MINORITY ADOPTIONS

l"VI(E.r. 
'0 
ol. 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 
OFFICE OF ANALYSIS AND INSPECTIONS 
OAl  028 
JULY 1988  , " 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 
The mission of the Ofce of Inspeto General (OIG) is to promote the effciency, effective
progr 
ness and integrty of  in the United States Deparnt of Health and Huma Servces 
(HS). It does this by developing method to detet and 
preventS freudt, awa ste and abuse. 
Created by statute in 1976, the Inspetor Genera keeps both the  and the Congrss 
fully and curntly informed about progrs or management problems and reommends cor
retive action. The OIG perform its mission by conducting audits, investigations and inspe
tions with approximately 1,200 sta strtegicaly locate around the countr. 
OFFICE OF ANAL VSIS AND INSPECTIONS 
This repon is prouced by the Office of Analysis and Inspetions (OAI), one of the thee 
major offices within the OIG. The other two ar the Ofce of Audit and the Office of Inves
tigations. OAI 
conductS inspetions which ar tyically shon-term studies designed to deter
progr 
mine  effectiveness, effciency and vulnerabilty to 
frud and abuse. 
THIS REPORT 
Entitled  Minority Adoptions," this study was conducte to assess curnt pratices by adop
tion agencies to incras the rate of adoption by minority grup famies and to identi 
obstacles existing to such effons. 
The study was prepar by  Genera, Ofce of Analysis and inspe
the RegionaJ  0T
tions, New York Region. Parcipating .  the followig people: 
NEW YORK  HEADQUARTERS 
Alan S. Meyer Ph.  (project leader)  Suzane Mwr 
William J. Counihan 
Ta Zitas 
Pereta Rodguez 
J30STON 
Charles Vann  TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
INTRODUCTION 
FINDINGS 
Agencies Serving Substantial Numbers of Minorities 
Have Incorporated Special Techniques 
II. Most Familes Reported Positive Experiences in

General but Had Specific Complaints

II. Children Wait Because Familes Want Younger

Healthy Children 
IV. Foster Parents Are a Valuable Resource for

Minority Adoptions

V. 
Obstacles to More Minority Adoptions Were Cited 
VI. There Is a Lack of Systematic 
Data 
VII. Existing Activities Were Noted as 
Best Practices 
CONCLUSIONS 
APPENDIX: Comments on Draft Report  . "
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
PURPOSE 
An inspection was initiated at the request of the Offce of Human Development Services 
(OHDS) to assess curnt practices by adoption agencies aimed at increasing adoptions by 
minority group famlies and to identify existing obstacles to such effons. 
BACKGROUND 
In response to Federal legislation (the Adoption Opportunities Act of 1978 and the Adoption 
Assistace and Child Welfare Act of 1980) and concern for the number of children waiting for 
adoption, OHDS launched an active campaign in the early 1980' s to increase the adoption of
special needs children who include minority, handicapped and/or older children
, and sibling 
not only as specially beneficial to these children but also as less 
groups. Adoption was seen 
costly in general than foster care. This view was supported by available evidence 
presented in
a 1984 Office of Inspector General inspection report and by recent OHDS figures projecting 
that adoptive placements rather than foster care placements would have saved Federal and 
State governments $74.7 million in maintenance costs for 1986 alone. 
The OHDS campaign and the pioneering effons of specialized minority and special needs 
agencies have demonstrated two things: (1) many special needs youngsters who were thought 
to be unadoptable, could be adopted; and (2) families from minority communities could be 
recruited for adoption by aggressive agencies. The OHDS, 
awar of concerns about obstacles 
to adoptions by minority famlies, requested this study. 
METHODOLOGY 
Site visits were made to five metropolitan centers in four States and the 
Distrct of Columbia 
(D.c.). Discussions were held with public and private agency staff, minority applicants and
adoptive famlies, community representatives, and State adoption agency offcials. 
Minority 
famlies were primarly selected by agencies from their applicants who had successfully 
adopted or were waiting to adop-h Statistics on foster care and adoption for the last 5 years 
were requested.
middle-size and smaler cities 
CThe OHDS requested that this study exclude 
and include only blacks and Hispanics as minorities. The five metropolitan centers contained 
an estimated 27 percent of the black and Hispanic foster childrn in the countr and the five 
States (including D.  ) contaned an estimated 40 percent of these children nationwide. 7  FINDINGS 
Most agencies serving substantil numbers of black and hispanic foster 
children have incorporated special techniques. 
These techniques for recruiting and matching minority famlies with waiting children 
were developed by OHDS demonstrtion grants and pioneering agencies. They in
clude outreach to minority communities, meda stories featuring individual children 
flexible hours and policies, and employment of minority staf. 
Most minority families reported predominantly positive experiences in 
trying to adopt a child. 
Thiry-three out of 37 (89 percent) adoptive and waiting 
famlies reponed they were 
satisfied or very satisfied with the last agency they went to. Most families, however 
had complaints about their experiences with other agencies, some workers or with 
pars of the process. 
A mismatch exists between the types of children waiting 
and the 
preferences of waiting families. 
In agencies visited, the number of relatively older and handicapped minority children 
exceeded the number of young minority childrn under 4 years of age (by nearly thee 
to one). The older and handicapped children exceeded the number of waiting minority 
famlies wiling to consider them (by four and a hal to one). 
Foster parents are a valuable resource for minority adoptions.

