Agencies | Online Services | Policies
DHS Home
Contact DHS

Divisions
Director
Equal Opportunity
Chief Counsel
Admin. Services
Aging & Adult
Child Care
Children & Family
County Operations
Disabilities
Medical Services
Mental Health
Services for the Blind
Volunteerism
Youth Services



General
Information

Staff Directory
Preamble & Mission
News Releases
DHS Newsletter



Federal Links
US Health &
Human Services



Arkansas Links
Dept. of Health
State Home Page


Department of Human Services

Division of Children and Family Services


Infants Entering Foster Care:
Birth Records Linked to Foster Care Administrative Data

Barbara Needell, MSW, PhD
Senior Research Analyst, Child Welfare Research Center
School of Social Welfare, 120 Haviland Hall
University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA 94720
510.642.1893 office 510.642.1895 fax
bneedell@uclink2.berkeley.edu e-mail

The number of U.S. children in out-of-home care--kinship care, family foster care, or group home care--swelled from 270,000 in 1984 to an estimated 462,000 in 1994 (Curtis, Boyd, Liepold, & Petit, 1995) and this increase is largely a reflection of the influx of infants into the child welfare system. A pooled analysis using data from five states has shown that nearly 25 percent of first entries to foster care are infants (George, Wulczyn, & Harden, 1994). Although children may be placed in out-of-home care because of imminent risk of harm, many children entering foster care as infants have already suffered assaults to their development. Wulczyn (1994) compared infants entering foster care in New York City between 1984 and 1988 to other infants using both city and national statistics. He found that infants entering care were much more likely to be low birth weight and have late or no prenatal care than other infants, and that children in poor communities had the greatest risk of placement.

The current study compares children who entered foster care as infants (n=26,460) to a random sample of all infants (n=68,401) born between 1989 and 1994 in California. Probability matching software was employed to link birth records to foster care administrative data files. Bivariate frequency tables and a multivariate logistic regression procedure were used to identify similarities and differences between placed and not-placed infants on the characteristics contained in the birth records.

Infants in foster care were more likely than other infants to be born to unmarried mothers, be born to mothers who had not finished high school, weigh less than 2500 grams at birth, have had late or no prenatal care, and not be a mother's first born child. An interaction between a poverty indicator and maternal age suggested that infants entering foster care were more likely to be poor than other infants, particularly for those born to older mothers. While poor infants entering foster care were more likely than other infants to have older mothers, not poor infants were less likely to have older mothers.

Children entering foster care were more likely than other infants to have African American mothers than White mothers, and less likely to have Hispanic mothers than White mothers. However, another interaction between ethnicity and mother's birthplace suggested that

infants entering foster care were considerably less likely to be born to immigrant mothers (as opposed to native-born mothers), and that this difference was especially true for infants with Hispanic mothers.

These findings indicate that entry into foster care during infancy is associated with many developmental risks. Children born to women who have little or no prenatal care and/or are born with low birth weight, particularly those who are poor, single women of color, are highly over-represented in the foster care caseload. Family size and nativity are also highly associated with foster care. It is important to understand the ways in which the abuse or neglect (including parental substance abuse) that precipitated removal are associated with these risks. Service delivery systems, both preventive and protective, should target programs toward the children and mothers who need them the most.

Infants in Foster Care vs. Other Infants: Bivariate frequencies

Foster Infants

All Infants Sample

(n=26460)

(n=68401)

Variable Status

%

%

Sex boy

51.8

51.1

girl

48.2

48.9

Marital Status single

74.8

34.0

married

25.2

66.0

Education < 12th grade

47.2

33.7

high school graduate

52.8

66.3

Birth weight low

25.9

5.8

normal

74.1

94.2

Birth Abnormality any abnormality

15.1

4.2

no abnormality

84.9

95.8

Trimester Prenatal Care Began first

43.1

74.5

second

29.9

19.8

third

10.5

4.2

no care

16.5

1.5

Total Children Born Alive one

19.0

39.8

two

22.1

30.9

three or more

58.9

29.3

Economic Status poor

80.4

43.0

not poor

19.6

57.0

Age of Mother 12 to 17

6.0

4.6

18 to 20

10.6

11.8

21 to 29

51.9

50.1

30 or older

31.5

33.5

Ethnicity of Mother African American

40.5

7.6

White

33.6

40.0

Hispanic

22.8

42.3

Other

3.1

10.1

Birthplace of Mother Immigrant

11.1

43.1

Native

89.0

56.9

 

