Poverty and low-income statistics by visible minority group, Indigenous group and immigration status, Canada and provinces.

A special analysis of the Eurobarometer 2000 opinion poll on behalf of the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia. By SORA, Vienna, Austria, www.sora.at General recommendations and conclusions: These recommendations are based on findings hinted at in the data-analysis which do not permit the development of a complete set of policy recommendations. Policy recommendations should be based on a knowledge of causal relationships and the strength of effects which is beyond the scope of this project. Thus, the recommendations are linked and clearly connected to the evidence within the data. Political leadership: A quarter of all Europeans can be categorised as ‘ambivalent’ – meaning that they harbour positive and negative attitudes towards minorities at the same time. Data show that party affiliation is a part of the causal system producing attitudes towards minorities. Ambivalent people should be considered those who react most political leadership – awareness of this fact can help politicians to make their decisions. Unemployment: Experience with unemployment and the expectation of higher unemployment rates lead to an increase in hostile attitudes towards minorities. Sinking unemployment rates and information about a decrease in unemployment might reduce concerns about migration and minorities. Welfare: Since a large part of xenophobic concerns is about loss of welfare standards, policies which lend large majorities the feeling that they can participate in the increase of wealth within a growing economy will contribute significantly to reducing xenophobic concerns. Demographic developments and their impact have to be considered and researched. Particular attention should be paid to the number of retired people and the increasing number of old people with lower income and with low expectations within that group. An increase in hostility towards minorities might well get stronger in this group. Education: Higher education clearly correlates with positive attitudes towards minorities. More research should be carried out to determine the nature of this effect and establish whether the increase of higher education – which is a stable trend – will result in a more tolerant attitude within Europe in the coming decades. Personal relations: Supporting personal relationships between people of different religions, nations or with different skin colour increases tolerance. In the countries of Southern European, attitudes towards minorities seem to be influenced by other factors than in the rest of Europe. There is not enough evidence about causal relationships within this analysis to confirm that the conclusions mentioned above are meaningful for the southern part of Europe.

The results by volumes are distributed as follows:

• Volume A: Countries
• Volume AA: Groups of countries
• Volume A' (AP): Trends
• Volume AA' (AAP): Trends of groups of countries
• Volume B: EU/socio-demographics
• Volume B' (BP) : Trends of EU/ socio-demographics
• Volume C: Country/socio-demographics ---- Researchers may also contact GESIS - Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences: https://www.gesis.org/eurobarometer

This data explores the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) Administration for Children and Families Administration on Children, Youth and Families Children's Bureau Adoption of Children with Public Child Welfare Agency Involvement by State for Fiscal Years 1995 - 2006. For Fiscal Years 1995 - 1997, The data for FY 1995-FY 1997 were reported by States to set baselines for the Adoption Incentive Program. They came from a variety of sources including the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS), court records, file reviews and legacy information systems. For Fiscal Years 1998 - 2006, Unless otherwise noted, the data come from the AFCARS adoption database. Because AFCARS adoption data are being continuously updated and cleaned, the numbers reported here may differ from data reported elsewhere. In addition, data reported for the Adoption Incentive Program will differ from these data because adoptions reported for that program are identified through a different AFCARS data element and must qualify in other ways to be counted toward the award of incentive funds. Counts include adoptions reported as of 6/1/2005. Where appropriate, AFCARS data have been adjusted for duplication.

This dataset explores Foster Care FY2000 - FY2005 Entries, Exits, and Numbers of Children In Care on the Last Day of Each Federal Fiscal Year. NOTE: This table reflects State data submitted to the Children's Bureau as of March 2007. The table does not include any estimates for individual States. Jurisdictions with insufficient data ("NA") are not included in the total for that year. Pre-2003 Nevada data were generated from various sources, rather than from a statewide child welfare system. NOTE: Ideally, if the number of children in the "in care" count declines, as it did during this period, the number of exits should consistently be greater than the number of entries in that year. However, this does not occur with these data. Underreporting of foster care exits by some States is the major reason for this data quality issue.

This dataset explores the prior relationship of adoptive parents to their adoptee children during fiscal year 2006 (from October 1, 2005 to September 30, 2006). *The data from Maryland, Nebraska, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island and Washington was questionable due to the large percentage of missing data. *Iowa does not track non-welfare stepparent adoptions. Law defines relative as the fourth degree of consanguinity. *Nebraska includes great aunt/uncle, great grandparent, great great great grandparent, great great aunt/uncle, great great great grandparent, great great great aunt/uncle, adoptive sibling, biological sibling, first and second cousins, grandparent, parent-in-law, aunt/uncle. Fictive kin (ie. Godparents) are not included.