Adoption, Adoption Seeking, and Relinquishment for

Adoption in the United States

by Anjani Chandra, Ph.D., Joyce Abma, Ph.D., Division of Vital Statistics, National Center for Health Statistics,

Penelope Maza, Ph.D., Administration for Children and Families, Christine Bachrach, Ph.D.,

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development

Abstract

Objectives—This report presents national data on adoption and adoption-related

behaviors among ever-married women 18–44 years of age in the United States,

according to selected characteristics of the women. Trends are shown in the

prevalence of adoption and relinquishment of children for adoption. For 1995, the

report shows demand for adoption and women’s preferences for characteristics of

the child.

Methods—Data are based on nationally representative samples of women 15–44

years of age from the 1973, 1982, 1988, and 1995 National Surveys of Family

Growth (NSFG).

Results—The percent of ever-married women 18–44 years of age who have

ever adopted a child declined from 2.1 percent in 1973 to 1.3 percent in 1995. Of

the 9.9 million women who had ever considered adoption, 16 percent had taken

steps toward adoption, and 31 percent of these had actually adopted a child. Older

women, nulliparous women, women with fecundity impairment, and women who

have used infertility services were more likely to have considered adoption, to have

taken concrete steps toward adoption, and to have actually adopted a child. In

response to the questions about preferred characteristics of an adopted child, women

expressed strong preferences with respect to age, sex, race, and disability level of

the child, but were willing to accept children with the less-desired traits. Between

1989 and 1995, about 1 percent of babies born to never-married women were

relinquished for adoption, down from 9 percent among such babies born before

1979.

Conclusions—Federally supported adoption data collection sources corroborate

the decline in adoption shown by the NSFG over the past 25 years. Demand for

adoption in the United States varies, depending on whether demand is

conceptualized liberally as ‘‘ever having considered adoption’’ or more narrowly, as

‘‘currently taking concrete steps toward adoption.’’ The narrow definition was

fulfilled by 232,000 ever-married women in 1995.

Keywords: adoption c relinquishment c population characteristics

Introduction

Adoption has long served as a

means of providing care for children

whose birth parents could not raise them

for economic or other reasons. It has

also represented an alternative means of

family formation for individuals unable

to have their own children. The

legalization of abortion in 1973 and the

development of new reproductive

technologies over the last two decades

have presented further options to people

facing unwanted pregnancy and

infertility. Yet there remains a need to

collect information on adoption trends,

adoption demand, and characteristics of

children waiting to be adopted or placed

in permanent care arrangements. This

information is crucial for formulating

adoption and child welfare policies at

the Federal, State, and local levels.

Despite the recognized importance

of these issues, information on adoption

in the United States is fairly limited

(1,2). The primary focus of data

collection has been on the collection of

data on finalized adoptions (1,2). These

efforts have included a federally

managed system that was operational

from the 1940’s through the early

1970’s (3). This enterprise was followed

by a variety of federally supported data

Number 306 + May 11, 1999

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

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

National Center for Health Statistics CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL

AND PREVENTION
collection efforts that focused primarily

on children being adopted from the

public foster care system (4). In

addition, one federally funded project

(5–7) and a major advocacy group

collected data on all types of adoptions

(public, private, independent) (8,9).

Almost all of these efforts involved the

collection of aggregate data from State

agencies on finalized adoptions. In most

circumstances coverage was incomplete

(not all adoptions were reported) and

inconsistent (States reported adoptions

using different definitions and criteria).

Because the data were aggregated at the

State level, they provided very limited

information about the correlates of

adoption at the individual level.

In 1986, Congress amended Title

IV–E of the Social Security Act to

establish a reporting system for foster

care and adoption. The Adoption and

Foster Care Analysis and Reporting

System (AFCARS) became operational

in Fiscal Year 1995. It mandates States

to report case-specific information on all

children in foster care and all children

adopted from the public child welfare

system. States may voluntarily report

data on children adopted through private

agencies or independently. Although the

data collected through this system

promise to be a substantial improvement

over past efforts, they still only address

narrow aspects of adoption.

Since 1973, the National Survey of

Family Growth (NSFG) has filled many

of the gaps in the available data on

adoption by providing additional

information on various aspects of the

adoption triad, that is, the child, the

birth parents, and the adoptive parents.

These include the characteristics of

adopted children (10), infant

relinquishment for adoption (11,12),

adoption demand and the relationship

between infertility and adoption

(13–15), and other aspects of adoption,

including trends over time (16).

Although the NSFG data are limited by

small subgroup sizes due to the rare

nature of adoption-related events, the

survey has proved a valuable source of

data for studying the individual-level

determinants of adoption and adoptive

relinquishment, and for documenting

trends in aspects of adoption for which

no other national data are available. The

NSFG Cycle 5, conducted in 1995,

provides an opportunity to continue to

enrich our understanding of adoption,

particularly our knowledge about the

characteristics of relinquishing and

adopting women, adoption demand, and

adoption preferences (17).

Methods

Using data from nationally

representative samples of women 15–44

years of age, this report presents the

proportions of ever-married women

18–44 years of age who have ever

adopted a child as of 1973, 1982, 1988,

and 1995. Demand for adoption and

preferences for the characteristics of the

adopted child are shown for 1995. This

was the first survey year in which

preferences for the characteristics of the

child were collected. The report also

presents time-trend data on

relinquishment of births to nevermarried women. The estimates of

relinquishment are limited to births to

never-married women because this is the

group most at risk of adverse

consequences with respect to

socioeconomic well-being of the child

and parent. Relinquishment also occurs

among the formerly married and the

currently married, but it is very rare.

Ever-married women, particularly

currently married women, tend to have

different (and better) social and

economic circumstances than nevermarried women that render their

decision-making process when faced

with an unintended pregnancy distinct

from that of never-married women.

Furthermore, presenting estimates of

relinquishment limited to never-married

mothers will best parallel the numerous

reports on premarital childbearing that

have been published in recent years.

Data in this report are presented by

key demographic and socioeconomic

characteristics of the woman at the time

of the interview, such as age, income,

education, and race and Hispanic origin.

Because fertility problems have been

found to be related to the pursuit of

adoption (14,18), data are shown by

fecundity status at time of interview,

which describes the woman’s physical

capacity to conceive or bear a child.

Data are also shown according to the

receipt of infertility services. With the

exception of relatively unchanging

attributes such as self- reported race and

Hispanic origin, it is acknowledged that

many of these characteristics may have

been different at the time of the

adoption or the adoption-seeking

behavior being reported and that some

of the associations noted in this report

may be affected by using characteristics

at the time of interview.

Data for 1973, 1982, 1988, and

1995 are from Cycles 1, 3, 4, and 5 of

the NSFG, conducted by the National

Center for Health Statistics (NCHS).

Each cycle of the NSFG was based on

multi-stage probability samples of the

civilian, noninstitutionalized population

of women in the United States, yielding

estimates that are representative of the

national population of women 15–44

years of age. Further details on the

sample design and data collection

procedures for these surveys can be

found in several published reports

(19–23).

