How White Parents of Black and Multiracial Transracially Adopted Children Approach Racial Exposure and Neighborhood Choice

Abstract

Although past research on racial socialization tends to concentrate on providing cultural knowledge and pride, this paper focuses on exposure to environments as a means of understanding preparation for racial discrimination, specifically in regard to transracial adoption. This article looks at how 19 white adoptive parents of black and multiracial adopted children perceive their neighborhood choice and decisions of where to send their kids to school and whom to befriend in order to understand how they approach racial socialization. Analysis of data from in-depth interviews illustrates how those who adopted transracially both domestically and internationally stressed that they did not want their children to be in environments where they would be the only person of color because they were concerned about their child experiencing racism and feeling isolated. Even so, they tended to live in white neighborhoods and send their children to predominantly white schools. Parents expressed being conflicted by what they saw as opposing measures and perceptions of school quality and racial-ethnic diversity. The parents in this study said that they sought out social support through organizations and friendships to expand their social networks for themselves and their children. Findings are not meant to challenge or support transracial adoption but rather to gain insight into perceptions of racial diversity, neighborhood and school choices, and friendship networks as a way to understand aspects of racial socialization associated with environmental exposure and preparation for racism.

Keywords

adoption neighborhood choice racial socialization racial exposure transracial adoption

Adoptive parents use strategies of assimilation, celebrate plurality, incorporate their child’s culture into their own, and immerse their families to socialize their children (Dorow 2006). Jacobson (2008) labeled these efforts as “culture keeping” and found that it “developed as a response to the issues that swirl around the family as a racialized unit. It is largely an attempt to negotiate race and ethnicity and to normalize international adoptive families within a white, middle-class social milieu that characterizes them as different” (Jacobson 2008:166). White adoptive parents are often criticized by scholars and those who oppose transracial adoption for relying on what Anagnost (2000:413) referred to as “culture bites”: low-commitment socialization focusing on holidays, food, or purchasing objects. And research has found that adoptive parents indeed tend to focus on culture bites more than larger changes, such as where to live, as a means of cultural socialization (Louie 2009; Quiroz 2012).

This paper builds on research on cultural and racial socialization by focusing on life decisions (such as neighborhood choice) that affect exposure to environments instead of measures of “culture bites” (such as reading books). Similar to the concept of culture keeping, racial socialization consists of demonstrating behaviors to navigate race, providing opportunities for interaction, and introducing environments, objects, and ideas (Thorton et al. 1990 as cited by Brown 2008:33). Both racial socialization practices and child outcomes are shaped by neighborhood context, illustrating the importance of neighborhood choice and composition in conjunction with racial socialization (Caughy et al. 2006; Kreider and Raleigh 2011). The present study builds on this premise to ask how white adoptive parents explain decisions of where to send their transracially adopted children to school, whom to befriend, and neighborhood choice. Findings are used to better understand how parents approach racial socialization beyond aspects of providing history, knowledge, and pride and to examine how these decisions are informed by ideas about diversity. This is important because how families avoid or address socialization may affect adoptee identity, self-esteem, academic performance, behavior, attitudes about ethnicity, and ability to navigate race (Brown 2008; Caughy et al. 2006; Caughy et al. 2002; Freundlich 2000; Grotevant et al. 2000; Huh and Reid 2000; McGinnis et al. 2009; Samuels 2009). Findings are not meant to challenge or support transracial adoption but rather to gain insight into the dilemmas that families face as they navigate racial socialization, with implications for how perceptions of diversity influence residential and school segregation as well as how decisions shape identity and well-being for transracial adoptees (Treitler 2014).

Racial Socialization

Racial socialization is conceptualized as the efforts made by parents to teach and model ideas, practices, history, and cultural appreciation and to provide tools to manage discrimination (McHale et al. 2006:1388). Dominant group status coupled with colorblind ideology and the resulting normalization of whiteness as un-racialized leads to the view of whiteness as cultureless and a lack of conscious racial socialization in monoracial white families (Bonilla-Silva 2003; Frankenburg 1993; McDermott and Samson 2005; McKinney and Feagin 2003; Perry 2001). Although colorblind racial ideology is a societal framework used by people of every race, people of color tend to recognize racial implications more than white people (Bonilla-Silva 2003).

The concept of biculturalism (see Bell 1990 for discussion) relates to DuBois’s ([1903] 1999) idea of double consciousness, illustrating how people of color are part of communities associated with their racial group, but they must be aware of how to survive in the dominant white culture: In contrast, white people are typically not familiar with norms associated with other racial-ethnic groups (Anderson 2015). The requirement for people of color to live in multiple “worlds” leads to both empowerment and stress (Bell 1990), which lends to the importance of support in homes, neighborhoods, and communities of color after confronting racial strata in “white space” (Anderson 2015:10).

Although ethnicities are optional for whites, that is not the case for people of color who are assumed to hold a certain culture based on how others perceive them (Waters 1996). Whether others assume ethnicity (for people of color) or whether it is optional (for white people) (Waters 1996) likely contributes to differences in how parents approach teaching children about race. Optional ethnicities and dominant positions in society contribute to the lack of conscious focus on racial socializing by white parents. Yet “ethnic minority parents must consciously socialize their children to be cognizant of the multiple demands of living in a race-based society as well as how to navigate in between various cultural realms” (Bennett 2006:483). For instance, Lacy (2007) found that black middle-class parents emphasized regular interactions with black people by living in predominantly black neighborhoods or being involved in black social organizations. Interactions with other black people may be particularly important for black youth, since having (or perceiving) strong social support networks has been found to affect resiliency (Brown 2008).

Socialization strategies are influenced by neighborhood dynamics, and outcomes differ depending on neighborhood choice (Caughy et al. 2006). Various strategies of racial socialization have different effects (Constantine and Blackmon 2002). For example, Constantine and Blackmon (2002: 331-332) found that “Black American students who endorse mainstream values and behaviors, regardless of their educational setting, may evidence lower school self-esteem because they are unable or unwilling to consider the possibility that racism or discrimination could be contributing to their suboptimal academic function.” This is related to dominant ideas about race (i.e., colorblind racism) that dismiss structural barriers and focus on individual success or failure.

Socialization across Race Lines

Multiracial biological families

Parents in monoracial families of color draw from their own experiences to teach their children how to survive in a society that often associates their race/ethnicity with negativity (Brown and Krishnakumar 2007). Rollins and Hunger (2013) found that while parents in multiracial families, particularly those who are white, may not have the same preparation and enculturation, mothers used the same range of promotive, protective, and passive socialization strategies as monoracial families. Yet, multiracial families face unique circumstances influencing racial socialization, including “border patrolling” (Childs 2002; Dalmage 2000), which consists of subtle and overt reminders that monoracial families remain the norm. Although whites are not able to understand life as a person of color, white parents in multiracial families may gain insight into racial oppression and privilege because they face border patrolling and their children encounter racism (Dalmage 2000).

The experiences of white parents of biological children of color may influence decisions including neighborhood choice, since living in areas with a mix of racial groups reduces daily patrolling (Dalmage 2000). Twine (1999:735) found that white mothers of black children in Britain argued “that exclusively or predominantly white residential communities were dangerous places for their children,” saying that “they could no longer trust whites as a group and thus no longer felt safe in residential spaces where whites predominated.” However, other research has found that black and white headed multiracial families (i.e., where one adult identifies as black and one as white) tend to live in neighborhoods where most, but not all, residents are white (Wright, Ellis, and Holloway 2011).

