ENDNOTES


    1. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census Projections Report: Living Arrangements of
      Adults and Children,       Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, p. 1,
      1985.

      The data are based on samples from the 1980 U.S. Census projected to 1985. The
      1990 U.S. Census data concerning the Living Arrangements of Children will not
      be available until 1992. Data from the 1980 projections should be used cautiously
      when considering children in foster care with relatives since there is some
      evidence, as presented in this report, of changing trends in this area of practice
      over the last decade.

    2. Lewis, Robert, and Mark Fraser, "Blending Formal and Informal Networks in
      Foster Care," Children and Youth Services Review, vol. 9, pp. 153-169, 1987.

    3. A recent study of seven urban sites found that from 20 to 40% of all HIV-infected
      children are placed with extended family members. (Lela Baughman, Cynthia
      Holmes-Morgan, Stephen Margolis, and Martin Kotler, Infants and Children with
      HIV Infection in Foster Care,       Washington, DC: Assistant Secretary for Planning
      and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, September
      1989.}

      An OEI inspection of programs serving crack babies found similar trends in urban
      areas for this population of foster children (Office of Evaluation and Inspections,
      Office of Inspector General, Crack Babies, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
      Health and Human Services, April 1990.)

    4. National Commission on Family Foster Care, A Blueprint for Fostering Infants
      Children. and Youth in the 1990's,       Washington, DC: Child welfare League of
      America, unpublished draft, March, 1991, pp. 75-82.

    5. Although neither Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 nor
      Departmental regulations state a preference for relative placements, State agency
      personnel often stated they believed a preference to exist. State policies frequently
      describe a preference for relative placements. Administrators usually connected
      such policies to requirements in Federal regulations.

    6. ACYF Information Memorandum, ACYF-IM-91-11; Policy Information Question,
      PIQ-82-12; and PIQ-85-06.

    7. Walker, Clarice, Patricia Zangrillo and Jacqueline Smith, Parental Drug Abuse and
      African American Children in Foster Care,       Washington, DC: National Black Child
      Development Institute, pp. 27-28, February 1991.


    16


    1. Child Welfare League of America, Standards for Foster Family Service (revised),
      Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America, 1975.

    2. New York Task Force on Permanency Planning for Children, Kinship Foster Care:
      The Double-Edged Dilemma       (unpublished report), Rochester, New York, pp. 10,
      12, October 1990.

      Dubowitz, Howard, M.D. The Physical and Mental Health and Educational Status
      of Children Placed with Relatives       (unpublished report), Baltimore, Maryland:
      School of Medicine, University of Maryland at Baltimore, pp. 106-l09, August 24,
      1990.

    3. New York Task Force on Permanency Planning for Children, op.cit., p. 9.

      Schatz, Mona, "Relative Foster Care: What Do We Know?" Fostering Families
      (unpublished report), University of Colorado School of Social Work, Boulder,
      Colorado, p. 2, December 1990.

    4. Litigation in Federal District Courts in Oregon (Lipscomb v. Simmons) and
      California (City of San Francisco v. McMahon) seeks to place such requirements
      on the States.

    5. See, e.g., Benedict, Mary and Roger White, "Factors Associated with Foster Care
      Length of Stay," Child Welfare, vol. 70, p. 55, January-February 1991; and,
      Goerge, Robert, "The Reunification Process in Substitute Care," Social Service
      Review      , vol. 37, p. 436, September 1990.



      17


      [Next] [Previous] [Table of Contents]