The 1995 NSFG was based on

personal, in-home interviews with a

national sample of 10,847 women 15–44

years of age. Computer-assisted personal

interviews (CAPI) were conducted

between January and October 1995 with

1,553 Hispanic women, 6,483 nonHispanic white women, 2,446 nonHispanic black women, and 365 women

of other races and ethnic origins. Earlier

cycles of the NSFG were not conducted

using CAPI, but still relied upon

personal interviews in the women’s

homes: the 1988 NSFG included 8,450

women 15–44 years of age, the 1982

NSFG included 7,969 women 15–44

years of age, and the 1973 NSFG

included 9,797 women 15–44 years of

age.

The 1973 NSFG was targeted at

women who were currently or formerly

married (‘‘ever-married’’). The 1982

NSFG was the first in this series of

surveys to include never-married

women. In order to show adoption

trends from 1973 to 1995, table 1 is

limited to women who were evermarried at time of interview. Because

adoption is extremely rare and often not

considered or allowed among nevermarried women and young women

15–17 years of age, this report focuses

on adoption and adoption-seeking

2 Advance Data No. 306 + May 11, 1999
among ever-married women 18–44 years

of age. This focus results in the

exclusion of very few cases from the

analysis. For example, the number of

never-married sample women who have

ever adopted a child is often zero in

many of the age groups shown in the

report, and the number of never-married

women who have considered adoption is

also too small in the NSFG to permit

separate analysis. The following table

shows the number of ever-married

sample cases of women 18–44 years of

age in each survey year.

Survey year

Ever-married women

18–44 years of age

1973 9,662

1982 4,623

1988 5,280

1995 6,833

In all four surveys, women were

asked if they had ever adopted a child,

either related or unrelated to them.

However, the specific question series

yielding this information varied across

surveys. The greatest change in the

question series occurred in the 1995

NSFG, in which adoption was asked

about in the context of a series on

nonbiological children (those to whom

she did not give birth) that the woman

ever raised. Table 1 shows the

percentages of ever-married women

18–44 years of age who have ever

adopted a child, based on survey data

from 1973–95. Figure 1 shows the trend

in adoption of related children (that is,

related by blood or marriage) from

1982–95 among ever-married women

who have adopted a child.

In this report, data are presented

from the 1995 NSFG on the demand for

adoption and preferences for the adopted

child. Information on demand for

adoption is garnered from three series of

questions in the 1995 interview.

+ Women may report that they have

adopted or are trying to adopt a

nonbiological child that they raised in

the past or are currently raising at

time of interview (series 1).

+ Women may report that they are

currently seeking to adopt a child,

apart from any nonbiological child

they have raised or are raising

(series 2).

+ And finally, women who are not

currently seeking to adopt may report

that they have considered adoption in

the past (apart from any nonbiologic

child they have raised or are raising)

(series 3).

Compiling information from these

three series of questions, figures 2 and 3

and tables 2 and 3 show demand for

adoption among ever-married women

18–44 years of age in several ways:

Ever considered adoption—The

proportion of ever-married women

Table 1. Number of ever-married women 18–44 years of age and percent who have ever

adopted a child, according to selected characteristics: United States, 1973–95

Characteristic 1973 1982 1988 1995

Number in thousands

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

Percent who ever adopted

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

Age at interview

18–24 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.4 0.6 – 0.2

25–34 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.8 2.0 0.5 0.4

35–39 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 2.1 2.2 1.9

40–44 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.0 4.3 4.3 2.5

Parity

0 births . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.9 6.6 3.8 3.6

1 birth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7 2.2 1.5 0.8

2 births . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 1.3 0.7 0.9

3 or more births . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.8 0.6 1.3 0.5

Marital status at interview

Currently married. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 2.1 1.8 1.3

Formerly married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 2.4 0.9 1.2

Fecundity status at interview2

Surgically sterile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 2.1 2.1 1.3

Impaired fecundity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.7 9.2 6.1 4.1

Fecund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.8 0.8 0.2 0.5

Ever used infertility services

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5 6.6 3.7

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.0 0.6 0.6

Education at interview3

No high school diploma or GED4 . . . . . . . . 1.8 1.7 1.8 0.8

High school diploma or GED. . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 2.4 1.5 1.2

Some college, no bachelor’s degree . . . . . . 1.6 2.2 1.2 1.4

Bachelor’s degree or higher . . . . . . . . . . . 4.6 3.1 2.4 1.7

Poverty level income at interview3

0–149 percent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 1.8 0.7 0.5

150–299 percent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.0 2.5 1.9 1.0

300 percent or higher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.0 2.4 1.8 1.8

Race and Hispanic origin

Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 0.7 0.8 0.6

Non-Hispanic white . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 2.4 1.8 1.4

Non-Hispanic black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.6 1.5 1.6 1.9

. . . Data not available.

– Quantity zero.

1Total includes women with missing or inapplicable data on some variables. Also includes women of other race and ethnic

origins, not shown separately.

2Fecundity status in 1973 was measured only as surgically sterile, subfecund, and fecund. In 1982, 1988, and 1995, fecundity

status differentiated surgically sterile women based on contraceptive versus noncontraceptive reasons. Fecundity status also

included three subcategories of impaired fecundity—nonsurgically sterile, subfecund, and long interval.

3Limited to women 22–44 years at interview.

4GED is general equivalency diploma. GED was explicitly asked about in only the 1988 and 1995 surveys.

Advance Data No. 306 + May 11, 1999 3
18–44 years of age who ever considered

adoption includes those who have

adopted or are trying to adopt a

nonbiological child they have raised or

are raising (series 1). It also includes

women who have considered adoption

in the past (series 3) and those who are

currently seeking to adopt a child (other

than a previously mentioned

nonbiological child) (series 2). Thus this

is the broadest definition of adoption

demand, based on past and current

behavior and attitudes.

Ever took steps—Based on all

women who ever considered adoption,

tables 2 and 3 show the proportion who

ever took steps toward adoption. Women

who have adopted or are currently

trying to adopt a nonbiological child

they have raised or are raising (series 1)

are counted as having ‘‘taken steps’’

toward adoption. Also included are

women who reported taking any steps

toward adoption elsewhere in the

interview (series 2 or 3). Steps toward

adoption included contacting an

adoption agency or lawyer, placing a

newspaper ad, and other actions

indicating an interest in adoption beyond

‘‘just considering.’’ This group is a

subset of the group who ‘‘ever

considered adoption.’’

Currently seeking or planning to

adopt—Tables 2 and 3 show the

proportion of women who are currently

seeking or planning to adopt (a) a

nonbiological child they are raising or

(b) some other child. This group is a

subset of the group who ‘‘ever

considered adoption.’’

Have taken steps (among current

seekers/planners)—Among women who

are currently seeking or planning to

adopt, tables 2 and 3 show the

proportions who have taken specific

steps toward adoption, as defined above.

In the 1995 NSFG, a subset of

women were asked for the first time in a

national survey about their preferences

for the adopted child. The characteristics

that were asked about included sex,

race, age, physical/mental disability,

number of children (single child versus

brothers and sisters), and religion.

(Definitions of disability were not

provided in the survey but left to the

respondent’s own interpretation.) Among

women currently seeking to adopt a

child (series 2), those who did not

indicate that they were seeking to adopt

a particular child they already knew

were asked to specify the characteristics

they would prefer in an adopted child.