Seven agencies reponed from 40 percent to 80 percent of all adoptions were with 
foster parnts. The average was 61 percent, which underlines the importance of foster 
parent resources for minority adoption effons. 
Obstacles to minori adoptions were reported. 
Obstacles which deter some minority famlies from adopting include agency practices 
(e.  , preference for couples), traditional attitudes of some workers, and misconcep
tions and fears (e.g., a belief that "you have to be rich" 
There is a lack of systematic data. 
Lack of systematic data at national, State and local levels on foster children, waiting 
famlies and adoptive placements, is likely to deter effective planning and manage
ment of foster  progrs, 
car and adoption  includig minority adoption efforts.  Existing activities were noted as best practices. 
Best practices note include formal interagency coordinating mechanisms; personal
ize 
presentations of specific older and handicapped minority childrn to potential
parents; use of adoptive parnts, and celebrities who themselves were adopte, as role 
models; and practices encouraging and utilizing single parent and foster 
parnt adop
tions. 
CONCLUSIONS 
Adoption agencies ar finding minority parents for many minority childrn 
waiting to be adopted, but not enough who ar wiling to adopt the many 
who are older and handicapped. 
While there is agreement about many. of the obstacles to recruiting and 
matching more minority families, there is a divergence 
of views on how to 
overcome these obstacles. 
A number of positive developments have emerged: minority community 
organizations have helped to raise the level of public 
awarness of the 
problem; a Depanment of Health and Human Services Advisory Comnlittee 
on Adoption and Foster Care Information has reported on how to strengthen 
national data systems; OHDS figures suppon the view that 
milions of 
government dollars could be saved if foster children were adopted; and the 
Interagency Task Force on Adoption
, established by the Prsident, has issued 
a report on what Federa, State and local actions are needed to 
overcome 
barers to adoption. 
COMMENTS ON DRAFT REPORT 
Written comments were received from the Assistat Secreta for Human Development Ser
vices and the Assistant 
Secretar for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE). These comments are 
included in the Appendix. We have incoporated most of 
the comments in the final text of this 
repon.  INTRODUCTION 
PURPOSE 
This inspection was initiated at the 
reuest of the Offce of Human Development Services
(OHDS). The request was based on OHDS' 
concerns about the effcacy of agency efforts to
recruit and match minority famlies with miority foster childrn waiting to be adopted. The 
purose of the inspection was to assess curnt practices by adoption agencies aimed at in
creasing the rate of adoptions by miority grup famlies and to identify existing obstacles to 
such effons.

BACKGROUND 
The last decade has seen a major change in the way that adoption agencies operate. Agencies 
now aim at helping to place foster children with adoptive families, often from minority com
munities, instead of helping childless white families to adopt. 
Sparked by Federal legislation (the Adoption Opponunities Act of 1978 and the Adoption As
sistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980) and concern for the number of children waiting for 
adoption, the OHDS launched an active campaign in the early 1980s to increase the adoption 
needs childrn who include 
, of special  minority, handicapped and/or older childrn, and sibling 
campaign and the pioneering effons of specialzed minority and special needs 
: groups. This 
i agencies have demonstrated two things: (1) that many special needs youngsters who were 
: thought to be unadoptable, could be adopted; and (2) that famlies from minority communities 
: could be recruited for formal adoption by aggrssive agencies. 
In reporting these advances, the Inspector Genera in a 1984 inspection report entitled 
 Adop
noted that adoption was universally viewed as less costly than foster care. 
tion Assistance 

Avaiable studies and data from 11 States strongly supponed this view. 
Reponed savings
resulting from adoptions in the 11 States averaged 44 percent of foster care costs. Moreover 
.r  OHDS has projected that Federal and State maintenance costs for adoption would have been
$38.3 millon less in 1985 and $74.7 millon less in 1986 than the actual costs of foster care in 
7~~  those years (See OHDS'  Child Welfare Research Notes  #6, April 1984). 
\ I 

However, the OIG report also note major obstacles to recruiting parnts for special needs
childrn, many of whom ar minority children. Based on the finding that 56 percent of
childrn listed on adoption exchanges were miority  Study of Adoption 
children (see 
Exchanges  by Westat., Inc. 1986), it can be estimate that $41.8 milion could have been 
saved if al obstacles to adopting these miority children listed on exchanges could have been
removed.  METHODOLOGY 
Site visits were made to five metropolitan centers in four States and the 
Distrct of Columbia 
(D.  ) which have large numbers of black and/or Hispanic foster children waiting to be 
adopted. These included Detroit, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, Miam, and New York City
(NYC). The OHDS requested that this study exclude middle-sized and smaller cities from the 
sample of sites and include only blacks and Hispanics as 
miorities. The five States (includ
ing D.  ) contaned an estimated 40 percent and the five cities an estimated 27 percent of the 
black and Hispanic foster children in the 
countr. This was not a comparative study of

minority and non-
minority experiences.