 

Infants in Foster Care Vs Other Infants

n=95370 (26460 foster care Vs 68401 other)

odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals:

 

Sex Ethnicity of Mother (native)
boy Vs girl

1.09

(1.05, 1.13) African American Vs White

2.52

(2.39, 2.66)
Hispanic Vs White

0.64

(0.61, 0.68)
Marital Status Other Vs White

0.97

(0.84, 1.11)
single Vs married

2.64

(2.53, 2.75)
Ethnicity of Mother (immigrant)
Education African American Vs White

2.34

(1.80, 3.05)
not Vs high school graduate

1.88

(1.79, 1.97) Hispanic Vs White

0.15

(0.13, 0.17)
Other Vs White

0.37

(0.31, 0.45)
Birth weight
low Vs normal

2.77

(2.61, 2.93) Immigrant Vs Native (by ethnicity)
African American

0.39

(0.31, 0.49)
Birth Abnormality Hispanic

0.15

(0.14, 0.16)
any abnormality Vs none

1.96

(1.82, 2.11) Other

0.16

(0.13, 0.19)
White

0.42

(0.37, 0.48)
Trimester Prenatal Care Began
second Vs first

1.74

(1.67, 1.82)
third Vs first

2.95

(2.75, 3.17)
no care Vs first

8.36

(7.66, 9.12)
Total Children Born Alive
two Vs one

1.58

(1.50, 1.67)
three Vs one

2.95

(2.79, 3.11)
Economic Status (poor Vs not)
12-17

2.10

(1.76, 2.49)
18-20

1.33

(1.19, 1.52)
21-29

2.53

(2.39, 2.71)
30+
Age of Mother (poor)
12-17 Vs 30+

0.63

(0.57, 0.71)
18-20 Vs 30+

0.49

(0.45, 0.53)
21-29 Vs 30+

0.76

(0.72, 0.80)
Age of Mother (not poor)
12-17 Vs 30+

1.52

(1.23, 1.81)
18-20 Vs 30+

1.82

(1.61, 2.07)
21-29 Vs 30+

1.50

(1.39, 1.61)

 

Model Fitting Information and Testing Global Null Hypothesis BETA=0

Intercept

Intercept and

Criterion Only Covariates Chi-Square for Covariates

AIC 112306.82 68159.813 .

SC 112316.28 68396.318 .

-2 LOG L 112304.82 68109.813 44195.009 with 24 DF (p=0.0001)

Score . . 39275.349 with 24 DF (p=0.0001)

Association of Predicted Probabilities and Observed Responses

Concordant = 89.1% Somers' D = 0.784

Discordant = 10.7% Gamma = 0.785

Tied = 0.2% Tau-a = 0.315

(1809890460 pairs) c = 0.892


References

Curtis, P. A., Boyd, J. D., Liepold, M. & Petit, M. (1995). Child abuse and neglect: A look at the States--The CWLA Stat Book. Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America.

Goerge, R. M., Wulczyn, F. H., & Harden, A. W. (1994). A report form the multistate foster care data archive: Foster care dynamics 1983-1992. Chicago, IL: Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago.

Wulczyn, F. (1994). Status at birth and infant placements in Hew York City. In Barth, R. P., Berrick, J. D. & Gilbert, N. Child Welfare Research Review, Vol. 1. (pp. 146-184). New York: Columbia University Press.


Hard copies are available
Call Debra A. Shiell at (501) 682-1554 or
Email at Debbie.Shiell@State.AR.US
or
through a written request at
Debra A. Shiell
MIS Unit Division of Children and Family Services
P.O. Box 1437, Slot 650
Little Rock, AR 72203



Arkansas Department of Human Services
Donaghey Plaza West
Slot 3430
P.O. Box 1437
Little Rock, AR 72203-1437
(501) 682-8650