Among women who previously

considered adoption (but were not

currently seeking), those who had taken

steps toward adoption (as defined above)

were asked to specify the characteristics

they would have preferred. Only these

subsets of women were asked about

preferences because they were

Figure 1. Percent who have adopted a related child among ever-married women 18–44

years of age who have ever adopted a child: United States, 1982–95

Figure 2. Outcome of considering adoption among ever-married women 18–44 years of

age: United States, 1995

4 Advance Data No. 306 + May 11, 1999
considered to best represent the pool of

adoptive parents for the vast majority of

children waiting to be adopted, and they

were deemed most likely to act

according to their stated preferences.

Also, these women were thought to have

advanced far enough in the adoption

process to have considered and formed

preferences for what type of child they

wished to adopt.

With all characteristics, women

could indicate that they were

indifferent—that is, they had no

particular preference. If women

expressed a preference for a given

characteristic, they were then asked

followup questions about each of the

other characteristics to determine

whether they ‘‘would accept’’ another

child. For example, women who

expressed a preference for adopting a

boy were asked if they ‘‘would accept’’

a girl. Among those women who were

asked the questions on preferences for

an adopted child, table 4 shows the

percentages who ‘‘would accept’’ a child

with a given characteristic and who

‘‘would prefer’’ a child with a given

characteristic. The former group

includes all those who expressed

indifference about that characteristic, as

well as those who expressed a

preference but stated that they ‘‘would

accept’’ another child. This broader

classification gives an indication of the

acceptability of characteristics that may

not be generally preferred (for example,

mild disability, older children).

Table 5 shows the percent of

children born to never-married women

under 45 years of age who were

relinquished for adoption in several time

periods. Information on children

relinquished for adoption was obtained

from two sources within the 1995

survey. The first source was the

questionnaire series that asked for the

baby’s name for each of the woman’s

births; in response to this question, some

women, usually those who never named

their babies, volunteered that they had

placed the baby for adoption. A second

source was a question later in the

interview asking the woman directly if

she had ever placed a child for adoption.

This method of obtaining relinquishment

information differs slightly from

previous years of the survey, which are

also used to produce the trend data

shown in table 5. In 1982 and 1988,

relinquishment was obtained from

women’s reports of the status of each

biological child who was not living in

her household at the time of the

interview. Children reported as living

with adoptive parents were considered

to have been relinquished.

Relinquishment may be underreported in

a survey such as this, as acknowledged

in previous studies (12). However, there

is no reason to believe that

underreporting would vary

systematically by survey year due to the

questions used to obtain the

relinquishment information.

Underreporting would most likely occur

at the point of enumeration of all

pregnancies, rather than at the reporting

of the status of already-identified

pregnancies that resulted in live births.

The method of ascertaining pregnancies

was consistent across survey years.

Despite probable underreporting, the

NSFG remains an important and

exclusive source of national level data

that permits individual-level analysis of

the determinants and consequences of

relinquishment.

Results

Ever adopted a child

Table 1 shows the percent of

ever-married women 18–44 years of age

who have ever adopted a child, from

1973 to 1995. The data suggest that the

percent who have ever adopted a child

declined between these survey years,

from 2.1 percent in 1973 to 1.3 percent

in 1995. The factors associated with

having adopted remain the same:

adoption has been more common among

nulliparous women, those with impaired

fecundity, and those who have ever used

infertility services. The prevalence of

adoption increases with age, education,

and income. Adoption by black women

has remained relatively stable, but the

data suggest that adoption by white

women has declined.

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

United States, 1995

Advance Data No. 306 + May 11, 1999 5
In the 1982, 1988, and 1995

surveys, questions were included to

determine how each adopted child was

related to the respondent at the time

when he or she first came to live with

the respondent—for example, was the

child a stepchild, a child of a sibling or

other relative, or did the child have no

prior relationship with the respondent.

While the specific wording and response

choices varied across surveys, it is

possible to define a comparable variable

for each year to indicate whether the

woman had ever adopted a related child.

A ‘‘related’’ child is defined as any child

with whom the respondent had a

relationship before the child came to

live with her. This relationship may be

through blood (as with a sister’s child)

or through marriage (as with a

husband’s child); children of a

cohabiting partner or boyfriend were

also counted as ‘‘related’’ because they

were likely to have had a relationship

with the respondent at the time they

began living with her. Figure 1 shows

the percent who have adopted a related

child among ever-married women 18–44

who have ever adopted a child, by

race/origin and survey year. The

prevalence of related adoption increased

significantly between 1988 and 1995.

For example, among all women, the

prevalence more than doubled from

26 percent in 1988 to 56 percent in

1995; this rise was driven largely by the

increase in related adoptions among

non-Hispanic white women who ever

adopted, from 19 percent in 1988 to

54 percent in 1995. In 1982 and 1988,

related adoptions comprised a

significantly larger percentage of

adoptions for ever-married non-Hispanic

black women than for their white

counterparts who had adopted a child.

By 1995, the prevalence of related

adoptions was comparable among white

and black women who ever adopted a

child.

Demand for adoption

Figure 2 gives the number of

ever-married women 18–44 in 1995 who

have ever considered adoption (as

defined above in the Methods section),

and depicts the outcome of considering

adoption based on whether or not they

took steps toward adoption and whether

or not they actually adopted a child. In

1995, 9.9 million women had ever

considered adoption, representing over a

quarter of all ever-married women in

this age range. Of these women,

15.9 percent (1.6 million) had ever taken

steps toward adoption. Of those who

had taken steps, 31 percent (487,000)

had adopted one or more children.

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

United States, 1995

Characteristic

Ever consider

adoption

Took steps

(based on

those who

ever considered

adoption)

Currently

seeking or

planning

to adopt

Took steps

(based on

those currently

seeking or

planning

to adopt)

Number in thousands

All women in denominator ........ 37,448 9,893 37,448 472

(unweighted)................ (6,833) (1,856) (6,833) (89)

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

Percent

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

Age at interview

18–24 years ................. 18.4 7.6 0.5 62.8

25–34 years ................. 24.5 9.6 0.9 40.7

35–39 years ................. 28.7 16.7 1.6 33.9

40–44 years ................. 30.0 25.3 1.8 69.5

Parity

0 births .................... 35.5 21.7 2.2 52.1

1 birth..................... 27.8 13.9 1.4 58.6

2 births .................... 23.8 13.4 0.6 27.7

3 or more births .............. 21.9 14.7 0.4 49.0

Marital status at interview

Currently married.............. 26.7 16.2 1.3 53.9

Formerly married .............. 25.5 14.5 1.1 27.7

Fecundity status at interview

Surgically sterile .............. 27.6 18.0 1.5 52.4

Impaired fecundity ............. 44.9 23.2 2.7 54.8

Fecund .................... 20.5 9.2 0.7 38.0

Ever used infertility services

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41.1 27.0 2.0 59.4

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.2 9.9 1.1 43.6

Education at interview2

No high school diploma or GED3 .... 21.6 21.0 2.7 55.2

High school diploma or GED....... 25.6 14.8 1.0 52.2

Some college, no bachelor’s degree . . 31.0 16.2 1.2 53.0

Bachelor’s degree or higher ....... 26.5 16.4 1.3 34.7

Poverty level income at interview2

0–149 percent ............... 22.2 12.0 1.3 54.1

150–299 percent .............. 24.9 16.0 0.9 38.0

300 percent or higher ........... 29.4 17.4 1.5 51.8

Race and Hispanic origin

Hispanic ................... 26.8 11.6 2.4 58.4

Non-Hispanic white ............ 25.9 16.4 0.9 52.6

Non-Hispanic black ............ 29.6 17.2 2.5 34.8

1Total includes women with missing or inapplicable data on some variables. Also includes women of other race and ethnic

origins, not shown separately.

