Although states have the option of offering deferred payment agreements, which allow families the option of negotiating a subsidy at a later date even if they do not need one at the time of adoption, this arrangement is not explicitly identified by AFCARS data. Fewer than 1 percent of adopted children were shown as having an adoption assistance agreement and receiving a subsidy of $0 or $1.
• Federal adoption assistance through Title IV-E is widely used, representing 84 percent of all adoption subsidies nationally. Analysis of aggregate data found that states that identified larger percentages of children as IV-E eligible provided subsidies to more children. Multivariate analyses found associations between IV-E eligibility and both subsidy receipt and amount. States with higher levels of federal matching (FMAP) for IV-E adoption assistance offered lower subsidy amounts, suggesting that even augmented federal support does not offset limited financial resources within these states.
• Children's age and special needs status influenced subsidy receipt and amount. Older children were more likely to receive subsidies, and to receive larger subsidies. Race and ethnicity did not influence subsidies, after controlling for state-level variation. Although sex was not associated with subsidy receipt, among children who received a subsidy, boys received slightly higher subsidies than did girls.
• Pre-adoptive relationship and other characteristics of adoptive families influenced children's subsidies. Children adopted by foster parents  who represent more than half of all adoptions  were more likely to receive subsidies than others. They also received higher subsidies than children adopted by relatives. Children adopted by Hispanic mothers received lower subsidies than those whose adoptive mothers were non-Hispanic whites. Children adopted by single females received higher subsidies than those adopted by married couples. These findings suggest the influence of both family needs and adoptive parents' ability to advocate on subsidy decisions.
• Analyses found some support for associations between subsidies and adoption outcomes. Analysis of state-level aggregate data show a significant positive correlation between the percentage of adopted children who receive a subsidy and the percent of eligible children who are adopted. Multivariate analysis found that children living in states where the median time to adoption was longer were more likely to receive subsidies, and received higher subsidies. Possibly states are using subsidies strategically to address the backlog of waiting children in foster care and meet their adoption goals.

The limitations of the AFCARS data set suggest that more compelling analyses may be found within state administrative databases, with greater opportunities to compare children's foster care and adoption experiences. However, the comprehensive scope of AFCARS supports analyses that provide an overview of how subsidies are used to support permanency for children who might otherwise remain in foster care, as well as the diversity of practice among states.

References

Barth, R.P. (1993). Fiscal Issues in Special Needs Adoption. Public Welfare 41(4):7-11.

Bower, J.W., and R. Laws (2002). Forever Families: Support for Families of Children with Special Needs: A Policy Analysis of Adoption Subsidy Programs in the United States. North American Council on Adoptable Children.

Child Welfare League of America (2004). Data from the National Data Analysis System. <http://ndas.cwla.org>. As obtained on August 20, 2004.

Gibbs, D., B. Dalberth, S. Hawkins, S. Harris, R. Barth, and J. Wildfire (2004). Termination of Parental Rights for Older Foster Children: Exploring Practice and Policy Issues. Report prepared for the Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Children's Bureau, Administration for Children, Youth and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International.

Spar, K., and C. Devere (2001). Child Welfare Financing: Issues and Options. Congressional Research Service.

U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division. June 18, 2003. Table NA-EST2002-ASRO-03National Population EstimatesCharacteristics. <http://www.census.gov/popest/archives/2000s/vintage_2002/files/NA-EST2002-ASRO-03.csv>.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2000). Federal Financial Participation in State Assistance Expenditures for October 1, 2000 through September 30, 2001. <http://aspe.hhs.gov/health/fmap01.htm>. As obtained on January 15, 2004.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2003). AFCARS Report. <http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/afcars/report8.htm>. As obtained on June 2, 2004.

Wulczyn, F.H., and K.B. Hislop (2002). Issue Papers on Foster Care and Adoption: Growth in the Adoption Population. Chicago: Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago.

Endnotes

1.  State subsidy profiles include the maximum basic adoption assistance payments for each state as provided by state administrators to NACAC.

2.  Discrepancies in data between the adoption file and the foster file that was restricted to children discharged to adoption are likely due to some states' practice of underreporting foster care discharges and more accurately reporting adoption data, which is used to calculate adoption incentive awards.

3.  Analysis based on age at entry into care may produce different results.

4.  Ohio is noted as a model program based on its inclusion of four categories beyond the Federal required ones.

5.  For example, Florida reports the first of the following criteria that applies: disability, race, age, other.

6.  Excluding New York which was missing subsidy amounts for all their cases.

7.  Eight states had more than 30 percent of their data missing; therefore these states are omitted from this discussion.

8.  Excluding New York, which was missing subsidy amounts for all their cases.

9.  Including Nebraska with adoption data based on only five children who were reported to have been adopted by their foster family.

10.  Excluding New York which was missing subsidy amounts for all their cases and Washington, which reported $0 or $1 payment amounts for foster care children eligible for this analysis.

11.  Eligible children were defined as those who had a goal of adoption and/or had parental rights terminated, excluding those aged 16 and older with a goal of emancipation.