One or two private agencies in each city were selected from agencies which did not pioneer or 
specialize in minority adoptions. Eight private agencies and five public agencies were visited, 
for a total of 13 agencies. Thee private agencies specializing in minority adoptions were also 
visited to broaden our understanding of the special techniques under study. 
In each city, discussions were held with agency admnistrators, foster care and adoption 
workers, and miority 
applicants and adoptive familes, both individually and in groups. 
Famlies were selected by agencies and included individuals who had successfully adopted or 
were waiting to adopt, but none who had dropped out or been rejected by the agency. Discus
sions were also held with representatives of community organizations in each city, and with of
ficials of four State adoption agencies. 
Thiry-nine individual famlies (applicants or adoptive parents), 43 agency workers, 22 local 
admnistrators, 14 Federal offcials, 
13 State offcials and 11 community representatives were 
contacted. Of the 39 individual families, 77 percent were black and 23 percent Hispanic, 65 
percent were mared and 35 percent single, and their average age was 39 years. Sixty-nine 
percent of the 39 families had successfully adopted. This includes 13 percent who were wait
ing to adopt again. Thiry-one percent were 
waiting for their first adopted child. 
Discussions were also held with four groups of adoptive parents and applicants, totaling 
another 42 individuals. One group included mostly individuls who had dropped out or 
had 
been rejected by an agency. All of the above discussions were held in person
, except those
with State offcials and 20 famlies who were 
contacted by phone. A total of 184 respondents
were contacted.  FINDINGS 
Most adoption agencies serving many minorities have incorporated 
special techniques. 
Minority famlies who want to adopt are priary 
served by urban public agencies, private 
agencies under purchase-of-service contrcts with these public 
agencies and some private
agencies which either specialize in or do many minority adoptions. These agencies often do 
not charge fees and, in parcular the public agencies; generaly serve the harder-to-
place, 
older and more handicapped minority childrn, for whom subsidies ar frequently available. 
Many other private agencies, however, serve primarly white childrn
, often healthy infants,
and generaly charge fees. This study focused on 13 public and private agencies in large cities 
serving substatial proponion of black and, in some cases, Hispanic foster 
childrn. The per
cent of minority childrn raged from 53 percent to 95 percent with an average of 67 percent. 
Nearly all the agencies reportd utilzing most of the special techniques, developed by OHDS
demonstrtion grants and pioneering agencies, for recruiting and assisting minority applicants 
to adopt. In utilizing varous combinations of these practices, however, agencies vared con
siderably in the freuency and intensity of their effons such as: 
Publicizing agency activities in minority media
, especially newspapers, as 
well as in the general media. 
Using the media to feature specific waiting minority children in newspaper 
columns or TV spots. "Children sell themselves " respondents reponed. 
Sponsoring special activities designed to bring waiting children and 
potential adoptive families together, including adoption fairs, paries and 
festivals. 
Sending staf out to speak to minority organizations, especially black 
churches. 
Keeping flexible hour for applicants. About half said they were available 
on both evenings and weekends and the other half reported evening hours. 
Responding quickly, openly and sensitively to initial phone inquires and to 
later questions. In agencies serving mostly minority childrn
, minority
applicants ar typically seen more quickly and studied sooner than white 
applicants, who might be put on a waiting list or referred to another agency.  Providing some post placement and post adoption services to help 
famlies 
and children adjust and to prevent disruptions (during initial placements) 
and dissolutions (after finalization). Among the most common services 
were social worker counseling, referral for mental health counseling of 
parents and/or child, and adoption and foster parent suppon groups. Such 
peer groups provide critical support to many parents thoughout the adoption
process. Post placement services is an area ripe for the development and 
dissemination of models. 
Most of the minority-oriented agencies have also incorporated special 
approaches to hirg and trining of staff. In 6 of 12 (50 percent)
minority-oriented agencies providing such data, the majority of 
staf was 
black and in a seventh the majority of staff was Hispanic. 
Several agencies, 
though, said they lacked enough black staff. This included one private 
agency which reported no black staff. 
Seven of 11 (64 percent) responding agencies reported that most of their adoption staff had 
some formal training in minority adoption methods or cultura sensitivity. While most public
agencies had specially trained staff, only half of the private agencies did. 
II.	 Most minority familes reported positive experiences in general
but had specific complaints. 
Eighty-nine percent of minority families expressed general satisfaction with their 
most recent agency experiences. 
Famies were asked how satisfied they were in general with the agency where they adopted or 
were tring to adopt. Thiry-thre of 37 families (89 percent) asked said they were either very 
satisfied (51 percent) or satisfied (38 percent). Their favorable responses were based on the 
outcome and/or the process of tring to adopt. None of them had been turned away by their
last agency. 
Twenty-seven of the 39 (69 percent) famlies had successfully adopted. They were 
primarly
satisfied because they had adopted the kind of child they wanted from the agency. Typical of 
commentS from both public and private agency adoptive famlies were the following: 
"/m completely satisfied with the agency that gave me my baby. 
Our infant was given
to us fast and we got what we wanted. " 
I'm ecstatic. My daughter is  years above in school and my boy is a quick learner.  Both adoptive and waiting famlies attrbuted pan of their satisfaction to the way some 
workers handled pans of the adoption process. This process stas with intake (usually on the 
telephone) and procees through orientation to home study to initial and fmal placement and 
then to post placement. Among aspects of the process these famies liked best were the 
friendly, wan reception they received at intae and orientation. They liked the use by some 
agencies of adoptive parnts as pan of the orientation team. They also liked the abilty 
their worker to answer their questions and to keep them informed throughout the process. 
Some were pleased that it did not tae many years to adopt like they thought it would. One 
waiting applicant summed up the reasons many of those stil waiting were satisfied: 
So far it han t really been that long. She keeps callng me to tell me whats happen
ing. I have no problems. I don t have to keep callng her to find out. She calls me and 
that's good. 
However, three quarters of the families had complaints about their experiences with 
other workers or agencies. 
Families in this study, reacting like respondents in many opinion surveys, gave a positive view 
of the subject in general and negative views of some specific aspects. Families were asked a 
number of questions which gave them an opponunity to voice dissatisfactions or complaints 
about their experiences. These included questions about what they did not like about how the 
agency treated them, whether they found any workers to be especially helpful, why they went 
to more than one agency (if they did), and whether they thought the home study should be 
done differently. 
In response, 28 of 37 (76 percent) responding applicants cited one or more complaints about 
other workers or agencies. Most complaints about other workers centered on poor com
munication by workers such as not keeping in contact, withholding information or not making 
the applicant feel comfortble. About 20 percent of applicantS said they had been made to feel 
uncomfonable at certn private agencies or by parcular workers because of their race. 
While only 5 of the 39 (13 percent) applicants said they preferred a worker of the same race 
44 percent agreed that some workers have attitudes that ar "too white middle class. 
Nearly half of the miority applicants approached two or more agencies before selecting one. 
Their experiences with other agencies were often negative. Seven (18 percent) of 38 famlies 
were so dissatisfied that they gave up on an agency or felt like giving up the idea of adopting 
altogether. 
While all but one of the 39 familes would recommend their last adoption 
agency to their 
friends, 18 or nearly half of them said they would advise frends to stay away from cenain 
other agencies. Those with negative advice were two and a half times more likely to be criti
cal of private agencies than of public agencies. Some of these private agencies served relative
ly few minority children, while others served more such children but had policies and/or staff 
seen as traditional. Common complaints about private agencies were that they charge fees  and/or do not mae the applicant feel welcome. The smaler number who complained 
about

public agencies cited overworked staff or the unavailabilty 
of younger healthy childrn.