2Limited to women 22–44 years at interview.

3GED is general equivalency diploma.

6 Advance Data No. 306 + May 11, 1999
Figure 3 also starts with the number

of women who ever considered

adoption, but describes current demand

for adoption. Over one-half (5.6 million)

of women who ever considered adoption

are still seeking or planning to adopt or

would consider adoption in the future,

even if they may not be currently

seeking or planning to adopt. (Note:

Some of these women may have

adopted a child already.) Nearly

40 percent (3.9 million) of those who

ever considered adoption have not

adopted a child, are not currently

seeking or planning to adopt, and would

not consider adoption in the future. The

remaining small group of women

(3.4 percent; 336,000) are those who

have adopted a child but would not

consider adoption again. The bottom

row of figure 3 breaks out the 5.6

million women who are still seeking or

planning to adopt or would consider

adoption at some point in the future.

The vast majority of these women (5.2

million; 91.6 percent) are not currently

seeking or planning to adopt but would

consider adoption (again) in the future.

The remaining women are currently

seeking or planning to adopt;

approximately one-half of these women

(232,000; 4.1 percent) have taken steps,

and the other one-half (240,000;

4.3 percent) have not taken steps toward

adoption.

Information on adoption seeking

was also collected in the 1988 NSFG,

using a shorter sequence of questions on

whether women had ever sought to

adopt a child, steps they had taken

toward adoption, and whether they were

currently seeking to adopt. The 1988

estimate of the population of women

currently seeking to adopt and who had

taken some steps toward adoption was

204,000 (14). The 1995 estimate of

232,000 is not significantly different,

suggesting that current demand for

adoption has remained relatively stable.

Success in adopting also appears to have

remained stable: in 1988, 31 percent of

women who had ever ‘‘sought to adopt’’

had adopted a child; in 1995, 31 percent

of women who had ever ‘‘taken steps to

adopt’’ had done so.

Table 2 shows the prevalence of

adoption demand in various subgroups

of ever-married women. The first

column in the table is based on all

ever-married women (6,833 unweighted

cases representing 37.4 million women)

and includes the percent who ever

considered adoption. Column 2 shows

the percent who took steps toward

adoption, based on the 9.9 million

women who ever considered adoption.

Table 3. Number of ever-married women 18–44 years of age and percent distribution by

selected characteristics: United States, 1995

Characteristic

All ever-married

women 18–44

Ever

considered

adoption

Ever

considered

adoption AND

took steps

Currently

seeking or

planning to

adopt

Number in thousands

All women in denominator ........ 37,448 9,893 1,572 472

(unweighted)................ (6,833) (1,856) (290) (89)

Percent distribution

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

Age at interview

18–24 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.2 *6.4 3.0 3.7

25–34 years ................. 40.3 *37.4 *22.7 29.0

35–39 years ................. 25.9 28.2 29.6 33.0

40–44 years ................. 24.7 ^

28.1 *44.7 34.4

Parity

0 births .................... 19.0 *25.5 *34.9 33.2

1 birth..................... 21.9 23.0 20.1 24.5

2 births .................... 33.8 30.5 25.6 15.0

3 or more births .............. 25.3 *21.0 19.4 27.3

Marital status at interview

Currently married.............. 79.0 79.8 81.6 82.2

Formerly married .............. 21.0 20.2 18.4 17.8

Fecundity status at interview

Surgically sterile .............. 40.6 42.4 48.1 47.3

Impaired fecundity ............. 12.3 *21.0 *30.7 26.1

Fecund .................... 47.1 *36.6 *21.2 26.6

Ever used infertility services

Yes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.4 *34.9 *59.4 *35.3

No . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77.6 65.1 40.6 64.7

Education at interview1

No high school diploma or GED2 . . . . 11.5 9.3 12.1 24.0

High school diploma or GED....... 40.9 39.2 35.9 31.4

Some college, no bachelor’s degree . . 24.8 *28.8 29.0 22.4

Bachelor’s degree or higher ....... 22.8 22.7 23.1 22.3

Poverty level income at interview1

0–149 percent ............... 18.7 *15.5 11.5 19.4

150–299 percent .............. 31.6 29.5 29.2 22.2

300 percent or higher ........... 49.8 *55.0 59.3 58.5

Race and Hispanic origin

Hispanic ................... 10.9 11.1 8.1 20.7

Non-Hispanic white ............ 75.3 73.9 76.4 *52.7

Non-Hispanic black . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.4 10.6 11.5 19.1

Non-Hispanic other . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 4.4 4.0 7.5

* Percent is significantly different at the 5-percent level from the percent in column immediately to the left. That is, the 95-percent

confidence intervals for the 2 percent values do not overlap.

^ Percent is significantly different at the 10-percent level from the percent in column immediately to the left. That is, the

90-percent confidence intervals for the 2 percent values do not overlap.

1Limited to women 22–44 years at interview.

2GED is general equivalency diploma.

NOTES: Percents may not add to 100 due to rounding. For dichotomous variables (those with only 2 values), confidence

intervals only needed to be evaluated for one set of values.

Advance Data No. 306 + May 11, 1999 7
Column 3 is again based on all

ever-married women (37.4 million) and

shows the percent who are currently

seeking or planning to adopt. Column 4

shows the percent who have taken steps,

based on the 472,000 women who are

currently seeking or planning to adopt.

Over a quarter of all ever-married

women 18–44 years of age

(26.4 percent) have ever considered

adoption, but few of these women

(15.9 percent, or 4.2 percent of all

ever-married women) have taken

concrete steps toward adopting. Only

1.3 percent of the 37.4 million evermarried women are currently planning

or seeking to adopt, but of these, nearly

one-half (49.2 percent) have taken

specific steps. In general, the factors

related to having ever adopted (table 1)

are also related in similar fashion to

having considered adoption and having

taken concrete steps. For example,

having considered adoption is more

common among older women,

nulliparous women, those with current

fecundity impairment, and those who

have ever used infertility services. The

same tends to be true for the percent

currently seeking or planning to adopt,

but the numbers are often too small to

achieve statistical reliability. The

numbers in column 4 provide a far less

clearcut picture of who actually takes

concrete steps among women currently

seeking or planning to adopt. It appears

that the factors most closely tied to

taking steps among current seekers/

planners are being currently married,

having ever used infertility services, and

being of a racial/ethnic group other than

non-Hispanic black.