12.  Excluding New York which was missing subsidy amounts for all their cases.

How to Obtain a Printed Copy

To obtain a printed copy of this report, send the title and your mailing information to:

Human Services Policy, Room 404E
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
200 Independence Av, SW
Washington, DC 20201

Fax:  (202) 690-6562

Appendix A

Median Months from Most Recent Entry into Out-of-Home Care to Adoption, by Child's Age at Adoption, by State, FY 2001

Proportion of Adopted Children Meeting Special Needs Criteria, by State, FY 2001

Table A-2.
Proportion of Adopted Children Meeting Special Needs Criteria, by State, FY 2001

State	Age at Adoption
	Total			0 to 5			6 to 12			13 to 17
	Adopted Children	Special Needs Children	%	Adopted Children	Special Needs Children	%	Adopted Children	Special Needs Children	%	Adopted Children	Special Needs Children	%
Alabama	237	111	46.8	117	50	42.7	107	55	51.4	13	6	46.2
Alaska	278	278	100.0	143	143	100.0	119	119	100.0	16	16	100.0
Arizona	938	780	83.2	469	353	75.3	388	351	90.5	81	76	93.8
Arkansas	361	347	96.1	154	147	95.5	160	157	98.1	47	43	91.5
California	9,822	9,591	97.6	5,353	5,173	96.6	3,740	3,695	98.8	729	723	99.2
Colorado*	342	211	61.7	223	113	50.7	105	85	81.0	14	13	92.9
Connecticut	444	0	0.0	246	0	0.0	171	0	0.0	27	0	0.0
Delaware	115	112	97.4	62	60	96.8	48	47	97.9	5	5	100.0
District of Columbia	226	221	97.8	61	56	91.8	144	144	100.0	21	21	100.0
Florida	1,712	1,643	96.0	904	856	94.7	656	638	97.3	152	149	98.0
Georgia	895	431	48.2	404	176	43.6	404	203	50.2	87	52	59.8
Hawaii	260	246	94.6	155	147	94.8	89	86	96.6	16	13	81.3
Idaho	123	113	91.9	67	60	89.6	41	40	97.6	15	13	86.7
Illinois	4,095	4,014	98.0	1,661	1,580	95.1	2,031	2,031	100.0	403	403	100.0
Indiana*	155	117	75.5	64	40	62.5	69	57	82.6	22	20	90.9
Iowa	659	374	56.8	302	120	39.7	265	190	71.7	92	64	69.6
Kansas	423	314	74.2	179	124	69.3	183	136	74.3	61	54	88.5
Kentucky	571	295	51.7	226	106	46.9	266	142	53.4	79	47	59.5
Louisiana	470	376	80.0	178	124	69.7	234	194	82.9	58	58	100.0
Maine	363	159	43.8	176	80	45.5	148	69	46.6	39	10	25.6
Maryland	812	796	98.0	353	337	95.5	379	379	100.0	80	80	100.0
Massachusetts	776	768	99.0	388	386	99.5	328	325	99.1	60	57	95.0
Michigan	2,975	2,489	83.7	1,336	1,084	81.1	1,370	1,183	86.4	269	222	82.5
Minnesota*	363	299	82.4	132	88	66.7	209	191	91.4	22	20	90.9
Mississippi	264	217	82.2	111	66	59.5	121	119	98.3	32	32	100.0
Missouri	1,051	844	80.3	518	395	76.3	409	343	83.9	124	106	85.5
Montana	275	231	84.0	123	79	64.2	117	117	100.0	35	35	100.0
Nebraska	292	270	92.5	129	115	89.1	130	122	93.8	33	33	100.0
Nevada	242	233	96.3	149	143	96.0	81	78	96.3	12	12	100.0
New Hampshire	95	95	100.0	45	45	100.0	44	44	100.0	6	6	100.0
New Jersey	1,025	920	89.8	591	523	88.5	384	353	91.9	50	44	88.0
New Mexico	369	352	95.4	140	130	92.9	194	189	97.4	35	33	94.3
New York	3,888	3,726	95.8	1,361	1,246	91.6	1,971	1,932	98.0	556	548	98.6
North Carolina	1,298	1,210	93.2	643	590	91.8	520	491	94.4	135	129	95.6
North Dakota	145	101	69.7	87	43	49.4	41	41	100.0	17	17	100.0
Ohio	2,149	2,146	99.9	1,113	1,111	99.8	838	838	100.0	198	197	99.5
Oklahoma	955	912	95.5	391	355	90.8	448	441	98.4	116	116	100.0
Oregon	1,071	1,059	98.9	520	515	99.0	474	468	98.7	77	76	98.7
Pennsylvania	1,560	860	55.1	686	398	58.0	681	362	53.2	193	100	51.8
Rhode Island	267	123	46.1	149	57	38.3	99	55	55.6	19	11	57.9
South Carolina	373	345	92.5	173	157	90.8	155	144	92.9	45	44	97.8
South Dakota	97	97	100.0	52	52	100.0	39	39	100.0	6	6	100.0
Tennessee	638	516	80.9	235	133	56.6	323	303	93.8	80	80	100.0
Texas	2,312	2,087	90.3	1,351	1,129	83.6	828	825	99.6	133	133	100.0
Utah	348	328	94.3	217	203	93.5	114	109	95.6	17	16	94.1
Vermont	115	115	100.0	50	50	100.0	49	49	100.0	16	16	100.0
Virginia	493	322	65.3	199	101	50.8	238	177	74.4	56	44	78.6
Washington	1,203	852	70.8	703	505	71.8	445	310	69.7	55	37	67.3
West Virginia	326	326	100.0	136	136	100.0	149	149	100.0	41	41	100.0
Wisconsin	753	714	94.8	382	348	91.1	323	318	98.5	48	48	100.0
Wyoming	46	42	91.3	14	12	85.7	27	26	96.3	5	4	80.0
Puerto Rico	248	67	27.0	124	16	12.9	99	36	36.4	25	15	60.0
Total	49,313	43,195	87.6	23,745	20,056	84.5	20,995	18,995	90.5	4,573	4,144	90.6
Notes: Special needs is defined per each state's eligibility criteria for an adoption subsidy under Title IV-E. Missing data are excluded from these analyses. Except where noted, data presented in these tables are reported to ACF by states. Although ACF continues to work with states to improve the quality of AFCARS data, neither ACF nor RTI can verify the validity or completeness of these data. * These states had missing or invalid special needs data for more than 30 percent of their cases. Source: AFCARS 2001, adoption data.