II. Children wait because familes want younger, healthy children. 
A serUJUs mismatch exists between the types of children waitng and the children
preferred by families. 
Agencies were asked for data on the age, sex and handicapped status of foster 
childrn waiting
to be adopted by famlies other than their foster 
parnts, and on the charcteristics of children 
such famlies were willng to consider. Data provided by 11 agencies at the time of our study

(Summer, 1987) show that:

Children waiting to be adopted by families other than their foster parents are 
likely to be over 3 years of age (71 percent), handicapped (59 percent)and 
males (59 percent). 
In dramatic contrast, famlies are likely to want infants or toddlers under 4 
years old (52 percent) and healthy children (92 percent). These differences 
are shown in Table 1 below. 
The most starling mismatch involves handicapped children. There 
ar five 
times as many physically or mentally handicapped children as there are 
families who wil consider them. This mismatch 
occurs in eight of nine
agencies with handicapped children. The degree of handicap was not 
specified. 
Also, there ar nearly twice as many children over II years old waiting than there are families
waiting for this age group. The numbers of waiting children and waiting families vared wide
ly because the agencies differed with respect to the size of their foster care population and the 
length of their list of waiting famies, if any.  TABLE 
Characteristics of Waiting Children and of Children

Whom Waiting Familes Wil Consider

Waiting 
Familes Wil Consider 
Children Are:  Children Who Are: 
Age:  0 - 3  29%  105  52% 
4 - 11 
12+ 
(155)  (203) 
Healthy  41%  186  92% 
Handicapped 
(155)  (203) 
Boy  59% 
12%
Girl 
Either 
(155)  (203) 
* Basd on 
data provided by 11 agencies 
The mismatch affects waiting time and recruitment policy. 
The mismatch described above also has repercussions for how long different categories of 
children and of applicants have to wait for an adoptive placement. We found black children 
generally wait longer than whites from the time they are free for adoption to the time of their 
initial placement. How much longer depends on the child' 
s age and handicap. We asked
agencies to estimate how long healthy infants and lO-
year-old boys with emotional problems
have to wait (on the average) to be adopted, once they 
ar free for adoption. Table 2 below
shows the average of estimates by II agencies for these two age groups by race and 
ethnicity.
The estimates were based on agency experiences. 
The average time a healthy white infant reportedly would have to wait was about 2 1/2 weeks; 
a healthy black infant would wait 3 months. For a lO-
year-old boy with emotional problems,
the average time the child would wait was about 10 months for whites and 20 months for 
blacks. The waiting time for Hispanic children was closer to that for the white children. At 
four of nine agencies the time for Hispanics would exceed the time for whites and at four 
others it would be the same as that for whites. Although the study did not systematically ob
tain data on sibling groups, it was suggested by some agency offcials that, in the case of sib
ling groups, the wait could be longer for all categories in Table 2.  TABLE 2 
How Long Foster Infants and 10-Year-Old "Problem 
Boys, Free for Adoption, Are Likely to Wait to be Adopted 
Estimated Waiting Time in Months 
Healthy  10 Year-old Boys 
Race/Ethnicity  Infants  With Emotional Problems 
Black  0 Mos.  20 Mos. 
Hispanic 
White 
*Base on 
average of estimates by 11 agencies. 
Many famlies interested in infants have to wait, since there are many more families waiting 
for children under 4 years than there ar children in this age group. In our own sample, 
however, famlies who adopted children under 4 
years only had to wait an average of 11 
months, slightly less than the 13 month average wait by those adopting 
childrn 4 and older. 
Explanations for this unexpected finding include the possibilties 
that families selected by 
agencies for us to tal with included many who adopted relatively quickly, that waiting lists at 
these agencies were relatively short, or that some famlies who had adopted older 
childrn had 
originally waited for a younger child. 
The waiting lists caused by the backlog of familes waiting for 
infantS and toddlers affects 
how actively agencies recruit more famlies. An agency admnistrator expressed the views of 
several others when she said: 
We don t do a lot of recruitment because we have a waiting list Advertising is good 
because it keeps names of agencies before the public; it s bad because it means longer 
waiting lists. It can be a  or  month wait before a home study is begun. We tr to 
keep them involved during the wait, but it 
s hard. However, familes wanting older
children we get to right away. 
Approaches to finding enough familes for the handicapped and older children. 
On the average, 6 out of every 10 minority waiting childrn at agencies visited are hand
icapped and only lout of every 10 famies recruited is willng to consider a handicapped 
child. Similarly, 7 of 10 children are over 3 years and only 5 in 10 famlies are interested. 
Agencies ar using several approaches to finding more minority families for the handicapped 
and older childrn: (1) convincing more waiting minority families interested in healthy 
children to consider a handicapped child; (2) targeting recruitment efforts on reaching more  famlies wiling to consider handicapped children; or (3) increasing generalized recruitment of 
minority famlies. 
At the present time, many agencies use a combination of persuasion and targeting, in addition 
to foster parnt adoptions. Persuasion has two drwbacks: some famlies complai about 
agencies pushing them too hard to tae a handicapped child, and such stretching of a famy 
tolerace sometimes results in a disrupted adoption. Targeting appears to have more ad
vantages. By featuring in the media individual childrn whose handicaps are described, 
famlies wiling to consider these panicular handicaps ar recruited. Even if they do not end 
up adopting the panicular child, they are often brought Into the agency s pool of waiting 
famlies and may consider another handicapped child. Although some agencies occasionally in
crease general recruitment effons as well, this runs the risk of producing longer waiting listS. 
In discussing the backlog of minority children in foster 
car, some agency officials and 
famlies taed about the causative role of family breakdown among the socio-economically 
disadvantaged, many of whom are minority famies, and problems in the foster care system 
which impede timely resolution of cases ,either through reunification with binh parents or 
early adoptive placement. Some respondents strssed long-term approaches to reducing the 
backlog of children waiting for adoption. Suggestions included increasing effons to prevent 
breakdown in minority famlies and to achieve reunification of such children in foster care, im
proving socio-economic conditions of minority famlies and streamining coun procedures for 
termnating parental rights at an earlier age. 
IV. Foster parents are a valuable resource for 
minority adoptions. 
The encouragement of foster parent adoptions is especially valuable in placing minority 
childrn, includig older and handicapped children for adoption. State laws generally give 
first preference to foster parents who wish to adopt after a given period of time in foster care 
has elapsed. Such preference was requird in the four States we visited, but not in 
Washington, D.C. Many of these adoptions involve physically or emotionally handicapped 
childrn whom the foster 
parnt has grown to know and love. 
A high rate of foster parent adoptions has become the norm in recent years. With the advent 
of State adoption subsidies in the 1970's and Federa subsidies in 1981 , States began to
reverse their policies against foster parent adoptions. One effect of these subsidies, if not the 
sole intent, was to make it fmancially possible for many foster parnts to adopt. This effect is 
reinforced by the IV-E provision that subsidies can be given to adoptive parents who have " 
sig
nificant ties" to a IV-E eligible child, without first tring to find adoptive parnts who require
a subsidy. By 1984, the OIG found that 14 of 17 States had an estimated foster parent adop
tion rate of at least 50 percent for special needs childrn. In the present study, we found that 
in the seven reponing agencies with miority foster parents, adoptions by foster parents 
averaged 61 percent, with a range from 40 to 80 percent. All agencies told us they encouraged 
foster parent adoptions.  Although reponed rates for foster parent adoption continue to be high
, just how high these
rates realy ar depends on how foster parnt adoptions ar defined and on which adoptions 
are included in the base on which the rate is calculated. For example, some agencies 
' high
rates may result from including in their foster parent count, adoptive parents who are tem
porarly classified as foster parents at the time of their initial adoptive placement. Some agen
cies may also include a large number of "at-risk" adoption cases (i.e., cases in which foster 
childrn ar placed with famlies for adoption with the likelihoo but not the assurce that 
the child wil become fre). 
Obstacles to more minority adoptions were cited. 
Thre tyes of obstacles to miority adoptions were most often cited: agency practices, 
staf at
titudes, and community misconceptions and fears. Other studies have reported that agency 
practices and staf attitudes, have been identified as obstacles to adoption by nonminority 
parents as well. 
AGENCY PRACTICES - While not aimed at minorities, some agency practices may nega
tively affect minority applicants. For example, Census Bureau reports show that blacks and 
Hispanics are more likely than whites to be low-income, have crowded housing, and be single. 
Therefore, the policies of many agencies which may be reasonable in general
, tend to be 
obstacles to some black and Hispanic applicants. These policies include the following: 