In contrast to table 2, which gives

the prevalence of different levels of

adoption demand among groups of

ever-married women, table 3 compares

the characteristics of four groups of

ever-married women who differ with

respect to their level of adoption

demand—that is, their current and past

adoption-seeking. As a baseline, the first

column describes all ever-married

women 18–44 years of age. Each

subsequent column presents a

progressively smaller subset of evermarried women in order to explore the

selectivity associated with

adoption-seeking. Column 2 shows

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

1995

Currently seeking

to adopt

Previously sought

to adopt

Unweighted number

All women . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 2,380

Women asked about preferences1 . . . . . . . 88 150

Number in thousands

All women . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 498 12,673

Women asked about preferences . . . . . . . . 437 802

Percent who would—

Accept Prefer

Have

accepted

Have

preferred

Sex of child

Boy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95.4 21.2 97.0 12.8

Girl .......................... 98.0 33.3 96.5 37.4

Race of child

Black ......................... 79.1 13.7 65.7 9.5

White ......................... 94.6 28.8 95.8 46.6

Other race ...................... 90.4 15.1 86.9 5.3

White women:

Black child .................... 72.5 1.8 59.2 2.1

White child .................... 100.0 51.0 100.0 56.8

Other child .................... 87.4 9.2 86.0 5.2

Black women:

Black child .................... 100.0 52.1 100.0 51.5

White child .................... 86.4 – 71.3 –

Other child .................... 89.1 11.7 88.5 4.5

Age of child

Less than 2 years ................. 96.9 57.5 95.2 63.8

2–5 years ...................... 85.5 28.1 76.8 22.6

6–12 years...................... 56.4 6.8 40.1 4.5

13 years or older .................. 36.6 0.5 18.0 –

Physical/mental disability of child

None ......................... 100.0 54.2 99.4 69.5

Mild .......................... 83.0 24.8 81.1 18.6

Severe ........................ 33.1 5.5 15.9 11.2

Number of children

Single child ..................... 98.8 64.7 100.0 62.9

2 or more siblings at once ............ 66.1 26.3 70.7 15.2

Religion of child

Same as respondent or H/P2 .......... 100.0 17.1 100.0 22.8

Different from respondent or H/P2 ....... 98.8 6.8 94.6 1.2

Protestant women:

Same religion .................. 100.0 18.7 100.0 23.3

Different religion ................. 98.2 10.2 93.3 1.5

Catholic women:

Same religion .................. 100.0 14.1 100.0 29.2

Different religion ................. 100.0 – 98.7 –

– Quantity zero.

1Current adoption seekers were asked about preferences if they were not seeking to adopt a child they already knew. Previous

adoption seekers were asked about preferences if they had taken any steps toward adoption and they were not seeking to adopt

a child they already knew.

2H/P is husband or partner.

8 Advance Data No. 306 + May 11, 1999
ever-married women who ever

considered adoption, column 3 shows

column 2 women who took concrete

steps toward adoption, and column 4

shows ever-married women who are

currently seeking or planning to adopt,

regardless of whether they have taken

steps to adopt. The notations indicating

significance testing represent statistically

important differences between each

column’s figures with the figure

immediately to its left. For example,

women who ever considered adoption

(column 2) are significantly more likely

to be older and nulliparous than all

ever-married women. They are also

more likely to have current fecundity

impairment, to have ever used infertility

services, and to have higher incomes.

Women who actually took concrete

steps toward adoption (column 3) differ

from the group who ever considered

adoption (column 2) in that they tend to

be older and more likely to be

nulliparous, fecundity-impaired, and

ever-users of infertility services. Women

currently seeking or planning to adopt

(column 4) do not differ very much

from those women who ever considered

adoption and took concrete steps

(column 3). They show similar

distributions with respect to age, parity,

marital status, fecundity status,

education, and income. However,

current seekers/planners are significantly

less likely to be white and to have used

infertility services.

Preferences for the adopted child

As described in the Methods

section, certain women who ever

considered adoption were asked about

their preferences for the characteristics

of an adopted child. Table 4 describes

these preferences among women

currently seeking or planning to adopt

and women who previously sought to

adopt. In general, preferences are strong

with regard to age of child, disability

status of child, race of child, and

number of children. Preferences are less

strong for sex or religious affiliation of

child. Although women would equally

accept boys or girls, they tended to

prefer to adopt girls, a finding supported

by field observations. Even when

preferences are strong, it is sometimes

the case that women would accept a

child with the less-preferred attribute.

For example, among white women

currently seeking or planning to adopt,

51 percent would prefer to adopt a white

child, but 73 percent would accept a

black child, and 89 percent would accept

a child of another race. Similarly,

52 percent of black women currently

seeking or planning to adopt would

prefer to adopt a black child, and

86–89 percent would accept a white

child or a child of another race. Among

both current seekers/planners and

previous seekers, nearly two-thirds

preferred to adopt a single child, but

roughly 70 percent were willing to

accept two or more siblings at once.

With respect to age of child, there

is less acceptance of older children.

Nearly 60 percent of current seekers/

planners would prefer to adopt a child

under 2 years of age. While 86 percent

would accept a child 2–5 years of age,

only 37 percent would accept a child

older than 12. Similarly, with regard to

disability status, over one-half

(54 percent) of current seekers/planners

would prefer to adopt a nondisabled

child, but only one-third (33 percent)

would accept a severely disabled child.

Among previous adoption seekers, the

acceptance of disability is far less:

70 percent would have preferred to

adopt a nondisabled child and only

16 percent would have accepted a

seriously disabled child. It should be

noted that 83 percent of current

seekers/planners and 81 percent of

previous seekers would accept (or would

have accepted) a mildly disabled child.

Relinquishment of children for

adoption

Table 5 shows the percent of

children born to never-married women

under 45 years of age who were

relinquished for adoption, according to

race of mother and year of birth. The

placement of children for adoption has

never been common, but over the past

few decades it has grown increasingly

rare. Between 1989 and 1995, just under

1 percent of babies born to nevermarried women were relinquished for

adoption. Never-married black women

have been consistently less likely than

never-married white women to

relinquish their babies for adoption, and

this likelihood has remained very low

over the decades. In contrast, the

percent of babies born to never-married

white women (that is, never-married at

time of birth) who were placed for

adoption has declined sharply. In the

early 1970’s, almost 20 percent of

babies born to never-married white

women were relinquished for adoption,

compared with only 1.7 percent of such

babies born in the first half of the

1990’s.

Discussion

Prevalence of adoption

Data from the NSFG suggest a

decline over time, particularly between

the 1970’s and the 1990’s, in the

percent of ever-married women who

have ever adopted a child. As indicated

by figure 1, the decline in adoption is

essentially a decline in unrelated

adoptions, that is, adoptions in which

there was no pre-existing blood or

marital relationship between the children

and the adopting parents (at the time

when the child began living with them).

The dramatic rise in the proportion of

all adoptions that are related adoptions,

Table 5. Among children born to never-married women under 45 years of age, percent

who were relinquished for adoption, by race, according to year of birth

Race

Before

1973 1973–81 1982–881

1989–95

(standard error)

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

Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 0.2 1.1 –

White .................... 19.3 7.5 3.2 1.7 (0.55)

– Quantity zero.

1Percentages for before 1973 through 1988 are based on combined data from the 1982 and 1988 NSFG (12).

2Includes women of other races, not shown separately.