Proportion of Adopted Children with Deferred Subsidy Payments, by State, FY 2001

Table A-3.
Proportion of Adopted Children with Deferred Subsidy Payments, by State, FYВ 2001

State	N	Subsidy Provided?
		Yes, with Payment		Yes, Deferred		No
		n	(%)	n	(%)	n	(%)
Alabama	237	111	46.8	0	0.0	126	53.2
Alaska	278	271	97.5	0	0.0	7	2.5
Arizona	938	837	89.2	48	5.1	53	5.7
Arkansas	361	320	88.6	2	0.6	39	10.8
California	9,822	8,982	91.5	1	0.0	839	8.5
Colorado	596	522	87.6	27	4.5	47	7.9
Connecticut	444	73	16.4	0	0.0	371	83.6
Delaware	115	112	97.4	0	0.0	3	2.6
District of Columbia	227	130	57.3	0	0.0	97	42.7
Florida	1,748	1,123	64.2	0	0.0	625	35.8
Georgia	896	413	46.1	20	2.2	463	51.7
Hawaii	260	216	83.1	0	0.0	44	16.9
Idaho	123	104	84.6	0	0.0	19	15.5
Illinois	4,079	3,921	96.1	5	0.1	153	3.8
Indiana	867	449	51.8	0	0.0	418	48.2
Iowa	659	504	76.5	0	0.0	155	23.5
Kansas	423	304	71.9	4	1.0	115	27.2
Kentucky	571	401	70.2	3	0.5	167	29.3
Louisiana	470	428	91.1	0	0.0	42	8.9
Maine	363	350	96.4	10	2.8	3	0.8
Maryland	812	797	98.2	2	0.3	13	1.6
Massachusetts	721	644	89.3	0	0.0	77	10.7
Michigan	2,975	2,868	96.4	0	0.0	107	3.6
Minnesota	565	561	99.3	0	0.0	4	0.7
Mississippi	264	215	81.4	0	0.0	49	18.6
Missouri	1,091	1,052	96.4	0	0.0	39	3.6
Montana	275	248	90.2	0	0.0	27	9.8
Nebraska	292	201	68.8	0	0.0	91	31.2
Nevada	243	229	94.2	1	0.4	13	5.4
New Hampshire	95	84	88.4	0	0.0	11	11.6
New Jersey	1,025	908	88.6	16	1.6	101	9.9
New Mexico	369	330	89.4	0	0.0	39	10.6
New York	3,888	3,808	97.9	0	0.0	80	2.1
North Carolina	1298	1,194	92.0	29	2.2	75	5.8
North Dakota	145	91	62.8	0	0.0	54	37.2
Ohio	2,225	2,132	95.8	5	0.2	88	4.0
Oklahoma	955	905	94.8	45	4.7	5	0.5
Oregon	1071	1,042	97.3	18	1.7	11	1.0
Pennsylvania	1,525	1,373	90.0	3	0.2	149	9.8
Rhode Island	267	265	99.3	1	0.4	1	0.4
South Carolina	364	364	100.0	0	0.0	0	0.0
South Dakota	97	63	65.0	0	0.0	34	35.1
Tennessee	638	518	81.2	0	0.0	120	18.8
Texas	2,317	1,681	72.6	0	0.0	636	27.5
Utah	348	266	76.4	3	0.9	79	22.7
Vermont	116	99	85.3	0	0.0	17	14.7
Virginia	493	440	89.3	31	6.3	22	4.5
Washington	1,203	1,107	92.0	68	5.7	28	2.3
West Virginia	362	311	85.9	21	5.8	30	8.3
Wisconsin	753	716	95.1	31	4.1	6	0.8
Wyoming	46	41	89.1	2	4.4	3	6.5
Puerto Rico	250	31	12.4	2	0.8	217	86.8
Total	50,565	44,155	87.3	398	0.8	6,012	11.9
Notes: Children reported to receive a $0 or $1 subsidy are considered to have a deferred subsidy. This number is likely underreported due to differences in how states report deferred agreements. Except where noted, data presented in these tables are reported to ACF by states. Although ACF continues to work with states to improve the quality of AFCARS data, neither ACF nor RTI can verify the validity or completeness of these data. Source: AFCARS 2001, adoption data.

Proportion of Adopted Children Who Received Subsidy Assistance, by State, FY 2001

Table A-4.
Proportion of Adopted Children Who Received Subsidy Assistance, by State, FYВ 2001