Transracially adopted families

While parents raising children who identify as the same race make decisions based on their experiences, those raising children of another race have limited tools, particularly for white parents raising transracial adoptees. The parents in Lacy’s (2007) study viewed regular interaction with other black people as integral to learning norms associated with blackness; therefore, those who are racially isolated do not learn to be “authentically” black. Looking specifically at transracial adoption, Thomas and Tessler (2007) found that as parental attitude toward socialization, relationship networks with Chinese adults, and the community proportion of Asian people increased, so did cultural competence for adoptees from China. Thus, neighborhood choice becomes challenging when white parents are raising transracial adoptees, given that most whites are physically and socially isolated from meaningful interaction across race lines, living in homogenous groups without much effort or conscious consideration (Johnson and Shapiro 2003; Lewis 2004). Although neighborhood segregation means that most people do not live near people of other racial groups, this is particularly problematic for white people given their privilege of ignoring race. People of color do not experience most of society as a safe space, as whites do, making racial exposure through communities and schools particularly important for people of color and even more so for transracial adoptees.

Neighborhood choice is one way that parents facilitate connections to the culture associated with their child’s birth family, a practice labeled “culture keeping,” in which parents try to normalize their difference within their white middle-class lives (Jacobson 2008); however, this typically refers to nationality, rather than race. Adoptive parents approach cultural socialization by befriending adoptive families, attending orphanage reunions, celebrating holidays, attending camps designed to learn about adoptee country of origin, collecting representative items (e.g., art), and incorporating elements into family life such as food and language (Jacobson 2008; Louie 2009). Quiroz (2012:528) argues that these efforts are “cultural tourism, the selective appropriation and consumption of renovated cultural symbols, artifacts, and cultural events as a means of constructing identity,” which is particularly problematic since adoptees may not develop identities with the culture associated with their birth parents/nation or their adoptive culture. Quiroz (2012:547) finds that in online communities, few adoptive parents changed major aspects of their lives; instead, “the burden of changing adults’ dispositions implicitly rests on the adopted child as she/he must serve as the catalyst for social change,” for instance, by living in a predominantly white neighborhood.

The idea of “culture keeping” typically does not refer to domestic adoptions or include black or multiracial children, assuming that there is not a need for racial socialization. The white parents of adoptees from China in Louie’s (2009:299) research “focused on efforts to create social change through educational and social awareness activities that did not necessarily challenge the existing power structure. Thus, by celebrating their children’s cultural difference and teaching others to ‘appreciate’ these differences, many parents believed that were preparing their children for life in a racist society.” However, few studies focus on how socialization occurs when white parents adopt black and multiracial children, which neglects the importance of not just cultural pride but also preparation for racial bias and social connections (Hughes 2003; McHale et al. 2006).

Race, Neighborhoods, and Schools

Like all parents, adoptive parents choose neighborhoods and schools within a system segregated by race and class (see Johnson 2010 and Massey, Rothwell, and Domina 2009 for discussion). Lewis, Emerson, and Klineberg (2011) found that whereas neighborhood choices are influenced mainly by crime rates and measures of school quality for people of color, white people focused on racial composition, finding areas less desirable as the percentage of black and Hispanic residents increased regardless of actual crime rates, school quality, or housing values. Furthermore, white attitudes were not due to social class or an “in-group” preference to live with other whites but rather reflected avoidance of specific “out-groups” (Lewis et al. 2011). Neighborhood choice is also based on perceived school quality, yet while scholarly research measures quality with indicators of academic, social, physical, and behavioral climate (Davis and Welcher 2013), parents tend to base their ideas on opinions from others in their typically homogenous social networks (Lareau 2014). And similar to perceptions of neighborhoods, white parents perceive a decrease in school quality as the percentage of black students rises despite actual cause (Goyette, Farrie, and Freely 2012).

Both neighborhood and school context shape experiences and educational outcomes for children (in part because public schools are heavily funded by property taxes and those who attend are mainly from their surrounding neighborhoods), although exactly how and why each operates is debated (Johnson 2010; Goldsmith 2009). For example, Goldsmith (2009) found that neighborhood composition does not affect educational attainment, yet school composition does. Economically disadvantaged students who attend predominantly black or Latino schools are less likely to finish high school and college than are their counterparts at white schools (Goldsmith 2009). Differences in neighborhood context and school composition may result from generational gaps between diversity and the number of school-age children, as well as parents sending their children to schools other than the one in their neighborhood; research has found that racial segregation in schools would decrease if all school-age children attended their neighborhood schools instead of private, magnet, or charter schools (Saporito and Sohoni 2006).

Although racial composition has been found to affect achievement, attainment, and school quality, these factors are interrelated, particularly in regard to social climate (Benner and Crosnoe 2011; Davis and Welcher 2013; see Thapa et al. 2013 for review of the role of social climate). For instance, Benner and Crosnoe (2011) found that school diversity coupled with belonging (the proportion of students of similar race-ethnicity) increased academic achievement (particularly for white students) and that, regardless of school diversity, belonging improved socioemotional behavior measures of success for kindergarteners. Others have found that as the proportion of racial-ethnic minority students increases, so does the sense of belonging for black and partially black multiracial students (Cheng and Klugman 2010). And Lewis (2001) illustrates how schools that are predominantly white can actually de-racialize issues, focus on individual-level arguments, and dismiss racism following the “logic” of colorblind racism. Thus, racial composition has important implications for experiences and outcomes, but neighborhood and school choices are complicated by ideas of what constitutes a “good” school, how parents determine school quality, and which measures of student success are prioritized.

The current study looks at how white parents of black and multiracial black adopted children approach environmental exposure aspects of racial socialization and how they understand their decisions regarding neighborhoods, schools, and networks. Past research has found that transracial adoptees were less likely to feel uneasy about their appearance and have fewer adjustment issues when living in communities that were not predominantly white (Feigelman 2000). Research also indicates that transracial adoptees with white parents tend to live in communities with less racial-ethnic diversity compared with children of interracial couples (Kreider and Raleigh 2011). The choices that adoptive parents make as they socialize children have consequences for adoptee identity, attitudes, and experiences (Freundlich 2000; Grotevant et al. 2000; Huh and Reid 2000; McGinnis et al. 2009; McHale et al. 2006; Samuels 2009). In addition, findings have implications for understanding race in society, neighborhood choice, and school choice as well as how ideas about race and perceptions of diversity contribute to residential and educational segregation.

Research Methods

Nineteen in-depth interviews with parents were analyzed to comprehend how they perceive adoption influencing their life choices.

Sample

Interviews were conducted with white parents of black or multiracial children with black heritage adopted domestically or internationally, who were living in the Chicago-metro area, and who had adopted a child of any age within 10 years. Chicago provides a useful site because 76% of adopted children live in metropolitan areas (Vandivere, Malm, and Radel 2009) and the percentage of adoptees is similar to that in the United States; 2.1% of children were adopted children (1,557,598/74,225,447) compared with 1.9% (60,585/3,164,328) in Illinois and 1.8% (42,710/2,431,020) in the greater Chicago metropolitan area (U.S. Census Bureau 2009).¹

The purposive sampling was designed to achieve variation in adoption type (domestic, international, public, or private) and child and parent characteristics while keeping parental race constant and limiting time since adoption (Berg 2009; Maxwell 1996). Of the 18 women and 1 man in the sample, 15 were married, 2 were single, and 2 were divorced at the time of the interview; 1 had been partnered when she adopted. The sample underrepresents single parents as the majority of participants were married at the time of adoption. Participant age ranged from 30 to 49 with an average of 39.5 years. The sample consisted mostly of college-educated middle- and high-income earners, similar to national trends for adoptive parents (Vandivere et al. 2009).

All 19 participants identified themselves and their partners as non-Hispanic white. The focus is on white parents because most adopters in the United States are white (Vandivere et al. 2009). All of the respondents adopted black and/or multiracial (including black heritage) children; 10 adopted transnationally from Ethiopia, 8 adopted domestically, and 1 participant adopted 1 child domestically and another from Uganda. The families included a total of 45 children, 30 of whom were adopted. None of the adoptions were step-parent or tribal (Table 1).