Charging Fees 
Many private agencies charge the applicant a fee for adopting, in addition to the usual 
legal fees. Fees were cited by respondents as a major obstacle to blacks because of 
their sensitivity to the negative historical association with buying and 
sellng babies. 
Preference for Couples 
Nearly all agencies said they prefer couples over single 
parnts, especially for infants. 
Although these agencies wil often accept singles for older children
, and even give 
such applicants preference if indicated by the needs of the child (e. 
, a sexually-
abused gil who could better relate to a single mother), some single applicants felt dis
crinated 
against; and others had heard that being single made it harder to adopt. 
One applicant complained: 
Because I'm single, I feel uneasy and unrrusting because they wouldn t give a child
to me unless two-parent familes pass him by. If they suggest a child to me, I wonder 
why? I slwuld be able to get a norml child just like everyone else. 
While most applicants, both single and mared, want healthy infants, 40 percent of the 
single applicants listed on the Black Registr in Detroit expressed wilingness to con
sider a handicapped child compared to only 17 percent of mared registrants. Also, 32
percent of singles were wiling to consider a child 8 years and older 
compared to eight
percent of mared.  Explanatin of Subsidies 
Twenty-four (63 percent) of 38 applicants said that the availabilty of subsidies was not 
explained to them. Famlies from private agencies were much more likely than those 
from public agencies to say this. Although private agencies ar less likely than public 
agencies to have childrn eligible for subsidies, some do. In fact, at least four of the 
eight private agencies provided subsidies to some famlies. Agencies must make a 
diligent effon to find a family who does not reuir a subsidy to adopt a special needs 
child eligible for a Federal subsidy under Title IV-E. However, a means test is not re
quir 
for receiving a Federal subsidy or, in most cases, a State subsidy for a special 
nees child. 
Since the availabilty of a subsidy is an importt incentive to adopt, publicizing this 
minimally or not at all may result in losing an applicant or 
deterrng others from apply
ing. A few respondents reported that some foster parents were 
fearul of losing finan
cial support for their child if they adopt. A few recommended higher 
subsidies. 
Policies Related to Income 
Agencies do not have miimum income requirements. However, the applicant must be 
able to manage within their means. While agencies reponed no fonnal policies regard
ing the acceptability of AFC recipients as adoptive parents, 4 out of 11 agencies 
visited did not accept applicants on AFC. Placements with AFDC recipients vared 
from 2 percent to 25 percent of all placements at six agencies making such placements. 
One agency had no infonnation on AFC recipients. 
The requirement that every member of the applicant s immediate family have a medi
cal exam, while necessar, is a problem for low-income famlies without health in
surance. This was perceived as a hardship 
when agencies or the State do not help 
defray the costs. 
Providing suffcient living space for another child is reportedly diffcult for famlies 
without the resources to expand their existing space or to move. According to agency 
administrators in New York City and Detroit, these problems are exacerbated in their 
ar 
cities where there  serious housing shonages. 
STAFF ATTITUDES - Although most applicants found one or more adoption workers who 
were especially helpful, they also had experienced or heard about other workers who were not. 
Famies reportd specific kinds of attitudes on the pan of adoption workers that can dis
courage minority applicants. These included attitudes that are 
considered insensitive, superior 
and rigid. One applicant said "The social worker was condescending. She was insensitive 
about infenility." Another observed that "Social workers are so used to dealing with a cenain 
type of people, like lower-educated, that they tal down to al people and don t even know it. 
Also mentioned were workers who were too persistent in 
famlies to take children 
tring to get 
they did not want. Some applicants felt that children with serious handicaps were being 
presented to them against their wishes. While most applicants said they were told everything  about the children, some felt they were not told enough. In one instance, the applicant said
she had to ask whether or not the child had AIDS. There is increasing concern
, on the pan of 
sta 
applicantS and  alike, about the later effects of AIDS on those children who test positive 
for AIDS-related antibodes and about whether any health care costs would be covered by 
medical subsidies. 
Some applicants said that some workers were insensitive to the feelings of minority ap
plicantS. A few applicants felt they were 
scrutinize more closely than whites. A specifc com
plaint made by about 10 percent of famlies was that some workers are overly concerned 
about matching the ski color of a black child to that of the adoptig parnts. 
COMMUNITY MISCONCEPTIONS AND FEARS -
There was genera agreement among 
most famies and staff that black and Hispanic communities often do not know about formal 
adoptions. While such communities ar aware of informal adoptions within the extended fami
ly, several respondents reported there is a stigma to agency adoption among some minority 
residents. One reason appears to be an aversion to the idea of paying money for babies. In 
describing obstacles to helping black famlies adopt, an adoptive mother pointed to a percep
tion that some black people have about adoption: "
Those that do adopt don t tell anyone.
They re insecure. 
Among the myths and fears which deter others from inquirng about adoptions are a number 
of mistaken beliefs. Many reportedly believe that adoption costs a lot and that one must have 
a "goo" income and a "goo" education, live in a "fancy" neighborhoo, and cannot work if 
single. Some are said to believe that an adopted child must be kept even when the problems 
are too much to handle. This is a deterrent because of the fears 
expressed, even by some ap
plicants, of tang on someone else s problem and becoming economically and socially hand
icapped by adopting a handicapped child. 
VI. There is a lack of systematic data. 
For local, State and Federal agencies to plan and manage effective child care programs, includ
ing strategies for recruiting and matching families with waiting foster children
, it is importnt
to maintai accessible data files over time on charcteristics of foster children, famly ap
plicantS and adoptive placements. Such data are also necessar 
for measuring progress. There 
is, however, a lack of such data at al levels. 
The National Adoption Exchange and varous regional and State exchanges were found by 
some of the agencies visited to be useful in recruiting and matching famies with waiting
childrn. Historicaly, however, these exchanges were not designed to serve, nor do they serve 
planning and management purposes for national or State programs on foster care and adoption. 
The only national data system on foster  is volunta. 
car and adoption  Known as the Volun
tar Cooperative Information System (VCIS) and operated by the American Public Welfar 
Association with a  OHDS, the system is limited in several important ways: data 
grnt from  from one or more States is missing on vinually all data elements; the data elements are often 
de(rned differently by the States; and there ar no data for counties and cities. There ar 32 
data elements plus additional sub-elements. They include such items as the race/ethnicity and 
age of chidren in substitute care free for adoption, and of those in non-finalized adoptive 
home placements. 
When four State agencies (excludig D.  ) were asked to provide 1986 statewide statistics on 
foster children and adoptions, all four could provide data on only a few items such as the num
ber of childrn in foster care and the number of finalized adoptions. The number 
of States that 
could give breakdowns by race and ethnicity vared from two to three dependig on the item. 
Moreover, only one of the State agencies could provide any statistics on persons applying for 
adoption. 
While 13 local agencies (including D.  ) provided some 1986 data elements requested, no 
more than eight agencies could provide data on most of the elements on foster children and 
adoption. Fewer than half could provide data on adoption applicants. Moreover, for each data 
element reponed for children, at least several agencies could not provide racial and ethnic per
centages. Also, the number of agencies able to provide data decreased for each proceedg
year going back to 1982. 
The OHDS has been awar of the lack of systematic data and has taen 
steps to address the
problem. As far back as 1986, it founded the National Center for State Couns to develop a 
plan for a National Adoption Information System. As a result of the Omnibus Budget Recon
ciliation Act (OBRA) of 1986, an HHS Advisory Committee on Adoption and Foster Care, 
under the diction of OHDS' Admnistration for Children , Youth and Families, has recom
mended to the HHS Secretar ways to meet the need for national data on adoption and foster 
care. The Secretar is required to propose to Congrss by July 1988 a mandatory national
data collection system. 
VII. Existing activities were noted as best practices 
FORMAL INTERAGENCY COORDINATING MECHANISMS - These 
have the affect 
of incrasing communication and cooperation among varous public and private agencies and 
reducing competition. Examples include: 
interagency commttees which meet regularly to 
shar information about 
waiting childrn and famlies among public and private agencies in the area. 
Examples are KINSHI in Detroit and the Adoption Committee in New 
York City; and 
the Black Famly Registr is an innovative effon to involve agencies in 
Detroit in listing all black applicants on a central 
registr for use by all 
agencies.  g., "