State	В Adopted Children	Percent of Adopted Children Receiving:
		FederalВ + State Subsidy	State Subsidy	Any Subsidy	No Subsidy	Percent Subsidies that are FederalВ + State
	N	(%)	(%)	(%)	(%)	(%)
Alabama	237	33.8	13.1	46.8	53.2	72
Alaska	278	82.4	15.1	97.5	2.5	85
Arizona	938	69.2	25.2	94.3	5.7	73
Arkansas	361	78.9	10.2	89.2	10.8	89
California	9,822	83.0	8.5	91.5	8.5	91
Colorado	596	60.7	31.4	92.1	7.9	66
Connecticut	444	10.4	6.1	16.4	83.6	63
Delaware	115	75.7	21.7	97.4	2.6	78
District of Columbia	227	44.1	13.2	57.3	42.7	77
Florida	1,748	56.6	7.7	64.2	35.8	88
Georgia	896	34.9	13.4	48.3	51.7	72
Hawaii	260	60.8	22.3	83.1	16.9	73
Idaho	123	76.4	8.1	84.6	15.4	90
Illinois	4,079	75.5	20.8	96.2	3.8	78
Indiana	867	51.8	0.0	51.8	48.2	100
Iowa	659	58.0	18.5	76.5	23.5	76
Kansas	423	61.7	11.1	72.8	27.2	85
Kentucky	571	55.9	14.9	70.8	29.2	79
Louisiana	470	74.7	16.4	91.1	8.9	82
Maine	363	91.7	7.4	99.2	0.8	93
Maryland	812	78.3	20.1	98.4	1.6	80
Massachusetts	721	48.1	41.2	89.3	10.7	54
Michigan	2,975	83.7	12.7	96.4	3.6	87
Minnesota	565	84.8	14.5	99.3	0.7	85
Mississippi	264	81.4	0.0	81.4	18.6	100
Missouri	1,091	67.9	28.5	96.4	3.6	70
Montana	275	60.4	29.8	90.2	9.8	67
Nebraska	292	51.4	17.5	68.8	31.2	75
Nevada	243	70.8	23.9	94.7	5.3	75
New Hampshire	95	88.4	0.0	88.4	11.6	100
New Jersey	1,025	77.6	12.6	90.1	9.9	86
New Mexico	369	89.4	0.0	89.4	10.6	100
New York	3,888	93.1	4.9	97.9	2.1	95
North Carolina	1,298	75.0	19.3	94.2	5.8	80
North Dakota	145	49.7	13.1	62.8	37.2	79
Ohio	2,225	95.9	0.2	96.0	4.0	100
Oklahoma	955	59.6	39.9	99.5	0.5	60
Oregon	1,071	79.4	19.6	99.0	1.0	80
Pennsylvania	1,525	84.7	5.5	90.2	9.8	94
Rhode Island	267	63.7	36.0	99.6	0.4	64
South Carolina	364	64.3	35.7	100.0	0.0	64
South Dakota	97	60.8	4.1	64.9	35.1	94
Tennessee	638	69.3	11.9	81.2	18.8	85
Texas	2,317	55.6	16.9	72.6	27.4	77
Utah	348	48.3	29.0	77.3	22.7	62
Vermont	116	85.3	0.0	85.3	14.7	100
Virginia	493	68.2	27.4	95.5	4.5	71
Washington	1,203	83.8	13.9	97.7	2.3	86
West Virginia	362	63.3	28.5	91.7	8.3	69
Wisconsin	753	84.7	14.5	99.2	0.8	85
Wyoming	46	78.3	15.2	93.5	6.5	84
Puerto Rico	250	10.4	2.8	13.2	86.8	79
Total	50,565	74.3	13.8	88.1	11.9	84
Notes: Invalid or missing subsidy data are excluded from these analyses. Children with a deferred subsidy are counted as receiving subsidy assistance and are likely underreported due to state variation in reporting these data. Except where noted, data presented in these tables are reported to ACF by states. Although ACF continues to work with states to improve the quality of AFCARS data, neither ACF nor RTI can verify the validity or completeness of these data. Source: AFCARS 2001, adoption data.

Federal + State Adoption Subsidy Rate, by State, FY 1999-2001

Table A-5.
Federal + State Adoption Subsidy Rate, by State, FY 1999-2001

State	Percent of Adopted Children Receiving a Federal + State Subsidy						Percent Change in Subsidy Rate
	1999		2000		2001		1999-2000	2000-2001	1999-2001
	Adopted Children	%	Adopted Children	%	Adopted Children	%	%	%	%
Alabama	153	39.2	199	28.6	237	33.8	-27	17.8	-13.9
Alaska	137	87.6	202	89.6	278	82.4	2.3	-8.1	-6
Arizona	760	60.7	853	71.8	938	69.2	18.3	-3.6	14.1
Arkansas	314	85.0	320	81.3	361	79.0	-4.4	-2.8	-7.2
California	6,365	68.4	8,736	78.2	9,822	83.0	14.3	6.2	21.3
Colorado	713	81.4	687	74.1	596	60.7	-8.9	-18	-25.3
Connecticut	402	32.1	499	37.3	444	10.4	16.2	-72.2	-67.7
Delaware	33	72.7	103	59.2	115	75.7	-18.6	27.7	4
District of Columbia	165	33.3	318	49.4	227	44.1	48.1	-10.8	32.2
Florida	1,355	40.7	1622	44.9	1,748	56.6	10.4	26.1	39.1
Georgia	1,148	53.6	1,076	51.9	896	34.9	-3.2	-32.6	-34.8
Hawaii	281	65.1	280	70.0	260	60.8	7.5	-13.2	-6.7
Idaho	107	72.0	123	69.9	123	76.4	-2.8	9.3	6.2
Illinois	7,084	89.1	5,646	89.4	4,079	75.5	0.4	-15.6	-15.2
Indiana	753	63.1	1129	62.3	867	51.8	-1.3	-16.8	-17.9
Iowa	763	68.4	727	59.0	659	58.0	-13.7	-1.8	-15.3
Kansas	565	80.7	465	68.6	423	61.7	-15	-10.1	-23.5
Kentucky	359	65.2	396	44.7	571	55.9	-31.4	25	-14.3
Louisiana	356	69.7	476	72.5	470	74.7	4	3	7.2
Maine	202	90.6	379	85.5	363	91.7	-5.6	7.3	1.3
Maryland	592	79.6	547	77.5	812	78.3	-2.6	1	-1.6
Massachusetts	921	44.5	823	40.3	721	48.1	-9.4	19.3	8.1
Michigan	2,443	86.2	2,794	84.4	2,975	83.7	-2.1	-0.9	-2.9
Minnesota	632	85.0	613	86.3	565	84.8	1.6	-1.8	-0.2
Mississippi	237	82.7	287	88.5	264	81.4	7	-8	-1.5
Missouri	837	71.3	1,261	68.9	1,091	67.9	-3.4	-1.4	-4.8
Montana	188	59.0	237	58.2	275	60.4	-1.4	3.7	2.2
Nebraska	276	40.6	292	45.2	292	51.4	11.4	13.6	26.6
Nevada	123	74.8	231	67.5	243	70.8	-9.7	4.8	-5.4
New Hampshire	62	85.5	97	78.4	95	88.4	-8.3	12.9	3.4
New Jersey	732	72.5	829	78.9	1,025	77.6	8.8	-1.7	6.9
New Mexico	65	100.0	347	83.3	369	89.4	-16.7	7.4	-10.6
New York	4,792	93.5	4,182	93.2	3,888	93.1	-0.3	-0.2	-0.5
North Carolina	944	72.1	1315	74.6	1298	75.0	3.4	0.5	3.9
North Dakota	138	29.0	105	27.6	145	49.7	-4.7	79.8	71.3
Ohio	1,863	88.0	2,035	91.9	2,225	95.9	4.4	4.3	8.9
Oklahoma	814	71.1	1064	56.5	955	59.6	-20.6	5.5	-16.2
Oregon	765	72.4	830	78.1	1071	79.4	7.8	1.7	9.6
Pennsylvania	1,448	84.9	1,684	88.1	1,525	84.7	3.7	-3.9	-0.3
Rhode Island	281	66.9	257	54.1	267	63.7	-19.2	17.7	-4.8
South Carolina	456	68.2	371	66.0	364	64.3	-3.2	-2.7	-5.7
South Dakota	84	60.7	94	44.7	97	60.8	-26.4	36.1	0.2
Tennessee	381	68.5	430	70.0	638	69.3	2.2	-1	1.1
Texas	2,060	73.7	2,039	70.6	2,317	55.6	-4.2	-21.2	-24.5
Utah	368	72.8	303	57.8	348	48.3	-20.7	-16.4	-33.7
Vermont	139	87.1	116	87.9	116	85.3	1	-2.9	-2
Virginia	322	52.5	445	69.7	493	68.2	32.7	-2.2	29.9
Washington	1,046	64.8	1,139	63.9	1,203	83.8	-1.4	31.1	29.3
West Virginia	312	43.6	352	49.7	362	63.3	14.1	27.2	45.1
Wisconsin	637	85.1	734	89.1	753	84.7	4.7	-4.9	-0.4
Wyoming	45	55.6	61	54.1	46	78.3	-2.6	44.7	40.9
Puerto Rico	349	11.2	246	16.7	250	10.4	49.1	-37.6	-6.9
Total	46,367	74.8	50,396	75.2	50,565	74.3	0.4	-1.2	-0.7
Notes: Invalid or missing subsidy data are excluded from these analyses. Except where noted, data presented in these tables are reported to ACF by states. Although ACF continues to work with states to improve the quality of AFCARS data, neither ACF nor RTI can verify the validity or completeness of these data. Source: AFCARS 1999-2001, adoption data.