Table 1.

Sample Details.

Name^a	Gender^b	Age	Marital Status	Household Income	No. of Children	No. of Adopted Children	Child Age	Age Adopted	Country Adopted From	Child Race-Ethnicity^c	Neighborhood^d (Median Household Income)
Emma	F	35	Married	$40-49,999	3	1	22 months	6 days	USA	Black	Suburb, 1.1% black, 93.8% white ($93,588) High school: 46
Irene	F	48	Divorced	$40-49,999	2	1	6	4	Ethiopia	Black	Suburb, 10.6% black, 82.9% white ($48,181)
Daniel	M	45	Married	$50-59,999	4	2	8 6	6 weeks 4 months	USA USA	Black Black	Suburb, 3.9% black, 85.2% white ($51,281) High school: 28
Amanda	F	41	Married	$70-79,999	2	2	3 3	Birth	USA	Multiracial (black/white/Hispanic)	City neighborhood, 6.7% black, 42.2%white ($55,900)
Joanne	F	49	Divorced^e	$70-79,999	2	2	11 8	7 days 5 days	USA	White Biracial	Suburb, 21% black, 67% white ($78,895) High school: 26
Jenny	F	33	Married	$80-89,999	1	1	3	14 months	Ethiopia	Black	Suburb, 6.9% black, 65.5% white ($59,832)
Emily	F	33	Married	$90-99,999	2	1	2	20 months	Ethiopia	Black	Suburb, 1.7% black, 86.7% white ($78,865) High school: 19
Sarah	F	31	Married	$90-99,999	4	3	6 3 7	14 months 5.5 4	Korea Ethiopia Ethiopia	Asian Black Black	Suburb, 0% black, 97.5% white ($127,554) High school rank: 12, 22, 24
Elizabeth	F	47	Single	$100-119,999	1	1	4	2 days	USA	Black	Suburb, 17.4% black, 68.1% white ($69,347) High school: 18
Melissa	F	36	Married	$110-119,999	3	1	1	12 months	Ethiopia	Black	Suburb, 3.5% black, 70.1% white ($72,745) High school: 53
Shelley	F	41	Married	$110-119,999	2	2	5 8 months	36 months 4 months	USA USA	White Black/White	Suburb, 0.9% black, 88.2% white ($108,294) High school: 52
Brenda	F	45	Married	$120-139,999	3	2	7 5	5 3.5	Ethiopia Ethiopia	Black Black	Suburb, 32.9% black, 52.4% white ($50.749)
Nikki	F	33	Married	$120-139,999	1	1	20 months	5 months	Ethiopia	Black	Suburb, 1.7% black, 86.7% white ($78,865) High school: 19
Kayla	F	34	Married	$140-159,999	2	2	4 2.5	7 days Birth	USA USA	Black Biracial	Suburb, 21% black, 67% white ($78,895) High school: 26
Linda	F	49	Married	$140-159,999	4	4	9 8 6 4	14 days 15 days 2 days 6 weeks	USA USA USA USA	Black Black/white Black/white White	Suburb, 1.6% black, 95% white ($73,750)
Megan	F	39	Married	$140-159,999	1	1	3	4 months	Ethiopia	Black	City neighborhood, 1.4% black, 50.8%white ($54,100)
Annie	F	30	Married	$180-200,000	1	1	17 months	9 months	Ethiopia	Black	City neighborhood, 27.6% black, 40.4%white ($39,900)
Erin	F	41	Married	>$200,000	5	1	15 months	7 months	Ethiopia	Black	Suburb, 8.6% black, 74.2% white ($85,141)
Vicky	F	40	Single	>$200,000	2	2	3 2	2 days 2	USA Uganda	Black Black	City neighborhood, 1.9% black, 84.8% white ($55,905)

Names match those used in the text. Names have been changed to protect confidentiality.

F = female, M = male.

Child race-ethnicity identity and terms based on parental report.

Data for suburbs from American FactFinder, 2014 American Community Survey. Retrieved February 2, 2016 (http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml###). Data for neighborhoods within Chicago from Statistical Atlas. Retrieved February 2, 2016 (http://statisticalatlas.com/place/Illinois/Chicago/Overview). High school ratings are included for the top 100 public high schools in the Chicago area. Retrieved February 2, 2016 (https://k12.niche.com/rankings/public-high-schools/best-overall/m/chicago-metro-area/?utm_source=fbPPC&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=fbPPC_k12Rankings_HS_Chicago). Age in years unless indicated. Rank provided where available, only for those in top 100.

Partnered at time of adoption.

Data Collection

Parents were recruited through flyers sent to adoption support groups, advertisements posted to a free public advertising venue (www.craigslist.com), neighborhood online groups for parents, and various online groups designated for either multiracial or adoptive families. The call for participants asked for white parents who had adopted a child in the past 10 years to spend 45 minutes to an hour discussing their experiences with the adoption process.² Six of the participants knew someone who had already been interviewed and 4 were via acquaintance networks of a local adoption lawyer. Three of the parents responded to a post shared with an online Ethiopian group, 2 from an adoption support group, 2 via an online group for multiracial families, 1 from an online neighborhood group, and 1 via Craigslist.

All participants were interviewed individually at a location of their choosing. The semistructured interview included questions about the decision to adopt, process, options, preferences, and life choices. Parents filled out a questionnaire with information for each family member, relationship status, household income, and religion. Beyond a cup of coffee, participants were not provided incentives or payment. Interviews typically lasted an hour, ranging from 45 minutes to an hour and a half, depending on the number of adoption attempts, matches, and placements, and were audiorecorded with permission.

Analytic Approach

Digital audio recordings were transcribed, saved as Word files, and imported into visual qualitative data management software (Atlas.ti). A constant comparison analysis was completed where portions of data were coded using deductive and inductive codes and then compared for similarities and emerging codes (Berg 2009). For example, segments of data were identified as certain child characteristics (e.g., race and nationality) or as parent characteristics. Other codes included any mention of desired characteristics, reason or decision to adopt, availability/options, concerns, and connections between adopting and life choices. Close readings of transcripts and the identification of key phrases led to further revision of the codes (Berg 2009; Ryan and Bernard 2003). This paper draws on quotations coded as “connections between adopting and life choices.” Responses that fit the criteria were examined using thematic analysis; the display stage in the network view tool in Atlas.ti allowed for axial coding by systematically sorting quotations into themes to examine how parents understand the influence of adoption on other life choices (Attride-Stirling 2001; Maxwell 1996; Ryan and Bernard 2003). All names and information that could compromise confidentiality were changed.

Limitations

This study is limited by a few factors. Recruitment of 2 participants through online multiracial communities may skew data toward those with increased awareness of racial issues (Dalmage 2000). Many of the respondents were recruited online, which may contribute to the high income of those in the sample; financial resources provide more options regarding where to live or send their child to school. This study is also limited by sample size and variation, which does not allow for statistical comparisons of findings across groups such as age, marital status, and sexuality. The sample is restricted to those who had adopted in the past 10 years, and many of the children were infants and toddlers at the time of adoption. Parents of teenagers may be addressing identity issues in ways that parents of younger children are not; it is possible that parents with older children and those parenting longer may make life changes related to these issues. Finally, data on neighborhoods are limited by defined areas within the city and suburban cities. This may not accurately reflect lived neighborhood experience since there may be distinct lived variations within these defined areas that are not captured with data.

Findings and Discussion

This paper focuses on aspects of racial socialization associated with environmental exposure, meaning opportunities for interaction with others of the same race (in this case, their child’s race). White adoptive parents of black and multiracial children discussed their choices regarding neighborhoods, school, and networks as methods of racial socialization. Although less prominent, parents also discussed creating opportunities for interaction and exposure to environments by obtaining services from people of color, such as haircuts, or finding a doctor who identified as the same race as their child.