PERSONALIZED PRESENTATIONS OF SPECIFIC CHILDREN TO POTENTIAL 
ADOPTIVE PARENTS - This practice is generally accepted as one of the more effective 
techniques of findig parnts for minority childrn who are hard-to-
place. Such presentations 
are made in the following ways: 
regular newspaper columns which often featue older minority 
childrn with 
physical or menta problems (e.  A child is waiting" column in the 
which includes children selected through interagency 
Sunday  Detroit News, 
discussions at monthly KINSHI meetings); 
photo-listings of children by State and regional adoption exchanges, 
appealing pictures by professional photographers hired by agencies, and 
videos of children for use on TV or at community meetings; and 
adoption pares, fairs, festivals, and other events to which potential parents 
are invited to meet and get to know individual children. 
USE OF ADOPTIVE PARENTS AND CELEBRITIES WHO WERE ADOPTED, AS 
ROLE MODELS - Many agencies involve adoptive or foster parents as role models in the 
course of recruitment and traiing activities. Occasionally, agencies involve famous per
sonalities who have been adopted, in recruitment effons. An example is the Annual Adoption 
Fantasy Festival for Latino Kids and the Black Adoption Festival, both in Los Angeles. At 
recent festivals, Ricardo Montalban and Ben Vereen each 
paricipated as adopted persons. 
ACTIONS TO SENSITIZE AND STRENGTHEN STAFF -Efforts to reach out to and at
tract minority applicants have been faciltated by agency actions to sensitize and 
strengthen
staff. Specifc actions have included hiring minority admnistrtors and recruitment 
specialists, and providig special trning in minority adoption methods and cultural sen
sitivity. Examples include the following: 
About half of the agencies visited have hired minority admnistrators for 
their adoption units. By going beyond the worker level, these private and/or 
public agencies in Detroit, Distrct of Columbia and New York City have 
created an image of an agency concerned and committed to placing minority 
children. 
Most agencies assign adoption workers to multiple tasks including some 
recruiting. Because of the crisis nature of adoption work, recruitment often 
has to wait. Three public and one private agency have assigned one or two 
persons as recruitment specialists. They concentrate on recruitment and 
have reportdly strngthened agency effons to bring in minority famlies. 
Three of the five public agencies reponed that State training opportunities 
were utilzed for training their staf in minority 
cultures and adoptions. The  other agencies with specialized training -- two public and two private -- used 
community groups or outside consultants. One in New York City was 
especially pleased with the 
multi-culturl training received by her staff from 
the local Association of Black Social Workers and the Committee for 
Hispanic Children and Famlies. 
PUBLICIZING THE AVAILABILITY OF SUBSIDIES 
- One of the keys to increased 
minority and other special needs adoptions over the last 7 
year has been the use of adoption
subsidies and medcal assistace funded by the Federal and State governments under the Title 
IV-E Adoption Assistace program and by State governments for childrn not eligible for IV
E. Several agencies appear to have consistently told applicants about the availability of such