Comparison of Adoption Subsidies and Foster Care Payment Rates, by State, FY 2001

Table A-6.
Comparison of Adoption Subsidies and Foster Care Payment Rates, by State, FYВ 2001

State	Percent of Adopted Children Receiving FederalВ + State Subsidy		Percent of Non-Relative Foster Care Children Receiving FederalВ + State Payments		Ratio of Foster Care Payments to Adoption FederalВ + State Subsidies
	N	(%)	N	(%)
Alabama	237	33.8	4,059	32.4	1.0
Alaska*	278	82.4	1,163
Arizona	938	69.2	3,957	49.7	0.7
Arkansas	361	78.9	4,339	38.2	0.5
California	9,822	83	56,921	55.9	0.7
Colorado	596	60.7	6,139	38.9	0.6
Connecticut	444	10.4	6,014	94.4	9.1
Delaware	115	75.7	954	50.3	0.7
DistrictВ ofВ Columbia	227	44.1	1,816	3.7	0.1
Florida	1,748	56.6	16,562	40.2	0.7
Georgia	896	34.9	11,852	40.5	1.2
Hawaii	260	60.8	2,487	41.5	0.7
Idaho	123	76.4	1,481	40.4	0.5
Illinois	4,079	75.5	17,923	39.6	0.5
Indiana	867	51.8	6,158	55	1.1
Iowa	659	58	5,232	47.9	0.8
Kansas	423	61.7	3,714	31.4	0.5
Kentucky	571	55.9	5,096	54.6	1.0
Louisiana	470	74.7	3,994	65.8	0.9
Maine	363	91.7	2,474	67.4	0.7
Maryland	812	78.3	5,968	64.4	0.8
Massachusetts	721	48.1	8,737	9.9	0.2
Michigan	2,975	83.7	14,245	4.7	0.1
Minnesota	565	84.8	7,444	46.3	0.5
Mississippi	264	81.4	1,554	71.4	0.9
Missouri	1,091	67.9	8,693	47.5	0.7
Montana	275	60.4	1,761	36.1	0.6
Nebraska	292	51.4	2,755	45.5	0.9
Nevada	243	70.8	675	0	0.0
New Hampshire	95	88.4	1,066	43.7	0.5
New Jersey	1,025	77.6	8,851	51	0.7
New Mexico	369	89.4	2,391	43	0.5
New York	3,888	93.1	31,582	65.8	0.7
North Carolina	1,298	75	6,794	56.5	0.8
North Dakota	145	49.7	970	52.8	1.1
Ohio	2,225	95.9	19,364	70.4	0.7
Oklahoma	955	59.6	8,054	47.2	0.8
Oregon	1,071	79.4	6,264	57.8	0.7
Pennsylvania	1,525	84.7	15,597	63.6	0.8
Rhode Island	267	63.7	1,078	48.1	0.8
South Carolina	364	64.3	4,631	49.3	0.8
South Dakota	97	60.8	1,274	45.7	0.8
Tennessee	638	69.3	6,233	60.2	0.9
Texas	2,317	55.6	12,915	8	0.1
Utah	348	48.3	2,382	48	1.0
Vermont	116	85.3	1,015	80.9	0.9
Virginia	493	68.2	5,653	58.3	0.9
Washington	1,203	83.8	8,748	37.6	0.4
West Virginia	362	63.3	2,917	38.3	0.6
Wisconsin	753	84.7	8,723	52	0.6
Wyoming	46	78.3	617	17.8	0.2
Puerto Rico	250	10.4	4,734	18.5	1.8
Total	50,565	74.3	376,020	48.3	0.7
Notes: Subsidy rates include deferred payments. Foster care data include only children in nonrelative foster care placement. Except where noted, data presented in these tables are reported to ACF by states. Although ACF continues to work with states to improve the quality of AFCARS data, neither ACF nor RTI can verify the validity or completeness of these data. * This state was missing federal foster care payment data for all their cases for this analysis. Source: AFCARS 2001, adoption and foster care data.