Neighborhood Choice

Participants discussed neighborhood choice being influenced by adopting transracially and the desire to live somewhere with what they thought of as racial diversity. Wanting to move or having moved was often (15/19 participants, 79%) discussed in relation to perceptions of the racial makeup of neighborhoods. Some of the families had moved or already lived in areas they considered to be “diverse enough” (7/19, 37%), while others had not moved but expressed concern about living in predominantly white neighborhoods (8/19, 42%). Although some parents had relocated to avoid their child being the only (or one of few) child of color, none lived in predominantly black neighborhoods; 2 of the 19 parents interviewed had moved to a neighborhood where white people made up less than half of the population (in one of these neighborhoods 27.6% of the population was black and 40.4% was white, and in the other neighborhood 6.7% of people identified as black and 42.2 as white). In addition, 14 of the 19 parents (74%) lived in areas where the percentage of the overall population that was black was 10% or less, and 8 (42%) of those had populations where only 0% to 2% of the population was black.³

An example of concern regarding neighborhood racial composition came from Nikki, a 33-year-old married woman with a 20-month-old daughter adopted from Ethiopia at 5 months. Nikki was in the process of adopting a second child from Rwanda at the time of the interview and said,

Our biggest stressor is “where do we live?” That is constantly weighing on my mind. As any parent who adopts or not, we want the best school district. You know, we want the best environment. But, we currently live in [a predominantly white northern suburb]. To me, like the research we’ve done, it’s not acceptable. You know, I don’t want there to be a question of, “is my child going to be the only black child in this class?”

Although Nikki and her husband had not moved, she stressed that it was a priority to find a new neighborhood with schools where their children would not be the only children of color. The suburb they lived in had a population that was 87% white and 1.7% black. This example shows a common concern among participants that their child of color did not grow up in an all-white environment. However, that did not necessarily mean they wanted to live in a predominantly black neighborhood or that their child would not be one of few black people.

Another example came from Kayla, a 34-year-old married mother of a 4-year-old black daughter and a 2½-year-old daughter whom Kayla identified as multiracial with black heritage, both adopted domestically⁴:

When we had decided to adopt African American we were living in [a suburb]. [My husband] was like, “we can’t raise kids here; there’s no black kids here.” And I was like, “what are you talking about? There’s one, there’s one.” He did a lot of research and interviewed people in the area and talked to people, like friends and people at the high school, and realized that there just weren’t any black people there and that was not going to be okay with him. And so he took to researching areas that were integrated that the girls would feel comfortable, because we know it’s going to awkward for them to be raised with white parents. But, you know, they don’t need the additional pressures of being the only person in their class [who was black] or whatever.

This conveys concern about living in a white neighborhood because their children also have white parents. Kayla notes how her perception of the neighborhood as racially diverse was incorrect. Past research has shown that white people tend to overestimate racial diversity (Gallagher 2003) and that most people live in racially segregated communities (Charles 2000). In this case Kayla’s spouse investigated, and research on perceptions indicates that such investigation is key for white parents who adopt transracially to confirm demographics rather than basing decisions on likely misconceived perceptions. She is one of few who intentionally moved; however, the neighborhood her family relocated to was still predominantly white with a population that was 21% black and 67% white.

The examples illustrate how parents were bothered about their children being the only child(ren) of color in their neighborhood or school. Although many people of color are regularly the only person in various scenarios in their lives, most families are monoracial; thus, people have refuge when they return home. Megan, a 39-year-old married mother with a 3-year-old daughter adopted from Ethiopia at 5 months of age provides another example:

Through the adoption process I became very aware of race issues that I was not at all aware of before. And now I think I’m a little hyperaware of them on her behalf. Until I feel she can protect herself, I feel I need to protect her.

When asked how she does that, Megan said,

Right now, we’re choosing a school for her and that has been a major concern for us that we want her to go somewhere where she doesn’t feel different. And we know we can’t protect her forever because it’s not just the, the race issues, it’s the issue that she’s adopted and that she’s got white parents. So it’s not just that she’s a black woman in America but she’s a black woman who’s adopted with white parents and Ethiopian which is another whole culture that we want to preserve for her. So, I’m very conscious of the fact that we need to give her the best start possible and I feel the way to do that is to have her formative years be ones where she doesn’t feel different, where she feels that there are lots of different colors, lots of different ways to make a family. I know that at some point she’s going to have to face all of those issues but I rather her come from a place of thinking that that thinking comes from ignorance as opposed to that it’s the norm. So that’s why we’re going to great lengths to choose a school for her that has a lot of diversity and also a good academic record. So, so it’s been challenging and our neighborhood has not been as diverse as I had hoped it would be. So she can’t go to the neighborhood school.

Some parents focused on trying to protect their child from racism and feeling like an outsider. Megan said she wanted her child “to go somewhere where she doesn’t feel different,” even though she is different from her parents racially, biologically, and by place of birth. The desire to protect children is similar to the approach of some black parents in previous research; however, those parents had the overall goal of preparing their children for a society where they would be treated a certain way because they were black (Lacy 2007) rather than avoidance.

The language used to discuss race also conveys white racial status; Megan said she was “hyperaware” of race, indicating that being conscious of socializing her child was beyond the “normal” level of attention white people give to race. Parents in this study were concerned about race and racism and contemplating how they wanted to socialize their children. However, it would be difficult to create a situation where her daughter was not “different” unless she went to a school where most of the children were transracial adoptees from Ethiopia. This finding contradicts the choices that the white British women in Twine’s (1999) study made to raise their biological black children in predominantly black neighborhoods. Parents in this study did not express that choosing to keep their children in predominantly white areas was a means of socializing or preparing them for racism. Rather, the choice to live in a largely white neighborhood was convenient as it was where they lived prior to adopting and aligned with their social position and experience. Even those who relocated lived in predominantly white areas.

Choosing Between Perceived Academic Quality and Racial Diversity

About a third of those interviewed (6/19; 32%) perceived a tension between living in a neighborhood that they considered diverse versus quality of education and safety. Again, ideas of diversity did not mean that schools were mostly black. For instance, Brenda, a 45-year-old married mother of a 9-year-old white biological son and two sons (ages 7 and 5) adopted from Ethiopia 2 years prior, discussed the process of purchasing a new home.

I went to the website and saw that, essentially, there were no black kids in the school, very few Latino kids and, like, three Asian kids. And I was, like, okay, I cannot put my kids in a situation where they’re going to be the only. Not only are they in a blended family that’s different, but to be the only black kids in the school is, no. I mean, I think they could handle it, but I don’t think that’s doing them any favors. So now we’re at [another school], which has, I think, it’s like 11% African American and maybe 20% Latino. So I felt like there’s enough diversity. And we were really concerned that here in this town the high schools got, like, the lowest achievement scores of almost any school in the state. And we’ve had black friends who send their kids to school there and who are, like, “if you can avoid it, do not do it. I wouldn’t do it if I had enough money to move somewhere else and I would not send my kids there because they shouldn’t have to be fighting for survival while trying to get an education.”

This further illustrates a difficulty and lack of language to discuss race when she uses the term “blended” to describe her multiracial family (Bonilla-Silva 2003). It also conveys how some of the parents thought about the racial composition of neighborhoods and schools to avoid a situation where their child would grow up in an all-white environment or as the only child of color. Brenda’s quotation is an example of perceiving schools that reflect the larger makeup of the country as “diverse.” In this case, she describes being satisfied with a school district that is 70% white and 11% black, where her children still may be the only or one of few black children in their class or school.

The quotation from Brenda also indicates how parents negotiated providing “enough” diversity and finding what they thought of as a high-quality school. Perceptions of quality, however, are influenced by racial makeup: Johnson and Shapiro (2003:183) found that “a little diversity doesn’t hurt (in fact, it might be nice), but in general our white participants saw the ‘nicer’ neighborhoods and schools as being the least black.” Although racial composition does affect school quality and student outcomes (Davis and Welcher 2013; Goldsmith 2009) there are various ways of thinking about quality, including providing a social climate that is supportive and representative (see Thapa et al. 2013). The assumption that quality is determined by achievement neglects how racial makeup may affect learning environment, opportunities, and quality of life and the particular importance of this for children of color being raised by white parents.

Another example is from Vicky, a 40-year-old single mother of a 3-year-old African American son adopted domestically and a 2-year-old daughter adopted from Uganda.

We live in a community that is probably one of the few to only racially diverse neighborhoods in all of Chicago. . . . And so I was intentional about that. When they’re outside, when they’re at the parks, at least half of the kids at the park with them also have brown skin of some variety which is great.

However, like Brenda and others in the sample, Vicky was not satisfied with school quality in her current district that she described as “wonderfully diverse” and was considering a suburb known for being racially diverse with high-ranking schools. She said,

At minimum I believe any school my child ever goes to will at least have the national average of African Americans. That is if we’re like 13% now, I want their school to be at least 13% and ideally much more than that. I know that that obviously depends where we live down the road. But [our community] is a beautiful community for that exact reason because it’s so diverse racially; it’s so diverse in many ways actually. And then it’s also a huge adoption community. I’ve never been anywhere like that where there are so many adopted families in such a small kind of radius, it’s amazing.

This is another example of basing measures of diversity on the racial makeup of the U.S. population. Perceptions of diversity being based on national statistics means that many thought of diversity as 0% to 20% children of color or 80% white.

The focus on school composition and quality education as mutually exclusive in this sample is similar to the concerns expressed by white parents of Chinese adoptees in Louie’s (2009) study. Research has found that white and black middle-class families make decisions about where to live based on assessments of school quality from people in their homogenous social networks, thus making decisions without comparing data across school districts and choosing neighborhoods and schools with people of similar status (Lareau 2014). Research has also shown that racial makeup is a leading factor shaping white parents’ determination of whether the neighborhood or school was “good” (Johnson and Shapiro 2003). Like the white parents in past studies (Johnson and Shapiro 2003), those in this sample saw choosing racially diverse neighborhood and schools as sacrificing the quality of education their child would receive, something they were typically not willing to do. However, only half of the families (10/19) lived in areas where the local public high school ranked in the top 100 for the Chicago Metro area (see Table 1) and none of those were the top 10 schools.⁵ Lewis et al. (2011) argued that whites may not be able or willing to differentiate or separate stereotypical associations of blacks and Hispanics (such as black neighborhoods having high crime rates or low quality schools) with actual neighborhood data.

Parents in this study repeatedly pointed to two neighborhoods as ideal because of their perceived racial diversity and large number of families formed through adoption: Oak Park⁶ and Evanston, Illinois.⁷ Because Chicago, like many cities, is highly segregated by race and class (Dwyer 2010; Massey and Denton 1988), multiracial families in particular struggle to find a place where everyone in the family is represented. Although parents in this sample thought that these two suburbs provided diversity and quality schools, only three actually moved there; most participants said that they could not afford to live there (see Table 1 for details). Others noted that these neighborhoods were diverse based on statistics for the entire neighborhood or city; however, streets were highly segregated.

For many of the parents, decisions about where to live, where to send their kids to school, and whom to befriend were intertwined. As the quotation from Vicky illustrates, some parents recognized that one of these alone did not suffice in providing their children with needed connections, experiences, and support. It also shows how parental concern regarding racial diversity may be shaped by previous experience; in this case, Vicky grew up with two black adopted brothers. The contact hypothesis predicts that white people with greater interaction with people of color (particularly of similar status) are more likely to have accepting and open attitudes about people of other racial groups (Sigelman et al. 1996). Thus, views may depend on past experience as well as how long someone has been parenting. Although attitudes may change, most parents in this study did not indicate a change in what constituted a good school or where they lived. Findings show that ideas of diversity tended to be founded on matching national racial demographics, leaving their child as a numerical minority, and allowing parents to maintain their racial and socioeconomic status.

Diversity through Networks

Some of the parents discussed being conscious of racial variation in their social networks and addressed this by joining adoption groups (8/19; 42%) and/or seeking out black friends (6/19; 32%). Vicky, introduced earlier, noted how her experiences with her multiracial extended family and others provided her children with a variety of experiences.

It helps that my brothers are African American and so their kids are, so it’s in my family. But then, we need to go beyond that too. Our nanny is Filipino and she has two grandkids the exact same age as my kids so they spend a lot of time with them. So, again, it’s not black but it’s also not Caucasian and so they’re seeing a mix of races around them, which is good.

This demonstrates how some parents seek out people of color. Vicky notes the need for her children of color to not be racially isolated in a variety of aspects of their lives. This connects with past studies on racial socialization that focus on the importance of preparation for discrimination and exposure/interaction (Hughes 2003; McHale et al. 2006), yet like others in the sample, her children mainly interact with white people.

Many in this sample said that they had joined groups or clubs to achieve greater diversity in their networks by meeting adoptive, transracial, and/or transnational children and families, illustrating the multiple identities of families and members. Participants joined groups to meet adoptive families and find support as parents. Shelly, a 41-year-old married mother of two sons adopted domestically, a white son age 5 and an 8-month-old multiracial son (adopted at 4 months old), lived in a suburb where black people made up less than 1% of the population and whites made up 88%. She said,

Our support group will do a play group, so he’s around other children that could have the same experience or will understand the concept of birth mom. Because you know, [he’s] now asking who everybody’s birth mother is and he’s getting some strange looks like “what are you talking about?” But when we are around other people that have adopted children they get it and we communicate back and forth. So, trying to find some kids that he can relate to is important to us.

This example shows how parents used groups for support to figure out how to talk to children about adoption and for their children to interact with other adoptees. Yet, these groups tended to focus more on adoption and less on race. For those that had adopted transracially, groups did not necessarily provide opportunities for adoptees to interact with and be socialized with children, adults, and families of the same race-ethnicity, and the adults in the groups tended to be white.

Befriending People of Color

Along with seeking support, others sought friends, groups, or clubs specifically related to race with the purpose of expanding personal networks for themselves and their children. Amanda, a 41-year-old married mother of twin 3-year-old multiracial sons adopted domestically at birth, lived in the city in a neighborhood where 42% of the population was white and 6.7% was black. She said,

I joined Mocha Moms because there are issues that my children are going to face that I’ve never had to deal with. I need to learn how to teach them how to deal with things that are not part of my world, because they are going to be dealing with certain attitudes and things like that that will be directed to them; well one by virtue of them being boys and two they are boys of color.

According to its website, “Mocha Moms, Inc. is a support group for mothers of color who have chosen not to work full-time outside of the home in order to devote more time to their families and communities.”⁸ Amanda’s joining Mocha Moms demonstrates how some of the parents found support and guidance from people of color in a group-based organized format. She recognized that her experiences as a white person had not prepared her to parent black children and thus actively sought socialization for herself. Environmental exposure in this case was for Amanda to be better prepared to teach her children about being black in the United States, which may not address multiracial experiences and does not provide socialization for her children.

Another example is from Kayla, introduced earlier, a 34-year-old married mother of two transracially adopted daughters.

I know it has changed our friendships groups, too. Even when I started, say, Facebook to now, I have just as many black friends on Facebook as I do white friends, which probably was not the case five years ago. I mean, I’m really going out of my way to make connections with people I didn’t even think to before, I guess. I joined an organization because I wanted to meet other families like ours. So it’s important for us to make connections so that [my daughter] doesn’t have to feel like she’s the only one. [One daughter] looks kind of white, [the other one] doesn’t, and so I really want her to see other situations like herself and have it be common, not un-normal for that. So we’re just changing who we interact with and where we hang out and what we choose to do with our time and where we live.

This highlights how many thought that it was important for their children to know others who were transracially black or multiracial adoptees. Kayla also conveys the need to befriend those who looked similar or with the same racial identity as her children. Like others in the sample and the example from Amanda, parents were expanding their own networks and finding ways that they could learn about their child’s race-ethnicity, a practice that Thomas and Tessler (2007) found increased cultural competency for transracial adoptees from China. However, it was not clear that adoptee networks were expanded. This focus may be due in part to the age of children; previous research has found that racial socialization becomes particularly prevalent during adolescence (Hughes 2003), although the continuous process starts at birth.

Some of the participants were concerned about having a network where only the children were of color, which was the case with the adoption groups they found. These parents purposefully looked for black adults in authority positions to integrate into their lives. Elizabeth, a 47-year-old single mother of a 4-year-old black daughter adopted domestically at 2 days of age, intentionally moved to one of the desired neighborhoods viewed as racially diverse with schools perceived as high quality (68% white, 17.4% black). She said,

I have a lot of friends who have transracially adopted. So we have a great social network. But those again are all white parents with black kids. I found a black pediatrician which I was looking for before I even adopted her. And people are like “Really? You chose a doctor based on race?” I’m like, “Well, yes.” He’s also very competent and good with [my daughter] and knowledgeable and has a great rotation but yes. So you see things and you make decisions differently now.

Another example is from Vicky, a mother of two black children, introduced earlier.

I think the biggest thing I try to be intentional about is making sure that we have and this is going to sound strange but we have black people in our life and we have adopted families in our life. Because those are the two ways that [my son] and [my daughter] are going to feel distance from me some day. I’m different because you didn’t carry me and I’m different because our skin color is different. And so I think it’s critically important to have other families who have adopted and black friends; my friends and [my son’s] friends. And so I’ve tried to be really intentional about that.

Some parents thought that forming their families through adoption led to conscious choices about their own and their child’s connections, regardless of neighborhood choice. They thought that interaction with adults and children of color was important for their racial socialization as well as their child’s. However, the fact that Vicky qualified her statement by noting that “this is going to seem strange,” reinforces how racial socialization is not something that white people tend to be conscious of because of their dominant group status.

Conclusion

Analysis of 19 interviews with white parents of adopted black and multiracial children with black heritage demonstrates how they perceive that adoption affected their life decisions moving beyond aspects of racial socialization that rely on knowledge and pride. Focusing on decisions of neighborhood choice, school choice, and whom to befriend allows for greater understanding of how parents perceive and understand decisions regarding exposure and preparation for racism and how these choices are shaped by ideas and perceptions of diversity. Findings have implications for residential and school segregation as well as transracial adoptee development. Parents discussed (a) wanting to move and being aware of racial-ethnic diversity in neighborhoods and schools, (b) perceptions that quality schools were predominantly white, and (c) expanding networks by seeking out adoptees and people of color through friendships and formal organizations. Throughout these themes, parents in the sample were often trying to make sure that their child was not the “only” black person, multiracial person, person of color, adoptee, or person in a multiracial family; yet, ideas of diversity were based on national demographics, meaning that their child would remain a minority, and it was not clear whether this approach was a tool to prepare children for racism or to avoid it.

Although parents of black and multiracial transracial adoptees in this study wanted their child to live and go to school with other people of color, the rationale behind their decision was a desire to protect their child from racism by ensuring that their child would not be the “only” person of color. Parents noted that a reason for this concern was in part that their children were already “different” from most others since they were (a) adopted and (b) children of color being raised by white parents. This is similar to what Twine (1999) found for white mothers raising their biological black children in Britain; in her study, parents thought that white neighborhoods were not safe for their children because they would be singled out and not have daily interaction with other adults and children who also identified as black (African Caribbean in this case). However, while the parents in Twine’s (1999) study gave up class privileges to live in working-class neighborhoods with people of color, few participants in the current study did so. Rather, parents followed typical residential patterns and lived in predominantly white neighborhoods.

Participants prioritized perceived school quality over avoiding predominantly white neighborhoods and schools. Few parents in the study had moved to a racially diverse neighborhood or sent their child to a diverse or predominantly black school, even though most stated a desire to do so. This reflects national trends where transracial adoptees being raised by white parents are less likely to live in communities with others who have the same racial identity and diverse neighborhoods compared with children being raised by interracial couples (Kreider and Raleigh 2011). Neighborhood composition contributes to a lack of interaction, which may be problematic to identity development since interaction and exposure are elements of racial socialization (Brown 2008; Caughy et al. 2006). Black middle-class respondents in Lacy’s (2007) study thought that “blacks who do not have ongoing interactions with other black people are not authentically black. It is only through active participation in black spaces that black children learn what being black is all about . . . they want their children to understand the norms and values of the black world” (Lacy 2007:156). Regular interaction with people of the same racial identity not only is a way for children to be socialized into the culture associated with their racial identity in the United States (Butler-Sweet 2011; Lacy 2007) but also may decrease stereotypical views held by white parents (Yancey 1999). In addition, focusing on standard measures of school quality and achievement found in typical rankings neglects how aspects of school composition and environment also shape student well-being and outcomes (Benner and Crosnoe 2011; Cheng and Klugman 2010; Thapa et al. 2013) and the role that a positive social climate has for the socialization, identity development, and future success of transracial adoptees being raised in white families.

Although parents in this study lived in predominantly white neighborhoods and sent their children to predominantly white schools, they also noted a variety of methods that they used to change or expand their and their child’s social networks. Many sought people and assistance from those who they thought could determine needs related to being an adoptee of color. However, like the participants in the online forums of Quiroz’s (2012) research, parents tended to send their children to predominantly white schools and live in predominantly white neighborhoods. Parents indicated that groups were typically comprised of white parents with same-race or transracial adoptees. As noted by Quiroz (2012), this is problematic because while these groups may help to normalize their experience as parents who formed families through transracial adoption, they do not serve to racially, culturally, or ethnically socialize their children of color (Quiroz 2014).

Other parents sought out specific groups (e.g., Mocha Moms) and individuals (such as a pediatricians and friends) for themselves and for their children so that their children would have interactions with people “who looked like them.” These interactions provide opportunities for exposure and racial socialization for children of color and their parents. Similarly, Butler-Sweet (2011) found that parents urged their black biological and multiracial children who lived in predominantly white neighborhoods—whether they were raised in monoracial or biological multiracial families—to join clubs and organizations (e.g., Jack and Jill, Boys and Girls Clubs) to increase racial exposure. However, even with these opportunities, the children in this study continued to spend most of their time in “white spaces,” where they must explain and perform to justify their presence without the relief of returning home to “black spaces” (Anderson 2015:10).

Adoptive parents are often criticized for their approaches to cultural socialization and reliance on “culture bites” (Anagnost 2000), although research has found that parents of color raising children of color tend to use cultural socialization aspects of racial socialization (e.g., historical knowledge and cultural pride) more so than preparing for racial bias (Hughes 2003). That said, there may be different needs for children of color with white parents compared with those in monoracial or biological multiracial families since they are often racially isolated in their homes and tend to have parents who have not had similar life experiences. Not only do white parents lack experiences as a person of color, they are also unaware that they too were racially socialized since they are part of the dominant racial group in our society. In addition, transracially adopted children are part of a minority family system, which can create isolation in communities of color as well. Although parents of color raising children of color are often intentional about racial socialization, their day-to-day life choices and lives provide socialization that white parents raising children of color may not be able to provide. Even though they are likely unprepared, some of the parents in this study are trying to be conscious of racially socializing their children. Although Lareau (2014) found that few parents actually compared school districts or could provide data on the schools they chose, parents in this study often researched neighborhood and school composition, although most did not move.