subsidies. Also, some adoption exchange photo-listings routinely indicate when a subsidy is

available. Even if the paricular child might not qualfy for a 
subsidy or the famly may not

need one at that time, the infonnation may be appropriate for a subsequent adoption or be help
ful to another potential applicant. 
ENCOURAGING AND UTILIZING SINGLE PARENT ADOPTIONS - Single parnt
famlies are increasingly recognized as a valuable resource for adoption agencies to utilze 
more extensively. While some agencies do not accept single 
parnts and some ar just begin
ning to get the word out that singles can adopt, others have been approving a substantial num
ber of single parents (despite their general preference for couples) and publicizing their policy 
of accepting single applicants. Agencies in Los Angeles, Detroit, D.C. and New York report 
that anywhere from 19 to 50 percent of their adoptions were with single parent familes. 
The 
public agency in the Distrct of Columbia has recently established a suppon group for single 
adoptive parents. 
ENCOURAGING FOSTER PARENT ADOPTIONS - The 
majority of adoptions at most 
agencies visited were with foster parents. The value of these parents as a resource was 
under
lined in a recent study by Westat, Inc.  (Adoption Services for Waiting Minority and Non-
which found that agencies which made better use of foster parents were 
minority Children) 

more likely than agencies that did not, to be as successful in finding adoptive homes for 
minority as for non-miority children. 
To facilitate the transition of famlies from foster car to adoption status, several agencies
developed special mechanisms. One established an adoption resource team in which 
adoption
workers provide tehnical assistance to foster car workers who reportedly tend to be more 
oriented to handling immedate crises than to long-range 
planning. At a second agency, foster 
care workers reuest consultation from an adoption worker if the foster parent is unsur 
whether to adopt. Another way of encouraging foster parent adoptions is advocatig "fost
adopt" or "at-risk" adoptions by foster parnts. Such placements ar made with the under
standing that tennnation of the child's parental rights is very likely but not assure. 
LOCAL ADVOCACY GROUPS AS WATCHDOGS AND EDUCATORS - A 
unique role
is played by varous local groups advocating on behalf of familes  as well as 
tring to adopt  childrn waiting to be adopted. They counsel famlies who ar unsure or discouraged, refer 
them to appropriate agencies and negotiate with local and State agencies for improvements in 
the system. They also help to educate the minority communities about adoptions. Examples 
ar 
of such groups  Room For One More, a project of the Ward 
Afrcan Methodst Episcopal
Church in Los Angeles and the Council on Adoptable Children (COAC) in New York 
City.
New York State is attempting to work cooperatively with COAC and statewide advocacy 
groups to utilize the inevitable tensions for creative purposes.  CONCLUSIONS

Adoption agencies have made substantial 
progres towards addressing the needs of 
minority children waiting to be adopted. 
Available techniques ar being used effectively to recruit minority famlies 
and to match them with younger, healthier foster children. 
There has also been considerable progress in finding families for some of 
the minority foster childrn who ar older and handicapped. 
Agencies have not yet succeeded in recruiting enough minority 
familes for the many
waiting minority children who are older and handicapped. 
Our data show that minority foster childrn have remained in foster care 
longer then white children. As a result such children they are likely to be 
disproportionately represented among the older, more handicapped foster 
children. 
Black couples have reportly adopted at a higer rate than comparable white 
couples (see Child Welfar Notes #3, Children s Bureau, Deparment of 
Health and Human Services, 1984), but there are stil not enough black 
familes who are wiling to take the older or handicapped black child. 
While there was agreement among respondents about many of the obstacles to 
recruiting and matching more minority familes, there was a 
divergence of views on
how to overcome these obstacles. 
It was generally agreed that some agency policies, the lack 
of suffcient 
minority and trined staff, and cenain minority community attitudes create 
obstacles to finding parents wiling to take an older or handicapped black 
child. 
It was also agred that socio-economic hardships disproportionately affect 
minority families and make it harder for them to keep their 
childrn out of 
foster care. These hardships also contrbute to a higher 
proportion of
female-headed households, AFC mothers, and low-income famlies among 
minority communities. 
There was also general consensus that agencies should intensify recruitment 
efforts targeted at minority familes interested in specific older and 
handicapped children and expand suppon services for families during and  after the adoption process. 
There was no consensus, however, on how to recruit enough minority 
famlies to adopt the hardest-to-place waiting children. Some recommended 
reaching out more to the single famiy, the low-income famly, and to some 
welfare famlies. Others recommended addtional incentives to adopt, such 
as Federal ta deductions for adoption expenses, new fmancial or other 
rewards, or increased subsidies. 
Stil others strssed longer term actions which give high priority to: 
preventing miority famly breakdown and reunifying foster children with 
their birh families; expedting the flow of children through foster care with 
a streamined cour process for terminating parental rights at an earlier age; 
and/or improving the socio-economic conditions of minority famlies. 
A number of positive developments have emerged: 
Major organizations in the minority community have helped to raise the 
level of awareness among public officials, the media and the public of the 
problems of waiting minority children. 
The administrtion and staff of many public and private agencies are 
committed to placing minority children. 
Under the management of OHDS' Administration for Children 
, Youth and
Familes, an HHS Advisory Commttee on Adoption and Foster Care 
Information, mandated by the Omnibus Budget Reconcilation Act (OBRA) 
of 1986, has submitted to the Secretar ofHHS its recommendations on how 
to strengthen national data systems. 
Data developed by OHDS support the view that adoption is more cost 
effective than foster care and would save Federa and State governments 
millons of dollars. 
The Interagency Task Force on Adoption, established by the 
Prsident, has 
issued a repon on what Federal legislation and State and local actions are 
neeed to overcome the barers to adoption.  APPENDIX 
COMMENTS ON DRAFT REPORT 
drt 
The complete comments on the  report reeived from the Assistant Secretar for Huma 
Development Services and the Assistant 
Secretar for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) ar at
tached. 
Almost all the comments were found to be helpful and have been incorporated or otherwise ad
dressed in the text of this repon. One suggestion, however, was made that the cost to a poten
tial adoptive family of getting medcal exams for al famly members should not be described 
as an obstacle to miority adoptions. In this instance, we did not change the finding 
since we 
simply reponed what respondents perceived as obstacles.  Utlice ot