Median Monthly Adoption Subsidy Amount by Age, by State, FY 2001

Table A-7.
Median Monthly Adoption Subsidy Amount by Age, by State, FYВ 2001

State	Age at Adoption								State Ranking
	0 to 5		6 to 12		13 to 17		Total
	Children with Subsidy	($)	Children with Subsidy	($)	Children with Subsidy	($)	Children with Subsidy	($)
Alabama	50	241	55	241	6	241	111	241	39
Alaska	138	653	118	603	15	689	271	650	4
Arizona	330	479	291	479	66	479	687	479	18
Arkansas	114	400	109	425	39	475	262	425	23
California	4,795	405	3,507	471	680	569	8,982	441	20
Colorado	263	401	208	601	44	786	515	510	15
Connecticut	29	638	42	659	2	727	73	659	3
Delaware	60	479	47	518	5	543	112	479	18
District of Columbia	37	741	80	741	13	817	130	741	2
Florida	603	295	430	304	90	364	1,123	300	37
Georgia	168	388	193	411	51	433	412	411	24
Hawaii	118	529	84	529	14	529	216	529	12
Idaho	56	251	36	365	12	410	104	275	38
Illinois	1,564	369	1,970	410	383	444	3,917	410	25
Indiana*	102	169	150	162	42	194	294	171	41
Iowa	225	587	214	904	65	971	504	856	1
Kansas	106	304	136	400	53	400	295	400	29
Kentucky	130	600	178	600	56	722	364	600	6
Louisiana	156	273	220	392	52	395	428	353	35
Maine	163	581	141	772	37	733	341	650	4
Maryland	338	600	378	535	80	550	796	543	11
Massachusetts	309	454	285	471	50	522	644	471	19
Michigan	1,253	439	1,350	731	265	846	2,868	591	7
Minnesota	277	397	257	552	27	612	561	427	22
Mississippi*
Missouri	532	225	409	275	111	304	1,052	275	38
Montana	103	388	111	399	34	508	248	408	26
Nebraska	90	421	85	641	26	627	201	527	13
Nevada*
New Hampshire	35	535	38	600	6	708	79	552	9
New Jersey	495	412	361	457	43	516	899	437	21
New Mexico*	48	487	72	520	15	545	135	503	16
New York*
North Carolina	566	315	479	365	125	415	1,170	365	32
North Dakota	39	396	36	388	16	558	91	402	28
Ohio	1,111	471	815	517	190	575	2,116	500	17
Oklahoma	346	300	438	360	115	420	899	360	33
Oregon	498	369	463	500	77	540	1,038	400	29
Pennsylvania	581	450	610	522	177	600	1,368	510	15
Rhode Island	148	387	98	418	19	422	265	407	27
South Carolina	165	332	155	359	44	425	364	359	34
South Dakota	35	390	25	390	3	469	63	390	31
Tennessee	131	362	306	313	80	422	517	402	28
Texas	974	516	610	516	97	516	1,681	516	14
Utah	144	270	105	348	17	411	266	300	37
Vermont	41	478	44	567	14	789	99	549	10
Virginia	160	294	215	344	49	436	424	344	36
Washington	645	531	414	612	48	728	1,107	572	8
West Virginia	119	400	124	400	34	456	277	400	29
Wisconsin	326	518	322	796	48	1,002	696	639	5
Wyoming	9	399	26	399	4	399	39	399	30
Puerto Rico	9	207	17	174	5	174	31	174	40
Total	18,734	406	16,857	471	3,544	522	39,135	444
Notes: Adoption subsidy amounts exclude deferred payment amounts. Eight states (Arizona, Arkansas, Indiana, Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, and West Virginia) had missing or invalid subsidy amount data for at least 10 percent of their cases. Each state was ranked according to their median monthly subsidy amount. Except where noted, data presented in these tables are reported to ACF by states. Although ACF continues to work with states to improve the quality of AFCARS data, neither ACF nor RTI can verify the validity or completeness of these data. * These states had missing or invalid subsidy amount data for more than 30 percent of their cases. Source: AFCARS 2001, adoption data.