Findings have implications for how we understand race and diversity, how those perceptions shape life choices, and how residential and educational segregation are perpetuated. Future research should build on this study, looking at various points and times to see how strategies for cultural and racial socialization change and shift over the course of parenting and as children are at different developmental stages and across different racial ethnic groups. Additional research is needed to further explore the socialization choices of adoptive parents, variation across ages and groups, contact with birth families as a means of racial socialization, and adoptee outcomes in the context of specific socialization experiences.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

I graciously thank Pamela Quiroz and Gina Samuels for their constructive feedback on an earlier draft of this article and research assistant Amanda Herr for help formatting the paper. Any deficiencies in the manuscript are my own.

Notes

Author Biography

Kathryn A. Sweeney is an Associate Professor of Sociology at Purdue University Northwest (formerly Purdue University Calumet). Her research examines how structural level disparity shapes everyday life looking at how race, class, and gender differences are perpetuated and challenged. Sweeney’s work has been published in journals including Family Relations, Family Issues, Michigan Family Review, The Journal of Race and Policy, Marriage and Family Review, and The DuBois Review. Her most recent scholarship focuses on adoptive parent choices, content in children’s books with adoption themes, and the portrayal of the Baby Veronica case in mainstream and Native American print media sources.

References

Anagnost

Ann

. 2000. “Scenes of Misrecognition: Maternal Citizenship in the Age of Transnational Adoption.” Positions: East Asia Cultures Critique 8(2):389–421.

Anderson

Elijah

. 2015. “The White Space.” Sociology of Race and Ethnicity 1(1):10–21.

Attride-Stirling

Jennifer

. 2001. “Thematic Networks: An Analytic Tool for Qualitative Research.” Qualitative Research 1(3):385–405.

Bell

Ella L.

1990. “The Bicultural Life Experience of Career-oriented Black Women.” Journal of Organizational Behavior 11(6):459–77.

Benner

Aprile D.

Crosnoe

Robert

. 2011. “The Racial-ethnic Composition of Elementary Schools and Young Children’s Academic and Socioemotional Functioning.” American Educational Research Journal 48(3):621–46.

Bennett

M. Daniel

Jr.

2006. “Culture and Context: A Study of Neighborhood Effects on Racial Socialization and Ethnic Identity Content in a Sample of African American Adolescents.” Journal of Black Psychology 32(4):479–500.

Berg

Bruce L.

2009. Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. 7th ed. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Biafora

Frank A.

Esposito

Dawn

. 2007. “Adoption Data and Statistical Trends.” Pp. 32–43 in Handbook of Adoption: Implications for Researchers, Practitioners, and Families, edited by Javier

R. A.

Baden

A. L.

Biofora

F. A.

Camacho-Gingerich

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bonilla-Silva

Eduardo

. 2003. Racism without Racists: Color-blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial Inequality in the United States. Lanham, MA: Rowman and Littlefield.

10.

Brown

Danice L.

2008. “African American Resiliency: Examining Racial Socialization and Social Support as Protective Factors.” Journal of Black Psychology 34(1):32–48.

11.

Brown

Tiffany L.

Krishnakumar

Ambika

. 2007. “Development and Validation of the Adolescent Racial and Ethnic Socialization Scale (ARESS) in African American Families.” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 36(8):1071–85.

12.

Butler-Sweet

Colleen

. 2011. “‘A Healthy Black Identity’: Transracial Adoption, Middle-class Families, and Racial Socialization.” Journal of Comparative Family Studies 42(2):193–212.

13.

Caughy

Margaret O.

O’Campo

Patricia J.

Randolph

Suzanne M.

Nickerson

Kim

. 2002. “The Influence of Racial Socialization Practices on the Cognitive and Behavioral Competence of African American Preschoolers.” Child Development 73(5):1611–25.

14.

Caughy

Margaret O.

Nettles

Saundra M.

O’Campo

Patricia J.

Lohrfink

Kimberly F.

2006. “Neighborhood Matters: Racial Socialization of African American Children.” Child Development 77(5):1220–36.

15.

Charles

Camille Z.

2000. “Neighborhood Racial-composition Preferences: Evidence from a Multiethnic Metropolis.” Social Problems 47(3):379–407.

16.

Cheng

Simon

Klugman

Joshua

. 2010. “School Racial Composition and Biracial Adolescents’ School Attachment.” The Sociological Quarterly 51(1):150–78.

17.

Childs

Erica C.

2002. “Families on the Color-line: Patrolling Borders and Crossing Boundaries.” Race and Society 5(2):139–61.

18.

Child Welfare Information Gateway. 2011. “How Many Children Were Adopted in 2007 and 2008?” Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Children’s Bureau. Retrieved June 11, 2015 (http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/adopted0708.pdf).

19.

Constantine

Madonna G.

Blockmon

Sha’Kema M.

2002. “Black Adolescents’ Racial Socialization Experiences: Their Relations to Home, School, and Peer Self-esteem.” Journal of Black Studies 32(3):322–35.

20.

Dalmage

Heather M.

2000. Tripping on the Color Line: Black-White Multiracial Families in a Racially Divided World. Piscataway, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

21.

Davis

Tomeka M.

Welcher

Adria N.

2013. “School Quality and the Vulnerability of the Black Middle Class: The Continuing Significance of Race as a Predictor of Disparate Schooling Environments.” Sociological Perspectives 56(4):467–93.

22.

Dorow

Sara K.

2006. Transnational Adoption: A Cultural Economy of Race, Gender, and Kinship. New York: New York University Press.

23.

Du Bois

William E. B.

[1903] 1999. The Souls of Black Folk, edited by Gates

H. L.

Jr. Oliver

T. H.

New York: Norton.

24.

Dwyer

Rachel E.

2010. “Poverty, Prosperity, and Place: The Shape of Class Segregation in the Age of Extremes.” Social Problems 57(1):114–37.

25.

Feigelman

William

. 2000. “Adjustments of Transracially and Interracially Adopted Young Adults.” Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal 17(3):165–84.

26.

Frankenberg

Ruth

. 1993. White Women, Race Matters: The Social Construction of Whiteness. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

27.

Freundlich

Madelyn

. 2000. Adoption and Ethics: The Role of Race, Culture, and National Origin in Adoption. Vol. 1. Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America.

28.

Gallagher

Charles A.

2003. “Miscounting Race: Explaining Misperceptions in Racial Group Size.” Sociological Perspectives 46(3):381–96.

29.

Goyette

Kimberly A.

Farrie

Danielle

Freely

Joshua

. 2010. “This School’s Gone Downhill: Racial Change and Perceived School Quality among Whites.” Social Problems 59(2):155–76.

30.

Grotevant

Harold D.

Dunbar

Nora

Kohler

Julie K.

Lash Esau

Amy M.

2000. “Adoptive Identity: How Contexts within and beyond the Family Shape Developmental Pathways.” Family Relations 49(4):379–87.

31.

Goldsmith

Pat Rubi

. 2009. “Schools or Neighborhoods or Both? Race and Ethnic Segregation and Educational Attainment.” Social Forces 87(4):1913–41.

32.

Huh

Nam S.

Reid

William J.

2000. “Intercountry, Transracial Adoption and Ethnic Identity: A Korean Example.” International Social Work 43(1):75–87.

33.

Hughes

Diane

. 2003. “Correlates of African American and Latino Parents’ Messages to Children about Ethnicity and Race: A Comparative Study of Racial Socialization.” American Journal of Community Psychology 31(1-2):15–33.