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

Advance Data No. 306 + May 11, 1999 9
particularly among non-Hispanic white

women, may reflect increases in the

adoption of stepchildren over this

period. While there were some minor

wording changes in the adoption

question series across survey years, it is

unlikely that these changes are

responsible for the apparent decline in

overall adoption prevalence. It is

possible that the composition of the

ever-married population has changed

over these survey years, especially with

respect to age, given the patterns of

delayed marriage in the past 2–3

decades. But these changes probably

resulted in a greater proportion of

ever-married people being those who are

highly motivated for parenting, which

would not translate to a decline in

adoption prevalence. The decline in

adoption reflects trends in the annual

number of reported adoptions over the

past four decades. This number peaked

at 175,000 in 1970, and by 1986 had

fallen to 104,000 (3, 5–7). Although

estimates of annual adoptions for the

periods since the mid-1970’s are only

intermittently available, the evidence

suggests that the numbers have

remained fairly low, varying within a

narrow range, despite increases in the

population of reproductive age. Women

adopting during the years around 1970,

when adoption rates were higher, have

gradually aged out of the NSFG sample,

leaving only women who have adopted

during years when adoption was

relatively less common.

Adoption demand

Although the prevalence of adoption

has fallen significantly since the 1973

survey, NSFG data from 1988 and 1995

indicate that the demand for adoption, as

measured by numbers and percentages

of ever-married women seeking to

adopt, has remained fairly stable since

the late 1980’s. In both survey years,

there was stability in adoption success

as well, with 31 percent of women who

ever ‘‘sought to adopt’’ or ‘‘took steps

to adopt’’ having actually adopted a

child. This stability in adoption seeking

and its ultimate success, along with the

preferences expressed in the 1995

survey for younger children and for

children with no or mild disabilities,

amplifies the challenge of finding

adoptive homes for many of the children

in the public foster care system. This

information may help Federal, State, and

local child welfare agencies in

developing strategies to more efficiently

identify appropriate prospective adoptive

parents for the children in the public

foster care system who are waiting for

permanent homes.

Another key finding of this report,

illustrated by the use of several

definitions of adoption demand, is that

the motivation to adopt is a continuum.

With the broadest definition of adoption

demand, the NSFG data indicate that

over a quarter of ever-married women

(9.9 million women) have ever

considered adoption, but only 4 percent

of ever-married women (1.6 million

women) have taken concrete steps

toward adopting. In 1995, roughly

232,000 ever-married women were

currently seeking or planning to adopt a

child and had taken concrete steps,

representing about 2 percent of all who

had ever considered adoption. This

suggests that surveys including a single

item to capture ‘‘interest in adopting’’

would do a poor job of measuring the

potential of individuals to adopt. At the

same time, the numbers of women

actually seeking or planning to adopt

may underestimate potential demand

because real and perceived barriers may

dissuade many from taking steps. Over

5 million women in 1995 were willing

to consider adoption again in the future,

but were not currently seeking or

planning to adopt. Between the numbers

‘‘willing to consider’’ and the numbers

‘‘actually seeking’’ is a vast gulf; little is

known about the readiness of these

people to adopt.

The data also suggest that it would

be incomplete and potentially

misleading to assume that all or most of

the demand for adoption arises from

individuals who have experienced

fertility problems. While there is some

relationship between infertility and

interest in adoption, this report and

earlier analyses with the NSFG indicate

that the relationship may be weakening

(18). As documented in tables 1 and 3,

adoption and adoption demand is more

prevalent among nulliparous women and

fecundity-impaired women, but many

women considering or seeking adoption

do not have these characteristics.

Figure 1 indicates that a greater

percentage of adopting women had

adopted a related child as of 1995,

compared with earlier survey years. This

trend reflects increases in the adoption

of stepchildren and children of relatives.

‘‘Related’’ adoptions are just one

subgroup of what some researchers have

labeled ‘‘preferential adoption,’’ that is,

adoption motivated by reasons other

than infertility. The increasing

prevalence of preferential adoption has

been noted in other studies as well (24).

It is also worth noting that the

development and dissemination of new

infertility treatments may delay or

reduce demand for adoption. Thus there

may be a much broader market for

adoption than indicated by the market

for infertility services.

Relinquishment

The downward trend in

relinquishment of births occurring to

never-married women that was seen in

the 1980’s continued through the

mid-1990’s. This decline has paralleled

a steady increase in the rate of

nonmarital births (that is, births to

unmarried women, of which nevermarried women are a subset) during the

same period (25). Careful study is

warranted to determine the reasons that

an increasingly large pool of nevermarried mothers continue to be less

likely to make the decision to relinquish

their babies for adoption, but recent

declines in abortion rates suggest that

the choice of abortion over

relinquishment is not a significant factor

in lower prevalence of relinquishment in

recent years (26).

Variations in the questions across

cycles of the survey may have an effect

on the comparability of the

relinquishment estimates across time. In

earlier rounds of the survey,

relinquishment was determined

indirectly from a question in the

pregnancy history asking where each of

a woman’s biological children was

currently living, if not listed in the

respondent’s household roster; those

who were reported as living with

adoptive parents were considered to

10 Advance Data No. 306 + May 11, 1999
have been relinquished. The 1995 NSFG

did not ascertain the living situation of

each biological child not listed in the

household, but still relied upon

respondents to volunteer in the baby

name question (in the pregnancy

history) that they had relinquished a

baby. As mentioned earlier, the 1995

NSFG also included, for the first time, a

direct question asking whether the

woman had ever placed a child for

adoption in hopes of alleviating the

potential underreporting associated with

relying on respondents to volunteer

relinquishment information in the

pregnancy history. Despite this

additional directness in the survey,

reported relinquishments of premarital

births declined through 1995 and

remained a rare phenomenon. A

supplementary analysis (figures not

shown) was conducted that lends

credibility to the estimates produced in

the 1995 NSFG. Using only the 1995

NSFG, estimates of relinquishment

among never-married women were

reproduced for time periods comparable

to those shown in analyses of earlier

cycles of the NSFG (12), and the

estimates were very similar.

Although there is little time trend

data to support this hypothesis, another

factor to consider is that informal

adoption (that is, relative care or other

child care arrangements) is occurring in

place of formal relinquishment for

adoption (27). The 1995 NSFG data

suggest that adopted children account

for only a small proportion of the

nonbiological children cared for by

women 18–44 years of age. Eleven

percent of women in this age range had

ever lived with and cared for a child to

whom they had not given birth. While

3 percent were responsible for a

stepchild, and nearly 6 percent were

responsible for a child of a relative,

friend, or partner, less than 1 percent

actually adopted the child (28). The

phenomenon of transferring custody of a

child from the birth mother to another

person or persons can take different

forms, and is far from limited to

permanent relinquishment of parental

rights and responsibilities and legal

adoption of the child by strangers.

Transfer of custody can vary along

several dimensions such as formal

versus informal, related versus

nonrelated, and temporary versus

permanent (27). It can also vary in

terms of the degree of agreement of the

birth mother. Thus, survey questions

should be designed to capture more

explicitly the variations on child

placement that cannot be classified as

formal, permanent relinquishment,

including, for example, the temporary

transfer of caretaking responsibilities to

relatives, and the court-ordered removal

(short or long term) of a child into

foster care. This approach may not

result in the identification of more

children available for adoption because

many of these children will never

appear in the adoption pool. However,

this will increase our knowledge about

the prevalence of the transfer of

caretaking responsibility from the

biological parent(s), and the expanding

array of child care and custody

arrangements that are used.