Median Monthly Adoption Subsidy Amount, by State, FY 1999-2001

Table A-8.
Median Monthly Adoption Subsidy Amount, by State, FYВ 1999-2001

State	Median Monthly Adoption Subsidy						Percent Change of Subsidy Amount
	1999		2000		2001		1999-2000	2000-2001	1999-2001
	Children with Subsidy	($)	Children with Subsidy	($)	Children with Subsidy	($)	(%)	(%)	(%)
Alabama	78	241	91	241	111	241	0.0	0.0	0.0
Alaska	127	580	187	600	271	650	3.4	8.3	12.1
Arizona	553	479	663	479	687	479	0.0	0.0	0.0
Arkansas	250	425	239	425	262	425	0.0	0.0	0.0
California	5,058	384	7,810	418	8,982	441	8.9	5.5	14.8
Colorado	646	349	621	349	515	510	0.0	46.1	46.1
Connecticut	230	640	201	659	73	659	3.0	0.0	3.0
Delaware	28	439	73	451	112	479	2.7	6.2	9.1
District of Columbia	45	445	233	581	130	741	30.6	27.5	66.5
Florida	659	235	809	284	1123	300	20.9	5.6	27.7
Georgia	881	342	717	342	412	411	0.0	20.2	20.2
Hawaii	231	529	224	529	216	529	0.0	0.0	0.0
Idaho	88	378	102	318	104	275	-15.9	-13.5	-27.2
Illinois	6,766	375	5338	384	3,917	410	2.4	6.8	9.3
Indiana*	142	214	445	156	294	171	-27.1	9.6	-20.1
Iowa	575	1123	534	1,009	504	856	-10.2	-15.2	-23.8
Kansas	514	434	386	400	295	400	-7.8	0.0	-7.8
Kentucky*	167	446	128	446	364	600	0.0	34.5	34.5
Louisiana	302	357	422	409	428	353	14.6	-13.7	-1.1
Maine	186	611	356	383	341	650	-37.3	69.7	6.5
Maryland	567	542	534	542	796	543	0.0	0.1	0.1
Massachusetts	888	471	692	471	644	471	0.0	0.0	0.0
Michigan	2,357	556	2,687	579	2,868	591	4.1	2.1	6.3
Minnesota	627	427	605	522	561	427	22.2	-18.2	0.0
Mississippi*
Missouri	768	264	1,179	264	1,052	275	0.0	4.2	4.2
Montana	161	341	194	351	248	408	2.9	16.2	19.6
Nebraska	185	543	216	526	201	527	-3.2	0.3	-2.9
Nevada*	2	7,600	2	7,450	0	0	-2.0	0.0	0.0
New Hampshire	42	495	54	535	79	552	8.1	3.2	11.5
New Jersey	594	400	724	430	899	437	7.5	1.6	9.3
New Mexico*	1	10,000	0	0	135	503	0.0	0.0	-95.0
New York*
North Carolina	882	345	1,204	365	1,170	365	5.8	0.0	5.8
North Dakota	48	433	34	391	91	402	-9.8	2.9	-7.2
Ohio	1,393	397	1,851	470	2,116	500	18.4	6.4	25.9
Oklahoma	790	360	1,031	360	899	360	0.0	0.0	0.0
Oregon	547	360	767	377	1,038	400	4.7	6.1	11.1
Pennsylvania	1,264	465	1,549	464	1,368	510	-0.2	9.9	9.7
Rhode Island	162	12	256	303	265	407	2,425.0	34.3	3,291.7
South Carolina	435	332	354	359	364	359	8.1	0.0	8.1
South Dakota	80	371	48	382	63	390	2.8	2.2	5.1
Tennessee	302	335	350	345	517	402	3.0	16.5	20.0
Texas	1,926	475	1,896	475	1,681	516	0.0	8.6	8.6
Utah*	104	300	230	341	266	300	13.7	-12.0	0.0
Vermont	129	601	105	553	99	549	-8.0	-0.7	-8.7
Virginia	227	323	393	344	424	344	6.5	0.0	6.5
Washington	872	574	936	569	1,107	572	-1.0	0.6	-0.3
West Virginia*	89	400	99	400	277	400	0.0	0.0	0.0
Wisconsin	612	577	710	623	696	639	8.0	2.5	10.7
Wyoming	31	399	39	399	39	399	0.0	0.0	0.0
Puerto Rico	44	207	48	207	31	174	0.0	-15.9	-15.9
Total	33,655	404	38,366	425	39,135	444	5.2	4.5	9.9
Notes: Adoption subsidy amounts exclude deferred payment amounts. For 2001 analysis, eight states (Arizona, Arkansas, Indiana, Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, and West Virginia) had missing or invalid subsidy amount data for at least 10 percent of their cases. For 2000 analysis, 12 states (Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, West Virginia, and Wyoming) had missing or invalid subsidy amount data for at least 10 percent of their cases. For 1999 analysis, 16 states (Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming) had missing or invalid subsidy amount data for at least 10 percent of their cases. Except where noted, data presented in these tables are reported to ACF by states. Although ACF continues to work with states to improve the quality of AFCARS data, neither ACF nor RTI can verify the validity or completeness of these data. * These states had missing or invalid subsidy amount data for more than 30 percent of their cases for at least one reporting year. Source: AFCARS 1999-2001, adoption data.

Comparison of Adoption Subsidy Median Amounts with Foster Care Subsidy Median Amounts by Age, by State, FY 2001

Table A-9.
Comparison of Adoption Subsidy Median Amounts with Foster Care Subsidy Median Amounts by Age, by State, FYВ 2001