34.

Jacobson

Heather

. 2008. Culture Keeping: White Mothers, International Adoption, and the Negotiation of Family Difference. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.

35.

Johnson

Heather B.

Shapiro

Thomas M.

2003. “Good Neighborhoods, Good Schools: Race and the ‘Good Choices’ of White Families.” Pp. 173–87 in White Out: The Continuing Significance of Racism, edited by Doane

A. W.

Bonilla-Silva

New York: Routledge.

36.

Johnson

Odis

Jr.

2010. “Assessing Neighborhood Racial Segregation and Macroeconomic Effects in the Education of African Americans.” Review of Educational Research 80(4):527–75.

37.

Kreider

Rose M.

Raleigh

Elizabeth

. 2011. “Contexts of Racial Socialization: Are Transracial Adoptive Families More Like Multiracial or White Monoracial Families?” Paper presented at the Population Association of America, Washington, DC.

38.

Lacy

Karyn R.

2007. Blue-chip Black: Race, Class, and Status in the New Black Middle Class. Berkley: University of California Press.

39.

Lareau

Annette

. 2014. “School Housing and the Reproduction of Inequality.” Pp. 169–206 in Choosing Homes, Choosing Schools, edited by Lareau

Goyette

New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

40.

Lewis

Amanda E.

2001. “There Is No “Race” in the Schoolyard: Color-blind Ideology in an (Almost) All-white School.” American Educational Research Journal 38(4):781–811.

41.

Lewis

Amanda E.

2004. “‘What Group?’ Studying Whites and Whiteness in the Era of ‘Color-blindness.’” Sociological Theory 22(4):623–46.

42.

Lewis

Valerie A.

Emerson

Michael O.

Klineberg

Stephen L.

2011. “Who We’ll Live With: Neighborhood Racial Composition Preferences of Whites, Blacks and Latinos.” Social Forces 89(4):1385–407.

43.

Louie

Andrea

. 2009. “Pandas, Lions, and Dragons, Oh My! How White Adoptive Parents Construct Chineseness.” Journal of Asian American Studies 12(3):285–320.

44.

Massey

Douglas S.

Denton

Nancy A.

1988. “The Dimensions of Residential Segregation.” Social Forces 67(2):281–315.

45.

Massey

Douglas S.

Rothwell

Jonathan

Domina

Thurston

. 2009. “The Changing Bases of Segregation in the United States.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 626(1):74–90.

46.

Maxwell

Joseph A.

1996. Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

47.

McDermott

Monica

Samson

Frank L.

2005. “White Racial and Ethnic Identity in the United States.” Annual Review of Sociology 31:245–61.

48.

McGinnis

Hollee

Smith

Susan Livingston

Ryan

Scott D.

Howard

Jeanne A.

2009. “Beyond Culture Camp: Promoting Healthy Identity Formation in Adoption.” New York: Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute. Retrieved June 29, 2014 (http://adoptioninstitute.org/old/publications/2009_11_BeyondCultureCamp.pdf).

49.

McHale

Susan M.

Crouter

Ann C.

Kim

Ji-Yeon

Burton

Linda M.

Davis

Kelly D.

Dotterer

Aryn M.

Swanson

Dena P.

2006. “Mothers’ and Fathers’ Racial Socialization in African American Families: Implications for Youth.” Child Development 77(5):1387–1402.

50.

McKinney

Karyn D.

Feagin

Joe R.

2003. “Diverse Perspectives on Doing Antiracism: The Younger Generation.” Pp. 233–52 in White Out: The Continuing Significance of Racism, edited by Doane

A. W.

Bonilla-Silva

New York: Routledge.

51.

Perry

Pamela

. 2001. “White Means Never Having to Say You’re Ethnic: White Youth and the Construction of ‘Cultureless’ Identities.” Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 30(1):56–91.

52.

Rollins

Alethea

Hunter

Andrea G.

2013. “Racial Socialization of Biracial Youth: Maternal Messages and Approaches to Address Discrimination.” Family Relations 62(1):140–53.

53.

Quiroz

Pamela

. 2012. “Cultural Tourism in Transnational Adoption: ‘Staged Authenticity’ and Its Implications for Adopted Children.” Journal of Family Issues 33(4):527–555.

54.

Quiroz

Pamela

. 2014. “Adoptive Parents E-racing Adopted Children by Choosing, Keeping, Avoiding and Purchasing Identity.” Pp. 133–54 in Race in Transnational and Transracial Adoption, edited by Treitler

V. B.

London: Palgrave Macmillan.

55.

Ryan

Gery W.

Russel

Bernard H.

2003. “Techniques to Identify Themes.” Field Methods 15(1):85–109.

56.

Samuels

Gina M.

2009. ““Being Raised by White People”: Navigating Racial Difference among Adopted Multiracial Adults.” Journal of Marriage and Family 71(1):80–94.

57.

Saporito

Salvatore

Sohoni

Deenesh

. 2006. “Coloring outside the Lines: Racial Segregation in Public Schools and Their Attendance Boundaries.” Sociology of Education 79(2):81–105.

58.

Sigelman

Lee

Bledsoe

Timothy

Welch

Susan

Combs

Michael W.

1996. “Making Contact? Black-White Social Interaction in an Urban Setting.” American Journal of Sociology 101(5):1306–32.

59.

Thapa

Amrit

Cohen

Jonathan

Guffey

Shawn

Higgins-D’Alessandro

Ann

. 2013. “A Review of School Climate Research.” Review of Educational Research 83(3):357–85.

60.

Thomas

Kristy A.

Tessler

Richard C.

2007. “Bicultural Socialization among Adoptive Families: Where There Is a Will, There Is a Way.” Journal of Family Issues 28(9):1189–219.

61.

Thorton

Michael C.

Chatters

Linda M.

Taylor

Robert J.

Allen

Walter R.

1990. “Sociodemographic and Environmental Correlates of Racial Socialization by Black Parents.” Child Development 61(2):401–409.

62.

Treitler

Vilna Bashi

. 2014. “Introduction: Race is a Fiction . . . Coloring Children and Parents Nonetheless.” Pp. 1–32 in Race in Transnational and Transracial Adoption, edited by Treitler

V. B.

London: Palgrave Macmillan.

63.

Twine

France W.

1999. “Transracial Mothering and Antiracism: The Case of White Birth Mothers of “Black” Children in Britain.” Feminist Studies 25(3):729–46.

64.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2009. “B09018. Relationship to Householder for Children under 18 Years in Households. 2009 American Community Survey 1 Year Estimates.” Retrieved February 20, 2012 (http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_09_1YR_B09018&prodType=table).

65.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2014a. “Oak Park (Village), Illinois. Quick Facts.” Retrieved August 29, 2014 (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/17/1754885.html).

66.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2014b. “Evanston (City), Illinois. Quick Facts.” Retrieved August 29, 2014 (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/17/1724582.html).

67.

Vandivere

Sharon

Malm

Karin

Radel

Laura

. 2009. “Adoption USA: A Chartbook Based on the 2007 National Survey of Adoptive Parents.” Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. Retrieved June 10, 2015 (http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/09/NSAP/chartbook/index.cfm).

68.

Waters

Mary C.

1996. “Optional Ethnicities: For Whites Only?” Pp.198–207 in Origins and Destinies: Immigration, Race, and Ethnicity in America, edited by Pedraza

Rumbaut

R. G.

Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

69.

Wright

Richard

Ellis

Mark

Holloway

Steven

. 2011. “Where Black-White Couples Live.” Urban Geography 32(1):1–22.

70.

Yancey

George

. 1999. “An Examination of the Effects of Residential and Church Integration on Racial Attitudes of Whites.” Sociological Perspectives 42(2):279–304.