References

1. Maza PL. What we do and don’t

know about adoption statistics. Child

Welfare League of America:

Permanent Families for Children

3(2). 1985.

2. Stolley KS. Statistics on adoption in

the United States. The Future of

Children 3(1):26–42. 1993.

3. Maza PL. Adoption trends 1944–75.

Child welfare research notes, no 9.

Administration on Children, Youth

and Families. 1984.

4. Maza PL. Trends in national data on

the adoption of children with

handicaps. J Children in

Contemporary Society 21(3/4):119–

38. 1990.

5. Flango VE, Flango CR. Adoption

statistics by state. Child Welfare

72(3):311–9. 1993.

6. Flango VE. Agency and private

adoptions. Child Welfare 69(3):263–

75. 1990.

7. Flango VE, Flango CR. How many

children were adopted in 1992. Child

Welfare 74(5):1018–32. 1995.

8. National Committee for Adoption.

Adoption factbook: United States

data, issues, regulations, and

resources. Washington: National

Committee for Adoption. 1985.

9. National Committee for Adoption.

Adoption factbook: United States

data, issues, regulations, and

resources. Washington: National

Committee for Adoption. 1989.

10. Bachrach CA. Children in families:

Characteristics of biological, stepand adopted children. J Marr Fam

45(1):171–9. 1983.

11. Bachrach CA. Adoption plans,

adopted children and adoptive

mothers. J Marr Fam 48(2):243–53.

1986.

12. Bachrach CA, Stolley KS, London

KA. Relinquishment of premarital

births: Evidence from national survey

data. Fam Plann Perspect 24(1):27–

32. January-February. 1992.

13. Bachrach CA. Adoption as a means

of family formation: Data from the

National Survey of Family Growth. J

Marr Fam 45(4):859–65. 1983.

14. Bachrach CA, London KA, Maza

PL. On the path to adoption:

Adoption seeking in the United

States, 1988. J Marr Fam 53(3):705–

18. 1991.

15. Bonham GS. Who adopts: The

relationship of adoption and socialdemographic characteristics of

women. J Marr Fam 39:295–306.

May. 1977.

16. Bachrach CA, Adams PF, Sambrano

S, London KA. Adoption in the

1980’s. Advance data from vital and

health statistics; no 181. Hyattsville,

Maryland: National Center for Health

Statistics. 1990.

17. Bachrach CA, Feigelman W, Chandra

A, Wilson J. Using archival datasets

to study adoption-related questions.

Adoption Research Newsletter, 1.

1995.

18. Chandra A, Stephen EH. Impaired

fecundity in the United States:

1982–95. Fam Plann Perspect

30(1):34–42. January–February.

1998.

19. Bachrach CA, Horn M, Mosher W,

Shimizu I. National Survey of

Family Growth, Cycle III: Sample

design, weighting, and variance

estimation. National Center for

Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat

2(98). 1985.

20. French D. National Survey of Family

Growth, Cycle I: Sample design,

estimation procedures, and variance

estimation. National Center for

Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat

2(76). 1978.

21. Judkins D, Mosher W, Botman S.

National Survey of Family Growth,

Cycle IV: Design, estimation, and

inference. National Center for Health

Advance Data No. 306 + May 11, 1999 11
Statistics. Vital Health Stat 2(109).

1991.

22. Kelly JE, Mosher WD, Duffer AP,

Kinsey SH. Plan and operation of the

1995 National Survey of Family

Growth. National Center for Health

Statistics. Vital Health Stat 1(36).

1997.

23. Potter FJ, Iannacchione VG, Mosher

WD, Mason RE, Kavee JD. Sample

design, sampling weights, and

variance estimation in the 1995

National Survey of Family Growth.

National Center for Health Statistics.

Vital Health Stat 2(124). 1998.

24. Feigelman W, Silverman AR.

Preferential adoption: A new mode of

family formation. Social Casework

60:296–305. May. 1979.

25. Ventura SJ, Martin JA, Curtin SC,

Mathews TJ. Report of final natality

statistics, 1996. Monthly vital

statistics report; vol 46 no 11, supp.

Hyattsville, Maryland: National

Center for Health Statistics. 1998.

26. Henshaw SK. Abortion incidence and

services in the United States,

1995–96. Fam Plann Perspect

30(6):263–70, 287. November–

December. 1998.

27. Testa MF, Falconnier L. Improving

data collection on adoption and

relinquishment of children in the

National Survey of Family Growth.

Final report prepared for a

professional services contract.

December. 1998.

28. Abma J, Chandra A, Mosher W,

Peterson L, Piccinino L. Fertility,

family planning, and women’s

health: New data from the 1995

National Survey of Family Growth.

National Center for Health Statistics.

Vital Health Stat 23(19). 1997.

29. Chandra A. Surgical sterilization in

the United States: Prevalence and

characteristics, 1965–95. National

Center for Health Statistics. Vital

Health Stat 23(20). 1998.

12 Advance Data No. 306 + May 11, 1999
Technical notes

Definitions of terms

Currently seeking or planning to

adopt—For definition of term, see the

Methods section.

Ever considered adoption—For

definition of term, see the Methods

section.

Ever relinquished a child—

Relinquishment is compiled from two

sources in the 1995 NSFG:

1. Each woman who had a live birth

was asked, for each of her live births,

what she named the baby. If she

reported that the baby (usually

unnamed) had been placed for

adoption, this was recorded by the

interviewer.

2. Unless the adoption status of each

of the live births had already been

ascertained from the source asking

for the baby’s name, women were

asked ‘‘(Not including the baby(ies)

that you already told me about,) have

you ever placed a(nother) child born

to you for adoption?’’ She was then

asked to identify which baby had

been placed for adoption, so

relinquishment status could be linked

to a specific live birth.

A baby is considered to have been

relinquished if identified as placed for

adoption in either of the two sources.

Fecundity status at time of

interview—Each woman is classified

according to her physical capacity to

conceive or bear a child at time of

interview. The six categories of

fecundity status are grouped in this

report as follows:

+ ‘‘surgically sterile’’—whether for

‘‘noncontraceptive’’ or

‘‘contraceptive’’ reasons

+ ‘‘impaired fecundity’’—includes

‘‘nonsurgically sterile,’’ ‘‘subfecund,’’

and ‘‘long interval without

conception’’

+ ‘‘fecund’’—includes all women not

classified as ‘‘surgically sterile’’ or

‘‘impaired fecundity.’’

Ever used infertility services—

Infertility services are defined as any

form of medical help to become

pregnant or to prevent miscarriage.

Women were asked about receipt of

infertility services at any point in their

lives, therefore this measure does not

indicate when these services were

received.

Preferences for the adopted

child—For definition of term, see the

Methods section.

Selected demographic terms—

Age at interview is based on the

woman’s age (as of her last birthday) at

the midpoint of the interviewing period

for each survey year. This date was used

to determine whether each respondent

was in the eligible age range for the

survey.

Education at interview is based on

the woman’s educational attainment at

the time of interview. College graduates

are those with a bachelor’s degree or

higher; they have completed an

undergraduate degree program that

normally takes 4 years to complete,

regardless of how long they actually

took to finish the degree. Women with

an associate’s degree, which typically

requires 2 years to complete, are

classified as having ‘‘some college.’’