State	Median Monthly Subsidy AD/FC (%)
	Total					Ages 0 to 5			Ages 6 to 12			Ages 13 to 17
	Adoption N	Median Adoption Subsidy	Foster Care N	Median Foster Care Payment	Ratio	Median Adoption Subsidy	Median Foster Care Payment	Ratio	Median Adoption Subsidy	Median Foster Care Payment	Ratio	Median Adoption Subsidy	Median Foster Care Payment	Ratio
Alabama	108	241	1,311	241	1.0	241	241	1.0	241	241	1.0	241	241	1.0
Alaska	142	695	0	0		670	0		732	0		689	0
Arizona	426	479	1,636	358	1.3	479	358	1.3	479	358	1.3	479	418	1.1
Arkansas	203	425	1,162	425	1.0	400	400	1.0	425	425	1.0	475	450	1.1
California	4,718	441	18,456	981	0.4	405	631	0.6	539	1,264	0.4	581	1,537	0.4
Colorado	374	510	2,229	1,604	0.3	461	1,237	0.4	601	1,604	0.4	641	2,046	0.3
Connecticut	64	659	5,434	1,624	0.4	638	998	0.6	659	2,008	0.3	727	3,087	0.2
Delaware	105	479	460	518	0.9	479	457	1.0	518	518	1.0	543	573	0.9
District of Columbia	107	741	68	717	1.0	741	717	1.0	741	717	1.0	805	2,958	0.3
Florida	612	296	5,375	380	0.8	295	369	0.8	304	380	0.8	364	455	0.8
Georgia	370	411	4,388	1,300	0.3	388	1,275	0.3	411	1,350	0.3	433	1,425	0.3
Hawaii	100	529	1,014	529	1.0	529	529	1.0	529	529	1.0	529	529	1.0
Idaho	79	275	599	301	0.9	251	251	1.0	425	303	1.4	410	404	1.0
Illinois	3,916	410	7,083	444	0.9	369	369	1.0	410	444	0.9	444	771	0.6
Indiana*	254	177	3,096	540	0.3	166	510	0.3	171	540	0.3	226	600	0.4
Iowa	504	856	2,505	698	1.2	587	646	0.9	904	706	1.3	971	850	1.1
Kansas	251	400	1,062	1,997	0.2	300	1,958	0.2	400	1,997	0.2	400	1,958	0.2
Kentucky	364	600	2,573	591	1.0	600	591	1.0	600	591	1.0	722	717	1.0
Louisiana	398	361	2,606	557	0.6	283	420	0.7	395	603	0.7	443	755	0.6
Maine	323	650	1,551	1,020	0.6	581	548	1.1	798	1,083	0.7	788	1,779	0.4
Maryland	477	650	3,733	535	1.2	650	535	1.2	650	535	1.2	550	550	1.0
Massachusetts	638	471	859	471	1.0	454	454	1.0	471	471	1.0	522	522	1.0
Michigan	1,897	731	546	733	1.0	591	583	1.0	743	733	1.0	876	999	0.9
Minnesota	412	427	3,381	983	0.4	397	754	0.5	552	983	0.6	612	1,172	0.5
Mississippi*	0	0	9	4,912		0	4,870		0	5,950		0	8,881
Missouri	790	275	4,004	277	1.0	225	227	1.0	275	277	1.0	304	307	1.0
Montana	195	408	635	451	0.9	367	451	0.8	400	451	0.9	510	543	0.9
Nebraska	5	544	1,206	452	1.2	525	222	2.4	827	652	1.3	390	727	0.5
Nevada*
New Hampshire	77	552	452	552	1.0	535	380	1.4	600	597	1.0	708	709	1.0
New Jersey	899	437	4,271	462	0.9	412	412	1.0	457	464	1.0	516	516	1.0
New Mexico*	82	503	809	467	1.1	487	408	1.2	520	487	1.1	545	546	1.0
New York*
North Carolina	883	350	3,822	365	1.0	315	315	1.0	365	365	1.0	415	415	1.0
North Dakota	91	402	511	391	1.0	396	346	1.1	388	391	1.0	558	510	1.1
Ohio	1,008	544	9,097	590	0.9	544	565	1.0	560	595	0.9	685	821	0.8
Oklahoma	503	360	2,956	360	1.0	300	300	1.0	360	360	1.0	420	420	1.0
Oregon	659	475	2,390	590	0.8	369	369	1.0	526	770	0.7	555	858	0.6
Pennsylvania	1,303	510	9,454	1,200	0.4	450	1,038	0.4	540	1,344	0.4	600	1,392	0.4
Rhode Island	185	413	504	321	1.3	395	321	1.2	428	299	1.4	422	474	0.9
South Carolina	360	359	2,144	359	1.0	332	332	1.0	359	359	1.0	425	425	1.0
South Dakota	50	390	518	397	1.0	390	397	1.0	390	397	1.0	402	477	0.8
Tennessee	482	402	3,312	397	1.0	362	358	1.0	313	313	1.0	422	460	0.9
Texas	1,207	516	769	2,013	0.3	516	835	0.6	516	2,013	0.3	516	2,013	0.3
Utah	244	300	1,131	390	0.8	270	390	0.7	348	403	0.9	411	643	0.6
Vermont	75	628	729	764	0.8	511	501	1.0	722	771	0.9	855	990	0.9
Virginia	403	344	3,255	344	1.0	294	294	1.0	344	344	1.0	436	436	1.0
Washington	1,081	570	0	0		530	0		611	0		717	0
West Virginia	236	400	666	690	0.6	400	570	0.7	400	690	0.6	593	1,186	0.5
Wisconsin	605	689	990	555	1.2	518	410	1.3	864	615	1.4	1,084	941	1.2
Wyoming	32	399	110	400	1.0	399	400	1.0	399	400	1.0	399	420	1.0
Puerto Rico	23	174	0	0		207	0		174	0		207	0
Total	28,320	453	124,871	570	0.8	412	487	0.8	480	594	0.8	522	775	0.7
Notes: The adoption subsidy analysis includes only children who were adopted by their foster family and excludes cases with missing or deferred subsidy payments. Seven states (Arizona, Arkansas, Indiana, Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico, and New York) had missing or invalid subsidy amount data for at least 10 percent of their cases. The foster care payment analysis includes only monthly maintenance rates for foster children currently in nonrelative foster family home and excludes cases with payment of $0, $1, or missing amounts. Seventeen states reported $0 or $1 payments for at least 10 percent of their cases. Two states (New York and Mississippi) had missing or invalid payment amounts for at least 10 percent of their cases. Except where noted, data presented in these tables are reported to ACF by states. Although ACF continues to work with states to improve the quality of AFCARS data, neither ACF nor RTI can verify the validity or completeness of these data. * These states had missing or invalid data for more than 30 percent of their cases in either the adoption or foster care analysis. Source: AFCARS 2001, adoption and foster care data.

Adoption Rates, Adoption Subsidy Rate, and Median Adoption Subsidy Amount, by State, FY 2001