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH &. HUMAN SERVICES  Human Development Services 
"""'11  Assistant Secretary 
Washington DC 20201
MAR II r 
. J

TO:  Richard P. Kusserow 
Inspector General 
FROM:  Assistant Secretary 
ices 
for Human Development Serv 
SUBJECT:  The Inspector Gene r a l' s Dr aft Repor t on Minor rEy
Adoptions 
for a job well done. 
First, thank you  Your draft report on 
minor i ty adopt ions prov ides subs tan ti ve in forma t ion and analys i s 
that will enhance our efforts in this area in the future. We 
appreciate your help and hope that our comments on your draft 
report will be of some assistance as you prepare your final (eport. 
In addition to various minor improvements (which we have indicated 
in the marked-up attached text), we have siax ll arger concerns
r egar ding the Off ice of the Inspector Gener  (OIG) dr a ft repor t. 
First, 
in the fourth paragraph on page i of the Executive Summary,
the r epor t a lludes to the  " sens i tive cl imate " th at sur rounds 
interracial adoptions and "provides the context" for the study. 
We believe that the true context for the study is the Adoption 
Opportunities Act of 1978, the Adoption Assistance and Child 
Welfare Act of 1980, and especially the very active Office of 
Human Development Services (OHDS) campaign in the 1980s to 
increase adoptions of special needs children. In the absence of 
any data in the draft report on interracial adoptions, we suggest 
evised. 
that this paragraph 
either be deleted or significantly 
Second, in the last paragraph on page iii and the last paragraph 
on page 17, the draft report refers to the President' s Task Force
on Adoptions. 
This task force has already made its report and the 
two subject paragraphs should be revised to reflect 

Third, the OIG finding on a iliaic,k  of data on waiting families and

ildren reported on pages  12, and 13, makes no reference to 
or acknowledgement of the National Adoption Exchange, an OHDS-
funded project to bring together families and waiting children who 
areas. 
live in different geographical  Did the OIG inspection
uncover any use by adopt ion agenc ies of local, State, or na t iona 1 
adoptio  exchanges? In any case, we believe that the Voluntary
Cooperative Information System (VCIS) is not a source of data for 
recruiting families or placing children and, thus, it is not clear 
report. 
why VCIS is discussed in this section of the  ? ,
Page :  - Richard P. Kusserow 
Regarding the more general OIG finding of a lack of systematic

data on adoptions, we ask that the final report show that we are

aware of ttihoisn p.r oblem and that we are already moving to improve
the situ 
OUr ongoing efforts in this area include: 
a 1986 grant to the National Center for State Courts to

es tabl ish a Na t ional Adopt ion In forma t ion System tha t
provides 
information on all adoptions: 
the Adv i sor y Commi t tee on Adopt ion and Fos ter Care 
In forma t ion has ou t lined the steps necessa ry to deve lop a
na t ional data base on fos ter care and adopt ions and th 
has provided a framework for forthcoming regulations 

this area: and

OHDS has submitted a data collection form to OMB for
clear ance th a t would prov ide cons ider ably g r ea ter 
information on children being supported by 
title IV-E

funds under the Soc ial Secur i ty Act. 
Fourth, the demographic data presented in Table 1 on page 6

appears to be incomplete and therefore may be misleading. Our 
previous research indicates that a relatively high percentage of
minority adoptions require placements with sibling groups, that
sibling groups are more difficult to place than 
individuals, and
that sibling groups may be an obstacle to minority adoptions. 
Did 
the OIG inspection find any data on the impact of sibling groups
adoptions? 
on minor i ty 
Fifth, it is not clear whether the data on waiting times presented

in Table 2 on page 7 
includes ch i ldr en aIr eady adopted or on
children waiting. A footnote clarifying the data base may be 
appropriate because children waiting are by definition harder to 
place and inclusion of children already adopted would probably 
shorten average waiting times. 
Sixth, in the third paragraph on page 11, the OIG descr ibes the 
usual medical exam requirement as an obstacle to minor i ty
adoptions. 
The Tax Reform Act of 1986 (Pub. L. 99-154) amended
ti tIe 
IV-E of the Social Secur i ty Act to require States to
reimburse parents for the nonrecurr ing expenses involved in 
i ld. 
adopti ng a spec ial needs ch  These med ical exams may now be
reimbursed by State agencies under this law. More to the point,

this requirement may be an obstacle, but to describe it as such 
begs the question: if a family has no health insurance and no 
money for med ical exam  , then can they rea  f ford to 
lly a 
adopt ing a ch i ld? We sugges t tha t th i s requ i remen t may be a va 1 id
cr iter ion and should not be descr 
ibed as an obstacle to minor i ty
adopt ions.  ~~~
.". .,
. 1 
Page 3 - Richard P. Kusserow

I f you have any ques t ions reg ard ing our concer ns or our ed i tor i 
suggestions, please contact Terr  Herron pn 245-3109. 
Attachment