Results shown by education in this

report are limited to women 22–44 years

of age, in order to allow all women to

report college attendance.

Marital status at interview indicates

the woman’s formal (legal) marital

status at time of interview. In this

report, women who were widowed,

divorced, or separated are grouped

together as ‘‘formerly married.’’

Parity is defined as the total number

of live births ever had by the woman.

This number is to be distinguished from

gravidity, which is the total number of

times she has been pregnant.

Nulliparous women are those who have

had no live births, and parous women

are those who have given birth to at

least one baby. This term is used in this

report instead of ‘‘childless women’’

because (a) women may be ‘‘childless’’

even though they have given birth (for

example, they relinquished their babies

for adoption or their children died), and

(b) women may have children though

they have never given birth (for

example, nulliparous women who

adopted a child).

Poverty level income at interview is

based on the poverty index ratio

calculated for each survey year. Poverty

status, measured in this way, adjusts the

total family income for the number of

persons in the family and accounts for

the poverty income levels defined by the

U.S. Census Bureau for any given year.

Race and Hispanic origin can be

defined in all of the NSFG surveys

(1973–95). Women who reported any

Hispanic or Spanish ancestry were

classified as Hispanic. Then all other

women were classified according to

race, yielding groups for ‘‘non-Hispanic

white,’’ ‘‘non-Hispanic black,’’ and

‘‘non-Hispanic other’’ women.

Further details on most of these

terms have been published elsewhere

(28).

Source and description of the

data

Data for 1973, 1982, 1988, and

1995 are from the National Survey of

Family Growth (NSFG), conducted by

the National Center for Health Statistics

(NCHS). The NSFG is a periodic survey

of the civilian, noninstitionalized

population of women 15–44 years of

age in the United States. The 1988 and

1995 surveys drew their samples from

the National Health Interview Survey, an

ongoing household survey also

conducted by NCHS, in collaboration

with the U.S. Bureau of the Census. The

1995 NSFG was the first in the series to

be conducted with computer-assisted

personal interviewing (CAPI), which

significantly improved the quality and

timeliness of the data. Recent cycles of

the NSFG have been jointly planned and

funded by NCHS, the Office of

Population Affairs (OPA), and the

National Institute for Child Health and

Human Development (NICHD), with

additional support from the

Administration for Children and

Families.

The main purpose of the NSFG is

to collect data on factors affecting

pregnancy and women’s health in the

United States. The NSFG supplements

and complements the data from the

National Vital Statistics System on

births, marriage and divorce, fetal death,

and infant mortality (for example, see

Advance Data No. 306 + May 11, 1999 13
reference 25). The NSFG is also a

significant part of the Centers for

Disease Control and Prevention’s public

health surveillance for women, infants,

and children—particularly on

contraception, infertility, unintended

pregnancy and childbearing, teenage

pregnancy, and breastfeeding.

Sampling errors

Because the statistics presented in

this report are based on sample surveys,

they may differ from the statistics that

would have resulted if all the millions

of women represented by the surveys

had been interviewed. The standard

error of an estimate is a measure of

such differences.

Most of the statistics presented in

this report are based on the 1995 NSFG,

for which SUDAAN software was used

to estimate standard errors and to

determine statistical significance. It was

not possible (at the time of this writing)

to use the same statistical software and

techniques to estimate standard errors

across all survey years from 1973 to

1995. For further details on the

techniques used, consult Appendix II,

reference number 29.

In this report, terms such as

‘‘higher,’’ ‘‘lower,’’ ‘‘increase,’’ and

‘‘decrease’’ indicate that the observed

differences were statistically significant

at the 5-percent level. Statements using

phrases such as ‘‘the data suggest’’

indicate that the difference was

significant at the 10-percent level. Lack

of comment about any two statistics

does not mean that statistical

significance of the difference was ruled

out; the significance of all possible pairs

of statistics was not tested.

Statistics in this report may also be

subject to nonsampling error, that is,

errors or omissions in responding to the

interview, recording answers, and

processing data. The NSFG data for

each survey year have been adjusted for

nonresponse by adjustment to the

sample weights assigned to each case.

Other types of nonsampling error were

minimized by a series of quality control

measures that have been described

elsewhere (19–23).

Availability of data and related

data sources

Public-use data files containing data

from all surveys used in this report are

available from the National Technical

Information Service. Ordering

information for data and selected reports

based on the data can be found on the

NCHS homepage at http://www.cdc.gov/

nchswww/. Paper copies of all NCHS

reports based on the NSFG can be

ordered by contacting the Data

Dissemination Branch at 301–436-8500

or the U.S. Government Printing Office

at 202–512-1800.

The Voluntary Cooperative

Information System (VCIS) begun in

1982 is the primary source of national

aggregate data on adoption and foster

care in the United States. Roughly

60 percent of the States and Puerto Rico

responded to this voluntary survey in

fiscal year 1994, and the data are

incomplete and somewhat inconsistently

reported among those responding.

Despite these limitations, the VCIS data

provide the most complete picture of the

circumstances of foster care children

and children adopted from the foster

care system for the period 1982 through

1994.

The Adoption and Foster Care

Analysis and Reporting System

(AFCARS) was established by the

Department of Health and Human

Services (DHHS) in 1990 as a

mandatory system for collecting data on

all children covered by the protections

of Title IV-B of the Social Security Act

(Section 427). States are required to

collect data on all children in foster care

(for whom the State child welfare

agency has responsibility) and on all

adopted children who were placed by

either the State child welfare agency or

private agencies under contract with the

State child welfare agency. States are

encouraged but not required to collect

data on all other adoptions finalized in

the State. All information is relayed to

DHHS twice a year, approximately 2

months after the end of each 6-month

reporting period; the first reporting

period was October 1, 1994–March 31,

1995.

In addition to the NSFG, the

National Longitudinal Survey of Youth

and selected Supplements of the

National Health Interview Survey also

provide information on adopted children

and prospective adoptive parents or

caregivers. For further details on these

data sources, please see the summary by

Bachrach and colleagues (17).

14 Advance Data No. 306 + May 11, 1999
Suggested citation

Chandra A, Abma J, Maza P, Bachrach C.

Adoption, adoption seeking, and

relinquishment for adoption in the United

States. Advance data from vital and health

statistics; no. 306. Hyattsville, Maryland:

National Center for Health Statistics. 1999.

Copyright information

All material appearing in this report is in the

public domain and may be reproduced or

copied without permission; citation as to

source, however, is appreciated.

National Center for Health Statistics

Director

Edward J. Sondik, Ph.D.

Deputy Director

Jack R. Anderson

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

National Center for Health Statistics

6525 Belcrest Road

Hyattsville, Maryland 20782-2003

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE, $300

To receive this publication regularly, contact

the National Center for Health Statistics by

calling 301-436-8500

E-mail: nchsquery@cdc.gov

Internet: www.cdc.gov/nchswww/

DHHS Publication No. (PHS) 99-1250

9-0349 (5/99)

16 Advance Data No. 306 + May 11, 1999

FIRST CLASS MAIL

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

CDC/NCHS

PERMIT NO. G-284