Children in U.S. foster care do not mirror the overall child population of the country — and the gap matters. Foster care is supposed to be a brief safety net for children who cannot remain safely at home. When some groups are more likely than others to end up in that net, it’s a signal worth examining. This post lays out the latest federal data on who is in foster care by race and ethnicity, and what the numbers suggest.
The headline numbers
As of September 30, 2023, there were 343,077 children in foster care in the United States — a continued decline from the 391,098 reported two years earlier. The federal source is AFCARS Report #30, published by the Children’s Bureau at the Administration for Children and Families. (Data excludes Washington and Wyoming, which had not submitted AFCARS 2020 data at the time of publication.)
Children in foster care vs. U.S. child population, FY2023
| Race / Ethnicity | Share of foster care population | Share of U.S. child population | Representation |
|---|---|---|---|
| White (non-Hispanic) | ~40% | ~48% | Slightly underrepresented |
| Black or African American | ~22–25% | ~14% | Significantly overrepresented |
| Hispanic (of any race) | ~20–21% | ~26–27% | Underrepresented |
| Two or more races | ~9% | ~5% | Overrepresented |
| American Indian / Alaska Native | ~2% | ~1% | Overrepresented |
| Asian | ~1% | ~5% | Underrepresented |
| Native Hawaiian / Pacific Islander | <1% | <1% | Roughly proportional |
What’s changed since 2021
An earlier version of this post, written using FY2021 data, flagged Hispanic children as slightly overrepresented when compared to all U.S. residents. That framing used the wrong comparison: foster care is for children, so the right comparison is to the child population, which is proportionally more Hispanic than the total population. Using FY2023 data and the child-population baseline, Hispanic children are underrepresented in foster care. Black and American Indian / Alaska Native children remain significantly overrepresented. Asian children continue to be substantially underrepresented.
Why racial disproportionality matters
Children of color — particularly Black and Native children — enter foster care at rates that exceed their share of the child population. Decades of research, including Casey Family Programs and the Annie E. Casey Foundation, identify a combination of structural drivers: higher poverty rates tied to historical and ongoing discrimination; greater surveillance of some families by child-welfare and law-enforcement systems; implicit bias in reporting and investigation; and uneven access to family-preservation services.
The goal is not just to match rates. It’s to make sure every child who enters foster care needed to, and every child who could safely stay home does.
StartFosterCare.org
What’s being done
There is broad consensus across social work leaders, federal guidance, and state child-welfare agencies on what reduces disproportionality:
- Prevent entries in the first place. Economic supports to families at risk of child-welfare involvement — housing, cash assistance, child care — reduce removals for neglect (which is the leading stated reason for removal). See our post on child poverty and foster care.
- Prioritize kinship placements. When removal is necessary, placing children with relatives preserves cultural and community ties. See our post on why kinship and culture matter.
- Recruit foster parents who reflect the children being served. Culturally-matched placements support identity, language, and faith.
- Train caseworkers on bias. Investigation and substantiation decisions are not immune to implicit bias, and direct training reduces it.
Related reading
- How Many Kids Are in Foster Care? Top Ten States
- Who Enters Foster Care in the US?
- Kinship Foster Care: Why Culture Is Important
Sources: AFCARS Report #30 (Children’s Bureau, Administration for Children and Families, HHS); U.S. Census Bureau child-population estimates; Annie E. Casey Foundation KIDS COUNT Data Center. About StartFosterCare.org.