The name is absent



5 estimates the regression including a gender and fostering interaction, while column 6 includes an
age and fostering interaction. Both foster girls and boys do better after the fostering relative to the
biological siblings remaining behind, but foster boys are 5.6 percent more likely to be enrolled than
foster girls, yet this difference is not significant. Relative to their biological siblings, young foster
children are 12.7 percent more likely to be enrolled after the fostering than older foster children.14

I further explore the heterogeneity in observed outcomes for foster children in Table 5 in which

I present household fixed effects regressions broken down by the reason for the fostering and the
location of the sending and receiving households. In Panel A, I compare foster children with their
host siblings, and in Panel B, I compare foster children with their biological siblings. Only the
coefficient on the term
EverFosteredij * AfterFosteringjt is presented, although all regressions
also include control variables indicating age, gender, year, and if the child was ever fostered. Column
1 repeats the previous results from Table 4, columns 1 and 4.

For each foster child, the head of the biological household answered why the child was sent to
live with another family. Based on those responses, if the foster child is sent for schooling reasons,
then after being fostered the child is 36.2 and 35.3 percent more likely to be enrolled compared with
his host and biological siblings, respectively. This result contrasts with a foster child sent for child
labor reasons. These children are 6.4 and 2.5 percent less likely to be enrolled after the fostering
compared with their host and biological siblings, respectively, although the result is only significant
when compared to the host siblings. Children fostered due to a parent’s death are significantly
better off compared to the biological siblings left behind, with enrollment 16.9 percent higher after
14Appendix Table 1 presents household fixed effects regressions comparing the host and biological siblings from
a paired sending and receiving household, in which the household fixed effect is for the joint sender-receiver paired
household. Biological siblings are slightly worse off after the fostering compared with host siblings, but the result
is not statistically significant. However, in the case of children fostered due to a parent’s death (column 6), the
biological siblings are significantly worse off, with 16.0 percent lower enrollment after the fostering compared to the
host siblings. Likewise, when foster children are sent to households living in the same village, the biological siblings
are 8.4 percent less likely to be enrolled after the fostering compared with the host siblings.

16



More intriguing information

1. The name is absent
2. Outline of a new approach to the nature of mind
3. Comparative study of hatching rates of African catfish (Clarias gariepinus Burchell 1822) eggs on different substrates
4. Natural Resources: Curse or Blessing?
5. AN ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF THE COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL PROGRAM
6. The name is absent
7. The Response of Ethiopian Grain Markets to Liberalization
8. The name is absent
9. Optimal Tax Policy when Firms are Internationally Mobile
10. The name is absent
11. The name is absent
12. Ability grouping in the secondary school: attitudes of teachers of practically based subjects
13. A Study of Prospective Ophthalmology Residents’ Career Perceptions
14. An Incentive System for Salmonella Control in the Pork Supply Chain
15. The Role of Land Retirement Programs for Management of Water Resources
16. Implementation of a 3GPP LTE Turbo Decoder Accelerator on GPU
17. FDI Implications of Recent European Court of Justice Decision on Corporation Tax Matters
18. Gender and aquaculture: sharing the benefits equitably
19. A Rare Case Of Fallopian Tube Cancer
20. Large Scale Studies in den deutschen Sozialwissenschaften:Stand und Perspektiven. Bericht über einen Workshop der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft