U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

89–477 2017

INCREASING ADOPTIONS FROM FOSTER CARE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

FEBRUARY 27, 2013 

Serial No. 113–HR01 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means 

( 

ii 

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

DAVE CAMP, Michigan, Chairman 

SAM JOHNSON, Texas 

KEVIN BRADY, Texas 

PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin 

DEVIN NUNES, California 

PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio 

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

PETER J. ROSKAM, Illinois 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

TOM PRICE, Georgia 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska 

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois 

LYNN JENKINS, Kansas 

ERIK PAULSEN, Minnesota 

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas 

DIANE BLACK, Tennessee 

TOM REED, New York 

TODD YOUNG, Indiana 

MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania 

TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas 

JIM RENACCI, Ohio 

SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan 

CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York 

JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington 

JOHN LEWIS, Georgia 

RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts 

XAVIER BECERRA, California 

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas 

MIKE THOMPSON, California 

JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut 

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon 

RON KIND, Wisconsin 

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

ALLYSON SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania 

DANNY DAVIS, Illinois 

LINDA SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

JENNIFER M. SAFAVIAN, Staff Director and General Counsel 

JANICE MAYS, Minority Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES 

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington, Chairman 

TODD YOUNG, Indiana 

MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania 

TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas 

JIM RENACCI, Ohio 

TOM REED, New York 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas 

JOHN LEWIS, Georgia 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

DANNY DAVIS, Illinois 

iii 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Advisory of February 27, 2013 announcing the hearing ...................................... 2 

WITNESSES 

Rita L. Soronen, President and Chief Executive Officer, Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption .............................................................................................. 7 

Kelly Rosati, J.D., Vice President of Community Outreach, Focus on the 

Family ................................................................................................................... 18 

Pat O’Brien, MS, LMSW, Founder and Executive Director, You Gotta Believe! 

The Older Child Adoption & Permanency Movement, Incorporated ............... 29 

Nicole Dobbins, Executive Director, Voice for Adoption ....................................... 36 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Lilliput Children’s Services ..................................................................................... 59 

Statewide Adoption and Permanency Network ..................................................... 63 

Family & Youth Initiative ....................................................................................... 65 

Center for Adoption Support and Education (C.A.S.E.) ....................................... 68 

Human Rights Campaign ....................................................................................... 71 

Family Equality Council ......................................................................................... 76 

Listening to Parents ................................................................................................ 80 

Northwest Adoption Exchange ............................................................................... 86 

Adoptive Parent and Advocate ............................................................................... 89 

Marie Dolfi, LCSW .................................................................................................. 91 

Center for Fiscal Equity .......................................................................................... 96 

Children’s Home + Aid ............................................................................................ 98 

NYS Citizens’ Coalition for Children (NYSCCC) .................................................. 101 

Hillside Family of Agencies .................................................................................... 104 

(1) 

INCREASING ADOPTIONS FROM FOSTER CARE 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2013 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 4:13 p.m., in 

Room 1100, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Dave Reichert 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

[The advisory announcing the hearing follows:] 

2 

ADVISORY 

FROM THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: (202) 225–3625 

Wednesday, February 20, 2013 

No. HR–01 

Chairman Reichert Announces Hearing on 

Increasing Adoptions from Foster Care 

Congressman Dave Reichert (R–WA), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Human 

Resources of the Committee on Ways and Means, today announced that the Subcommittee will hold a hearing on increasing adoptions from foster care, including 

through the Adoption Incentives program. The hearing will take place immediately following the Subcommittee organizational meeting that begins at 

2:00 p.m. on Wednesday, February 27, 2013, in Room 1100 of the Longworth 

House Office Building. 

In view of the limited time available to hear from witnesses, oral testimony at 

this hearing will be from invited witnesses only. Witnesses will include experts from 

organizations that have had success in increasing adoptions from foster care. However, any individual or organization not scheduled for an oral appearance may submit a written statement for consideration by the Committee and for inclusion in the 

printed record of the hearing. 

BACKGROUND: 

Congress began providing Federal financial support for adoption as part of Public 

Law 96–272, the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, with a goal 

of reducing the number of children in foster care. In 1997, Congress enacted Public 

Law 105–89, The Adoption and Safe Families Act, to further increase the number 

of children leaving foster care for adoptive homes. This law created the Adoption 

Incentives program, which provides incentive payments to States that increase the 

number of adoptions over a base year level. Initially, States were eligible to receive 

incentive payments either for increases in the number of foster children adopted or 

for increases in the number of foster children with special needs placed in adoptive 

homes. 

The program was extended by Public Law 108–145, the Adoption Promotion Act 

of 2003, which reset the State baselines and also added a new incentive payment 

category for adoptions of children age 9 and older. This new incentive category was 

created in response to research showing that once a child reached 8 or 9 years of 

age, he or she was more likely to remain in foster care than to be adopted. 

Public Law 110–35, the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008, again extended the program and reset the State baselines. This 

2008 law doubled the incentive payments for adoptions of special needs children 

under age 9 and for older child adoptions. The 2008 law also authorized incentive 

payments for States that increased the rate of children adopted from foster care. 

The Adoption Incentives program is currently authorized through September 30, 

2013, as is the Family Connection grants program which provides grants designed 

to better connect children in foster care to their relatives. 

A number of organizations have developed proven methods for increasing the 

number of children who are adopted from foster care, contributing to recent success 

in advancing this goal. For example, some organizations focus on reexamining the 

adult relationships a foster youth has had during their time in foster care to determine if any of these adults may be possible adoptive parents. Others are building 

more in-depth relationships with a smaller caseload of foster youth to better understand their needs and desires to find the right home for the child. 

3 

In announcing the hearing, Chairman Reichert stated, ‘‘While tens of thousands of children are adopted from foster care each year, twice as many 

foster children are still waiting for a permanent home. Past Federal efforts 

have increased support for adoptions and have helped States reduce the 

number of children in foster care each year. As we review the Adoption Incentives program in preparation for its reauthorization, we need to make 

sure these measures are still working well so we can ensure all children 

have a permanent home as quickly as possible. I look forward to hearing 

from leaders and experts alike about ways in which we can safely increase 

the number of children adopted from foster care, so every child has a permanent home and parents to call their own.’’ 

FOCUS OF THE HEARING: 

The hearing will review successful efforts to increase adoptions of children from 

foster care. Leaders of several private organizations achieving significant success 

are expected to testify about their programs, as well as their views on reauthorizing 

the Adoption Incentives program. 

DETAILS FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS: 

Please Note: Any person(s) and/or organization(s) wishing to submit for the hearing record must follow the appropriate link on the hearing page of the Committee 

website and complete the informational forms. From the Committee homepage, 

http://waysandmeans.house.gov, select ‘‘Hearings.’’ Select the hearing for which you 

would like to submit, and click on the link entitled, ‘‘Click here to provide a submission for the record.’’ Once you have followed the online instructions, submit all requested information. ATTACH your submission as a Word document, in compliance 

with the formatting requirements listed below, by the close of business on 

Wednesday, March 13, 2013. Finally, please note that due to the change in House 

mail policy, the U.S. Capitol Police will refuse sealed-package deliveries to all House 

Office Buildings. For questions, or if you encounter technical problems, please call 

(202) 225–1721 or (202) 225–3625. 

FORMATTING REQUIREMENTS: 

The Committee relies on electronic submissions for printing the official hearing record. As always, submissions will be included in the record according to the discretion of the Committee. 

The Committee will not alter the content of your submission, but we reserve the right to format 

it according to our guidelines. Any submission provided to the Committee by a witness, any supplementary materials submitted for the printed record, and any written comments in response 

to a request for written comments must conform to the guidelines listed below. Any submission 

or supplementary item not in compliance with these guidelines will not be printed, but will be 

maintained in the Committee files for review and use by the Committee. 

1. All submissions and supplementary materials must be provided in Word format and MUST 

NOT exceed a total of 10 pages, including attachments. Witnesses and submitters are advised 

that the Committee relies on electronic submissions for printing the official hearing record. 

2. Copies of whole documents submitted as exhibit material will not be accepted for printing. 

Instead, exhibit material should be referenced and quoted or paraphrased. All exhibit material 

not meeting these specifications will be maintained in the Committee files for review and use 

by the Committee. 

3. All submissions must include a list of all clients, persons, and/or organizations on whose 

behalf the witness appears. A supplemental sheet must accompany each submission listing the 

name, company, address, telephone, and fax numbers of each witness. 

The Committee seeks to make its facilities accessible to persons with disabilities. 

If you are in need of special accommodations, please call 202–225–1721 or 202–226– 

3411 TDD/TTY in advance of the event (four business days notice is requested). 

Questions with regard to special accommodation needs in general (including availability of Committee materials in alternative formats) may be directed to the Committee as noted above. 

Note: All Committee advisories and news releases are available online at http:// 

www.waysandmeans.house.gov/. 

f 

4 

Chairman REICHERT. I call this Subcommittee meeting to 

order. We welcome you to today’s hearing. I can’t think of a more 

important or more bipartisan topic than promoting adoption. This 

is an area where both parties have worked together to improve outcomes for children, which is what I would like to do whenever possible as the Chairman of this Subcommittee. I know Mr. Doggett 

agrees with that goal, and I look forward to working with all the 

Members to work productively toward that end. Of course, we won’t 

always agree, but whether it involves adoption, data standards, or 

preventing wasteful spending, there is a lot we can do, and should 

do, together. 

As Mr. Doggett mentioned, I have a background with 33 years 

in law enforcement, but also some personal experience in the 

adoption/foster care arena. Two of my grandchildren are adopted. 

I was a foster grandparent for a while for a number of children and 

also now, of course, an adoptive grandfather, and we are very 

proud of the fact that my daughter and her husband, my son-inlaw, have adopted two little children: Emma, who was a crack cocaine, heroin-addicted baby when she was born; and Breyer, who 

was a meth-addicted baby when he was born. And you can imagine 

some of the challenges they now face as they grow older at 9 and 

10 years old. But they now have a strong foundation, a loving family, and a good, strong base to start their lives from, which gives 

them so many more opportunities than they would have had. 

On the other hand, as the sheriff and as a detective, a homicide 

detective, working in King County—and especially my memory 

goes back to the days working the Green River murder cases, if you 

are familiar with those, a series of murders of street people, women 

and young girls, 51 cases were closed. The suspect pled guilty to 

49 murders. I worked with a lot of those young kids on the street. 

Those were kids who were in and out of foster homes, who weren’t 

adopted, who were in their teens, early teens and late teens, some 

even younger. I would get calls at night at home: ‘‘I am at a phone 

booth, I ran away from my foster home.’’ You take them to the 

YWCA and the YMCA; they run away from there. 

You folks on the panel know this, have seen this yourselves, and 

have experience there. I know members on this panel have heart 

for this issue, and I wanted to share those stories with you so that 

you understand how close this is to me personally in so many different ways. And I could tell so many other stories, but we will 

move on. 

As I said, not every child has been so lucky to have a home. For 

example, in the 10 years from 1987 through 1997, the number of 

children in foster care rose dramatically, climbing from 300,000 to 

537,000. That surge in foster care caseloads is one of the reasons 

why Congress, led by our current Chairman Dave Camp, passed 

the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997. That law was designed 

to ensure more foster children were quickly adopted when they 

couldn’t return to live safely with their parents. 

The Adoption Incentives program, created as part of that law, 

was one key measure to encourage more adoption of children from 

foster care. In short, it rewards States if they increase the number 

of children leaving foster care for adoptive homes. We all know it 

worked. Since the passage of the Adoption and Safe Families Act, 

5 

foster care caseloads have fallen dramatically. After peaking at 

567,000 in 1999, foster care caseloads have fallen by almost 30 percent. At the same time, adoptions from foster care increased in the 

late 1990s and remain much higher than before the law’s passage. 

Today we will review how the Adoption Incentives program supported these improvements. We will hear directly from adoption experts, including from organizations that have proven they can increase the number of children adopted from foster care, and we will 

start to consider whether we need to make changes to encourage 

even more adoptions. 

In my view, the Federal Government should continue to support 

efforts to increase adoptions, as there are still over 100,000 children in foster care waiting to be adopted. These kids deserve a 

place to call home. They need someone who will commit to caring 

for them, and they deserve our best efforts to ensure that they are 

adopted. 

Again, I look forward to the testimony of all of our witnesses 

today and also thank you so much for your patience. I am really 

interested in how we can work together to ensure more children 

grow up in a safe, loving, and permanent family. 

Without objection, each Member will have the opportunity to 

submit a written statement and have it included in the record at 

this point. 

I would like to recognize Mr. Doggett for his opening statement. 

Mr. DOGGETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I believe that our Federal Adoption Incentives program, which 

provides financial awards to the States that increase the number 

of children adopted out of foster care above a certain baseline, is 

an important part of the effort, the joint bipartisan effort, to try to 

encourage permanent loving homes for children who are placed in 

foster care. These awards are due—and this program is due to expire at the end of September, not that far from now, and I am 

hopeful that we will be able to work together to reauthorize the 

program. 

Under the Adoption Incentives program, the States become eligible for awards if they increase the number of total adoptions, those 

for children over age 9 that are adopted, and the adoption of children with special needs. The goal of the program is to incentivize 

and encourage the States to increase the adoptions out of foster 

care and to quickly move children who are unable to return to their 

parents into permanent homes. States must reinvest these payments back into services, such as postadoption services for children 

and families and other services generally provided under the child 

welfare system. 

Forty-three million dollars is available for the program in this 

fiscal year. Since the program was created, as the Chairman described, roughly $375 million has been awarded, and every State 

in the country has participated in the funding. In fiscal year 2011, 

Texas, my home State, received about $7 million in incentives, the 

largest amount of any State in the country. San Antonio has been 

viewed as a particular model of success. 

Bexar County has been creative in safely moving children into 

permanent homes. Each month there at the county courthouse, the 

county hosts an adoption day event that allows dozens of families 

6 

on the same day to complete their adoptions in a single day, and 

that happens every month. These proceedings have allowed countless children to have shorter stays in foster care and move more 

quickly into stable homes. I believe that judges in Bexar County 

understand they are responsible for getting children who experience abuse and neglect into a safer foster environment and, in 

addition, are responsible for placing that child with a permanent 

family if it does not become safe for the child to return home. 

These improvements to the local adoption system, encouraged 

and utilized by child advocates like District Judge Peter Sakai, who 

has been a leader in the area over the last decade, and CASA San 

Antonio, have allowed faster and more efficient placement of foster 

youth into permanent families. 

We will hear from all of our witnesses finally this afternoon, but 

specifically I share the concern that I believe Nicole Dobbins will 

be expressing about the lack of clarity regarding how the States 

use these award payments. I know that some States under budget 

pressures have tended to use the Federal money for perhaps what 

they had been doing previously, and I think it is important 

that our Federal resources add to, not supplant money that was 

already being invested on adoption activities. The inclusion of a 

maintenance-of-effort requirement as part of reauthorization could 

help us ensure that the dollars that are so precious here that we 

are expending are actually being used to improve and strengthen 

child welfare. 

I welcome the opportunity to discuss how we can continue to increase adoptions for children in foster care, but I do think one step 

that is important is to avoid any cuts in these modest, federallyfunded adoption initiatives that will occur within just a few days 

under the sequester. Cutting funding for this program could 

mean less funding for postadoption services for families that have 

adopted a foster child, or less funding to recruit adoptive homes 

through online adoption exchanges and promotional materials, or 

less support for training adoption workers. 

Another issue that requires our attention this year is the more 

recent Family Connection grants initiative. It is also scheduled to 

expire at the end of September. It has provided $15 million each 

year in grants for State agencies and community organizations. It 

has been a more narrow program, but it is designed to connect or 

reconnect children with their biological relatives when it is safe 

and appropriate to do so. This small program, fairly new, created 

only in 2008, is currently being evaluated, but it looks like a program, from the preliminary review that I have seen, that could be 

effective in improving the lives of at-risk children. 

I look forward to hearing from today’s witnesses and working 

with our colleagues to continue to improve the well-being of all 

children in foster care. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman REICHERT. Thank you, Mr. Doggett. 

I want to remind our witnesses to limit their oral testimony to 

5 minutes. However, without objection, all of the written testimony 

will be made part of the permanent record. 

On our panel this afternoon we will be hearing from Rita 

Soronen, the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Dave 

7 

Thomas Foundation for Adoption; Kelly Rosati, Vice President of 

Community Outreach, Focus on the Family; Pat O’Brien, Founder 

and Executive Director, You Gotta Believe! The Older Child Adoption & Permanency Movement, Incorporated; and Nicole Dobbins, 

Executive Director, Voice for Adoption. 

Ms. Soronen, you are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF RITA L. SORONEN, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF 

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, DAVE THOMAS FOUNDATION FOR 

ADOPTION 

Ms. SORONEN. Thank you, Chairman and Members of the Committee. I am Rita Soronen, President and CEO of the Dave Thomas 

Foundation for Adoption. I am honored to be with you today. 

I would like to start with a short video before I make my comments, and I think that is cued to run. 

[Video shown.] 

Sometimes a video can say it all, but I will try to sum it up in 

a few words as well. 

You all know, and thank you for your comments, that children 

come into the child welfare system through no fault of their own. 

They are victims of traumatic abuse and neglect, and when they 

are permanently freed for adoption, our promise to them is that we 

will find them a family. Last year in this country, we negligently 

failed to live up to our promise of a family for more than 26,000 

children who aged out of care. 

This child-focused recruitment model, or Wendy’s Wonderful 

Kids, that was developed, tested, and, until 2012, privately funded 

by the foundation, proves that there is a family for every child. We 

started the program with 7 pilot sites in 2004 and now provide individual grant commitments to public and private agencies that 

support 169 adoption professionals in 49 States, the District of Columbia, and 4 provinces in Canada. We have served 8,800 children, 

3,400 of whom have had a finalized adoption, and another 500 are 

in their preadoptive placement, and these numbers are even more 

compelling when we understand the children successfully served. 

The average age of a child served through this program is 12. At 

the point of referral into Wendy’s Wonderful Kids, 30 percent of 

these children had already experienced six or more placements, 

and 50 percent had been in care 4 years or more. Half of the children have at least one identified clinical disability, and one in five 

of these children have already had a failed or a disrupted adoption. 

Critically, prior to Wendy’s Wonderful Kids, more than half of 

these children had experienced no adoption recruitment activities 

on their behalf, none. 

Child-focused recruitment demands that rather than ignoring 

these children because of a perception of unadoptability, or casting 

a broad net of general recruitment, or funding public displays of 

children, experienced adoption professionals work a model that 

includes smaller caseloads of typically harder-to-place children, intensive contact with the child and others, extensive case file review, diligent search for families and expert adoption preparation, 

and we know this works at a cost-effective level. 

For example, before the State of Ohio took our program to scale, 

their fiscal experts estimated our grant commitments of $3 million 

8 

for seven Ohio recruiters had already saved nearly $32 million for 

the State of Ohio. With a financial partnership that added 32 more 

recruiters focusing on youth, they anticipated savings of more than 

$105,000,000. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, no child has to 

age out of care, hoping to make it on their own in this complex 

world. We can and we must keep our promise of finding families 

for all of our children. I will welcome your comments at the end 

of the testimonies. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Soronen follows:] 

9 


89477A.001

Testimony of 

Rita L. Soronen 

Pa·esident & Chief Executive Ofiicea· 

Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption 

U.S. House Committee on Ways and Means, Subcomm.ittee on Human Resoua·ces 

Hearing on Increasing Adoptions fa·om Fostea· Ca1·e and the Adoption Incentives p,·og,·am 

February 27, 2013 

Good afternoon Chairman Reichert, Ranking Member Doggen and the Members of the 

Subcomminee. I am honored to be here and grateful for the invitation to join the hearing today. 

I am Rita Soronen, president and CEO of the Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption. For just 

over 20 years, the Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption has shared the Subcommittee's quest 

to elevate and dramatically improve the services we provide to abused, neglected, dependent and 

abandoned children for whom the govenunent has assumed temporary, but, too frequently, longterm responsibility. Created iJJ 1992 by Dave TI1omas, who was adopted, the Dave Thomas 

Foundation for Adoption works to dramatically increase the number of adoptions of waiting 

children from the United States foster care system, while providing infonnation, resources, 

media awareness tools and educational materials to potential adoptive parents, individuals and 

organizations, at no cost to the user. Additionally, as a national nonprofit public charity, we 

provide grants to public and private organizations in all 50 states and the District of Columbia to 

results-based agencies that aggressively and measurably move children out of foster care and 

into adoptive homes. 

Each day, we work w1der the core beliefs that 1) every child deserves a safe, nurturing and 

permanent home, 2) no child should lu1ger in foster care or tum 18 and leave care without the 

family promised when they were permanently severed from their family of origin and 3) every 

child, no matter the age, placement or circumstance is adoptable. 

Thank you to the members of the Subcommittee for their commitment to review and assess 

existing policies and emerging best practices for vulnerable children and youth, with a vigilant 

eye on providing the most effective evidence-based services on their behalf. The Adoption 

Incentives program bas provided critical Federal funding to help states focus on increasing older 

youth adoptions and making unportant fami ly collllections. 

Although we are encouraged by an increasing national awareness about the needs of foster care 

youth 1 (and in particular about children waiiing to be adopted), a decline in children entering 

1 Harris Interactive. Natfonal Adoplftm Aflltudes Sun·ey, conunissiooed by the Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption. 2007. 

Page II 
10 


89477A.002

care and greater numbe..-s of children being adopted from foster care2

, we are gravely concerned 

about older youth waiting to be adopted. 

The number of children waiting to be adopted from U.S. foster care has consistently exceeded 

the number of finalized adoptions in each year for which national data are available. Wlti.le the 

overall numbe..-s of adoptions increased in the years following the 1998 implementation of the 

Adoption and Safe Families Act {ASFA), the growth in adoptions of younger children has 

outpaced those of older children. At the same time, the munbe..-s of older youth aging out of 

foster care continue to rise. In 1998, approximately 17,300 youth were emancipated from care, 

compared with more than 26,000 in 201 I. Additionally, most recent data sbows a current 

placement of more than 22,000 children in long-term foster care (or Planned Permanent Living 

Arrangement); these youth most likely will leave the system without defmed permanency. 3 

Since these youth have typically spent the longest periods of time in care, the core issues of the 

abuse or neglect which they have experienced, combined frequently with exposure to family 

violence, substance abuse or lack of appropriate basic care, are exacerbated by frequent moves 

while in care, potential separation from siblings, multiple school or educational placements, and 

frequent turnover of social workers or other system contacts in their lives. The children most at 

risk of aging out and moving into society without the safety net of a family and a home, the 

youth who suffer the consequences of the government's broken promise of a famitl, are the 

children for whom the Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption has dedicated its energy, expertise 

and resources. 

Strategies for recruiting and matching adoptive families for these children have a history of 

anecdotal rather than evidence-based development. Cataloging children online or through the 

media is common practice and supported by Federal funding, but there is scant evidence to 

suggest it is an effective method for effectively recruiting appropriate families for America's 

longest-waiting children who have individualized and often therapeutic or clinical needs. General 

recmitment practices through media campaigns help to make citizens more aware of the numbe..-s 

of children in foster care, but callllot focus on the intense and urgent needs of children currently 

waiting for families. 

Additionally, we know that the current ages of children in foster care waiting to be adopted, as 

well as their ages at the time of entry into foster care, are correlates of their likelihood of 

adoption. Based on analyses of national data from the Adoption and Foster Care Reporting 

2 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Administration for Children and Families. The AfCARS Repon: 

Preliminary FY 2011 Estimates as of July 2012 ( 19). 

'Ibid. 

• for a review. see: Wenhei.mer. Richard. (2002). Youth who age out of foster cart: Troubled lives. troubling prospe<ts. Child 

Trends Research Brief#2002-59. Rerrieved from h!!P.:I/\vww.cbildt:rends.org/filesi/Cbild Trends2002 12 OJ RB Fos1erCare.odf 

September IS. 2011. 

Page 12 
11 


89477A.003

System (AFCARS), Dr. Maza (2002) found that a waiting child's age is the most crucial 

characteristic affecting his or her likelihood of being adopted, and that the tipping point occurs 

between ages 8 and 9, after when a child is more likely to continue to wait and subsequently age 

out of foster care than to be adopted. 5 Her more recent analyses have shown that, despite the 

1997 Adoption and Safe Families Act's intention to promote the adoption of children waiting in 

foster care - particularly those who are older- the share of waiting children who are over age 8 

has grown in the past decade. Further, while the time children spend waiting has declined 

markedly, this decline occurred solely for children who entered care prior to age 8.6 The 

inference that ASFA has not affected the adoption of older children highlights the critical need 

for innovative adoption recruitment programs. 

WEr.'DY'S WO 'DERFUL KIDS CJDLD-FOCUSED RECRUITMENT MODEL AND MANAGEME!\'1' 

In response, the Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption has dedicated significant private, and 

recently public, resources to develop, implement and grow a national model of child-focused 

recruitment (Wendy's Wonderful Kids) combined with long-tenn rigorous experimental 

evaluation of the model. The primary target populations for this model include older youth, 

sibling groups, children with mental or physical challenges, and children in placements that have 

typically been considered difficult adoption platfonns (group homes, therapeutic placements and 

institutions). The program has grown from seven pilot implementation sites in 2004 to now 161 

fully-funded grants at public and private adoption agencies in 49 states and the District of 

Columbia. Additionally, the Foundation manages the activities of the Dave Thomas Foundation 

for Adoption-Canada in which there are eight fully-funded sites in four provinces. 

The Foundation named the grant program Wendy's Wonderful Kids to honor tbe significant 

fundraising that occurs through Wendy's restaurants across the nation, encouraging customers, 

employees and partners to donate to the Foundation. In tum, we dedicate funds back to the 

communities in which the funds are raised to suppo11 a recruiter(s) who works for children 

waiting to be adopted, and in particular, those children nearly everyone else has forgotten. 

To date, we have se•·ved 8,789 childl'en and found potential adoptive matches fo•· 5,790 of 

these childl'en. While 503 of the child•·en SeJ'ved al'e CUI'I'ently in pl'e-adoptive placements, 

3,406 adoptions have been finalized. Significantly, more than half of the children for whom the 

recruiters provided active engagement had no prior recruitment activities. 7 This is particularly 

compelling given that the average age of a child served through this program is almost 12, more 

than 30 percent of the children had already been in six or more placements (nine percent had 

experienced 10 or more placements), 50 percent had been in the system for more than four years 

' Maza. P. (2002). TI1e age factor in adoption. Tile Roundtable, 16{1). 6 Maza. P. (2009). A new look a1 rhe role of ASFA and children•s ages in adoption. The Rormd1ab/e, 11 (1). 7 Maim. K .. Vandivere. S .. Allen. T .. DeVooght. K .. Ellis. R .. McKiindon. A .. Smollar. J.. Williams, E. & Zinn. A (2011.) 

Emluotio, Report Summnry: Tl1e We.udy's Wonde.iful KMs lniriath-e. Child Trends. \Vashiog,ton: DC. 

Page 13 
12 


89477A.004

at the point of referral into the program, 48 percent have at least one identified disability, 43 

percent are referred as part of sibling groups, 20 percent reside in group homes or institutions at 

the time of referral, and 21 percent had already experienced failed or disrupted adoptions. 

Since 2004, the Foundation has invested $53.8 million of private fi.mding in the development and 

growth of Wendy's Wonderful Kids in the United States, and another $3.4 million in Wendy's 

Wonderful Kids in Canada. Simple math shows that given the number of adoptions finalized and 

dollars invested to date, each adoption has "cost" just over $ 16,000. Although untangling the 

actual costs of maintaining a child in care is a challenge, national averages point to maintenance 

and administrative costs of nearly $26,000 per child per year. 8 

The Wendy's Wonderful Kids child-focused recmitment concept is simple. With grant funds 

from the Foundation, agencies hire f1all-time, experienced adoption professionals who dedicate 

100 percent of their days to find families for the longest-waiting children in their communities. 

These professionals, known as Wendy's Wonderful Kids recmiters, employ the Foundation's 

child-focused recmitment model and work on caseloads of children the system has forgotten, 

ensuring they have the time and resources to give each the attention he or she needs. 

The recruiters employ aggressive practices and proven tactics focused on fmding the best home 

tor a child through the starting points of familiar circles of family, friends and neighbors, and 

then reaching out to the communities in which they live. The Foundation commits to one-year, 

renewable grants that support the salary, benefits and a portion of time of a supervisor, and ask in 

retum that the agency commit to implementing the child-focused recruitment model, provide 

employment support for the recmiter hired, manage a smaller but intensive caseload of 15-20 

children, and participate in monthly data reporting to the Foundation, as well as ongoing 

evaluation of process and results. 

Critical to this relationship is the transition from passive recruitment for older and more difficult 

to place youth, to an aggressive and accountable method of finding families for children. The 

child-focused recruitment strategy is based on a specific dynamic recruitment plan tailored for 

the individual child and based on his or her unique circumstances, challenges, desires and needs 

and includes, but is not limited tO, the following key components: 

Relationship with Cb.ild: Recmiters must meet and communicate with the child regularly 

to develop tnast and openness. This relationship is essential to building an effective 

recruitment plan. Prior to the implementation of this model, adoption professionals 

frequently told us they never met with the children for whom they were recruiting families. 

8 Zill, N., Roseman, E. (20 ll ). Bener Prospects. Lower Cost The Case for Increasing Fostet Care Adoption. Adoption 

Adw><"ate No. ), Na1ioual Council for Adoplioo. 

Poge 14 
13 


89477A.005

Case Record Review: Recruiters must have access to, and conduct an in-depth review of, 

the existing case file, as well as ongoing review of relevant documents, reports and 

materials. An exJJaustive case record review includes identification of all significant people 

iu the child's life - past and present, i.nc ludiug potential adoptive parents - while creating 

an understanding of the chronology of events, services, placements, educational and medical 

circumstances, and child welfare entry circumstances that the youth has experienced. 

Netwot·k Building: Rccn.iters must meet with significant adults identified in the case 

record review (foster parents, CASAIGALs, counselors, teachers, extended fami ly, etc.) and 

maintain regular and ongoing contact. Regular contact with individuals close to and 

knowledgeable about the child facilitates effective recruitment and matching. 

Child Assessment and Adoption Preparation: Recmiters determine the child's strengths, 

challenges, desires, preparedness for adoption and whether the child has needs that should 

be addressed before moving forward with the adoption process. TI1ey must also assure that 

the child is prepared for adoption and during the matching process that the fami ly is 

adequately prepared to meet the needs of the child. 

Dil.igent Sea.-ch: Recmiters conduct a diligent search of potential adoptive families, 

including family members, and identified connections to additional resources and pursue 

aggressive follow-up with contacts, with the knowledge and approval of the child's 

caseworker. 

Reuuitment Plan: Based on the file review, interviews with significant adults, assessment 

of and iuput from the child, recmiters develop and implement a comprehensive recmitment 

plan. TI1e plan for each child is customized and defined by the child's needs, reviewed 

regularly, and updated quarterly. 

The Foundation grants management and program teams provide orientation to and training of the 

child-focused model; communicate monthly, at a minimum, with the recmiters to discuss 

casework, challenges and to provide support; and make annual on-site visits with the grantees to 

assess fidelity to the model, review activities and meet with system representatives. Additionally, 

the grantee organizations provide regular financial, goal accountability and narrative reporting to 

the Foundation. Monthly, they must also input comprehensive data about their casework and the 

children on their caseloads iuto a database that is owned by the Foundation and managed by 

Washington, D. C.-based Child Trends. 

CHILD-FOCUSED RECRUITMENT EvALUATION 

The Wendy's Wonderful Kids strategy is to focus exhaustively on an individual child's history, 

experiences and needs and then make an aggressive and unrelenting effort on behalf of the child 

iu order to find an appropriate adoptive family. At one level, the powerful individual success 

stories early iuto the program showed that the model appeared to be working; however, the 

Page IS 
14 


89477A.006

Foundation was keenly aware that no long-term evaluation of any recruitment model existed. It 

was critical to ensure that evidence-based activities and not an anecdotal approach drove these 

successful adoptions. 

In 2005, the Foundation commissioned Child Trends for an unprecedented five-year evaluation 

of the child-focused model. II is the most comprehensive, rigorous empirical evaluation of 

adoption recruitment practices completed to date in this coun11y. The research included both 

impact and process evaluations, and assessed the outcomes of randomly selected children served 

in 21 grantee agencies, representing 18 states, against a control group of children receiving 

traditional adoption recruitment methods in the same localities. 

Significantly, the impact evaluation showed that children served by the child-focused Wendy's 

Wonderful Kids model are I. 7 times more likely to be adopted than those not served by the 

program. 9 Furthermore, its impact on adoption is strongest among older youth and those with 

mental health disorders- groups that have traditionally waited the longest for adoption, or that 

are least likely to achieve adoption - those groups are up to thr·ee times more likely to be 

adopted. Additionally, the process evaluation highlighted tactics of the model that worked to 

encourage successful adoptions. For example, in interviews with children served, those youth 

who were previously opposed to adoption (and therefore those most likely to be placed on the 

emancipation track for aging out of care, or moved to a court-ordered Planned Permanent Living 

Arrangement) were significantly more likely to feel open to adoption after working with a 

recruiter. 

One sample of a narrative sent by a recmiter in Florida exemplifies the daily success of this 

program: 

At age 16, Dana had been in foster care for eight years, and had lived in 22 differem 

foster care placements. He seemed resigned to figuring out how to live on his own. 

Dana's future changed when he was added to the caseload. I found the name of an 

aunt who had expressed interest in adopting Dana in the past and discovered the 

initial barrier to adoption had simply been inadequate housing and the agency 

stopped using her as a potemial adoptive resource. We worked with the housing 

authority, helped her ro complete training, finalized a second home study, and 

helped her to navigate the interstate child welfare mles. I am excited to report Dana 

was adopred yesterday, jus/weeks before his 181

h birthday. 

SCALING THE MODEL AND COST I MPLICATIONS 

With the release of the national evaluation of Wendy's Wonderful Kids, the Foundation put in 

place a strategic blueprint to scale the program within states, while partnering with the Annie E. 

Casey Foundation to develop a formal child-focused recruitment curriculum, as a companion to 

scaling activities. Additionally, we hosted a convening of cross-discipline experts and leaders 

9 Ibid. 

Page 16 
15 


89477A.007

(pediatric, policy, funding, higher education, child welfare, media and public relations) to advise 

the Foundation on scaling, funding and policy implications of the research. 10 

In approaching our home state of Ohio, we made the case that if we were to be successn11 across 

the nation we, like our colleagues in adoption, needed to focus first in our own community. After 

sharing the national and local results and the evaluation fmdings with the leadership of the Ohio 

Department of Job & Family Services (ODJFS), the state committed to the resources necessary 

to scale Wendy's Wonderful Kids from seven existing Ohio sites to 41 , serving a majority of 

Ohio's 88 counties and focusing on children age 9 or older and in care for two or more years. 

The Foundation committed to managing the increased grant sites in the way that had already 

proved successful in Ohio and across tbe nation. 

In just six months and with tbe determined support of tbe administrative, program, and fiscal 

teams of the Ohio Department of Job & Family Services, 32 new recruiters have been hired, 

trained, and have growing caseloads, now at nearly 200 children. Sixteen children have already 

been matched with families, two are in pre-adoptive placements and a sibling group of three was 

j ust adopted last week. The director of the public agency that finalized those adoptions said: 

Through the Wendy's Wondeiful Kids program, Allen County Children Sen,ices has been 

able to hire two highly qualified and experienced children services social workers as our 

specialized adoption recruiters. They work with a reduced, yet intensive caseload to achieve 

the goal of securingforeverfamilies for our harder-to-adopt children and sibling groups. We 

would not have this ability wit hom the support of the Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption 

and the Ohio Department of Job & Family Services. 

Keenly aware, though, that cost implications can frequently trump best practice, we worked with 

the fiscal team at ODJFS to quantify the return on its investment in this program and to use the 

partnership as a template for other states. 

For example, prior to the state's investment in scaling, the Dave Thomas Foundation for 

Adoption, from 2005 - 20 12, invested just over $3 million in private funding in seven Ohio sites. 

During that time, we saw the fmalization of 197 adoptions of children with an average age of 

12.1 years. Given what we know about the likelihood of this population of children who are at 

risk for aging out of care, and calculating an a1mual savings of$27,480 per chjld (Ohjo-specific 

figures) by getting them adopted, and while factoring in the average monthly subsidy provided to 

families, Wendy's Wouderfi.•l Kids saved the state of Ohio nearly $32 million.11 

10 Gallagher & Associates (20 l2). 2fl't An,;,·erSOYJ' Distinguished Panel of E:cperls: Recommendations 10 Scale the Wendy's 

Wonderji1/ Kids Model. 11 ODJFS, Dan Shook, BIU'cau of Fiscal Accowltabitily, 12112. 

Page 17 
16 


89477A.008

Expanding those calculations to include a current $2 million investment from the state for the 

scaled counties in 2013, ODJFS calculates that over three years (with additional annual 

commitments), and with the finalization of 650 adoptions based on historical success, the state of 

O hio will save in excess of .$105 million by the end of 2015. 

Of course, these numbers represent actJJal hard cost savings. When we combine that with the 

frequent! y researched costs to society of not getting these children adopted, there can be no 

argument that both the human and the fiscal realities can no longer to be ignored. 

12 

CONTINUING CHALLENGES Al\'D HOPE 

There is no more important work in this country than assuring the safety and well-being of our 

most vulnerable citizens - children who, through no fault of their own, are in the child welfare 

system waiting for pennanent families. There is equally no more important promise to be kept 

than the one we make to our children when they have been pem1anently removed from their 

f.1milies of origin - that we will cherish their childhood, keep them safe, and find each one a 

f.1mily with whom they can grow and thrive. Last year we b roke that promise to 26,286 

children who we negtigently a llowed to age out of ca1·e. 

Even with the clear human, partnership, and financial success of Wendy's Wonderful Kids, there 

remain challenges to address. Too many of the very adults charged with finding adoptive 

families for youth still believe that some children are sin1ply too old, too damaged or too set in 

their ways to be adopted. Indeed, even the general population is skeptical of these children. In a 

Harris interactive national survey of attitudes toward foster care adoption that the Dave Thomas 

Foundation for Adoption will be releasing this spring, only half of Americans believe that every 

child is adoptable. 

At the Foundation, we continue to work to train professionals, potential adoptive parents, 

policymakers and the general public that no child is "unadoptable" and that we have an 

evidence-based model to support that belief. We have also created an award-winning national " I 

Am" print and broadcast media awareness campaign("/ am not too old, I am not unlovable, I am 

not a troublemaker, We are not twice the burden ") that works to eradicate the "unadoptable" 

notion. This month, we will release a follow-up campaign that focuses on families who have 

adopted older youth ("Having a son has been an amazing life-changing experience: we mel ours 

when he was 16) that works to nom1alize the adoptions of older youth and elevate our attitudes 

toward their potential. 

12 Tite Jim Casey Youth Opp011unities Initiative estimated that •·the outcome diffe-rences between youth aging out of the foster 

and the general population is nearly SS. 700.000.000 for each annual cohon of youth leaving care". Cutler Consulting (2009). 

Cost A.1·ofdtmce: Bolstering the Economic Case for lm·e.stlug f11 Youth Agbtg Out of Care. Jim Casey Youth Opponunities 

initiative. 

Page IS 
17 

f 


89477A.009

As we continue to work and scale this program across the nation, our recruiters are too often 

challenged by a lack of access to critical records, too few competent post-adoption services and 

professionals for their families, confusion and conOicting infom1ation about available health and 

educational resources, burdensome interstate regulations, and an incomprehensible willingness 

of the custodial agencies and courts to place children in permanent uncertainly, rather than 

moving them toward adoption. 

We fervently believe that the evidence-based model of child-focused recruitment, our success at 

fonning national public/private partnerships for children, and the promising example the state of 

Ohio has offered to the nation generates hope for our children and the systems that surround 

them. It also supports shifting resources to save scarce dollars to provide well-trained and 

managed workers to make life-changing efforts for youth, and refutes the practice of placing tens 

of thousands of children in the intolerable limbo of independence without family, Another 

Planned Permanent Living Arrangement without accountable review, or the purgatory of 

unadoptability. 

Dave Thomas reminded us daily that "these children are not someone else's responsibility, they 

are our responsibility." And we would simply add unadoptable is no longer acceptable. We 

stand ready to continue to work with policymakers, practitioners, funders and families to assure a 

safe, nurturing and permanent family for every child waiting to be adopted. Not for just some of 

the children, but for aU of the children. 

Thank you for the opportunity to be with you today and for your careful review of the Adoption 

Incentives program and its continuing positive impact on the very children who need our best 

and most generous efforts. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Rita L. Soronen 

President & CEO 

DAVE THOMAS 

FOUNDATION 

FoR ADoPTION" 

Dave Thomas Fotmdation for Adoption 

716 MI. Airyshire Blvd., Suite 1 00· 

Columbus, Ohio 43235 

www.davethomasfoundation.org. 

@rsoronen @DTFA 

Page l9 
18 

Chairman REICHERT. Thank you for your testimony. 

Ms. Rosati, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF KELLY ROSATI, J.D., VICE PRESIDENT OF 

COMMUNITY OUTREACH, FOCUS ON THE FAMILY 

Ms. ROSATI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the 

Committee. It is an honor to be here. I am very grateful that this 

is the subject of your hearing today, and it is a privilege to be able 

to be a part of it. 

My name is Kelly Rosati, as you said, and I am the Vice President of Community Outreach at Focus on the Family, and as a part 

of our community outreach, Wait No More, our event to focus on 

foster care adoption recruitment, is a cornerstone of our work. 

Focus on the Family is a donor-supported, global Christian ministry that reaches about 238 million people in 130 countries, and 

as I said, we are very passionate about foster care adoption. Our 

President, Jim Daly, was, in fact, orphaned as a child and lived in 

the foster care system, and so part of that experience has been 

what fuels his passion for this. 

I am blessed. My husband and I are parents to four children, 

who came to us through the blessing of foster care adoption, three 

of whom have special needs, the kind that are the subject of the 

children who are still waiting for families. 

Wait No More began in 2008, and the idea was that we would 

use the voice and the reach of Focus on the Family to try to increase awareness about the needs of kids that are in foster care 

that need families, just like we saw in that video, and the idea was 

that we would partner with local child welfare officials, adoption 

agencies, church and ministry leaders in a given community to try 

to work collaboratively to raise awareness and help recruit families 

for these kids. 

Since 2008, we have had 15 Wait No More events in 12 States, 

and we have had some very encouraging outcomes. We have seen 

8,300 attendees at our events, representing 4,700 families. We have 

worked with 200 county, State, private agencies and ministries all 

across the United States, and those folks that have attended have 

represented 2,100 different churches in communities across the 

country. 

The best news of all, though, is that at the end of the day at 

these events, we have seen more than 2,100 families who have 

begun the process of foster care adoption. They are beginning this 

process with a full understanding of the challenges that they are 

about to encounter. 

Frankly, one of the things that we do at our events is that we 

give the attendees the opportunity to hear perspectives from adoptive parents, to hear the perspective from young adults who were 

adopted as teenagers or as a part of sibling groups. We give them 

the opportunity to hear from social workers about what the process 

is going to be like and what some of the barriers may be. And, 

frankly, we talk an awful lot and almost, you could say, try to talk 

them out of it in a way, because we want them to be very serious 

that this is about the needs of the child. And again, as you saw in 

the great messaging on the video, it is about the needs of the child, 

not the wants and desires of the adults. 

19 

We are talking specifically about teenagers, sibling groups, and 

kids with special needs, and so that is why we are encouraged that 

knowing all of that, knowing some of the barriers and the challenges, including the specific behaviors that they may encounter, 

and why they may encounter those behaviors, and what strategies 

might be effective in helping that child, after all of that we have 

seen more than 2,000 families that have begun the process of foster 

care adoption. 

We are very passionate and committed to postadoption support. 

We want to have integrity in recruiting these families for our kids, 

and we want to also be there for them after the fact, when they 

encounter difficulties, and so as a part of that commitment, we 

have spent an equal amount of money on complementary postadoption support for families. We have provided about 50,000 units 

of resources that are designed to be adoption competent to meet 

the needs of the families. We have trained 200 counselors across 

the country in partnership with Texas Christian University’s Institute on Child Development; we have helped train them to have a 

greater adoption competency. We underwrite the training, we pay 

for it, but we say to them in return, we ask that you would provide 

counseling to a family at no cost to the family so that we can increase access to the kind of help our families need. 

We have a 1–800 hotline that families are able to call. Actually 

it is a warm line where they can receive free counseling and also 

referrals then to adoption-competent counselors in their areas. 

Finally, I would like to say, as you think about barriers to adoption and to increasing foster care adoption, one thing to be mindful 

of, I suppose, is the fact that I think we have perverse disincentives 

built into the system. So right now if you are a teenager in foster 

care, you may have access to certain benefits, including mental 

health services and postsecondary education, if you stay in foster 

care, but if you choose a family, you don’t have access to those 

same benefits, and we don’t believe that children should have to 

choose between those things. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Rosati follows:] 

20 


89477A.010

Testimony before the Congressional Subcommittee on Human Resources of the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

February 27, 2013 

Kelly Rosati, J.D. 

Vice President, Community Outreach 

Focus on the Family 

8605 Explorer Dr., Colorado Springs, CO 80920 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for inviting my testimony before you this 

afternoon. Please allow me to introduce myself and my organization. My name is Kelly Rosati, and I am 

the Vice President of Community Outreach at Focus on the Family. I am also blessed, along with my 

husband, to have adopted our four children from the foster care system, and three of them have special 

needs. One of my roles at Focus on the Family is to oversee our Adoption and Orphan Care Initiative. 

Focus on the Family is a donor·supported global Christian ministry that reaches about 238 million people 

in 130 countries. We help families thrive by providing help and resources for strengthening believers in 

their faith and sharing the gospel; building resilient marriages that reflect God's design; equipping 

parents to raise their children with a thriving faith; advocating for the preborn, orphaned and life at 

every stage; and engaging the culture through a biblical worldview. Visit Focus online at 

FocusOnTheFamily.com. 

1: The Current State of the US Foster Care System 

One of our nation's most intractable child·advocacy issues is the tragedy of children and youth trapped 

in foster care awaiting adoptive families to call their own. The children in this situation are often viewed 

by society as "un·adoptable" because of their age, minority status, or special need. At Focus on the 

Family, we reject such thinking and believe that every waiting child deserves a family. We are 

committed to using our voice and reach within the Christian community to recruit adoptive families for 

these waiting children. 

We have also discovered through our national collaborative efforts with other adoption·focused 

organizations, including Show Hope (Christian musician Steven Curtis Chapman's organization), Hope for 

Orphans (a ministry of Familylife), and the Christian Alliance for Orphans, that despite the fact that 

more than 100,000 children in the United States are waiting in foster care for adoptive families', very 

few faith·based organizat ions and leaders of the community have focused their primary attention on 

recruiting adoptive families for these waiting children and youth (also considered "legal orphans" as 

their birth parents' rights have been terminated). 

Focus on the Family's desire is to fill this significant awareness gap by calling attention to the plight of 

the most difficult to place and longest waiting legal orphans in the United States. Some of the reasons 

that these children are at increased risk are: 

Most of these children started life with abuse, neglect, or abandonment. 

Their birth parents' legal parental rights had to be terminated in order to keep them safe and 

provide them a chance at a happy life. 

1 AFCARS Report #19, July 2012, page 1. tll!:llwww.acf. hhs.gov/sitesldefauttlfileslcblafcars rt1 9.1!df 
21 


89477A.011

Their only legal, permanent "parent" is the government entity (state or county) that has 

permanent legal custody of them. 

These children live in temporary foster homes, move frequently from home to home, and have no 

permanency in their lives. Unless they are adopted, they will exit or "age-out" of the system at age 18 

and may become adults who belong nowhere and have no permanent personal relationship connection 

with anyone. 

In 2011, the most current year for which data is available, family courts across the country terminated 

more than 61,361 children's birth parents' legal parental rights, while only 50,516 children were 

adopted from the foster care system.1 In fiscal year 2011, more than 26,000 children exited' the foster 

care system, many of whom face a bleak future. Of the youth who aged-out of the foster care system 

without permanent connections, statistics show that: 

Almost 20 percent of foster care alumni who aged out did not have a high school diploma or 

GED.4 

Only 8 percent had a postsecondary degree from either a 2· or 4-year school.' 

81 percent of male former foster youth and 59 percent of female former foster youth were 

arrested by age 23 or 24.6 

Nearly one third of girls formerly in care had been pregnant by age 187 

68 percent of girls and 42 percent of boys had been food stamp recipients. 8 

Over half of youth who aged out of foster care experienced one or more episodes of 

homelessness.

9 

Without the stability and comfort of a permanent family, many youth suffer dire consequences. 

II: The Emphasis of our Involvement with Child Welfare 

At Focus on the Family, we believe that every child deserves a permanent family. For too long, children 

and youth in foster care have been overlooked and forgotten. Right now, more than 100,000 legal 

orphans in the U.S. foster care system are waiting for adoptive families to call their own. As we looked 

at the need, we found that it was not because of a lack of agency capacity or competency that these 

children and youth are waiting. Rather, a lack of adoptive families causes them to wait. Therefore, our 

primary objective is to raise awareness of and recruit families for waiting kids in foster care. 

The combination of our deeply held convictions coupled with the fact that there are more than 300,000 

churches in the United States leads us to believe that by mobilizing the thousands of faith communities 

2 AFCARS Report #19, July 2012, page 1. http:llwww.acf.hhs.gov/sites/defaultlfiles/cblafcarsreport 19.pdf 3 AFCARS Report #19, July 2012, page 3. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/defaultlfiles/cblafcarsreport19.pdf 4 Mark Courtney, Amy Dworsky, Gretchen Cusick, Judy Havlicek, Alfred Perez, Tom Keller, "Midwest Evaluation of 

the Adult Functioning of Former Foster Youth: Outcomes at Age 21." Chopin Hall Center for Children, University of 

Chicago, {December 2007): 20. 

' Ibid., 20. 6 1bid., 93. 7 Ibid .. 74 . 

• Ibid., 43-44. 

• Peter Pecora, Ronald Kessler, Jason Williams, Kirk O'Brien, Chris Downs, Diana English, James White, Eva Hiripi, 

Catherine White, Tamer a Wiggins, & Kate Holmes, "Improving Foster Family Care: Findings from the Northwest 

Foster Care Alumni Study." casey Family Programs, {2005). 
22 


89477A.012

around the country, we will see a reduction in the number of waiting children throughout our foster 

care system. In some communities, this has already proven true. 

In order to accomplish this, we launched Woit No More: Finding Families for Waiting Kids events. We 

collaborate with government officials (state and county), adoption agencies, church leaders and ministry 

partners to host half-day events. Through the event and robust, targeted media campaigns, Woit No 

More is highlighting the urgent need for adoptive parents. 

At the Woit No More event, attendees have the opportunity to hear different perspectives on adoption 

from foster care from adoptive parents, adopted youth, siblings, and social workers. We do not 

sugarcoat the difficulties inherent in the process. To the contrary, we spend time explaining the 

common behavioral challenges, the reasons behind such challenges, and strategies for successful child 

and family outcomes. 

In addition, on the day of the event, adoption agencies and support ministries are on site to answer 

questions and help families take the next step in the process. Most importantly, families have the 

opportunity to start the process of adoption from foster care before they leave the event. Families are 

able to choose an agency they prefer to work with, and those who do not choose an agency on that day 

are matched with agencies based on criteria such as agency service area and capacity. We coordinate 

with the agencies after the event regarding those families, and they typically receive a call from the 

agency within 3 business days of the event. 

Ill: Program Outcomes 

To date, through 15 events and three online campaigns, more than 2,100 families have started the 

process of adoption from foster care through the collaborative efforts of Woit No More. Additional 

events are planned around the country in the hopes that children and youth in foster care will Woit No 

More for the forever families they deserve. 

Here in Colorado, we have invested heavily in recruitment efforts in order to see the number of waiting 

kids reduced. In 2008 when we hosted our first event, more than 800 children and youth were awaiting 

permanent families. As a result of both the Woit No More efforts and the ongoing work of excellent 

agencies and ministries throughout the state, that number is down to about 270 waiting kids. (To read 

an article on the reduction in the number of waiting kids in Colorado, please see Appendix A.) 

Any group working independently cannot achieve results such as these. However, through greater 

collaboration between child welfare, licensed child placing agencies, and churches, the results are 

multiplied. Through 15 events to date in twelve different states, more than 8,300 people have attended 

an event representing 4,500 families and 2,100 churches. As stated previously, more than 2,100 families 

have started the process of adoption from foster care, which is slightly more than 40 percent of families 

in attendance. 

In May of 2011, the Gillett fa mily attended a Wait No More event in Michigan. Here is their story: 

We have now adopted twin boys. The adoption was finalized on June 20, 2012, just five 

days before their 16th birthdays. They had been in the system about four years and had 

given up hope. We have had many struggles along the way, but God in his grace sees us 

through the rough roads we've traveled. After 12 years of being empty nesters, we have 

had to make big adjustments. It's been both the hardest and the most rewarding thing 

3 
23 


89477A.013

we've ever done. I wish more people would adopt a child who only wants to know 

someone cares! I love our boys! We are blessed! 

Similarly, the Savoca family attended an event in Florida: 

We considered all the different ways to adopt and chose adoption from foster care 

primarily because of our church adoption ministry and Wait No More. After attending the 

Wait No More conference in Fort Lauderdale, Florida and hearing Tiffany Jorgenson's 

story about being adopted at the age of 11, we felt led to consider adopting an older child 

and prayed about it for several months. We eventually connected with 10-year-old Carlos 

who liked pizza and enjoyed quoting movie lines. We continued to pray for God's 

guidance and wisdom, even as we encountered some difficult setbacks. The transition 

period was long and often difficult but we are encouraged because we see him 

blossoming into a wonderful young man. We are also rejoicing because Carlos recently 

accepted the Lord as his Savior! We are very blessed with Carlos and know the Lord is 

going to do mighty things in our son's life! 

Stories such as these are the impetus behind the work that we do. Included in Appendix B is a brief 

overview of the Wait No More event hosted in September 2011 at Overlake Christian Church in 

Washington State. 

IV: Crucial Factors Contributing to the Success of Wait No More 

When considering in what locations we will host events, several criteria are used to help determine the 

feasibility of a successful event in a given area. Criteri a include: 

Support from local county and/or state government 

Private and/or public child placing organizations with state contracts to place children and the 

capacity to handle additional families 

Area churches willing to serve as host as well as additional churches willing to promote the 

event w ithin their congregations 

Funding secured through Focus on t he Family 

County~ or State Government Sul).(lOrt 

Having done events in 12 different states, we have yet to encounter a negative reaction from the state 

or county government. While they may have initial concerns about how the event will work, how 

families will be served, and how much capacity their staff and contracted partners have, we have been 

able to overcome those questions and work collaboratively towards a successful event . We have found 

state commissioners, directors, and caseworkers overall enthusiastic about additional efforts to find 

families for waiting kids. Our goal is simply to enhance the success of the work being done day in and 

day out. 

Private andLor Public Child Placing Ag_enc., Ca11acity 

While we know families will more than likely hit some roadblocks throughout the process of adoption, 

our hope is that this first step in starting the process will not be the first roadblock. With an average of 

122 families starting the process at each event, it is important to ensure that public and private agencies 

combine to have enough capacity to handle the influx of families. This has, at times, prevented us from 

moving forward in certain locations. Recruiting adoptive families for waiting kids in foster care is a 

difficult endeavor. We want to do all we can to make the process as smooth as it should be. On the 

other hand, we discuss the importance of the process - w ith all its frustrations- in preparing families for 

the monumental task of welcoming home a waiting child or youth. 

4 
24 


89477A.014

Church Involvement 

The selection of the right host church can be complex. It is important to have a venue large enough to 

handle the event, positive name recognition, easy access for attendees unfamiliar with the area, and 

support from senior church leadership. It is also crucial to engage other local pastors and lay leaders in 

promotion of the event. 

Marketing 

The bulk of our costs are spent marketing the event, primarily to our Focus on the Family constituency. 

In order to best leverage Focus on the Family's influence, we focus our efforts through faith·based 

media channels including traditional radio, print and social media. We also distribute church-based 

promotional materials including video, bulletin inserts, flyers, and posters. We host a lunch six to eight 

weeks before the Wait No More event with pastors and faith-based leaders in order to cast the vision 

for the event, provide materials, and secure promotion commitments. 

Event Funding 

One of the first questions of concern to child welfare officials, private agencies, and other ministries is 

the cost to implement an event like this. Each Wait No More event is completely underwritten by the 

generosity of Focus on the Family donors. No agency or ministry is charged to participate nor is any 

family charged to attend. However, we do realize there are some costs associated with licensing 

families or pursuing adoption that are the responsibility of each party. 

Once a determination can be made on the strength of the above criteria, we move forward with 

collaborative planning and marketing of the event. 

V: Outside Endorsements for Wait No More 

Since the inception of Wait No More, many have commented on the effectiveness of the program. 

Below are a few things of note: 

Recognition at the White House observance of National Adoption Month in Washington, D.C. on 

November 28, 2011 

The Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute (CCAI) briefing in May 2010 highlighted 

successful models of foster and adoptive parent recruitment for federal legislators and staff 

Recognition by the National Council for Adoption in "Engaging the Private Sector to Increase 

Positive Permanency Outcomes for Children in Foster Care" in September 2011 

Participation in a private gathering with leading adoption advocate US Senator Mary landrieu in 

December 2011 

Invitation to the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives Community 

forum in Denver in July 2011 

From the Denver Post: "It was phenomenal. It's never happened before that we had faith-based 

groups, county governments, the state and other agencies in one place at one time," [Or. 

Sharen] Ford said. "People Care about Colorado's kids."10 

From the Wall Street Journal: "Yet it is the efforts of Focus on the Family ... t hat have produced 

the most striking results so far. The group announced ... that it would be devoting a considerable 

amount of its resources to a new initiative called Wait No More." 11 

10 "Adoption effon gets 'phenomenal' results," TI1e Denver Post, November 2008. 

http:L,'www.denveiJlQSI.com/breaki_!!Suewslci I I 075305 

5 
25 


89477A.015

The Heritage Foundation: "Wait No More has delivered unprecedented rates of success in 

finding families for waiting children ... States should enthusiastically pursue opportunities for 

parent recruitment through faith-based communities."" 

Thank you for your time today and for considering reauthorizing the Adoption Incentives Program. 

Please let us know if we can be of further assistance. 

Kelly Rosati 

Vice President, Community Outreach 

Focus on the Family 

11 "Adoption season for cvaugclicals," The Wall S1reet Joumal, September 2010. 

bttp:{/on1ine. wsj .com/article/SB I 000 1424052748703 7 435045 754942631 02089970.htm.l 12 "Foster Care: Safety Net or Trap Door?" The Heritage Foundation, Thomas C. Atwood. pg. 14, March 20 11. 

6 
26 


89477A.016

Appendix A 

Adoption initiative halves numbers of kids needing families 

B Electa DraQer 

The Denver Post 

http://www.denverpost.com/news/cl 1451Q__S~l 

The number of Colorado children in foster care 

awaiting permanent adoption has been cut in half 

by a partnership between churches and 

government that places parentless kids in 

"forever homes." 

When the Colorado Springs-based ministry Focus 

on the Family began spearheading the "Wait No 

M ore" adoption initiat ive in November 2008, the 

state had 8,000 children in foster care. That 

number included almost 800 children who were 

eligible for adoption because their parents had 

lost parental rights after the state found serious 

and repetitive neglect and abuse in their families. 

In early 2010, only 365 children eligible for 

adoption remain in foster care, said Sharen Ford, 

manager of permanency services for the 

Colorado Department of Human Services. 

The success of the initiative has surprised even its 

many partners - the state, nine counties, New 

Life Church in Colorado Springs, and dozens of 

other churches and private agencies. Ford called 

the results "phenomenal." 

Last year alone, more than 1,000 adoptions 

became final, Ford said. Because children 

constantly enter and leave the system, the 

numbers are always in flux, but by the end of 

2009, 6,287 were in foster care. 

"I'm stunned by the number of kids we've moved 

off the waiting list," Focus on the Family 

president and chief executive Jim Daly said. "I 

7 

POSTED: 03/05/2010 01:00:00 AM MST 

was one of those kids - a kid that doesn't have a 

mom and dad. I was never adopted, but I was 

very appreciative of the people who came along 

to mentor me." 

Daly said orphan care is a core mission of 

Christianity. 

"If my Bible math is right, God reminds us 47 

times to take care of widows and orphans," Daly 

said. "This country has something like 300,000 

churches and 130,000 orphans. The math is 

pretty simple." 

The average age of a waiting child in Colorado is 

11 to 12. 

"We talk kids" 

Daly said Ford and the state Human Services staff 

impressed him. "They care so much about the 

kids." 

For her part, Ford said she considers it a 

remarkable public-private relationship. 

"We don't talk religion. We don't talk politics," 

she said. "We talk kids." 

Tiffany Seal, now a 20-year-old college senior in 

Colorado Springs, was in foster care for about 

three years before her adoption at age 11. She 

urges people to go out on a limb and adopt -

because it's the best thing they can do for a child. 
27 


89477A.017

"The most amazing part of being adopted was 

that no matter what, I always had a home. I had 

someone to call Mom and Dad," Beal said. "Even 

at 3, my little brother knew he wasn't home in 

foster care. He kept asking me, 'When are we 

going to go home?' " 

Prospective parents can hear about the 

challenges and rewards of adoption and then - if 

they choose - begin the long adoption process 

at "Wait No More" events. 

Focus held such an event in Colorado Springs in 

November 2008. At one in October in Loveland, 

50 families took the first steps to adopt children. 

The next is scheduled for September in Denver, 

where there are currently 116 children available 

for adoption. 

Other participating counties are Adams, 

Arapahoe, Broomfield, Boulder, Larimer, El Paso, 

Jefferson and Pueblo. 

Ford said the screening for adoptive families is 

extensive. Social workers attempt to match the 

needs of children - many of whom have 

experienced a great deal in their short lives - to 

families' capabilities. But the process is also 

inclusive, she says. 

Colorado law allows for adoptive families to be 

two-parent, single-parent, older or otherwise 

nontraditional, including gay households. 

"We try to screen people in," Ford said. 

"Everybody wants to have a forever home. And 

there are no such things as perfect families. We 

need families who are flexible - who have 

humor." 

8 

Room for four more 

Bill, whose last name is being withheld to ensure 

his family's safety, last year adopted four siblings 

between the ages of 3 and 10. He and his wife 

already had four children. 

His biggest anxiety was the sheer number of 

unknowns, from the kids' favorite foods to 

potential emotional triggers from past traumas. 

"The most amazing thing is that they've been in 

our home less than a year, but it feels like it's 

been a lot longer - in a good way," Bill said, 

laughing. "From that first weekend, it felt as if it 

was meant to be. But that first weekend, there 

was a lot of explaining. • 

At Focus, the initiative is a national effort, said 

Kelly Rosati, senior director of the ministry's 

Sanctity of life division. 

In addition to the two adoption events in 

Colorado, Focus has held such meet -ups in St. 

Louis, los Angeles and Fort lauderdale, Fla. Of 

those attending, 830 families initiated the 

adoption process at the events. About 750 

different churches have been involved. 

"We are not giving up or stopping until every 

waiting child in Colorado has the family it 

deserves," Rosati said. 

Electo Draper: 303·954·1276 

or edroper@denverpost.com. 

Find out more 

Don't want to wait until the next adoption event? 

Visit icareaboutorphans.org to learn about 

adopting kids from foster care. 
28 

f 


89477A.018

Appendix B 

Wait No MoreCID: ................... Finding Families for 

WaJ.ting Kids 

Finding Families for Washington's 

Waiting Kids Results Overview 

Hosted Wait No More at Overlake Christian Church on Saturday, September 

24, 2011 

• Approximately 630 people attended 

• Those people represented more than 345 different fami lies 

Of those, 111 families initiated the process of adoption from foster 

care at the event; this represents 32.0% of families in attendance 

15 agencies and ministries were on site to answer participants' questions and 

help them start the process of adoption from foster care including: 

• A Family for Every Child Heart Gallery 

• Antioch Adoptions 

Bethany Christian Services 

• City Ministries 

Department of Social and Health Services of Washington 

• Olive Crest 

Overlake Christian Church 

• Youth for Christ 

More than 160 different churches were represented at Wait No More 

• All participating fami lies received complimentary copies of Focus on the 

Family resources: Handbook on Thriving as an Adoptive Family, Wait No 

More: One Family's Amazing Adoption Journey, and "Wrapping Around 

Adoptive Families" 

9 
29 

Chairman REICHERT. Thank you for your testimony. 

Mr. O’Brien, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF PAT O’BRIEN, MS, LMSW, FOUNDER AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, YOU GOTTA BELIEVE! THE OLDER CHILD 

ADOPTION & PERMANENCY MOVEMENT, INCORPORATED 

Mr. O’BRIEN. Thank you. 

I am Pat O’Brien, founder and CEO of You Gotta Believe! The 

Older Child Adoption & Permanency Movement, an organization 

that first and foremost considers itself a homelessness prevention 

program. And the way we prevent homelessness is to find permanent parents for teens and young adults before they are discharged 

from the foster care system to no one but themselves. 

When we started You Gotta Believe back in 1995, I noticed an 

interesting statistic when homeless populations were surveyed. In 

every survey we looked at, over half the homeless reported having 

grown up in foster care as youth. They had actually come into our 

system for their own safety and well-being, only to be placed in 

harm’s way when they were discharged from the very same system. 

I believe the sad result is the direct product of two primary barriers. The first barrier is simple: Lack of belief that we can find 

permanent parents for teens and young adults as they are aging 

out of foster care. This lack of belief keeps laws from being created 

that would mandate concurrent planning at the exit end of the 

system. My over 25 years of experience has taught me that our 

child welfare system must never stop recruiting permanent parents 

for children at any age that they are at risk of aging out to our 

Nation’s streets. 

The second barrier is actually a child welfare permanency planning goal referred to or called in the law Some Other Planned 

Permanent Living Arrangement which May Include a Residential 

Educational Program. Many in our field refer to this permanency 

planning goal as Another Planned Permanent Living Arrangement, 

or APPLA. 

APPLA is focused on preparing youth for adulthood. APPLA focuses on skills development and teaching youngsters the important 

skills to survive in the world on their own. And though skills development in preparing for adulthood is very important, there are still 

very few, if any, young people in the general population, including 

yours and my children who are over 21, making it on their own 

without the help of their parents. 

For example, as you know, the overwhelming majority of 22- 

year-old college graduates who come from fairly well-off one- or 

two-parent families return home to their parents after they graduate college with a 4-year bachelor’s degree. 

But we, as a child welfare system, are putting youth between the 

ages of 18 and 21 in harm’s way without even trying to get them 

permanent parents before they are discharged from our foster care 

system because there is no law that mandates even the effort. 

So how do we find permanent parents for aging-out youth? You 

Gotta Believe has a three-pronged approach. The first we call the 

friend’s approach. You see, once you believe that a permanent parent must be found for every youth before they age out of care, the 

first place you look for this permanent parent is by talking to the 

30 

constructive adults who are already in an individual young person’s 

life. And when we identify someone who is known to the youth, we 

ask these folks to take a 10-week learning experience we call 

Adopting Older Kids and Youth, or A–OKAY, to see if making a 

lifetime commitment to this young person they so much care about 

is something that they can do. 

Our statistics and research show us that this is the single most 

effective way to recruit a lifetime parent for youth aging out of 

care. During a 4-year period under a Federal adoption opportunities demonstration grant, it took nearly 1,000 prospective applicants from the general public to walk through our door to get 37 

young people a parent. However, during the same 4-year period, it 

only took 154 prospective applicants to walk through our doors who 

knew a teen to get 83 young people placed in a lifetime family. This 

approach is a simple, highly efficient means of recruiting permanent parents for aging-out teens. 

Our second approach is the acquaintances approach. There are 

many young people in the system where it is believed by the people 

around them that they have no constructive adults in their lives. 

For these youth we set up opportunities for them to share the same 

time and space with our prospective and certified families. We do 

this by bringing young people into our A–OKAY parent preparation 

classes as consultants to teach our prospective families what it is 

like to be a teen growing up in foster care. 

Many families who come forward having no interest in adoptive 

teens have decided a teen on our panel was someone they could 

adopt. Dozens and dozens of youth have been placed as a direct result of sharing the same time and space and becoming acquaintances with the prospective and certified families who have taken 

our A–OKAY course. This is the second-best way. 

The third approach is community education. Years ago our organization realized that we were having little success trying to sell 

what we were doing to the general public in 15- or 30-second sound 

bites. That is why we created our own media, both TV and radio. 

These broadcasts serve a local purpose of recruiting local parents 

and a more global purpose by inspiring the rest of the world by introducing them to the wonderful youth who need permanent families and the parents who adopt them, all in one-half hour thoughtful interviews and conversations. 

Finally, where should adoption incentive rewards be reinvested? 

There are two equally important areas. The first is funding to continue to recruit the very permanent parents that we know are out 

there for each and every youth. Reinvesting these incentive dollars 

to utilize the three strategies noted above would be an impactful 

way to get more youth into permanent families before they are discharged from the foster care system. 

Parents and families are the foundation and springboard to every 

child’s future. Parents and families give youth access to the village 

we so often talk about needing to raise children. It sure does take 

a village to raise a child, but only if the child has a parent in that 

village to provide the foundation he or she needs. This is equally 

true for the 18-, 19-, 20- or 21-year-old as it is for the infant, toddler, latency-age, and tween-age child. 

31 

Second, we must support families after the youth move in. Almost all the youth at the age range we place had serious trauma 

in their lives. We prepare parents for what to expect, but we must 

also be there to support them during their hard times. 

If we could provide these two basic adoption services, then each 

youth will have what the child welfare system promised them when 

they first came into foster care, and that promise was a home that 

provides safety, the opportunity for well-being, and a permanent 

parent and family who will be there for them long after their years 

in foster care are over. 

I want to thank you very much for the time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. O’Brien follows:] 

32 


89477A.019

M 

You~a 

BELIEVE 

~,Oioollo-_...., __ 

Testimony before 

Human Resou1·ces Subcommittee- Committee on Ways and Means 

Hening on Adoption Incentive~ Wednesday Februa1·y 27'•, 2013 

Tltere Is No Sa.f5ty or Well-Being Wit/tout Permanent Parents At Exit End olthe S)!stem 

Hi there! I run Pat O'Brien. Founder and Current Executive Director of You Goua Believe! The Older 

Child Adoption & Petmanency Movement, Inc an organization that ftrst and foremost considers itself a 

homelessness prevention prog~<~m. The way we prevent homelessness is to fmd permanent parents for teens 

and young adults before they are discharged from the foster care system to no one but themselves. 

I want to thank you so much for allowing me to testify on behalf of You Golla Believe before the Human 

Resources Subconunittee of the Committee on Ways and Means as you are addressing the very important topic 

of increasing adoptions from foster care through the Adoption Incentives program. 

When I started You Golla Belie~·e back in 1995 I noticed an interesting statistic when homeless 

populations were surveyed. In e'•ery survey I looked at, over half the homeless reported having grown up in 

foster care as youth. They had actually come into our system first and foremost for their own safety and wellbeing only to be placed in bann's way when they were discharged from the very same system. I believe this sad 

result is the direct product of two primary barriers. 

nvo PRh\1ARY BARRIERS: 

The first barrier is simple: Lack of belief that we can find pennanent parents for teens and young 

adults as they are aging out of foster care. This "lack of' belief keeps laws from being created that would 

mandate concurrent planning at the exit end of the system. My over 25 years of experience has taught me that 

our child welfare system must never stop recruiting pennanent parents for children of any age that are at risk of 

aging out to our nation's streets. 

And this leads to the second barrier: A Child Welfare Permanency Plruming Goal call: Some Other 

Planned Pennanent Living Arrangement Which May Include a Residential Education Program (SOPPLAWMI- A-REP.) Many in our field reter to this permanency plarming goal as Another Pla1med PeruJanent 

Living Arrangement or simply APPLA. 

APPLA is focused on preparing youth for adulthood. APPLA focuses on skills development and 

teaching youngsters the important skills to survive in the world on their own. And though skills development 

and preparing for adulthood is very important, there are still very few. if any, youth in the general population 

(including yours and my children over the age of 21) making it on their own without the help of their parents. 

For example, did you know that the overwhelming majority of 22 year old en liege graduates who comes 

from fairly well-off one or two-parent families return home to their parents after they graduate from college 

with a four year bachelor's degree? 

311 4/w\•rmoid Av•nu• ir~ yn. NV ll 224 mQin: 718.372.3003 info: pobfion@yQYgottob•liev•.orv f<:nt 718.302.3033 

www.yovgottobellev•,Of9 
33 


89477A.020

Also, did you know that according to the US Census the average age a youth leaves home in the United 

States of America is 26? 

But we, as a child welfare system, are putting youth between the ages of 18 and 21 in bann's way 

without even trying to get them pennanent parents before they are discharged from our foster care system 

because there is no law that mandates even the effort. 

SO HOW DO WE FIND PERMANENT PARENTS FOR AGING OUT YOUTH: 

If our law makers ever decide to have concurrenl plaruuug at the exit end of the system whereby we not 

only prepare youth for adulthood by teaching them independent living skills, but we also simultaneously 

mandate the recruitmem of pennanent parents for them as well, You Golla Believe can be very helpftal in 

showing the world bow relatively easy it is to find those pennancut parents for our aging out youth. You Gatta 

Belie1•e utilizes a three prong approach to finding lifetime parents for aging out youth that we call our Saving 

F.A.C.E {Friends, Acquaintances, and Community EducaTion.}Approach to Finding Pennanenr Parents for 

Youth --- Ba11'ing No One. 

I) The Friend's Approach: 

You see, once we believe that a pennanent parent must be found for every youth before they age out of the 

foster care system, and we legally mandate that effort, the first place we look for this pemmnent parent is 

talking to the constructive adults who are already in an individual youth's life. People such as: 

Social Workers; Employers and co-worker; Facebook "Friends"; Coaches or Other Extracurricular people; 

Former babysitters; Former FosTer Parenrs and/orformerfosTer parents neighbors,fi1ends, and family 

members; Une>.plored MaTernal and/or PaTemal relaTives; People re-met aT family Funerals; Child Care STaff; 

AdminisTraTive STaff; School Teachers & OTher School Personnel; TI1erapists; Volunreers & MenTor;, AWOL 

Resources; God ParenTs; and parenTs ofbesTjiiends, co-workers, & TeammaTes (/11is is a jusT a parTial lisT of 

lifetime parems we have found and adoptive placements we have made over The years at You Gatta Believe!) 

And when we identify someone known to the youth we ask that person to take a 10 week learning and 

preparation experience ( we call our learning experience A-OKAY or Adopting Older Kids And Youth) to see 

if making a lifetime commitaneut to this youth they so care abom is something that they can do. Our statistics 

and research show this is the single most effective way to recruit a lifetime parent for a youth aging out of care. 

During a four year period wtder a Federal Demonstration grant it took nearly 1.000 prospective applicants from 

the general public to walk through our doors for an orientation to get 37 youth a life time parent. During that 

same four year period it only rook 154 prospective applicants to walk through our doors who knew a teen to get 

83 youth placed into a lifetime fautily. This approach is a simple highly efficient means of recmiting pemmnent 

parents that lead to the creation of pennanent adoptive families for youth aging out between ages 18 and 21. 

2) T he Ac!l!!_ainta nces Approach: 

There are many youth in the system where it is believed by the people around them that they have no 

constructive adults in their lives that one can reach out to. For these youth we set up opportututies for them to 

3114/w\•rmoid Av•nu• ir~fyn. NV ll224 mQin: 718.372.3003 info: pobfion@yQYgottob•liev•.orv f<:nt 718.302.3033 

www.yovgottobellev•,Of9 
34 


89477A.021

share the same time and space with our prospective and cenified families. We do !his by bringing youth into our 

A-OKAY parent preparation classes as consultants to teach our prospective famil ies what it is like to be a teen 

growing up in foster care system. Many families who came forward having no interest in adopting teens had 

decided that a teen on our panel was someone that they could adopt. Dozens and dozens of youth have been 

placed as a direct result of sharing the same time and space and becoming acquaintances with the prospective 

and cenified families who were taking our A-OKAY classes. TI1is is the second best way we have found to 

fmd pem1anem parents for the oldest of the older youth in care. 

3) The Community Education Approach 

Years ago our organization realized that we were having little success trying to sell what we were doing to 

the general public in 15 or 30 second sound bites. lbat is why we created our own media, both TV and radio. 

One half hour at a time dedicated to the need to fmd pem1anent parents for teens and young adults about to be 

discharged from the foster care system. The.se broadcasts introduced the general public to the teens in need of 

families and the pennanent parents who adopted the teens. In addition we had special guests who served both 

populations talking about the special needs of both populations. 

We do a cable access program that anyone can watch while it Jive-streams in Brooklyn, New York, where 

our main office is. This broadcast serves a local purpose of recruiting local parents and a more global purpose 

by introducing and inspiring the rest of the world by meeting the wonderful youth who need homes and the 

parents who adopt them in one half hour of thoughtful interviews and conversations. In addition, we do a live 

radio broadcast every Sunday evening which is a lso live streamed on the internet and archived on a website. 

All the links to access these imponant broadcasts are included in my written statement. 

Our Community Education effons earned us the Adoption Excellence Award in 2007 from the Depanment 

of Health and Human Services in the category of Media/Public Awar eness of Adoption From Foster Care. 

To access our Television program website: http_://bricartsmedia.org/commtulit)':!!ledialbcat-tv-network 

And then click on Channel 2 eve1y and any 11wrsday at 12 noon and again at 8pm Eastern Time. 

To access om· radio pro8'·am website: WMI'.am/240wgbb.ccm eve1y Sunday evening from 8-8:30pm 

Eastern Time. Should you miss the broadcast it will be archived by the end of the following week and can be 

listen to at www.adoptingreensandtweens.com Should you be in the New York Ciry area you can listen 011 the 

radio on 1240 on the AM dial if you are in Nassau Cotmry, West em Suffolk Counry, most parrs of Queens, many 

parts of Brookly11, and rhe New Jersey Shore. 

WHERE SHOULD ADOPTION INCENTIVES AWARDS BE RE-INVESTED?: 

There are two equally important areas where re-investing adoption incentive nmds would be 

extraordinary useful as we place older youth with pennanent parents to create life tinte families through 

adoption. 

The first is funding to continue effons to recruit the very permanent parents tbat we know are out there 

for each and every youth. Re-investing these incentive dollars to utilize the three prong strategies noted above 

3114/w\•rmoid Av•nu• ir~fyn. NV ll 224 mQin: 718.372.3003 info: pobfion@yQYgottob•liev•.orv f<:nt 718.302.3033 

www.yovgottobellev•,Of9 
35 

f 


89477A.022

would be an impactful way to get more youth into permanent lamilies bcfoo·e their discharge from the system. 

Parents and families are !he foundation and springboard to every child's funore. Parents and fami lies give 

every youth access to the village we so often talk about needing to raise children. It sure does take a village to 

raise a child but only if that child has a parent in that village to provide the fotmdation he or she needs. This is 

equally moe for the 18. 19. 20. or 21 year olds as it would be for an infant. toddler or latency age child. 

Secondly, we must suppon families after their youth move in. Almost all the youth at the age range we 

place have had serious trauma in their lives. We prepare parents for what to expect, but we must also be there 

to suppon them during their hard times after their new sons and daughters move in. Funds should be reinvested to help these families maintain their conunihn ents during the inevitable episodes and outbreaks !hat 

surface due to each youth's individual tramua. The more we suppon these newly created families, the stronger 

these families will remain. 

If we can provide these two basic adoption services. then each youth will have what the child welfare 

system promised them when they first came into foster care: and that promise was a home that provides safety, 

the opporttmity for well-being, and a permane-nt parent and family who will be there for them long after their 

years in foster care are over. 

I want to !hank Chaimtan Rep. Dave Reichen and Ranking member Rep. Lloyd Doggett and the rest of 

the sub-conmtittee on Hwnan Resources for giving me !he opponunity to represent You Golla Believe! The 

Older Child Adoption & Permanency Movement, Inc attoday's hearing. 

Some readings I would recommend include the following (feel free to e-mail at ygbpat@msn.com if you would 

like for me to e-mail any of these papers or anicles to you): 

Avery, Rosemary J., An Examination of J'heory ond Promising Practice for Achieving Pet"monency for Teens Befof• They Age Out of Foster 

Core, Children & Youth Sorvi<e' Review 32 (201 0) pg$. 399-408 

O'Brien, Patrick, Wflen You Toke the P.A.ItE.N.T. Out of PERMANENT You're left With M.(osfly) N.(ot) E.(t1041gh) Paper written for o 

workshop presented 01 o North Amerkon Council on Adoptable Children Conference. 

O'Btien, Potti<k, Youth Homolouness and tho lode of Adoptive and Othtr Petmontnt Porentol Plonning For Teens In Fos'-r COI"e: Pr•venting 

Hom•leunoss Through Porenling. Poper written for o work$hop pr~~nted ot o North American Covncll on Adoptable Children 

Conference. 

0'8rie", Pottidt Unconditional Commitment; The Only love That Molters ... fo Teens An Article written end publi$hed in E_os:teri!lg 

omille Today end a variety of other publi<olions and newsletters. 

Respectfully Submitted by, 

P,ct Brie~v 

Pat O'Brien, MS. LMSW 

Founder & Executive Director 

You Golla Believe! 17!e Older Child Adoption 

& Permanency Movement, Inc 

3114/w\ermoid Avenue ir~fyn. NV ll224 moin: 718.372.3003 info: pobfion@yQYgottobeli•v•.orv f<:nt 718.302.3033 

www.yovgottobeii•"•·Of9 
36 

Chairman REICHERT. Thank you, Mr. O’Brien. 

Ms. Dobbins, you are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF NICOLE DOBBINS, 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, VOICE FOR ADOPTION 

Ms. DOBBINS. Chairman, Ranking Member, Members of the 

Subcommittee, I direct an organization that is an advocacy organization called Voice for Adoption. Our members recruit families, and 

they provide postadoption support services. 

I would like to shed light on four key areas within my time: The 

rate of adoption from foster care is increasing, but adoption of older 

youth continues to be a struggle. Our aging-out youth population 

you heard about, we need to connect them to permanency before 

exiting. Postadoption services is a critical need identified, but there 

are a lack of resources to support these efforts. And lastly, accountability for Federal funds that have been dedicated to adoption, we 

need to make sure that we are reviewing those to ensure that reinvestment is happening as required by law. 

The Fostering Connections Act as well as the ASFA of 1997 took 

great strides in increasing adoptions. The rate of adoption has increased by 77 percent, but more needs to be done. 

Consistent with the national number of children in foster care 

decreasing, so is the number of children waiting to be adopted. As 

adoption populations decline, States won’t be able to continue to 

meet and exceed the rates they are basing their adoption incentives 

on, which is fiscal year 2007. 

Voice for Adoption recommends adjusting the baseline level so 

that more current levels are reflected so that the Adoption Incentives program can continue to be an effective approach. 

We also request that detailed reports on the number of adoptions 

by each category be reported by HHS, because currently only information about the amounts is being reported. It is hard to have a 

clear picture of what types of increases States are having because 

of this amount-only information being reported. 

Despite the achievements we have seen, connecting waiting children with adoptive families still is a struggle within these States. 

It is critical that we find ways to increase the likelihood of adoption 

of older youth, and as you understand from what you have heard, 

promising practices for older youth differ from that of young children. These efforts include a variety of things that should be 

strengthened, encouraged at the State level, including youth engagement, permanency planning, smaller caseloads, intensive family finding, kinship connections, and reunification efforts when possible. Voice for Adoption recommends reauthorizing the Family 

Connection grant. 

Another way we see to continue to promote the effective practices 

to encourage State leverage of public-private partnerships is to promote a key provision of the Fostering Connections Act, which is the 

Federal Title IV–E reimbursement training for a range of services. 

We believe that this benefit has not yet—the expansion has not yet 

been realized, and we recommend that some clarity in successful 

State examples be pushed through HHS, specifically toward effective models that we know work for adopting children, specifically 

older children. 

37 

When we take these youth from their homes, we know that we 

have an obligation to create better circumstances for them, and 

right now as a system we are failing older youth. An area that warrants greater examination is something you have already heard 

about, the APPLA case goal. It replaced long-term foster care in 

the legislation 16 years ago, but we fear, and there is a growing 

concern in the field, that it simply changed the terminology and not 

the trajectory of these young people’s lives. 

Voice for Adoption recommends providing incentives to States for 

the reduction of youth who exit without permanent connections. 

Furthermore, I urge the Committee to hold future hearings on this 

specific issue. 

I have two last points. Postadoption services help adoptive families and children move through the stages of becoming a family, especially children who have been adopted from foster care, as they 

work through past traumas and strengthen the family as a unit. 

The Federal Government has invested millions of dollars into increasing adoptions without reciprocal mandates to services to support these families after finalization. 

There has been a great deal of research about the quality of 

postadoption services, and parents sometimes are faced with seeing 

practitioners who don’t understand the dynamics, which escalates 

the issues. For this we recommend greater development of implementation of adoption-competent mental health providers and appropriate funding streams to accomplish this goal. Specifically we 

recommend that States be required to use the adoption incentive 

bonuses to meet the needs of families postadoption. 

Lastly, I would like to highlight an issue that you may be interested in, which is the Fostering Connections maintenance-of-efforts 

provision that came out of the Federal de-link for the adoption assistance. States are seeing a greater increase in their budgets. Due 

to this, the Congressional Budget Office scored the Fostering Connections Act at a $1.4 billion savings to States. The Federal Government required States to reinvest the savings back into child 

welfare and adoption services, but despite legislative attempts, it 

has been unclear whether these funds are being reinvested. 

As States continue to accrue savings on what they would have 

been spending on State adoption assistance, there is an even 

greater opportunity for the investment in making sure that postadoption services are available. With that, we recommend that a 

percentage of these funds be designated if no other funds are, and 

that public reporting of these uses by States are reported by HHS. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Dobbins follows:] 

38 


89477A.023

SPEAKING OUT FOR OUR NATION'S WAITING CHILDREN 

Testimony by: 

Nicole Dobbins, 

Execulivc Director 

Voice for Adoption 

Before tile: 

llniled Stale• Hm,.e C.nmmillee nn Way• and Mean•, 

Subcommittee on Human Resources 

For the hearing: 

Increasing Adoptions from Foster Care 

February 27, 2013 

Voice for Adoption 

1220 L. Street, NW 

Suite #100-344 

Washington, DC 20005 

Voice for Adoption. statement for tile record - U.S. House Subcommittee oo Human Resources of the 

Committee on Ways and Means 
39 


89477A.024

Hello, Chainnan Dave Reichert, Ranking Member Lloyd Doggett and members of 

the Subcommittee on Human Resourc.es. I am Nicole Dobbins, Executive Director of 

Voice for Adoption (VFA). I am pleased to appear before you today to provide testimony 

regarding the importance of increasing adoptions for children in our nation's foster care 

system who are awaiting pem1anent families. Thank you for having this significant 

hearing and thank you for the opportunity to be a part of this distinguished panel. 

Let me start by saying Voice for Adoption1 is a membership advocacy 

organization. We speak out for our nation's 104,000 waiting children in foster care and 

the families that adopt children with special needs. VF A members, who are spread across 

the country, recruit families to adopt children and youth in foster care who are waiting for 

a pennanent family. Our members also provide vital support services both before and 

after adoption finalization to help adoptive families through the challenges they 

sometin1es face in parenting children who have experienced abuse or neglect. VF A 

members are dedicated to finding pennanent, loving families for every waiting child in 

foster care. We are also committed to ensuring federal policies and funding match the 

ongoing needs of these children and their adoptive families. 

I would like to shed light on four key areas within my allotted five minutes: 

I. The rate of adoption from foster care is increasing, but the adoption of 

older youth continues to be a struggle for States. 

2. Youth who "age-out" are a vuh1erable population and more must be done 

to secure permanency for these youth before exiting foster care. 

3. Adoption experts- both professionals and families alike-identify postadoption services as a critical need to support families, but a lack of 

resources to support these efforts is still a challenge. 

1 Voice for Adoption is a coalition whose Board of Directors is composed of Adopt Americ.a Nerwork. Adoption 

Exchange Association, The Adoption Exchange Inc .• Child Welfare League of America, Childre-n Awaiting Parents, 

Consortium for Children. Family Bt~ilders Nelwork. Kinship Ceuter, Lillipul ChildNn's Services, National Adoption 

Center, New York Council on Adop1able Children, North American Council on Adoptable Children. Spaulding for 

Children·Michigan, and 11uee Rivers Adoption Council. 

Voice for Adoption, statement for tbe record - U.S. House Subcommittee on Human Resources of tbe 2 

Committee on Ways and Means 
40 


89477A.025

4. State accountability for the use of federal adoption funding should be 

reviewed to ensure that reinvestment into supporting adopted children and 

their families' is happening as required by law. 

Overall, there have been great improvements since the federal government plac.ed 

an emphasis on the importance of timelier adoptions of children from foster care when 

the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) of 1997 (P.L. 105-89) was enacted. Since 

that time the rate of adoption has i11creased (by approximately 77 percent) and the 

average time from removal to adoption has declined (by 14 monthsi. Additionally, the 

Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of2008 (P.L. 110-351) 

took great strides to provide additional resources to States to ensure support for 

increasing adoptions, but more must be done. Through the Fostering Connections Act, 

the Adoption Incentive Program was improved and reauthorized through fiscal year2013. 

The Fostering Cotmections Act revised the baselines against which adoption increases are 

measured, and doubled awards for increased adoptions of children age nine and older 

(increased to $8,000) as well as for younger children with special needs (increased to 

$4,000). Under the law States also have the opportunity to earn incentives for increasing 

their rate of adoptions (calculated by dividing the total number of adoptions by the total 

number of children in foster care on the last day of the fiscal year and multiplying by 

100). 

As you know, the Adoption Incentive program is set to expire at the end of this 

fiscal year and as States' overall foster care population decline, so are the number of 

adoption finalizations. Consistent with the national number of children in foster care 

decreasing so has the number of children waiting to be adopted as well (134,000 in 

FY2002 compared to 104,000 in FY2011). The number of children adopted from foster 

care each year has stayed above 51 ,000 since 2002. The peak was seen in fiscal year 

2009, the year after the updated baseline from the Adoption Incentive Program was 

enacted, with 57,000 children adopted in that year. The number of children adopted in FY 

20 II, the last year we have data from, was 5 1 ,000 adoptions. 

2 National Resource Center for Adoption. A Service of the Children's Bureau & Mtmber of the TIT A Network. The 

Roundtable, Volume25 : Number2 (2012). 

Voice for Adoption, statement for the record - U.S. House Subcommittee on Human Resources of the 3 

Committee on Ways and Means 
41 


89477A.026

After the enactment of the Fostering Connections Act, all but six States and the 

District of Columbia have received an incentive payment in at least one year. In FY2009 

all but twelve States received an incentive payment, but by FY20 ll twenty-two States 

did not receive any incentive.3 Since the number of children in foster care and the number 

of youth waiting to be adopted have declined over 20% in the past five years (this is good 

news), states can't continue to exceed their FY2007 baseline number of adoptions and 

will not be able to achieve the adoption incentives. It is important to note that the 

incentive payments related to the adoption rates are only available to States if there is 

money left after the initial bonuses have been allocated. Despite foster care population 

declines, adoption rates have remained stable, which suggests that the rate of adoptions 

may be a greater indicator of success. Some greater priority should be given to rates of 

adoption, especially for older youth. For example if a State has increased their adoption 

rates, but not increased enough over their baseline level to achieve the per child adoption 

inc.entives, are we not providing an incentive for the rate increase achievement? The 

answer to this question is hard to answer, because we don't have adequate reporting on 

what State achievements are in each of the adoption incentive categories; we encourage 

this to be examined more closely. 

As the Subcommittee is reviewing the reauthorization of this program, Voice fo•· 

Adoption commends adjusting the adoption baseline to mo•·e cutTent levels in 

o•·det· to ensure that tbe Adoption Incentives continue to be an effective appt·oach to 

increasing the number of adoptions. Additionally, we request detailed •·ep ot·ts on the 

nu.mbe1· of adoptions in each catcgo•-y, as well as the State usc of the awaJ·ds. It is 

hat·d to have a clear picture of what types of inueases in adoption States are 

t·eceiving the bonuses for, because in recent yean HHS has only repor·ted on the 

total dollar amount States have eam ed •·ather than any detail of what was achieved. 

Additionally States at·e not required to repor·t the use of the incentive dollars, so 

tracking use of these funds is also difficult. 

3 U.S. Depar1lllent of Heallh and Hulll3U Services. AdtniniSiration for Children and Families (Aug. 2012) AdopliOII 

/Jicltntivf's £nmiu8 Histol')' tt Stot11: FY J!J!JS4FY10J 1. Washington.. DC. 

Voice for Adoption, statement for tbe record - U.S. House Subcommittee on Human Resources of tbe 4 

Committee on Ways and Means 
42 


89477A.027

The adoption of older youth continues to be a struggle for States 

Despite the achievements we've seen in connecting waiting children with 

adoptive families, states still struggle to meet the needs of older youth waiting for 

permanent families. In a recent analysis published by the National Resource Center for 

Adoption, a review of data found that only 26. 1 percent of all adoptions were of children 

ages 9 and older, while at the same time 40.6 percent of children waiting for adoption 

were 9 or older. This represents the lowest percentages of older youth adoptions since the 

enactment of ASFA in 1997. Jt is critical that we find ways to increase the likelihood of 

adoption for older youth, because otherwise we will continue to allow legal orphans to 

exit our nation's foster care system to unfortunate outcomes (and there has been much 

research dedicated to what happens to youth when they exit foster care without 

pennanent connections). For older youth adoption, promising practices include a variety 

of efforts that should continue to be strengthened and taken up by states to ensure success 

for this population. These practices, which you will hear about in depth from my 

colleag11es on the panel, include: youth engagement in pennanency planning, smaller 

caseloads, intensive family finding, kinship connections and reunification efforts. To 

facilitate these efforts, Voice fo•· Adoption recommends reauthorizing the funding fo•· 

the Family Connections grants,4 which a1·e a lso are set to expire at the end of this 

year. 

Another way to continue to promote these effective practices is to encourage 

States to leverage public-private partnerships to promote adoptions of children in foster 

care. A key provision of the Fostering Connections Act provides federal Title IV -E 

reimbursement for training a range of service providers and caregivers (court personnel, 

attomeys, guardian ad !items, court appointed special advocates, and perspective relative 

guardians as well as foster and adoptive parents). Funding for this provision was phased 

in over 5 years with full 75 percent reimbursement in fiscal year 2012 and beyond. The 

4 family ConnecliOilS gralll$ are for projecrs aud in1cgnued programs for intcm.sivc family· finding activities and f:unily 

group decisiou·makiug meetings {FDGM). kiusbip navigator prog:rams aud resjdeutial family u·talUlCill projec1 iu 

suppo11ing cowtections with family members to build the capacity to meet the needs of children and families. 

Voice for Adoption, statement for the record - U.S. House Subcommittee on Human Resources of tile 5 

Committee on Ways and Means 
43 


89477A.028

benefits of the training expansion of the Fostering Connections Act in promoting public 

private partnerships are yet to be realized. Clarity is needed from HHS on key 

implementation issues. Voice fot· Adoption •·ecommends that States utilize the 

enhanced Title IV -E tJ•aining dollat·s towat·d the use of effective models that move 

oldet· childt·en out of foste~· cat·e and into pet·manent families and we urge the 

Subcommittee to encourage HHS to issue guidance OJ' further clarity identifying 

successful State examples of such opportunities. 

Youth who "age-out" are a vulnerable population and more IIIII Sf be done to secure 

perma11ency for these youth before e.xiti11g foster care 

As a system we are failing older youth. l11e number of youth who age out of 

foster care annually is more than 26,000. There is a growing trend in the percentage of 

emancipated youth whose parental rights have been tem1inated ( 16.3 percent in FY20 II 

compared to 6.1 percent in FY2000)5

. Youth who leave foster care to live on their own 

face significant challenges, including homelessness and inadequate housing, limited or no 

postsecondary education or training, unemployment or underemployment, involvement 

with the criminal justice system, mental health and substance abuse challenges, and early 

parenthood6

. When we take these youth away from their birth families, we have an 

obligation to create better circumstances for them. As a nation we must do a much better 

job at connecting these youth to pennanency rather than emancipating them to no one and 

putting them on a trajectory toward poor outcomes. 

An area that warrants greater examination for older youth is their designated case 

plan. Over the years there have been mounting and justified concerns regarding the use of 

APPLA as a permanency goal for children and youth in foster care. "APPLA" is: Another 

Planned Pennanent Living Arrangement. It replaced "Long Tem1 Foster Care" in 

legislation 16 years ago. It was intended to be used only when other pem1anency options 

such as reunification, adoption, and kinship or guardianship care are ruled out. Roughly 

' Analysis prepared by Penelope L. Maza, Pb.D. based on data from !he Cornell Data Archive as of February 2013. 

6 Courlney. M.E., Dworsky, A .• Hook. J., Bt'owo, A., e1 at. (2011). Midwesr Evaluation of the Adull FtUlcliOilillg of 

Fonner Foster Youth. Retrieved Febmary 22. 2013 from: 

http //www chapiub.'lll or&'sites defau tlfiles/Midwest%20Eva ustion Re_por1~ J0 12.p9 f 

Voice for Adoption, statement for the record - U.S. House Subcommittee on Human Resources of the 6 

Committee on Ways and Means 
44 


89477A.029

12 percent of children in care have this case goa I, however some State data reflect 

nwnbers as high as 20 percent of their foster care population with this goal7

• The APPLA 

term was established because far too many children were being given the permanency 

goal oflong-tenn foster care and Congress made the right decision to remove that as a 

goal. However there is a growing concern in the field that APPLA has simply replaced 

long-tem1 foster care, changing the tenninology but not the outcomes for youth. 

Too many youth report not being asked more than once, if a t all, if they would 

consider being adopted and secondly youth report feeling forced down a path of 

independence wllile not fully understanding what permanency is

8

. Youth who have had 

parents throughout childhood and adolescence have the foundation of family while 

establishing greater independence. Yet, youth in foster care are asked to make the life 

altering decision of"choosing to want" to be adopted at the very time that 

developmentally they are seeking independence. Should youth refuse to consider 

adoption, they commonly are assigned a pennanency goal of APPLA. Additionally, there 

is a correlation between older youth and their placement settings. Nationally, over onethird (36%) of youth in care who are age 16 and older are in group homes or institutional 

settings

9

, where typically efforts are not made to connect them with pennanent families 

and other caring adults. 

While the APPLA case goal had good intentions and at the time was progressive 

in thinking, we have leamed a lot about what happens to youth when they exit care a lone 

and we have heard from the other panelists that better practices have been developed to 

serve this population. It is time for the federal govemmenlto revisit the use of APPLA as 

a permanency plan option for older youth. Voice for Adoption •·ecommends providing 

incentives to States fo1· the reduction of youth who exit without pe1·manent 

7 Tbc case goal APPLA was enac1cd alltr AFCARS da1a rcpor1ing. so S1a1es s1ill rc;x>rl goals of"Long Term Fosler 

Care." or .. ewandpalion·•. Esrablisbrneul of one of ahe-se goals sugges1s that the othet penn8Jlem options were mled out. 

Congressional Research Service Repor1, Another Plmmed Permtmem Living Arrangement (APPLA) as a Permanency 

Goa/for Children in Foster Care (February 2012). 1 U.S. Senale Caucus on Foster Youth, "Call to Aclion." Oclober 7. 2010. Retrieved Febnmry 21 ) 2013 from: 

h!!p_://www finauc~ se nat~Qv ne~t9..Q olnmkin_g/re1easet?id..o:._~Sa~_t_d l_H9J 8-41 :l9-alla-d6ffl J b51.299 

• Annie E. Casey, Kids Cont11, May 2011 

Voice for Adoption, s1a1emenl for 1he record - U.S. House Subcommiuee 011 Human Resources of 1be 7 

Comminee 011 Ways and Means 
45 


89477A.030

connections. Furthe1·more I urge this Committee to hold future hearings on this 

topic, to establish a national strategy to add•·ess this vuloeJ-able population of youth. 

Post-at/option services remain a critical need, yet lack of resources legislatetl 

TI1e federal government has invested millions of dollars into increasing adoptions 

without adequate assuranc-es that these children and families will be safe and secure postfinalization. These services include assistance, such as: parent and youth support groups, 

crisis intervention, family therapy, respite care, and educational advocacy. Post-adoption 

services help adoptive families and children move through the predictable stages of 

becoming a family - working through past traumas and strengthening the well-being of 

all family members. A Casey Family Services report stated, "As states have increased the 

nwnbers of adoptions with legislative mandates and fiscal incentives, this push for more 

timely pennanence for children in foster care has not been accompanied by parallel 

mandates or incentives for states to support families once the adoption is legalized}o,, 

Parents are often faced with seeing practitioners that do not understand the dynamics of 

adoption and foster care - this only adds to the challenges of families who are seeking 

assistance to meet their children's emotional and mental health needs. 

Although there has been a great deal of research on the need for quality postadoption services, funding for such supp011s are not readily accessible. Voice for 

Adoption •·ecommends that a greate1· emphasis be placed on the access of adoption 

competent mental health p1·ovide•·s and that app1·opriate funding streams be 

mandated to accomplish this goal. Specifically, we recommend that states be 

r eqlli•·ed to use adoption incentive bonuses fo•· post-adoption suppo1t se•·vices for 

child•·en and families. 

1

° Casey Family Servic.es, The Cnsey Center for Effective Child Welfare Praclice. P...omising Praclices in Adoplion 

Competent Memo/ Health Services (2003} Retrieved february 21 , 2013 from: 

h11p://W\V'w.at-ef.ontluploadlpublieatiouCilesJpromisu\g%20prae1iees%20in%20adop1ioJt.pdf 

Voice for Adoption, statement for the record - U.S. House Subcommittee on Human Resources of the 8 

Committee on Ways and Means 
46 


89477A.031

Federal adop tion funding should be reviewed to e11Sure rei11vestme11t into child we!fl1re 

and adoptio11 

The Fostering Connections Act included a major provision that resulted in the 

federal govenunent taking on a larger share of what States would otherwise be spending 

on adoption assistance. Before Fostering Connections, tens of thousands of children were 

not eligible for federa l Title IV-E adoption assistance; in FY2008 states reported that just 

over 20 percent of adopted children who received adoption assistance received no federal 

supportu When the Congressional Budget Office scored the Fostering Connections Act 

they projected aS 1.4 billion savings to States over ten years (and $126 million over 5 

years). The federal govemment required States to reinvest these savings back into child 

welfare, including post-adoption services. Despite legislative attempts in two federal laws 

(the Fostering Connections Act and the Child Welfare Improvement and Innovation Act 

of 20 I I), I'IHS has been unable to report what types of services, if any, States are 

spending the savings on. Initial guidance to States following the Fostering Collllections 

Act stated that States had the flexibility to detennine and calculate the savings, but were 

not required to provide a specific accounting of the funds to the Department ofHHS12• 

Congress enacted legislation in 20 I I reiterating the expectation for an accounting of the 

Title IV-E adoption assistance savings. An Information Memorandum was issued to 

States dire-cting agencies to "now document how savings (if any) are spent when using 

the applicable child e ligibility criteria in the title IV-E adoption assistance program 

(sections 473(a)(2)(A)(ii) and (e) of the Act. 13" Whether the ftmds are being reinvested 

into child welfare and adoption services is unknown because access to the State reports 

continues to be a challenge. 

11 DeVoogbt. K. Fletcher. M. Vaughn. B., & Cooper. H. (2012). Federal. State, and Local Spending to Address Child 

Abuse and Neglect in SFYS 2008 and 20 I 0. 

"U.S. Department of Heahh and Human Services. (2010). Guidance on Fostering Connections 10 Success and 

Iocrcasing Adoptions Act of2008. ACYF..CB·Pl-10·11. 

"U.S. Deparllllenl ofHeahb aod Human Services. (201 1) 

Child and Fam.ily Servi.c.es I.mptoveJnenl a.nd hmov:uion Ace; Titles TV·B. TV·E and seecioo 1130 ofcbe Sotinl Security 

Act; Promoting Safe and Stable Families PrograJI): Child Welfare Services Program. ACYF·CB·tM·l i.Q6. 

Voice for Adoption, statement for the record - U.S. House Subcommittee on Human Resources of the 9 Commiltee on Ways and Means 
47 

f 


89477A.032

As States continue to accme savings on what they would have been spending on 

state adoption assistance there is an even greater opportunity for an investment in malcing 

sure families are stable though the availability of post-adoption support. Voice for 

Adoption believes that a pe1·centage of the adoption funds states have saved from 

the fede1·al adoption assistance de-link should be J•einvested into services to support 

families afte1· they adopt children f1·om foste1· cat·e, to ensure families a1·e able to 

meet the ongoing needs of theh· children. Public repo1iing on the use of State 

1·einvestment funds should also be requh·ed so State advocates have a tool to make 

sure funds at·e being r·einvested. 

Conclusion 

I would like to sincerely thank the Subcommittee for its interest in hearing 

perspectives for improvements to increasing adoptions from foster care. As you work to 

improve outcomes for children waiting to be adopted and adoptive families conunilled to 

raising children who often come with painful pasts, I hope you will take into 

consideration the recommendations presented before you today. In closing we appreciate 

the dedication of this Subcommittee; as demonstrated your work on children's issues 

rema ins a priority across party lines. We look forward to your continued efforts on behalf 

of children and families. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

Nicole Dobbins, 

Executive Director 

Voice for Adoption 

Voice for Adoption, statement for the record - U.S. House Subcommittee on Human Resources oft be 10 

Committee on Ways and Means 
48 

Chairman REICHERT. Thank you. 

And now we move into the question phase, so we will have an 

opportunity to use up 5 minutes and ask you some questions, too. 

We will focus on some of those things you just mentioned to us 

in your testimony. For example, in fiscal year 2011, HHS reported 

that there were over 38,000 children who had been in foster care 

for over 5 years. In the same year over 26,000 kids aged out of foster care with no permanent family connection, and this, again, was 

a point most of you made during your testimony. 

Why do some of these kids stay in foster care so long? 

Ms. SORONEN. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, 

based on our experience with this child-focused program across the 

Nation, in all of the States, what we see are a number of layers 

of challenges to getting these children out of care. You saw the 

‘‘unadoptable’’ word. Unfortunately, with lack of training at the 

feet-to-the-ground level with social workers to show that the children on their caseload are adoptable, we hear time and again caseworkers assuming that they can’t be adopted, so let’s put our resources into helping them age out of care. So first we have to train, 

I think, the frontline workers a little bit better about these children, their needs, and their adoptability. 

We also have the very children themselves who have suffered 

such trauma in their lives, who have moved—what I didn’t share 

is 10 percent of the children in the Wendy’s Wonderful Kids program had moved 10 or more times before they landed on the caseloads. So when a child moves multiple times, attends multiple 

schools, there is no reason to trust a notion of an adoptive family 

being any better for them. But what we found is when we had dedicated adoption recruiters who could work with those children, talk 

to them, explain and maybe work away some of their fears about 

simple things like changing their name or that they may not have 

to move again, the value of a family, the majority of the children 

who had previously been opposed to adoption then moved toward 

considering adoption. This is critical because those are the children 

who express a voice in court, and the court makes a designation 

of another planned permanent living arrangement or long-term foster care for that child. 

So it is that sort of devil’s mix of wanting to respect a child’s 

wishes, but sometimes those wishes are based on further trauma 

in the system that has said to them, I don’t want to be adopted. 

So training for the frontline workers, I think, and making sure that 

they are working with the children so that they can understand the 

value of adoption. 

Chairman REICHERT. I am going to follow up on that just a little bit. On page 3 of your testimony, you noted that half the children Wendy’s Wonderful Kids worked with never previously had 

anyone work with them to find an adoptive home. Are there any 

Federal policies that contribute to that or other reasons why children might stay in foster care so long without anyone helping them 

or finding them an adoptive home? 

Ms. SORONEN. I don’t think so much there are Federal policies 

that push that they stay in care, but the way that we have trained 

our workers to deal with older youth has not been beneficial to getting them out of care. So putting their face on a website, for examVerDate Sep 11 2014 14:15 Jul 17, 2017 Jkt 089477 PO 89477 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 I:\WAYS\WAYSPS\89477\89477.XXX 89477
49 

ple, is one tactic, but then that charismatic wish that someone will 

see their face and come adopt them, let’s face it, when we are all 

in a social setting, and we talk about teenagers, we all kind of 

screw up our faces. In just normal families teenagers are a challenge. Imagine a teenager who has been in care for 10 years, who 

has multiple challenges, who has pushed back against adoption, 

and a worker simply stops working on their behalf and says, what 

I think is best for this child is moving forward, and parents aren’t 

stepping forward, either. 

So I think it is we can’t legislate changing attitudes, but we can 

show success, that these children can be served, that they can be 

adopted and help drive a public will for getting them adopted. 

Chairman REICHERT. Yes. One of the biggest frustrations I had 

working on the street and working with kids, was trying to get 

them convinced that they were adoptable, that they could move 

into an adoptive home. So I have been a witness to that. I think 

you are very accurate in your description. 

One last quick question. Mr. O’Brien, your organization works 

with youth who are close to aging out of foster care. Why have 

those kids been waiting so long, in your view? 

Mr. O’BRIEN. In my view, it is because no law mandates that 

we must continue to never stop looking for a family. Almost all of 

those kids are receiving APPLA services, teaching them to prepare 

for adulthood, when they have everything provided for them up 

until a certain birthday, whether it is 18, 19, 20 or 21, and then 

after that birthday they have been prepared for aging out, they age 

out, and they have absolutely nothing provided for them. 

If at the exact same time we were preparing them for adulthood 

we never stopped looking for a family, by law we would have found 

many, many more kids, because the crime is not not finding the 

family, the crime is not even having to look for the family, and 

when kids get old, we don’t have to look. 

Chairman REICHERT. Thank you so much for your answers. 

And, Mr. Doggett, you are recognized for 5 minutes for questioning. 

Mr. DOGGETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to each 

of our witnesses not only for your testimony, but for the devotion 

you show to this very important and challenging cause. 

The small role that we can play relates to the reauthorization of 

these two specific laws, and I gather that each of you favor our reauthorizing the Adoption Incentives program. Have you had—I believe, Ms. Dobbins, you mentioned the Family Connection grants, 

which is the newer program. Have any of our other witnesses, have 

you had experience with that program, and do you favor its reauthorization? 

Mr. O’BRIEN. Well, I mean, I would certainly favor anything 

that is good for kids. 

Mr. DOGGETT. Right. 

Mr. O’BRIEN. It is just that it almost avoids the real issue. I 

mean, as we are providing more and more services, we are not— 

there is no mandate to continue working with kids to try to get 

them parents at the same time. So I would absolutely recommend 

the reauthorization of it, but I would like it a little bit stronger 

where there is a mandate to look for families at the same time. 

50 

Mr. DOGGETT. Ms. Rosati. 

Ms. ROSATI. I would like to add that I think not only do we not 

have that mandate, we unintentionally create these incentives that 

end up pushing things to the outcomes that none of us would actually desire. And so as the issue that I mentioned, sometimes you 

may have benefits that are there for a child only when that child 

stays in the system and ages out of the system, so that if you are 

a parent—if you are a foster parent in the life of that child, or if 

you are an acquaintance or a friend, and you have a connection 

there, and you want that child to support—to be supported, to go 

to college, or to access the mental health services that they may 

need, you can’t also say, let’s go ahead and I will adopt you and 

be your forever family, because the minute you do that, you are 

going to sometimes in some places then lose the opportunity to go 

to college, lose the opportunity for the mental health services that 

you need that will be the foundation for a successful life going forward. And so I think replacing some of those disincentives in the 

system would also go a long way to providing the outcomes that we 

all desire. 

Mr. DOGGETT. Thank you. 

Ms. Dobbins. 

Ms. DOBBINS. Yes, I just want to make a point trying to get to 

both questions there. One of the questions is how come kids stay 

in care so long. There is a correlation between placement setting 

of children in care, especially for older youth. A lot of older youth 

are in group home facilities, congregate care settings. What we 

know about those youth is that recruitment efforts don’t typically 

happen, but what we have seen with Family Connection grants, at 

least preliminary evaluations, is that these are actual efforts in reviewing caseloads for some of the harder children to find homes for, 

which are the intensive family findings, so who are the relatives of 

these children. 

And so, again, back to the correlation, if, you know, we have 

large populations of older youth in these facilities, then those are 

the ones not getting the attention that they really need to be working down some of the things that we talked about of, you know, 

what are their fears, do they want to be adopted, can we convince 

them that, you know, there is a family that wants them and that 

kind of thing. 

So I hope that kind of answers both questions. I think the Family Connection grants start to work toward the practice that we are 

seeing greater improvements in. 

Mr. DOGGETT. And why is it that we need additional data from 

HHS? And I guess in turn they are getting that from the States. 

Ms. DOBBINS. Additional data on which, I am sorry? 

Mr. DOGGETT. You indicated in your testimony that you wanted 

to see HHS reports by category. I am just asking you to expand on 

that. 

Ms. DOBBINS. Oh, a very good question. 

Mr. DOGGETT. I assume that means also they are requiring 

that from the States. 

Ms. DOBBINS. I am sure they are. I just haven’t seen reporting 

at, you know, the public level, because, you know, what is reported 

is how much States actually earn, but I think it is important to 

51 

also know what States are receiving the bonuses for, so in which 

categories? Are they receiving them because they are increasing 

the adoptions of older youth ages 9 and older; or is it because they 

are increasing the special needs adoptions; or is it because their 

rates of adoption are increasing, which is something important to 

note, because the rates of adoption are only provided as an incentive to States if there is money left over in the allotment? And so 

what we have seen is that rates of adoption have increased, but are 

there States that possibly have rate increases, but can’t reach the 

individual adoptions over a certain baseline that aren’t getting the 

incentives because that is an afterlook? 

And so that is a question of, you know, a better reporting on the 

categories, or at least a deeper look into this as it is being reauthorized. 

Mr. DOGGETT. Do the maintenance-of-effort requirements need 

to be altered? 

Ms. DOBBINS. That is actually another issue. The maintenance 

of effort from the IV–E adoption assistance de-link is another issue. 

The Federal Government did a great job of legislating that these 

reinvestments do need to go back into child welfare services, but 

what we have seen is we are not really sure where they are going. 

We had hoped that States were spending them in the right places, 

but there is not a good reporting of that. And at Voice for Adoption 

we do believe since this money is coming from increasing adoptions, and we want to support that, that a modest percentage of 

that, 20 percent, be dedicated to continuing to support these families so that we are not seeing families, you know, disrupted and 

that their needs for trauma and abuse are looked at at the, you 

know, family level. 

Mr. DOGGETT. Thank you. 

Chairman REICHERT. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. Young is recognized. 

Mr. YOUNG. Well, I thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking 

Member. This is a very important topic. I appreciate everyone’s patience and presence here today. I know it has been a long day. 

Lowering barriers to adoption and to supporting families postadoption, I think there has been a Federal precedent for this effort. 

It is something we need to make sure that we continue and improve upon, and so your testimony has been helpful in guiding us 

in that regard. 

I will start off with this question for anyone on the panel, feel 

free to respond, but from the standpoint of those who are seeking 

to adopt a child from foster care, how efficiently do the various 

Federal and State programs supporting adoption appear to work together, in your estimation? 

And as you think about answering that, there may be some particular areas of focus that you want to attend to; perhaps the information that would-be adoptive parents need to access tax credits 

supporting adoption, do they receive sufficient information? Do 

they receive sufficient information about maintenance payments for 

children with special needs? Are they told of postadoption services 

from programs like Promoting Safe and Stable Families and Child 

Welfare Services? 

I will leave this open to the panel. 

52 

Ms. DOBBINS. Yes, I will try to take a stab at that. 

I think one thing you mentioned specifically that I would like to 

touch on is the adoption tax credit. What we have seen with the 

changes in the adoption tax credit that have happened in the last 

few years is that a lot of adoptive families are not able to access 

it because they don’t have a tax liability high enough. I can follow 

up; there is great information behind this. So that is one issue. So 

it became refundable in 2010 for 2 years. 

It takes a certain amount of time and effort for that information 

to trickle down from the Federal level to States, to families, to 

caseworkers, and what we have seen most recently that when it 

was just reauthorized in January, it was not refundable, and for 

2012 it is not. But what families were told, and we keep hearing 

from families, that it was refundable, so they were looking forward 

to using those services, that money, to support, you know, their 

children after adoption. So there is a lack of, you know, what 

knowledge is really getting to the families, and so that could be 

shored up. 

There was one other question that I wanted to get to. 

Mr. YOUNG. I will actually be coming back to you. 

Would others like a crack at that question? 

Ms. ROSATI. Yes. As someone who went through the process 

four times, I think those are really great questions. We were not 

aware of the adoption tax credit in the beginning. I guess for some 

reason we just assumed it was only for intercountry adoption and 

not for foster care adoption, so we missed it for one or two kids. 

That was a bummer. But we were then able to access it after the 

fact. 

I think that for the families that are going through the process, 

things are pretty overwhelming. The amount of paperwork is overwhelming, the time that things take can be overwhelming, the level 

of intrusiveness that it feels like into your life can be pretty overwhelming. 

I don’t say all of those things, however, to say that we need to 

change them all. I actually have a little bit of a counterintuitive 

perspective on that. I think if you are going to welcome home a 

child who has experienced previous trauma, you have to be ready 

for a lot of situations that do not fall under the umbrella of normal parenting, and so when you go through these processes that, 

frankly, are very difficult, I actually think it helps prepare you for 

the difficulty to come. And so I think there is a balance in how 

much we want to streamline. 

Mr. YOUNG. Sure. 

Ms. ROSATI. And so many of the processes, of course, are for 

safety, and so there is really not much that should be done. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you. 

I am going to follow up with Ms. Dobbins in my remaining time 

here. You mentioned a menu of different policy options that are 

available to us to both promote more adoptions and perhaps improve those postadoption connections. Mr. Doggett, I think, questioned you about more detailed HHS reporting. It makes great 

sense to me. 

You mentioned State examples of best practices need to be better 

enforced or regulated by HHS. If you could briefly—we have about 

53 

30 seconds left—indicate what you are referring to there or speak 

to the reduction of incentives for States that do not end up with 

permanent connections at a high level. 

Ms. DOBBINS. I think one thing is the IV–E training. We talked 

a lot about practices. I think it could be encouraged, especially with 

public and private partnerships, by using good examples of what 

this looks like. There is a reimbursement level that can be expanded, and—sorry, I am blanking on the next thing, but I hope 

that answers your question. I am happy to follow up after. 

Mr. YOUNG. That is all right. 

I yield back. Thank you. 

Chairman REICHERT. Thank you. 

The gentleman’s time has expired. Mr. Griffin is recognized. 

Mr. GRIFFIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Rosati, I want to ask what are your funding sources for each 

of your groups, and how much of that is composed of State funding 

or Federal funding versus private sources? 

Ms. ROSATI. We receive no government funding. We are funded 

by the generosity of our donors. And we are able to go into the 

areas that we work and essentially pay for the events ourselves so 

that we are able to hopefully add to the good work that has already 

been done in the community. And I think one of the reasons we are 

received well is that we are not asking for funds, we want to contribute our funds if they would like to have us. 

Mr. GRIFFIN. Before I hear from the others, I just want to ask 

you, does that model represent a very unique sort of small percentage of the groups that assist, in your experience? 

Ms. ROSATI. It seems like it, because people are pretty shocked 

and happy when we come in and offer that we want to contribute 

our resources to make those efforts work. So we are not aware of 

too many other things like that, but we are really happy to be a 

part of the good work that is already going on on the ground. And 

the public-private partnership is key. Having all of those stakeholders working together has been a real key to the success. 

Mr. GRIFFIN. To the others, do you care to comment about your 

funding sources? 

Mr. O’BRIEN. Sure. Our primary funding comes from local counties and the city of New York. And also the Dave Thomas Foundation funds three of our full-time staffers. 

Mr. GRIFFIN. Great. 

Mr. O’BRIEN. And then we raise some money, and we have a 

State contract through Adoption Opportunities Federal grant. So it 

is somewhat diverse, but it comes a lot from governmental local 

sources. 

Mr. GRIFFIN. Ms. Dobbins, Ms. Soronen, do you wish to respond? 

Ms. SORONEN. We are a national nonprofit public charity. Until 

2012, we were exclusively funded through private donors and 

through our philanthropic partnerships. 

When we released the research on the Wendy’s Wonderful Kids 

model in 2011 and then approached the State of Ohio to scale that 

program as a test site for scaling was the first time we took State 

funds in order to scale that program, but we still manage them. 

54 

The funds come through us, and we manage those grants as a nonprofit organization. 

Mr. GRIFFIN. Ms. Dobbins. 

Ms. DOBBINS. We are a very small advocacy organization. We 

are membership based, so our members actually pay in dues, annual modest dues. We don’t receive government funding, Federal 

funding, and we receive donations as well. 

Mr. GRIFFIN. Got you. Ms. Rosati, is your group the only faithbased group here today, or do any others represent faith-based organizations? And you would characterize yours as faith-based? 

Ms. ROSATI. Absolutely, yes. 

Mr. GRIFFIN. I am familiar with your group. 

Mr. O’BRIEN. Well, we do a lot of believing at my place, but we 

don’t—— 

Mr. GRIFFIN. Sure. Yes. 

As a faith-based group, have you found that there are additional 

legal barriers because you are a faith-based group? 

Ms. ROSATI. I am pleased to say that we have not really experienced barriers. We went into this with our eyes wide open, understanding that there may be some issues. We have had tremendous 

working relationships with our government partners. I think there 

are some basic rules we all observe about how it is that we interact, and it has worked very, very well. 

I do know, however, that there are places where those who are 

involved in child welfare from a faith-based perspective have had 

difficulty maintaining their continued presence in those areas. And 

certainly the ability for those faith-based organizations to continue 

to operate in accordance with the dictates of their faith is something we think is very important. So while we haven’t seen those 

barriers, we know that they exist, and we certainly hope that they 

won’t expand any further in the States where we have already seen 

that happen. 

Mr. GRIFFIN. I am running out of time, but I just want to real 

quickly ask, you mentioned, Ms. Rosati, that there were some Federal incentives that you thought were not necessarily accomplishing the stated goal. And that happens a lot with the Federal 

Government; well intentioned, but misses the mark. Can you elaborate on that a little bit? 

Ms. ROSATI. Yes. The two biggies that we see a lot are the opportunity for those who age out of the system to go on to college 

and to have that funded and benefited. I think legislators at the 

State level are afraid it will break the bank. In fact, it will do no 

such thing. And because they limit it, if you go on and get adopted, 

you lose that benefit. You shouldn’t have to choose between higher 

education and an adoptive family. 

Another big one that we see a lot relates to certain kinds of mental health services that are fully funded and accessible if the teenager stays in foster care, but if they get adopted, then it becomes 

much more difficult to access. 

And those would be two things I think where we would need parity in order to eliminate the disincentive that currently exists. 

Mr. GRIFFIN. Thank you. Sounds like something we need to 

look at. Thank you. 

Chairman REICHERT. Thank you. 

55 

Mr. Davis, you are recognized. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much. 

Let me thank the witnesses for coming. Chairman Reichert, 

Ranking Member Doggett, let me, first of all, thank you for this 

hearing. I think it is a very important one as we attempt to improve the Adoption Incentives Act. 

For almost a decade now, I have advocated to draw on the successes of the Adoption Incentives program in increasing adoptions 

to amend the focus of the law to promote permanency. The witnesses have discussed the need to focus on finding permanent 

homes for foster children, and, as I understand it, there are three 

paths to permanency for foster youth: reunification, guardianship 

and adoption. 

We know from research, including the GAO report requested by 

the Ways and Means Committee, that African American children 

stay in foster care longer because of difficulties in recruiting adoptive parents and a hesitancy to terminate parental rights as is required for adoption. 

African American and Native American families tend to choose 

guardianship as a route to permanency rather than adoption because they do not see a need to legally sever the relationship or 

connection between parent and child. 

Given the fact that my congressional district has the highest percentage of grandparents raising grandchildren in the Nation, followed by two other congressional districts in Illinois, one right next 

to mine and then the other one a little further away, guardianship 

as a permanency option is critically important. A grandmother raising her grandchild does not want to erase the legal connection of 

her own child to her grandchild. In the Fostering Connections law, 

this Subcommittee and Congress recognize the disproportionate 

negative effect of excluding guardianship with regard to foster care 

parents. 

Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member and other Members of this 

Subcommittee, I ask you to help make sure that we improve the 

Adoption Incentives Act by encouraging States to promote permanency for foster children so that more children, and especially more 

children of color, can exit care to permanent homes faster. 

Ms. Dobbins, you have done a great deal of work in this area, 

and Voices for Adoption does a great deal to promote permanency. 

Based upon your expertise on the Adoption Incentives program, 

what are some of the ways in which we can amend the law to better promote permanency? 

Ms. DOBBINS. Thank you. And great question. I think what is 

important is permanency. We do support permanent options and in 

broadening the incentive, especially as we can look to what the 

Federal Government has done in this area of really promoting this 

and seeing a really big increase in States taking this on and those 

resources becoming a permanent family for kids who otherwise 

would be in foster care for long periods of time. 

I think we also have to understand how to measure the incentive 

and make sure that it is the right fit, so we do support it. 

Mr. DAVIS. My time is going to expire, Mr. Chairman, but if the 

other witnesses could just indicate whether or not they view this 

as a very important recognition. 

56 

Ms. SORONEN. Congressman, we do. And, in fact, when we provide our grants and set aggressive goals for those grants, we have 

included guardianships as those goals. And of those numbers I told 

you, nearly 200 of those finalized permanent numbers are guardianships. 

Mr. O’BRIEN. And a lot of the homes that we find for older teenagers are with people that they are related to, and that is a very 

important source of permanent parents. 

Ms. ROSATI. I concur as well. We have a partner out in the Seattle area who just formed what is called The Children’s Law Center to provide volunteer lawyer services for the grandparents and 

others who are in the situation you described to allow them to lock 

in and get what they need in terms of permanent guardianship. 

Mr. DAVIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I yield 

back. 

Chairman REICHERT. Thank you, Mr. Davis, and I look forward 

to working with you on this important issue that you just raised. 

Mr. Renacci, you are recognized. 

Mr. RENACCI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank all 

the witnesses for being here. 

Ms. Soronen, I want to thank you as a fellow Buckeye for being 

here and testifying as well. 

Ms. SORONEN. Thank you. 

Mr. RENACCI. Adoption is generally always a better outcome for 

kids than remaining in foster care. In addition to the benefits the 

child receives, I believe adoption has the potential to have huge 

economic benefits. 

Ms. Soronen, you mentioned on page 7 of your testimony that 

your program is resulting in State savings as well, just in terms 

of the cost of foster care versus the cost of the program. Can you 

tell us more about the impact your program is having on State 

spending in Ohio? 

Ms. SORONEN. Yes. And we were pleased that the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services came forward and said, we want 

to move these children out of foster care into adoptive homes. And 

I believe in their heart of hearts that is their first goal, but they 

also understand the financial impact. 

Ohio is one of those States that has not been able to hit the 

threshold of adoption incentives for a number of years. And so this 

program, as we looked at it and worked with the fiscal manager 

at the Ohio Department, we said, help us understand what is the 

financial impact in Ohio, so as we potentially move this to other 

States, we can use this as both the human and a financial template 

as well. 

What we found is with a $2.3 million investment from this 

budget from the Department, and then in—hopefully negotiated in 

the next biennial with Ohio, over a 3-year period with a potential 

$6 or $7 million investment, what they believe is the savings to the 

State will be in excess of $100 million, and that is because we are 

getting children age 9, 10 or 11, and we know that by the time a 

child turns 8, the likelihood of adoption is significantly decreased. 

So to keep a 9- or 10-year-old in care for 8 or 10 more years, if you 

look at those costs, take out the subsidy that the State provides, 

that savings is still significant. 

57 

And the State has said to us they look forward to using those 

savings to continue to invest in embedding and growing this as 

best practice for Ohio’s older youth. 

Mr. RENACCI. Thank you. 

Ms. Dobbins, I want to go a little further on the incentive payments. You know, as you mentioned in your testimony, 22 States 

did not receive incentive payments for fiscal year 2011. I know this 

is an issue that does affect the State of Ohio. Not only did Ohio 

not receive incentive payments for 2011, but the last incentive payment Ohio received was for fiscal year 2003. 

But I know Ohio has made great strides to increase the rate of 

adoption, yet the way the program is currently structured, Ohio 

does not receive incentive payments for its progress. 

Should the current baseline remain, or should it be changed 

again? 

Ms. DOBBINS. I think there are two things, and I did highlight 

this as an example, where there is opportunities where States are 

increasing the rates of adoption, but the rate of adoption is afterlook, so States only get that incentive if there is still funding allotted for the adoption incentives. 

So the first way that States get money is that they have to increase the numbers of adoptions of older youths and children with 

special needs above a baseline which was set in fiscal year 2007, 

but if then they can show that they have also increased the rates 

of adoption, then whatever money is left over, the States receive 

that incentive. 

So we do think this should be looked at more closely, especially 

by people who do data analysis, to see if changing it affects the 

rate, and if that is a greater indicator of success among States, we 

think that might be an issue that the Subcommittee could look at. 

Mr. RENACCI. Do you see waiting periods for foster youth to 

continue to decline? 

Ms. DOBBINS. Well, populations of foster care are declining, yes. 

So these numbers have steadily declined over time, even the number of waiting children. So, yes, we do. 

Mr. RENACCI. Ms. Soronen, do you have any comments on the 

baseline, especially since it affects Ohio? 

Ms. SORONEN. I think I agree with everything that Nicole has 

mentioned. I would also add that we should look at what Mr. 

O’Brien talked about, those caseloads of children in long-term foster care, and scrub those caseloads and see what we can do relative 

to the Adoption Incentives program of also assuring that those children aren’t simply in that indeterminate status for their lifetime in 

foster care of another planned permanent living arrangement. 

Mr. RENACCI. Do any of the other witnesses have any comments on the baseline at all to add? 

All right. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman REICHERT. Well, you made it. That concludes the 

questioning. So we just appreciate you waiting, being patient with 

the rest of what we were doing here today. And then just a real 

heartfelt thank you for what you do for our young people across the 

country. 

And I know this was a good hearing, because Mr. Young just 

whispered in my ear, ‘‘This is an excellent hearing.’’ And you heard 

58 

Mr. Davis’ comments about, thank you for holding this hearing. So 

we take this issue very, very seriously. And just again, thank you 

so much for being here and for your patience today. 

So if Members have additional questions for the witnesses, they 

will submit them to you in writing, and we would appreciate receiving your responses for the record within 2 weeks. 

And now the Committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 5:20 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Submissions for the Record follow:] 

59 


89477A.033

Statement for the Record Submitted by: 

Carol Ramirez, LCSW 

Chief Operating Officer 

Lilliput Children's Services 

8391 Auburn Blvd. 

Citrus Heights, CA 95610 

(916) 830-7730 

cramirez@lilliput.org 

Beverly Johnson, LCSW 

Director of Programs 

Lilliput Children's Services 

8391 Auburn Blvd. 

Citrus Heights, CA 95610 

(916) 830-7732 

Qjohnson@lifuput.org 

Before the: 

United States House Committee on Ways and M eans, 

Subcommittee on Human Resources 

For the hearing: 

Promoting Permanent Families Through Kinship Care 

March 13, 2013 
60 


89477A.034

Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony today on the importance of 

relatives to promoting permanent families for children in foster care. We are 

Carol Ramirez, COO, and Beverly Johnson, Director of Programs, at Lilli put 

Children's Services. We sincerely thank the committee for the opportunity to 

relay important information that supports the goal of increasing permanency 

options for foster children through kinship care and would like to share our 

promising outcomes from our 3-year demonstration project as a grantee of the 

Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008 (Fostering 

Connections Grants). 

Lilliput has provided therapeutic foster care services since 1980 becoming dually 

licensed in 1990 as an adoption agency. Since 1980, Lilliput has maintained 

successful child welfare partnerships throughout California and has served as a 

leader in forging practices that promote early permanency for children in foster 

care and enhanced post-placement well-being for adoptive and kin children and 

families. As the largest private agency provider of foster/adoption services in 

California, Lilli put completes over 500 foster/adoptions per year of which 

approximately 60% are kinship adoptions. Lilliput has been providing contracted 

adoption promotion and post-adoption support services throughout northern 

California since 2001. In addition to contracted services, Lilli put provides 

recruitment, permanency services, training and support services throughout 

Northern California. Lilliput's delivery of Kinship Support Services Programs (KSSP) 

in multiple counties complements the adoption/permanency work of the agency. 

Lilli put was one of four agencies in California granted federal funding in 2009 

through the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act. 

Through a public/private collaborative partnership, Lilliput launched the 

Kinnections Initiative in 2009 in Sacramento County to increase the number of 

kinship family members that could be located and placed with when children first 

entered care and to provide families with supportive services once children were 

placed with kin. The overall goals of the Kinnections Initiative were to 

significantly improve permanency, stability and well-being outcomes for a 

targeted population of children. Working in collaboration with the Sacramento 

County Department of Health and Human Services(DHHS) and other vital 

partners, the Kinnections Initiative upholds the fundamental philosophy that 

children whose parents have failed to protect and nurture them, are best raised 

by members of their extended family, and that relatives are an invaluable 

resource for children in foster care. Lilli put's mission, to ensure a child's 
61 


89477A.035

opportunity for permanency in a safe and nurturing family, includes the belief 

that permanency planning must begin from the moment a child enters out-ofhome care. These efforts should continue throughout a child's stay in foster care 

to ensure that when he/she exits, birth family connections remain intact. 

The innovative Kinnections Initiative utilized a dual approach: intensive family 

finding and intensive kinship navigation services. The initiative targeted AfricanAmerican children, ages 0-17 years, entering foster care for the first time in 

Sacramento County. Our intensive family finding approach was designed to 

provide a thorough and exhaustive search for kin, and initiate comprehensive 

engagement services once kin were located. The intensive kinship navigation 

strategy, Kinship Support Services Program Plus, provides intensive systems 

navigation, in-home case management and therapeutic support with the goal of 

placement stability and facilitating permanency. It was our intent ion to 

demonstrate, through a vigorous evaluation design, how specific changes in 

practices when children first enter care, as well as how concerted efforts and 

strategies to engage and support kin, can lead to significantly improved 

permanency, stability, and well-being outcomes for children and their families. 

With Sacramento County's support, Lilliput launched the Kinnections Initiative in 

October 2009 and accepted our first referral to family finding in April2010. Over 

the course of the three-year project, we have been able to evaluate 191 children 

in Family Finding and 74 children in Kinship Navigation. The project focused also 

on the issue of disproportionality in Sacramento County and made a bold attempt 

at targeting our strategies on one of the most challenging populations of children 

in our system: the overrepresentation of African-American children who 

statistically remain in care for longer periods of time than their counterparts. 

Through a rigorous evaluation of the children and families served, the project was 

able to build evidence for a promising front-end model of family finding and 

kinship navigation. Through our family finding and engagement strategies, we 

were able to locate and place with relatives for 41% of the children referred. 

Referrals were sent to Kinnections after the county made initial efforts to locate 

family, which reinforces the need for increased intensity of family finding services 

up front and continuing to apply this intensity for several weeks or months 

thereafter. It is estimated that 78.5% of the children were on a path to 

permanency of some kind via reunification with birth parent, placement with 

kinship caregiver, and/or through adoption or guardianship. 
62 

f 


89477A.036

Despite the short timeframe for which to evaluate safety, permanency, stability, 

and well-being outcomes for the 74 children in the experimental group of the 

kinship navigation service, there was interesting data, though not clinically 

significant, that deserves additional examination and study. The evaluation 

highlighted four interesting trends seen in the data when comparing the 

experimental and control group: 

(1) Fewer substantiated allegations of child abuse and neglect for the 

experimental group; 

(2) More children/youth in the experimental group who were at home in 

dependent supervision or reunified with birth parents than those in the control 

group; 

(3) Fewer participants in the experimental group who were placed with 

stranger foster parents at some point during the project than in the control 

group; and 

(4) More young children in the experimental group displaying an increase in 

protective factors than children in the control group. 

Although a private/public collaboration was not without its challenges, we believe 

that it was vital to the Kinnections Initiative final success. The improved practice 

changes that resulted through a coordinated service delivery platform amongst 

multiple agencies and included Lilli put, Sacramento DHHS, the juvenile court, and 

children's legal representation, led to enhanced services for children and families 

in Sacramento County. It is our intention to build on this service model through 

our continued partnerships throughout Sacramento County and to continue to 

build on our shared vision and goal of increasing the likelihood of kinship 

placements leading to increased permanency and well-being outcomes for 

children. 

We hope that in hearing about our project's success you are convinced of the 

need for continued funding of innovative programs and initiatives through 

public/private collaborations that seek to promote permanency and support for 

foster children through kinship care. We urge the Subcommittee to reauthorize 

funding for the Family Connections Grants so that innovative programs can 

continue to improve practice on behalf of children and families involved with the 

child welfare system. Thank you for being an advocate for these children and 

thank you for your leadership on adoption and foster care issues. 
63 


89477A.037

FAMILY 

DESIGN 

RESOURCES 

March 12,2013 

RE: Increasing Adoptions fromFosterCat·e Hearing. Feb. 27.2013 

471 )Pl. Wd ri¥~ 

P08ox 4Sla 

Harrisbu"'-PA 17 11 1 

OFFICE 117.llUS70 

FAX 7 17,116.8671 

WEB <l~doslgl\.ott 

Dear Honorable Members of t.he House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Hwnan Resmu·ces: 

As an adoption professional for twenty years, au adoptive parent and member of the Voice for Adoption (VFA), I 

would like to comment on the Increasing Adoptions hearing and provide feedback. 

It was a pleasm·e oo review the testin1ony provided on 2/27/ 13 by Nicole Dobbins, Executive Director of VF A. 

Her information resonated in so many ways with what we either experienced here in Pennsylvania or would 

anticipate as more and older children are adopted. 

1 have been a part of PellllSylvania 's public private collaborative since 1995 aud !have seen the progression of 

fll'St increasing adoptions of children who were in care many years- oben increasing adoptions for sibling groups. 

and ohcn focusing on ohe older youth adoptions. All of ohose of eom'Se speak to the impoo1auce of federal 

programs such as the Adoption Incentive program and Title IV .. £ Adopt·ion Assistance. These federal initiatives 

have u1creased tbe focus on the importance of providing pennaueucy through adoption to children wbo are 

waiting in foster care. 

Adoptive families experience ongoing challenges. States should be obligated to suppo11the newly fonned family 

to provide for tl1eir additional children and the emotional and behavioral challenges they bring. Those cha.llenges 

can come either from tl1eil' history ofnegleco or abuse, tl1eir multiple moves iu care, prenatal exposure to drugs or 

alcohol~ or other heahh or emotional issues. and then adding all of thai lo the w1ique and ca1ing family who 

adopts. Over tbe years of looking for the right families, selling up posl adoption and post pemmnency services 

tl>at meet t11e needs of the families, and del.ivering seovices to increase the Iikelil10od of older youth being placed 

and adopted, it became apparem that adoption assistance was one of tl1e ban·iers to placcmem wbeu uot being 

implemented in a standard and straight fooward manner- once addressed (through federal leadership) many more 

youth found placements and were adopted. Likewise, once post adoption services were offered and delivered and 

we were able to get feedback on the services, it became apparen.o t11at a family's just knowing they would have a 

safety net or suppo11 system. or someone to talk to who would tutders'land their family>s sit11ation is a very 

important factor in caregivers deciding to take the final step to adopt. This makes post-adoption services just as 

critical as adoption awareness aud p•·omotion. TI1e federal govenuuem should place a greater emphasis on 

establisbu1g poso-adop1ion suppo11 in every state. 

Supportmg ~JJ.btmg and ptnnonency (t>r chJdren ond (ormfics.. 
64 

f 


89477A.038

Tite federal government has committed to tl1e importance of finding adoptive homes for so many children over 

the past 10+ years, the commitment to solidify those families by funding on-going services post-adoption is the 

right thing to do- especiaUy when we are looking at the continued high numbers of youth "aging out" of the 

system without pennanent connections and to unfortunate omcomes. The•·e are more families to find, develop 

and connect to those youth. Committing to funding to support those families for severa l years after the adoption is 

a sound investment. Two services research te lls us are important to families agrees with what we find in Pa, 1hose 

are supp011 groups for tbe adoptive parents and wheo possible for the children, and respite care which allows 

families a brief break with someone who knows and cares about tlteir child or children. Respite provided properly 

removes 1he added trauma of exposing them to new and unfantiliar caregivers. 

Not every f.1mily will need such services - but for many just knowing that these services are available is what can 

assist the prospective families in making the lifelong eommibuent to adopting a child from foster care. The 

importance of increasing adoplions has been an imp011ant federal iniLiative. I believe it is just as important - and 

can lead to increased adoptions -that the federal take a greater Leadership role in ensuring post-adoption SCJ'Viccs 

are available in eve1y s1a1e. and (in light of 1he expansion of pennanenl legal custody) even post .. pennanency 

services are available in every state. 

Sincerely, 

Brenda Lawrence, 

Executive Director 

supporting the public-private partnership in PA, known as the Statewide Adoption and Permanency Network. 
65 


89477A.039

Honorable Members of the Subcommittee, 

Every year about 160 young adults in the District of Columbia receive a terrible birthday 

gift. On their 21" birthday they are pushed out of the District's foster care system and left to 

fend for themselves, with no place to call home and no one to guide them in building a life of 

their own. With the support systems they had come to rely on now gone, these young men and 

women are at high risk of homelessness and victimization. Often they have no one to turn to 

for guidance; no one to offer them support in times of need; no one to be proud of their 

accomplishments. Many have no one to visit on holidays; no one to take them to a doctor; no 

one even to say their name aloud. 

There is a way for many children and young adults to avoid the terrible fate of slipping 

through the cracks: adoption. An adoptive parent gives these children a place to call t heir 

home. An adoptive parent can offer guidance and support when it is needed most. An adoptive 

parent can give these young adults a helping hand to rely on, a kind word and loving smile to 

show how proud they are when their kids succeed. 

Family & Youth Initiative strives to build a community of volunteers and prospective 

adoptive parents in order to find permanent homes for children at risk of aging out of foster 

care without a support system. This is accomplished by focusing on a smaller target group of 

hard to place children. Over t ime these children build a relationship with adults at events 

planned throughout t he city, the final goal being that cultivation of relationships will lead to 

adoption. Since its inception in 2010, Family & Youth Initiative has assisted in the adoption of 

thirteen older children in foster care. 
66 


89477A.040

Family & Youth Initiative is a great example of innovative local programming which can 

be promoted by state and local government in order to reach their goals of increased 

adoptions. The Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008 was 

created to build these types of programs. Due to their more focused nature, programs such as 

Family & Youth Initiative can be very effective at placing children and young adults who might 

otherwise age out of foster care into loving homes. 

Due to the focused nature of this type of program, the amount of effort and therefore 

the amount of funding required is higher than other programs. This type of program is an 

example of the importance of maintaining the funding initiatives of the Fostering Connections 

to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008. Regulatory steps are also a necessary 

consideration. Steps must be taken to insure that federal funding meant to improve adoption 

programs at the state level is used as intended. Increased funding used effectively results in 

increased availability of focused programming, leading to increased rates of adoption among 

difficult to place children and young adults. 

While progress has been made, there are still thousands of children across the country 

in need of homes. It is our duty as a society to protect and nurture those among us who are at 

risk through no fault of their own. These young men and women need our commitment and our 

resolve to find someone they can call family. 

Thank you for your time and consideration. 
67 

f 


89477A.041

Attribution: 

Susan Punnett 

Executive Director of Family & Youth Initiative 

Submitte d by: 

Connor McCloskey 

Family & Youth Initiative 

2020 F St . NW 

Washington, DC 20006 

Apt. 118 

570-240-6708 

Connormc@gwu.edu 
68 


89477A.042

C.A.S.E. tif~~flprofit 

CENTER FOR ADOPTION 

SUPPORT AND EDUCATION 

Testimony of Debbie Riley 

Executive Director of the Center for Adoption Support and 

Education 

U.S. House Committee on Ways and Means, Subcommittee on 

Human Resources Hearing on Increasing Adoptions from Foster 

Care and the Adoption Incentives Program 

February 27, 2013 

I apprCCtate this opportunity to submit written testimony for the Hcarin& on Increasing 

Adoptions from Foster Care and ll1e Adoption Incentives Program held on February 27, 2013. 

My name is D•-bbie Riley, LCMFT, and J am the Executive Director of the Center for Adoption 

Support and Education (C.A.S.E.) which hns a long history working closely with the Dave 

Thomas Foundation on Adoption and now with the Wendy's Wonderful Kids Program. 

I want to hig)llight a v<:ry important national initiative entitled Training for Adoption 

Competency (T A C) that our organization has been leading since 2008. With the support of 

m3jor notional foundations- the Froddte Mac Foundation, the Dave Thomas Foundation for 

Adoption, the WW KeUogg Foundation, and the Annie E. Casey Foundauon - C.A.S.E. has 

developed on ev1dencc·informed standardized 78· hout training and case consultation program 

for licensed mental health professionals. TI1C training is spccifieally destgned to provide agency. 

based and cornmunity·based clinicians with the knowledge, valucs and skills dun are essential in 

providing adoption-competent mental health sc:rviccs. In fact, we currcnely have integrated our 

Troining lor Adoption Competency curriculum into five of the national Wendy's Wonderful 

Kids (WWK) sites. As Rita Soronen tC>tificd,thc impact evalualion showed thut children served 

by ll1c WWK Child Focused Recruitment Model are 1.7 rimes more likely to be adopted than 

those not served by the program and thar the impact of the WWK program on adoption 

out•-om•-s is strongest among older youth ond those with mental health d1sorden. 

Res<:arch shows that children with traumatic experiences of abuse, neglect ond abandonment and 

ehalleng111g behavioral and emotional responses ore at !Ugh risk of prcoet1ting "ith adjustment 

problems within their adoprive families. These children's emotional challenges, by virtue of the 

complex trauma that they have experienced, are often significant, and adoptive parents often 

identify these issues as the primary contrihutors to family str.'SSors posr·adoption. Research 

shows thai these factors are associated with poor adoprion outcomes, including the dissolution 

of mloptions and children's return 10 foster care. Access to adoption-competent mental health 

services is o critical fuctor in promoting posilive outcomes for these childr<.'!l and their adoptive 

families and the success of their adoptioM. Adoptive families often express their need for 

_,.... "-006~-n~.&.. HO 

&-...... -. \C>101161 

3.)t.47~2J 

.. so, 41$85,. 

4t:S3AJ/:Nn-"'a. 

S....!!OO ~l.C)108-7 

Xt1.418.e52S 

.. eou..~,.... 

s...-tE 

~\0~1U 

)OI.C7f~:i$ 

120 v.- P'.ttfd. Sftrl 

s...• ~1'0717'01 

~1-'609665 

30t 41118611 

~~Oerw 

SIOI-H~~..._, 

~.VAnQOJ 

~2M)t20 

•u?~15f3ot21 
69 


89477A.043

adoption competent mental health professionals to assist lh<,n, and the challenges they 

experience in •etually finding such skilled mental health professionals. 

The Training for Adoption Competency (T A C) curriculum was developed and pilot-tested in 

2009. It is currently being implanented in seven sites across the United States (Nonhem 

California. Nebraska, Indiana, Minnesota. Missouri, Massachusetts, and North Carolina). A 

risorous evaluation has been conducted throughout the implementation of the TAC,I>eginning 

with tlte pilottc>t nt the University of Maryland School of Social Worl<. Among the findings 

from the evaluation are the following: (I) on pre-/post-training tests that compare the 

perfonnancc orT AC srudents to comparably qualified professtonals not enrolled in the uairung, 

TAC S1Udents scored an avenge 31.29 points htgber on posHests than the control group; (2) all 

TAC complctcn.to date report change in atlca>t two of six defined aspects ofpmctice with 54 

percent reporting change in all six aspects; (J) nearly one-half o fTAC completers report 

changes in pmeticcs at the organ.izational level such as strengthened intake protocols, adding 

parent and youth support/education groups to services offered, and creation of post-adoption 

specialist positions within agencies; and (4) trainees neport that their assessments have beCil 

greatly Strengthened, their awareness of the effects and implications of trauma and brain 

development issues has been hei~:htcned , and that they have modified intcrvcnttons employed, 

with much greuter emphasis on grief, loss and attachment. 

In ordex to expand access to adoption compc1ent meniAl health professionals by foster and 

adopti,·e fanulies, C.A.S.E. believes that the TAC should be taken to seale and provided to 

clinicians across the United States. First, C.A.S.B. is ad'•ocating that the Administration for 

Children and Families provide clear guidance to state agencies on allowable usc of Title IV-E 

funds. The Fostering Connecti ~ to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of2008 recognized 

the importance o f a quality -.orkforce to children's well-being and the role oftrnining in 

developing and sustaining a qualified wori<forcc. Under section 474 (aXJ)(B) of the Act, federal 

financial partiCipation is availoblc at 75 percent • ... for the short-term trainmg of current or 

prospective foster or adoptive parents and t.he members of the suiff ofState-licellsed or State· 

approved child Cllre i11stitutio11s providing care to Juster and adopted childrc11 receivi11g 

(l.'l.t/sumce wrder rlrls {J(Irt, in woya that increase the ability of such cu=ont or prospective 

pa:·ents, staff mem!H-rs, and institutions to provide support and asststance to foster and adopted 

children, whether incurred directly by the State or by contract. • At this point in time, few states 

have expanded their t:raining programs under Title IV -E to private agency stoff. We are not 

aware of a single state that has extended its t.raining program to the clinicians who prepare 

children in foster care for adoption or provide clinical post-adoption services to strengthen and 

stabilize adoptive farnilies. We l>elicve that the Fostering Connections Act provides a vital 

opportunity to reach the very clinicians who are essential to the wcll·l>eing of odoptive famrhes. 

We are eager to wori< "ith ACF 1n supponmg states in utilizing available federal resources to 

train adoption competent mental health profe>; ionals. 

S<-<:ond, C.A.S.E. urges Congres.,, in collabo.ration with the Administration for Children and 

Farn•lies, to priori tiLe rt80uroes for post-adoption services with a specific focus on addressing 

the clinical needs of children adopted from the foster care system and their odoptive families. 

The replication ofTAC natio nally can promote a responsi"c, accessible adopuon competent 

workforce of mental health professionals. As the field is increosingly lookinu to identify and 

implement evidence-based and evidence-informed services, we encourage Congress and the 
70 

f 


89477A.044

Administration for Chi.ldren and Families to support the implementation of programs such as the 

TAC in prepming clinicians to provide quality mental health service-s for cblldren and youth who 

are adopted from foster care and their adoptive families. 

Third, we encourage the Administration for Children and Families 10 support the TAC 

eunieulwn through its existing programs. C.A.S.E. has developed the TAC independently, 

solely with private funding. and yet it has significant untapped potential for the federal child 

welfare system and is in fact benefiting families today both inside and outside the child welfa re 

system. For exrunple, we would e-ncourage use of the Adoption Assistance and Guardianship 

Assistance fun ~ for the TAC eumeulum. We also encourage Congress and ACF to hold Sllltcs 

acoountable for providing quality supports for adoptive families by requiring StAtes to report on 

the extent to "hich they make available to adoptive families adoption competent mental health 

services. The Administration recognized in its FY 2013 budget the need to build capacity in 

child welfare and mental health systems to ensure the availability of effective interventions. 

Effective interventions will be available to adopted children and thcir families only when there 

are well-trained mental health p<oviders in community based settings. 

llonk forward to the opportunity to share with the Committee more in formation on the TAC and 

its growing evidence base, particularly as this Committee looks to reauthorize the Adoption 

Incentives and the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) programs. Like the Center 

on Law and Social Policy (CLASP), we reoogTiite the importance of Cf05S training child welfare 

and T MF case managers. I hope that these reauthorizations could provide an opportunity for us 

to explore with the Committee ways to expand the TAC, so that it impacts more communities 

and, most imponantly, largcT numbers of adoptive families wbo struggle to find adoption 

competent clinicians. 

We betic:-·c that broadening the reach of the TAC and expanding community capacity to serve 

adoptive famolies with adoption competent mental health services will signifie3ntly impact the 

well-being of families, promote adoptions from the foster care system nationwide, and reduce 

roles of adoption disruption and dissolution. 

I appreciate the opportunity to provide this testimony. 

:0:~\A7 

The 

Oebboe 

Center 

Riley, 

for Adoption 

MFT~ Suppon and Education 

, .... " ... '\ 

-~-ppon<W1J '.C.A.S.E) 

._, 
71 


89477A.045

Written Statement of 

Ellen Kahn 

Family Project Director 

Human Rights Campaign 

to the 

Ways and Means Subcommittee on Human Resources 

United States House of Representatives 

Hearing on Increasing Adoptions from Foster Care 

February 27, 2013 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

My name is Ellen Kahn, and I am the Family Project Director for the Human Rights Campaign, America's 

largest civil rights organization working to achieve lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) 

equality. By inspiring and engaging all Americans, HRC strives to end discrimination against LGBT 

citizens and realize a nation that achieves fundamental fairness and equality for all. On behalf of our over 

one million members and supporters nationwide, I am honored to submit this statement into the record for 

this important hearing on increasing adoptions from foster care. 

Although we are not able to accurately count the number of LGBT youth in foster care we do know that 

this population is overrepresented in child welfare, including among the homeless and runaway 

population. Based on many years of engagement with public child welfare agencies and via direct 

contact with LGBT youth formerly in care, we know anecdotally that members of this population typically 

spend longer periods of time in foster care. often have to lie or hide who they are. and endure significant 

disruptions due to rejection or mistreatment by foster parents. They often do not feel safe in their foster or 

congregate care situation and report verbal and physical harassment based on their LGBT identity; many 

homeless and runaway LGBT youth say that they feel safer on the streets than they do in foster care. 

While agencies struggle to recruit and retain qualified resource families for all children and youth in care, 

there are fewer known resources for LGBT youth; prospective foster and adoptive parents are not 

assessed in the pre-licensing process regarding their attitudes and beliefs about LGBT youth nor on their 

ability to provide a safe. supportive environment for LGBT youth. There is no ·screening out• of those 

families who would reject or otherwise do harm to an LGBT child or teen placed in their home. Not only 

do we need to better assess and prepare all prospective foster/adoptive parents to support and affirm 

LGBT youth, but we also need to ensure that all qualified LGBT individuals and couples who wish to 

foster or adopt are able to do so without facing discrimination or bias. While it is not the case that LGBT 

foster or adoptive parents are the only resource, or the best resource for LGBT youth, the pool of 

resource families must include a// families including those who may be better equipped and more willing 
72 


89477A.046

to have an LGBT youth placed in their home; by leaving out qualified LGBT resource families we are 

missing opportunities to reduce long term care for LGBT youth and all other youth who face the daunting 

prospect of aging out before achieving a permanent connection. 

Since the Human Rights Campaign Foundation launched our All Children-All Families initiative in 2007, 

over 60 agencies charged with achieving permanency for children and youth in foster care have 

partnered with us to put in place LGBT-inclusive policies and practices with the goal of expanding their 

pool of qualified resource families and improving their practice with LGBT youth and families. Even in the 

most conservative states and where laws are still ambiguous at best. agency leaders-the experts in the 

field-are reaching out to HRC to help fill in gaps where federal and state laws fall short, and where bias 

and discrimination continue to keep out some of the most highly motivated families simply because of 

their sexual orientation. gender identity or gender expression. We provide technical assistance and state 

of the art LGBT cultural competency training to these agencies as they work toward achieving a seal of 

recognition for their success in providing the best possible services to LGBT youth and families. (See 

attached list of agencies). 

We know that LGBT foster and adoptive parents are a valuable resource for children and youth in care; 

we know that more agencies-both public and private-are doing their part to become more welcoming 

and supportive of LGBT resource families. We know that many agencies are becoming proactive in 

better serving LGBT youth in care and we appreciate the Department of Health and Human Services' 

Administration on Children and Families' leadership on promoting well-being for LGBT youth. And we 

know that prospective LGBT foster/adoptive parents continue to face barriers in their pursuit of becoming 

licensed resource families and are often overlooked when placement decisions are being made. We 

know that LGBT youth are often afraid to be out. open and honest due to the fear of being treated poorly 

by their peers, agency staff. or missing out on the chance for a forever family. We are eager to partner on 

removing these barriers and look forward to collaborating to achieve the goal of permanency for all 

children and youth in foster care. 

2 
73 


89477A.047

All Children- All Families Partlclpating Agencies 

The agencies listed below are participating in the All Children- All Fami lies initiative and 

are committed to implementing policies and practices that welcome, affirm and support 

LGBT foster and adoptive parents. This list tracks the agencies' progress toward meeting 

all t he benchmarks of LGBT cultural competency as outlined in the All Children- All 

Families Promising Practices Guide. For more information, visit www.hrc.org/acaf. 

Oakland CA 

Overland Park KS 

San Francisco CA 

Aurora co 

Cambridge MA 

Kennesaw GA v" 

Milwaukee WI v" 

Wynnewood PA v" 

Silver Spring MD v" 

Los Gatos CA 

Oakland CA 

Seattle WA 

Trenton NJ 

Las Vegas NV 

Phoenix AZ 

Los Angeles CA 

Shaker Heights OH 

Itasca IL 

Seattle WA 

Burtonsville MD 

3 
74 


89477A.048

Chatham Count:t De{1artment of 

Pittboro NC Social Services 

23 Child and Family Services Agency Washington DC 

24 Child net Inc. Plantation FL 

2S Children's OJ:!L~ +Aid Chicago IL 

26 Choice Network Columbus OH ./ 

Clark Countv Deoartment of Familv 

Se_ryices l as Vegas NV 

28 Connecting HeaillA_<!QptiQn Windermere ./ 

Services_ {_Florida) Fl 

Maricopa, Pima 

Devereux Arizona and Cochise AZ ./ 

Counties 

30 Diakon Ado{1tion and Foster Care Mechanicsburg PA 

31 EMQ FamliesFirst Campbell CA ./ 

Family Builders Oakland, CA ./ 

San Francisco 

33 Family Focus Ado11!!Qn Services little Neck NY ./ 

34 Family to Famil:t Ado{1tions Inc. Richmond TX 

3S Fl\le Acres El Monte CA 

36 Forever Families Throwzh Adootion ./ 

ln_c. Rye Brook NY 

37 Fost!'!®S Futures Ypsilanti Ml ./ 

38 Friends in Adoption Springs VT 

39 Hands Across The Water Ann Arbor Ml ./ 

40 Hillsborou_g!l Ki~ Tampa FL 

41 Hillside Children's Center Rochester NY 

42 !::!Q1Y. Family Services los Angeles CA 

43 lnde11endent Ado11tion Center Pleasant Hill CA ./ 

44 Institute of Professional Pr~ Woodbridge CT ./ 

4S !9_in_gberg Family Centers New Britain CT 

46 La Familia Inc. Albuquerque NM 

4 
75 

f 


89477A.049

Cincinnati OH 

Chicago ll ./ 

Pasadena CA ./ 

VT ./ 

ll 

MA 

CA ./ 

MO ./ 

NC 

Philadelphia PA ./ 

NJ ./ 

New York NY ./ 

Orange County CA 

Oakland CA 

North Hills CA ./ 

St. Petersburg Fl ./ 

los Angeles CA ./ 

CA 

CA 

WA 

5 
76 


89477A.050

March 13'", 2013 

Chairman Dave Reichert 

Subcommittee on Human Resources 

Committee on Ways and Means 

United States House of Representatives 

1102 Longworth House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Ranking Member Lloyd Doggett 

Subcommittee on Human Resources 

Committee on Ways and Means 

United States House of Representatives 

1102 Longworth House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

RE: February 27'h Human Resources Subcommittee Hearing on Increasing Adoptions from Foster Care 

Dear Chairman Reichert and Ranking Member Doggett: 

The undersigned, who represent a diverse coalition of organizations committed to opening more homes 

to America's foster youth, are pleased to have the opportunity to submit testimony for this hearing on 

increasing adoptions from foster care. The Every Child Deserves a Family Act is a federal bill that would 

open more homes to foster youth by prohibiting discrimination in foster care and adoption on the basis 

of the potential parent's sexual orientation, gender identity, or marital status, and the sexual orientation 

or gender identity of the child involved. 

There are 400,000 children in the U.S. foster care system, 104,000 of whom are waiting to be adopted' 

Unfortunately, because of the lack of adoptive parents, 26,000 of these children leave foster care each 

year without ever finding a permanent, loving home.

2 Youth who age out of care without a safety net 

are vulnerable to drop-out, homelessness, early parenthood, and incarceration. There is a desperate 

lack of qualified parents willing to open their homes to foster youth. Meanwhile, there are two million 

potential lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) parents who would consider adopting from the 

public system but for state policies, practices, and procedures that prevent them from doing so.3 

1 Foster Care FY2003-FY2011 Entries, Exits, and Numbers of Children In Care on the Last Day of Each Federal Fiscal 

Year, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Administration for Children and Families, Administration on 

Children, Youth and Families. Children's Bureau, Data current as of July 2012. available at 

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/entryexit201l.pdf. 

' /d. 

' Gary J. Gates, M.V. Lee Badgett, Jennifer Ehrle Macomber and Kate Chambers, "Adoption and Foster Care by Gay 

and lesbian Parents in the United States/' The Williams Institute and Urban Institute. 2007, ovoifoble at 

www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411437_Adoption_Foster_Care.edf. 
77 


89477A.051

Most states are silent on the issue of LGBT people fostering or adopting from foster care. In many of 

these states, this silence either results in an outright ban on foster care or adoption by same-sex couples 

or leaves these families vulnerable to the potential biases of individual agencies, child welfare 

professionals, and family court judges at the local level. Only seven states have policies explicitly 

prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in adoption• California and Rhode Island 

are the only states to prohibit discrimination in adoption on the basis of gender identity. Six states 

prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in foster care.' 

Meanwhile, some states continue to close doors to children in foster care looking for permanent homes. 

Until 2010, when a State Appellate Court found the law unconstitutional, Florida banned all lesbians and 

gay men from adopting, but allowed single lesbians and gay men to serve as foster parents. Arizona and 

Utah require that preference be given to a "married man and woman" in foster and adoptive 

placements. This marital preference discriminates against same-sex couples because same-sex 

marriages are not recognized in Arizona or Utah. Nebraska prohibits cohabiting unmarried couples from 

becoming foster or adoptive parents. Arkansas had a similar law overturned last year by the state 

supreme court. North Dakota and Virginia permit state-licensed child-placement agencies to 

discriminate, based on religious grounds, against children in state care and potential parents, including 

LGBT children and LGBT parents. These overt, explicit laws are the most extreme examples of 

discrimination against LGBT potential foster and adoptive parents. Most states' silence on the issue 

results in a lack of training and cultural competency for child-welfare agencies, creating hostile 

atmospheres or a reluctance to recruit LGBT parents. 

These negative laws and policies, and the hostile climates they create, do nothing to increase adoptions 

for foster youth. In fact, these policies are costing the federal and state governments significant 

resources to keep a child in foster care, rather than moving her to a loving adoptive fam ily. According to 

a 2007 report by the Williams Institute, if the United St ates were to ban lesbians and gays from serving 

as foster parents it would cost the nation anywhere between $87 - $130 million per year,' while 

prohibiting discrimination at the federal level would save the federal government $17 million in the first 

year alone' More than 16,000 same-sex couples (13% of couples raising adopted children) are raising 

4 California, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New York., and Rhode Island. 5 California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin. 

' Supra note 3. 7 Federal spending from Title IV-E on fostering and adopting would be reduced by ECDF. In 2009, $4.5 billion was 

used to fund 203,000 children in foster care, and $2.3 billion was used to subsidize 430,000 adoptions from the 

public system. Therefore, foster care costs the federal government approximately $22,000 per child while adoption 

subsidies amounted to approximately $5,300 per child. The difference in per child cost of fostering ($22,000) 

minus per child costs of adoption ($5,300) is $16,700 per child. If ECDF was enacted today, 2.94% of adoptions will 

be to LGS parents, or a tota13,366 adoptions per year (2.94% of l14,S06). (Supra note 3. According to Srodzinsky, 

et al., the percent of public adoption agencies who have gra nted an adoption to LGS parents is 70%. We assume 

that the pool from which LGS parents adopted their child was only 70% of the total children available for adoption 

(so 70% of 114,506), or 80,154. The percentage of adoptions to LGS parents in areas that permit LGB adoptions 

(2,356/80,154) is 2.94%.) Subtract the existing number of LGB adoptions to get the predicted increase in 

adoptions If LGB restrictions are lifted (3,366-2,356), or approximately 1,000 additional adoptions of children from 
78 


89477A.052

an estimated 22,000 adopted children in the US. In total, 1.4% of adopted children with two parents are 

being raised by same·sex couples. Approximately 2,600 same-sex couples (2% of couples raising foster 

children) are raising 3,400 foster youth. 1.7% percent of foster youth living with two parents are being 

raised by same·sex couples.• LGBT parents are qualified, loving parents and are looking to provide 

homes for our neediest youth. 

The American family comes in various shapes and sizes. Policies restricting the ability of LGBT individuals 

and couples to foster and adopt children reflect neither the reality of American parenthood, the opinion 

of the American public, nor the weight of 30 years of social science research showing that the children 

of lesbians, gay men, bisexual people, and same-sex parents are as healthy and well-adjusted as the 

children of married opposite·sex couples.' In a country where only one·quarter of fam il ies are headed 

by married opposite-sex parents, it is time for a federal standard that places t he focus where it belongs: 

on the best interest of children in foster care, looking for permanent, loving homes. 

The Every Child Deserves a Family Act is a bill that creates a federal standard of nondiscrimination: 

preventing discrimination in public adoption and foster care on the basis of the potential parents' sexual 

orientation, gender identity, or marital status. It also prohibits discrimination on the basis of the sexual 

orientation and gender identity of the child involved. The Administration of Children and Families, 

within the Department of Health and Human Services, already promotes the recruitment of LGBT foster 

and adoptive parents, but lacks the mandate to enforce these policies'0 The Every Child Deserves a 

Family Act provides this mandate. 

We very much appreciate your leadership and proactivity in calling this hearing and look forward to 

working together to ensure t hat all of our nation's foster youth can find permanent, loving homes. 

the foster care system by LGB parents. Given this methodology, we arrive at our final estimate that assumes if 

1,000 additional children move from foster care to adoption each year, the federal government yields a savings of 

approximately $16,700 per child or $16,700,000 per year. 8 Gary J. Gates, "LGBT Pa renting in the United States." The Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law, 2013, ovoiloble 

ot http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp·content/uploads/LGBT·Parenting,pQ!. 

' A 2002 report by the American Academy of Pediatrics found that: "A growing body of scientific literature 

demonstrates that children who grow up with 1 or 2 gay and/or lesbian parents fare as well in emotional, 

cognitive, social, and sexual functioning as do children whose parents are heterosexual. Children's optimal 

development seems to be influenced more by the nature of the relationships and interactions within the family 

unit than by the particular structural form it takes." Coparent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents 

Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health Pediatrics 2002; 109:339·340, ovoiloble ot 

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/109/2/339.full. See also Child Welfare League of America, Standards 

of Adoption Excellence (rev. ed. 2000), § 4.7 (applicants should not be assessed based on marital status or sexual 

orientation); American Psychological Association, •sexu al orientation, parents and children." APA Council of 

Representatives, July 28 and 30,2004, ovoiloble ot http ://www apa.o g/_pi/Jg.ll!Lresources/parent in ~~· 10 Information Memorandum, lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender and Questioning Youth in Foster Care, U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Servicesf Administration for Children and Families1 April 6, 2011. 
79 

f 


89477A.053

For more information, please feel free to reach out to any of our organizations, or contact Emily HechtMcGowan, Director of Public Policy at Family Equality Council, at ehe ht@ amil~qual t)'.org or 202-496-

1285. 

Sincerely, 

American Civil Liberties Union 

Child Welfare League of America 

City Families, Inc. 

Colorado Coalition of Adoptive Families 

Families Like Ours 

Family Equality Council 

Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network 

Global Justice Institute - Metropolitan Community Churches 

Human Rights Campaign 

Log Cabin Republicans 

National Black Justice Coalition 

National Center for Lesbian Rights 

National Center for Transgender Equality 

PROMO Missouri 

Reconciling Ministries Network 

The Union for Reform Judaism 

Voice for Adoption 

Women's Alliance for Theology, Ethics and Ritual (WATER) 
80 


89477A.054

Statement for the Record 

By 

Jeff Katz 

Executive Director 

Listening to Parents 

Hearing on Increasing Adoptions from Foster Care 

Listening to Parents 

251 Temple Street 

West Roxbury, MA 02132 

(617) 325-8999 (Phone) 

(815) 366-8019 (Fax) 

Jeff@Listeningtoparents.org 
81 


89477A.055

Congressman Reichert, Members of the Committee. I am pleased to submit this 

testimony to the Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Committee on Ways and 

Means. I applaud yow· interest in exploring ways of increasing the number of adoptions 

from foster care, including through the Adoption Incentives program. 

Listening to Parents was incorporated in October 2009 with a mission to " to increase the 

number of adoptions of children in foster care through changes in state and federal laws, 

policies and practices that eliminate unnecessary barriers to adoption." 

We believe, and have documented, that there are far more families actively h·ying 

to adopt children from foster care than there are children in need of families. 

Children wait becatL~e of systemic barriers to adoption. 

Contrary to our co1mnon understanding, there are far, far more Americans wanting to 

adopt children than there are children available. In fact, prOSJ>ective adoptive parents 

outnumber waiting children by a ratio of more than 5 to 1. 

In a Washington Post editorial on November 5, 20081

, I drew on the 2002 National 

Survey of Family Growth/ to compare prospective parents seeking to adopt a child with 

children available in foster care. At that time, there were 600,000 American women 

actively trying to adopt a child. The survey asked women about the characteristics they 

would prefer or accept in a child they adopted. Based on the results: 

• 521,400 would adopt an African American child. At the time there were about 

41,600 African American children in foster care waiting to be adopted. This 

implies there were as many as 12.5 prospective parents for each waiting African 

Ameiican child. 

• 351,600 would adopt children ages 6 to 12. This implies that there were 7.6 

prospective parents for each waiting child in this age group. 

• 185,400 would adopt a child age 13 or older. This implies that there were 6 

prospective parents for each waiting adolescent. 

• 181,800 would adopt a child with a severe disability, and 44 7,000 would adopt 

two or more siblings at once. 

There are many reasons why, despite there being more families wanting to adopt than 

1 hllp://articles.washingtonposl.com/2008- 11-08/opinions/36841 172_ 1 jnlemalional-adoptions-adoplive-ramiliesprospeclive-parents 

' TI1e Na1ionat Survey ofFami1y Growth (NSFG) is a national sample of7 .643 men and women 15 10 44 thai ga1bers 

informal ion on family life. TI1e dala used here are from Cycle 6 or !he smvey. wh.ich was conducled from January 2002 

10 March 2003. Ccmers for Disease Control. ""Adop1iou Experiences of Women and Men and Demand for Children to 

Adopl by Women 18-44 Years or Age in lhe Uniled Slates. 2002 

(hup://www.cdc.gov/uchsldataiserieslsr_23/sr23_027 .pdf). 
82 


89477A.056

children in need for families, so many children remain unadapted. According to a 2005 

Harvard University study, only one in 28 people who initially contacted a child welfare 

agency actuaUy adopted a child? Many cited systemic barriers such as bureaucracy, 

unresponsive child welfare agencies, and lack of incentives in the system to create 

adoptions. 

In March of 20 I I, Listening to Parents convened an Executive Session of eighteen 

experts in adoption and tinnily policy at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of 

Government to study some of the baniers that prevent willing parents from adopting 

children desperately iJl need of permanent tiunilies. Participants included academics, 

advocates, government officials, foundation leaders, fonner frontline caseworkers, and 

adoptive parents. Some of those experts wiU testify before d1is committee. In June, 2012, 

we released a white paper, titled "Eliminating Barriers to the Adoption of Children in 

Foster Care" 4

. The paper identifies barriers to adoption and recommends some solutions. 

Baniers to Adoption 

Barriers to adoption from foster care identified by participants in the Executive Session 

include: 

Financial disincentives for creating interstate adoptions; 

Lack of standardized infom1ation about families seeking to adopt and about 

children waiting to be adopted; 

lnsutlicient post-adoption supp011 compared to support for youth aging out; and 

Absence of a robust model for creating adoptions, including effective recmitment 

of adoptive families; appropriate caseloads, training, and supervision for workers; 

and significant youth involvement. 

The Prob lem of Interstate Adoptions 

One of the critical barriers identified by the group is the great difficulty of adopting 

children from foster care across state lines. Tbe adoption of children from foster care in 

one state to an adoptive family in another is extremely rare in the United States. As I 

pointed out in a Washington Post editorial5

, according to the Department of Health and 

Human Services, in 2010, Americans adopted just 527 children from foster care across 

state lines.6 To lend perspective, tbe national weatller service estimates that 1,000 

Americans are struck by ligbtn.ing each year. 7 

' Julie Boalfigbt Wilson. Rob Geeo. and Jeff Katz .. "Listening to Parents: Overcoming Barriers to the Adoption of 

Children from Foster Care" (!mp://www Jlks.barvard.cdulocpa/pdf/Listeuing%20to%20Parcuts.pdJ). 

4 http://www .listetungtoparents.orglwp·contentluploads/20 12/04/No-Adoption-Baniers-White-Paper -4- 12.pdf 

5 http://articles.washingtonpost.com/20 12-06-0 J/opinions/35462622_ l_adoptive-fautilies-cbildren-from-other-stateschild-abuse 6 Calculations of Mary Escbelbacb Hausen11siug the Adoption Files of the Adoption and f-oster Care Repotting 

System, which were made available by the National Data Arcbive on Child Abuse and Neglect, Comell University, 

Ilh;~.c.;~., NY. ;md have been used with pennission. 7 http://www .ligluningsafety Jtoaa.gov/ams_lightning_rec.hun 

2 
83 


89477A.057

The problem stems from the fact that the United States does not have a national adoption 

system. Instead, there is a different system in each state, the District of Columbia, and 

Puerto Rico. Moreover, some state child welfare systems are administered at the county 

leveL Each jurisdiction has its own criteria for adoption eligibility and process for 

recruitment, approval, and training of adoptive families. Unfmtunately, tlrrough the law 

of unintended consequences, our cwTent system (including the adoption incentives 

program) has created profound disincentives for states to allow their families to adopt 

children from other states. 

If a Maryland family adopts a Virginia child , Maryland has essentially wasted thousands 

of dollars to recmit and prepare a family, with no benefit to any Maryland child. In 

return, Maryland will receive a child who may well have expensive medical and 

educational needs. To add insult to injury, under the federal Adoption Incentives 

program, Virginia will likely receive a bonus of up to $8,000 for placing one of their 

children in an adoptive family. Maryland will get nothing. Put it all together and each 

interstate adoption has a "winner" (the state that sends the child) and a "loser" (t.he state 

that receives the child). 

So each state hoards its own families, greatly limiting matches for children and families 

across jurisdictions. It is common practice for states to prohibit their families from 

adopting a child from another state until they have waited at least one year. 

Ironically, this is particularly true when a family is interested in adopting the very 

hardest to place children. If an Indiana family is interested in adopting a large sibling 

group, for instance, the temptation is strong for Indiana to keep them waiting, in case an 

in-state group becomes available later, instead of matching them immediately with a 

group just over the border in Chicago. This issue is particularly significant in large 

metropolitan areas that straddle state lines such as New York City, Philadelphia, and 

Washington D.C. 

Recommendations 

The group of national experts that met at Harvard has made the following 

recommendations to eliminate barriers to adoption. 

1. Reward both sending and receiving states for creating interstate adoptions. In 

the current system, the state that sends the child to be adopted in another state 

enjoys a fmancial gain while the state that receives the child experiences a 

financial loss. Congress should change incentives so that both states are 

rewarded when a child is adopted across state lines. 

2. Establish national standards for home studies and for descriptions of waiting 

children. Nationwide use of a standard home study, such as the Stntctw·ed 

Analysis Family Evaluation (SAFE), will raise the average quality of home 

studies. A nationwide standard is also essential for increasing interstate 

adoptions, since mistmst of data from other jurisdictions is a barrier to 

adoption. Similarly, national standards for describing and disclosing each 

waiting child's experiences and needs are critical, both for the process of 

matching children and parents and for preparing parents to meet the child's 

3 
84 


89477A.058

needs. Congress should instruct the Department of Health and Human 

Services to establish these standards. 

3. Eliminate long-term foster care as a goal. Children with a goal of Another 

Planned Permanent Living Arrangement (APPLA) exit foster care into "living 

situations" but have no family. "No family" should never be the plan for a 

child Congress should create incentives for states to replicate existing 

effective initiatives for reducing use of APPLA. 

4. Emphasizefundingfor post-adoption services. No money is dedicated to postadoption services while significant funds are set aside for other programs, 

such as independent living for youth with a goal of APPLA. Children who 

have been adopted from foster care outnumber those in independent living 

programs by I 0 to I. Funding for post-adoption services should be increased 

so that it is at least equal to that dedicated to supporting independent living. 

As use of APPLA is reduced and independent living services are less urgently 

needed, Congress should reallocate the fimds currently used for independent 

living to post-adoption services. 

5. Encourage development of a robust, comprehensive practice model of 

adoptions from foster care. Congress should support the development and use 

of a model that enhances the primary emphasis on safety with a more nuanced 

strategy for penuanence. An effective model will feature child-specific 

recruitment, clearly defined roles and responsibilities for workers and 

supervisors, and youth involvement in collaborative permanency planning. 

Such a model will facilitate training of li-ontline social workers and 

supervisors and will make it possible to develop measures of accountability 

for outcomes. 

Adjusting Adoption Incentives to Eliminate the Barrier to Interstate Adoptions 

The clearest way to use the Adoption Incentives program to encourage adoptions across 

state lines would be to make an interstate adoption eligible for an enhanced incentive 

payment and require that the sending and receiving state split the incentive. In that way, 

both states benefit when states cooperate to place a child. 

Why This Mattet·s- A True Story 

For many years I ran an agency in Rhode Island that recruits families to adopt children 

from the state's child welfare system. Like many such organizations, we bad a waiting 

child" feature on a local TV station. After a "Tuesday's Child" spot showing a 7 year old 

black boy named Justin, I received a call from a woman just over the border in 

Massachusetts. She was a lawyer. Her husband was a doctor. Both were black. She told 

me that she and her husband had been considering adoption for several years. They saw 

Justin on TV. They were moved by his story. They prayed. And they decided that they 

would adopt this child. In any rational system, I should have been in a state police car 

racing up Route 95 to get this family- a child's life was at stake. 

4 
85 

f 


89477A.059

But the family never adopted Justin. Rhode Island was not legally able to provide a 

" home study" to a Massachusetts family. And Massachusetts refused to use precious 

state resources to prepare a family to adopt a child in another state. Their suggestion was 

that the couple go through the entire adoption process and, at the end, adopt a 

Massachusetts child. The couple was horrified. They saw no rational reason why they 

could not be considered for Justin. So, a family was turned away and a child continued to 

wait. 

!urge this committee to explore ways to adjust the Adoption Incentives Program in ways 

that would ensure that when a child like Justin is adopted across a state line , the result is 

as it should be- A child bas a family. Parents have a child. And society wins. 

Thank you. 

5 
86 


89477A.060

Statement for the Record Submitted by: 

Kelly DeLany, MA, LMFT 

Directo•· Northwest Adoption Exchange 

520 Pike St., Suite 1350 

Seattle, WA 98101 

(206) 441-6822 

kdc lany@n wresource. org 

Kendra MotTis-Jacobson, MA 

Dlrectot· Oregon Post Adoption Resource Center and Ot·egon Adoption 

Resource Exchange 

2950 SE Stark Street, Suite 130 

Portland, OR 97214 

(503) 241-0799 

kmorrisjacobson@nwresource.org 

Before the: 

United States House Committee on Ways and Means, 

Subcommittee on Human Resources 

For the hearing: 

Inct·easing Adoptions from Foster Care 

March 13, 2013 
87 


89477A.061

Dear Honored Chairman Dave Reichert, Ranking Member Lloyd Doggett and members of the 

Subcommittee on Human Resources, we are Kelly DeLany, Director of the Northwest Adoption 

Resource Exchange, and Kendra Morris-Jacobson, Director of Oregon Post Adoption Resource 

Center & Oregon Adoption Resource Exchange. Together, we thank you sincerely for the 

opportunity to contribute testimony to tiJ.is very important topic of increasing adoptions for 

children in the foster care system who wait for adoptive families. 

We would like to narrow our very brief discussion to what we feel arc two critical subtopics: I) 

helping older foster youth find adoptive families; and 2) post adoption services. We will explore 

how we fe.el both relate to adoption incentive funding. 

Children Aging Out of Foster Care 

Despite the good news that there are fewer children coming into foster care annually, and that 

younger foster children are continuing to be adopted, the fact that over 26,000 foster children age 

out of the system each year illustrates an escalating and exponential crisis that must be 

addressed. 

Over a short five year period, 26,000 older youth multiples rapidly to 130,000 young people 

between the ages of 18 and 22 who statistics show are more than likely to become: homeless, 

involved with the criminal justice system, unemployed, battling addictions, stmggling with 

mental health issues, experiencing early parenthood, among many other stmggles. 

Is that what we want for our young people? Is this what we want the result of foster care to be? It 

is hardly what we, as States, as a Nation, can either accept or afford. Foster care is meant to help 

steer children towards a safer and brighter future, not condemn them towards the probability of 

the dismal list above. Even our own definition of foster care "Foster care is intended to be a 

short tem1 solution until a permanent placement can be made." (Dorsey et AI. Current stows and 

evidence base of training for foster ond treatment foster parents) indicates the contrary. 

Adoption incentives, if restructured to target increases in specific areas (i.e. older children) 

would help states to focus their efforts on the waiting foster children who need it most - those 

who are at risk of aging out. 

Post Adoption Services 

A second topic that is often overlooked is the importance of post adoption services. Once foster 

children are placed with adoptive fami lies, there is the misperception that now "everything will 

be fmc." For some children, fortunately, this is the case. However, the many foster children who 

have experienced extreme trauma, ancVor who have mental health issues, developmental delays, 

addiction risks, or other types of special needs, will often require support, treatment and 

advocacy long after they have been adopted. In order to maintain the adoptions and parent these 

children with specialized needs, their adoptive families require education and support 

themselves; for some families, extensively so, including kinship caregivers who might be caring 

for children "by surprise." 

For every adoption from foster care, it saves states a minimum net savings of $143,000 (Barth, et 

al, 2006); not to mention how much it can cost the state when children are coming back into care 

when the further trauma of an unsuccessful adoption has occurred. Adoption dismptions and 
88 

f 


89477A.062

dissolutions are expensive, let alone the devastating emotional toll they have on already 

traumatized children, and the families who were trying to help them, reducing the chances that a 

child can be adopted again, or that a family will be willing to adopt again from foster care. By 

providing post adoption services in assorted fonns (education, consultation, training, support 

groups, advocacy, networking, connection to resources, adoption-specitic mental health therapy, 

etc.), states can help fami lies and their adopted cb.ildren to remain or become healthy and stable, 

and have a much greater chance at a permanent, successf-ul adoption. Successful adoptions are 

not only better for children and families, they are better for communities and more cost-effective 

for states long term. 

Conclusion 

In essence, adoption incentive monies, if reauthorized and refocused, can go a long way in 

helping foster ch.ildren co1mect with loving, permanent adoptive families - both through helping 

inspire states to work harder to find adoptive families, particularly for older children or those 

with higher specialized needs, and in providing post adoption services to ensure the adoptions 

are truly vc:rmauc:ut, IJut ouly if slalt!S Hl"t! ""'" a n :ouutaiJI., for· fuuueliug these fuuus b ack 

into adoptions and post adoption support services. 

Sincerely, 

Kendra Morris-Jacobson & Kelly DeLany 
89 


89477A.063

Lisa M. Mathey, MEd 

Adoptive Parent and Advocate 

20709 Sweetair Court 

Ashburn, Virginia 20147 

(703) 729-5042 

mathey88@yahoo.com 

Increasing Adoptions from Foster Care 

February 27, 20 13 

Hello. Chairman Dave Reichert. Ranking Member Lloyd Doggett and members of the 

Subcommittee on Human Resources. I am Lisa Mathey. an adoptive parent and advocate for adoptive 

children and families in Virginia. I am pleased to submit my statement regarding the importance of 

increasing adoptions for children from living in the foster care system while they wait for a permanent 

family. Thank you for the opportunity tO submit my statement focusing on such an imponam federal 

policy. 

I am submitting this statement as an effort to increase the focus on the federal level for 

establishing post-adoption resources and services for families after finalization that will assist them in 

overcoming the crisis that puts their permanency at risk for disruption. As an adoptive parent advocate, I 

meet with adopted children and families who s(TUggle every day to find resources that help alleviate the 

stress they feel as they try to address the child's triggers of past neglect and trauma, and learn how to 

maintain a healthy permanent family relationship. While there is an established and successful postadoption resources and services program that provides crisis management, cotmseling, and support groups 

in Virginia to all adoptive fami lies, the most difficult obstacle I face as an adoptive parent advocate is 

finding adoption competent professionals to work with the families to address the many issues that put 

them at risk for disruption. These issues range from behavioral disorders such as ADHD and PTSD to 

mental health illnesses and developmental delays caused by abuse, neglect and in-utero exposure to 

alcohol and drugs. 

In many discussions with adoptive parents, I bear time and time again how they must spend 

several hours in therapy visits educating the professional on how little their own biological and mental 

health history is pan of the cause for the issues that I just mentioned. Having access to an adoption 

competent professional at the beginning of implementing post-adoption resources and services for the 

child will increase the family 's chances of maintaining permanency: and more importantly. helping the 

child heal mentally and thrive developmentally in a more appropriate time frame. For that access to 

become available. local, state and federal funds need to be spent in creating or expanding adoption 

competent training programs for professionals in all 50 states. One such program is already in existence 

in Maryland and should be replicated nationally. The Center for Adoption Support and Education 

(C.A.S.E.), in pannership with the Dave Thomas Foundation, offers the Training for Adoption 

Competency (TAC) program to mental health and child welfare professionals throughout the United 

States. This comprehensive training program has grown from six (6) sites in 2012 to ten (I 0) sites in 

2013. This growth of the T AC program shows professionals are interested in becoming adoption 

competent. Federal policy makers need to support bringing programs such as TAC closer to the 

professionals who want to become adoption competent and those who can tn1ly benefit from it. the 

adoptive youth and families. 

Increasing the number of adoption competent professionals will in mm increase the availability of 

quality post-adoption resources and services. More opportunities to develop and deliver adequate support 

services. with the adoption incentive bonuses that States receive, will increase confidence for those 
90 

f 


89477A.064

considering adopting a youth between the ages of 9 and 17; our country's most disadvantaged population 

for adoption from the foster care system. By offering adoption incentive bonuses for post-adoption 

resources and services programs to adoptive fami lies, we increase the chances for a youth in this age 

group to be adopted. These bonuses will provide the prospective adoptive family with the resources, 

support and skills needed to parent the youth with much greater success than what is occurring now. It 

will also decrease the wait time for youth to be adopted because the prospective family will be beller 

prepared to address the youth's mental health illness, physical disabilities and/or traumatic past. 

Prospective parents will feel assured that all the services the child receives while in foster care won't 

automatically disappear if they proceed to adoption. Knowing such services are available to them in the 

case a situation arises will provide adoptive families the confidence and knowledge they need to meet 

some of the challenges that arise when parenting children with a history of abuse, trauma or neglect. We 

know that some of these challenges arise only once an adoption is finalized and the child starts to feel at 

ease in a safe and loving environment. However, in my experience, parents are not always equipped to 

manage some of the behaviors seen as their children try to work through their experiences. This is where 

adoption competent professionals can play a big role, but as stated previously. there is a lack of such 

trained individuals. A federal focus on this is needed. This investment in preparation will in tum create a 

home that will give the youth a chance at a developing a permanent relationship intended to last a lifetime 

and becoming a self-sufficient and independent adult. It will also relieve the state from spending funds to 

maintain the youth's foster care placement and related services, or worse a dissolved adoption. 

By not increasing the focus on the federal level for establishing post-adoption resources and 

services from the sta te to the local foster care systems, prospective and current adoptive families will 

continue to struggle in providing and maintaining a pem1anent home and will be left with no other choice 

but to leave or return the yomh to the foster care system until they reach adulthood. Every youth deserves 

a permanent home and the post-adoption resources and services to stay there. 

I would like to thank the Subcommittee for its interest in hearing the public's perspective and 

experiences for improvements to increase adoptions. I hope you will better understand the importance and 

need for federal leadership to further the development of post-adoption resources. A federal focus is 

needed to strengthen families after fmalization, to assist these children and families in overcoming some 

of the challenges - that with proper interventions can mitigate crisis - and help all involved understand the 

nom1al stages of adoption and healing. It is my hope you will take into consideration the points I have 

made in this statement to improve the efforts to increase to post-adoption resources and services 

throughout the foster care system. In closing, I appreciate the dedication of this Subcommittee to hear 

from your constituents on such an important federal policy. I look forward to your continued efforts on 

behalf of children and fami lies. 

Respectfully Submitted. 

Lisa M. Mathey, MEd 
91 


89477A.065

Testimony submitted by Marie Dolfi, LCSW 

56 Bobwhite Drive 

Glenmont, NY 12077 

(518) 281-8884 

mdolfi@nycap.rr.com 

For the: 

United States House Committee on Ways and Me ans, 

Subcommittee on Human Resources 

For the hearing: 

Increasing Adoptions from Foster Care 

February 27, 2013 
92 


89477A.066

My name is Marie Dolfi and I am an adoption social worker who has been active in 

advocating for foster and adoptive children in New York State for over 15 years. While I am on 

the board of numerous organizations I am submitting this testimony as an independent social 

worker. Thank you for having this hearing and asking advocates to share their thoughts on 

increasing the number of adoptions for children in foster care. 

I applaud the committee's effort to look at what can be done to decrease the number of 

children who are in foster care that do not have a permanency goal to return to their birth 

families. As an advocate I would suggest the committee reframe the question from what 

incentives can we give the states to reduce the number of children in foster care (more of the 

same) to the question: 

What can we do at the federal level to make more people come forward to adopt children 

in foster care and be successful families? Then require the states to enact programs and 

policies that specifically answer that question so more families will come forward to 

adopt. 

There are too many disincentives to adopt children in foster care that past federal incentives did not 

address with prior well intended programs. 

The second part of the question - help families to be successful- is key for two reasons. First 

would be for the welfare of the child who has already had traumatizing experiences priorto 

foster care not be further harmed and build loving bonds with their new family. Secondly, if the 

community sees the families as struggling with children with severe mental health issues (due to 

the trauma, abuse, neglect, prenatal alcohol and drug exposure they experiences prior to foster 

care) community members themselves will not want to adopt and have the same severe 

difficulties for their family. 
93 


89477A.067

As someone who has talked to NYS Governor Andrew Cuomo's staff, senior administrators at 

NYS's Office of Children and Family Services and NYS legislators I believe they have other 

p riorities than to increase adoption from foster care based upon their lack of actions. 

Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) for NY$ show 30% of 

the children who enter foster care 12 & older leave foster care without a family.' 

NY$ is 44<h in timeliness of adoptions amongst the states. 

There is an alarming rate of children entering foster care after adoption (foster care, 

private adoption and international adoption)2 Caring loving adoptive parents are left with 

no choice to have their child enter foster care when there are safety issues in the home 

and the state is not providing services to keep the child in their adoptive family. 

NYS is not spending any savings from the Foste ring Connections to Success and 

Increasing Adoptions Act on post adoption services. Further, NYS OCFS will not say what 

they have done with the millions of dollars saved by this act.3 

If the Adoption Incentive payments were working to motivated NYS to increase adoptions from 

foster care the state would have received grants more than 3 out of the last 14 years. To date, the 

foster children waiting for adoptive families are not a priority for New York State. 

So what will increase the likelihood of someone adopting from foster care? 

Post adoption services are an incentive: 

o Children are staying in foster care because they will not be eligible for services 

after adoption not because of a lack of families4 5 

12009 Children's Right's Report 2 Testimony to NYS Human Services Budget Hearing has numbers lor NYS. See below hyperlink 

' Testimony to NYS Human Services Budget Hearing has documentation htt!U/.!'.v~ccc.or£ll!!l!: 

content/uploads/NYSCCCHuman·ServicesTestimony.Pl!f 

• New York State Longest Waiting Children, Rosemary Avery 5 NYS Bridges to Health Program has dramatically increased children being adopted from foster care. Unfortunataety the 

number of openings for children in this program is severely limited. 
94 


89477A.068

o Adoptive families will be seen as successful in their extended families and 

communities so othe rs will step forward and believe they can successfully adopt 

too. Not only are community members seeing families struggle with children with 

severe mental health issues they are seeing NYS take out neglect petitions against 

parents who request residential treatment and then the state is billing the family 

$17,000 a year. This is incredibly harmful and disrespectful to adoptive families. 

We don't take neglect petitions out on parents whose children need 24 hour care 

due to developmental disabilities or medical concerns! Residential treatment is a 

response to needing intensive treatment due to the children's mental health issues 

caused by experiences prior to adoption not poor parenting on the adoptive 

parents part. Why would anyone risk having a neglect petition taken out on them? 

The benefits of post adoption services for children and their families has been substantially 

documented.6 

What will help with recruitment of families? 

9 out of 10 people drop out of the process to adopt a child from the foster care. Too much 

emphasis is put on recruitment of families and not enough on helping them manage the 

cumbersome process of adopting from foster care. The original federal AdoptUsKids 

initiatives and Adoption Opportunity Grants included awards to organizations to help 

prospective adoptive parents navigate the foster to adopt system. It is now my 

understanding that the emphasis is on recruitment not with keeping prospective parents 

engaged in the adoption process. There have not been any such grant awards in this area 

in more than 10 years. 

6 Keeping the Promise: The Critical Need for Post Adoption Services to Enable Children & Families to Succeed, Evan B. 

Donaldson Adoption Institute 
95 

f 


89477A.069

Case workers are reluctant to find families for children with severe mental health issues 

when they know there are no real post adoption services to support the children to be 

successful in families. Case workers will be more proactive in finding famil ies if they know 

the child will not lose services after adoption. 

I conclude by saying I'm not an expert of past federal incentives and their successfulness. What I 

can say doing more of the same will probably not bring states to further significantly increase 

adoptions from foster care. 

Mandated statewide post adoption services are needed because: 

Love does not fix trauma 

Commitment does not remove the emotional scars of abuse and neglect 

And 

Compassion does not heal a brain that has been damaged by 

Prenatal alcohol and drug exposure 

Without mandated statewide post adoption services children will remain in foster care because 

they will lose necessary services (respite, counseling and services for families- support groups. 

training) upon adoption if the system is not changed. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Marie Dolfi, LCSW 
96 


89477A.070

Comments for the Recot·d 

United States House of Rep•·esentatives 

Committee on Ways and Means 

Subcommittee on Human Resout·ces 

Heating on Increasing Adoptions from Foster Care 

Wednesday, Febmary 20, 2013, 2:00 PM 

By Michael G. Bindner 

Center for Fiscal Equity 

Chairman Reichert and Ranking Member Doggett, thank you for the opportunity to submit 

comments on these issues. As always, the Center for Fiscal Equity is available to brief the 

Subcommittee, individual Members and staff regarding this issue and our approach to it, which 

we have provided before. We await your invitation to talk. 

We write today to urge caution on going too far in encouraging quick adoption. Many children 

in foster care have been placed there because their famil ies of origin have fallen apart due to 

dmg or alcohol addiction, crimes resulting from such addiction (including violent crimes such as 

robbery, spousal abuse or murder and prostitution) and mental illness, otlen with one or both 

parents deemed by the courts unable to be a fit parent to the child. Economic conditions can also 

lead to the breakup of families and the use of foster care. While such a litany seems to support 

quick adoption, we suggest that it need not. 

There is an a lternative to quick adoption and that is family sponsorship whereby the entire family 

is sponsored by another family, provided that no one in the fostered family is currently 

dangerous. Indeed, this happens privately when a sibling takes in relatives during family crises. 

Turning this into a systematic enterprise, whether trained fostering families are used or families 

are given a stipend for the extra expenses of food and shelter, will preserve families intact while 

giving them a time to heal, as healing does eventually happen with the right care. 

Trained adoptive families will also help with the crisis of mentally ill adults, many of whom fmd 

their mental health care in the community and arc instead incarcerated. There must, of course, 

be safeguards, such as the easy rehospitalization in the event of alcohol or drug relapse or noncompliance with medication regimes - and with that hospitalization extending for enough of a 

term so that the patient is not just stable, but comfortable for a length of time in either sobriety 

and/or medication regimes. Deinstitutionalization has tumed much of the mental health sector 

into triage designed to stabilize clients on meds and then send them into community services or 

families before all side effects are managed. Paying for longer stays in improved facilities, 

possibly even inviting members of the Catholic Health Association to open new hospitals with 

federal funding, is both more fiscally pmdent and more humane than using j ails and the foster 

care system and adoptive to manage human tragedy. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to present our comments. Again, we arc always available to 

members, staff and the general public to discuss these issues. 

1 
97 

f 


89477A.071

Contact Sheet 

i\llichael Bindner 

Center for Fiscal Equity 

4 Canterbury Square, Suite 302 

Alexandria, Virgiltia 22304 

571-334-6507 

tisca.leqttitr@veriT.on.net 

Heal'ing on lnct·easing Adoptions ft·om Foster Care 

Wednesday, Febn•ary 20, 20 13, 2:00 PM 

All subntissions must include a list of all clients, persons and/ or orgaruzations on whose behalf the 

witness appears: 

Titis testimony is not submitted on bel1alf of a•ty client, person or organizatio11 other than the 

Center itself, wltich is so far unftutded by any donations. 

2 
98 


89477A.072

, 

children's home + aid w w w . c h i I d r ens home a n d a i d • or g 

Using Incentive Payments to Recognize Permanency for Children in Foster Care 

Cotmlltllts Jllbi!Jifftd to Jht SHbro!IJIIJitttt 011 H11111a11 RJ.so11rrtJ of tbt Co01HJilltt 011 fP~s and lvltmu 

SJtbmifftd by Michatl Shn<tt; Exmtlht Via Pmidmt n11d ChitjOptmtittg O.IJiar 

ChildrtJJ'J Hon1t + -··Ud, Chimgo Illi11ois 

lvlarrh I J, 201J 

\Yle appreciate tlt.is opporrw·Ury to share our comments on the importance o f incentivizlng and recognizing 

pennaoeocy for children i.n fos[e"· care ''~th the Subcommittee on Human Resources of d1e Coo11ninee oo 

Ways •nd Me•"'· 

Since 1883, Children's Home+ Aid o f Illinois has been p co,-idll>g help, hope •n d opportunity to children 

rutd families in need throughout state. Each yeA.r, Childt efl's Home + Aid sen1es more than 40.(M)() childte1\ 

and families br helping them o,·ercome obstacles posed by po'\"etty~ abuse and oeglect. TI1tough a 

compcehe1lSive array o f se!\-rices. "''e parmec with the state of lllU1ois aod We federal go""'erno'leut to r-each a 

di\1erse population with p rog:r.unmll'lg designed to pco,·ide help, hope and o ppoctmlicy. 

For more tl1an 30 years, Congre$$ has recogJli~ed the importance of using federal fm:mcia1 support as a_n 

impoctatlt Je, .. e.r in promoting the adopt.ioo of children ftom d1e nation's foster care system. \Vith the 

auth orization of dte Adoption Incentives progtam itt'ld the F:un.ily Co1lOectioo Grants program due to expire 

on September 30, 2013, Congress is presented with an important opportunity to further t:uget the use ot" 

federal re~u.rces ln a \\'a)' tJ\at reinforce$ a critical outcome for children e.uecing foster care: pe.r:maneocy. 

Every child deset\·es a s~ble and Ja.sti.og fAJll.i.l)•life. Ch.ildt e.l an d youth who remain in foster care ,,.·ithout 

ach.ieving permanency through adoption, g\1udi.anship or reun.ifieltioo face a broad spectn1m of cl1allenges 

when they age out o f the srstem.

1 "lttese challenges are related to their tuunet needs for ng independendr 

and thelr educational deficits, but their challenges also reflect the absence of :l s:1fety net typically pco,.,.ided by 

a family supporting a young petson as dtey make their transition to adulthood. In most fa.milies, p arents 

continue to p ro\·ide emo tional and fin ancial support well into young adulthood.! For foster youth. who may 

be uoconnected to family or whose fa.milies of origin :ue frequently uoabJe to provide these support.s. unmet 

needs for futthec eduC<ltion and i.ndepe11deot living skills can have devasc:atiog coosequeoces inc t~di.ng 

unemployment, homelessness and an increased likelihood of engaging in high-risk behaviors. Tite pce\·aleuce 

of d1ese negative outcomes for youth aging out of foster care make achie,·ing perman ency for children in 

foster care a key practice and policy pciority. 

Given the import-ance of permanency, we urge Congress to expand the usc of the Adoption Incentives 

program to recognize and reward child welfare jurisdjctions for improving permanency outcomes 

for children in foster care whether permanency is achieved through adoption, guardianship or 

reuni6cation. nt.is reflects both the time·hooored notion of permanency foe children as well as the 

emergent uencls which are p:ut of today's foster care srstem, where incenti,·izing all permanency options c-An 

successfuUy ceduce dte number of ch.ildtetl Ul fostet care. 

1

Counney ct aJ.. 2005 

'Fingcnnan. K .. Miller. L. Birditt, K .. & Zarit. S. (2009). Giving to the good and the ne<dy: Parental suppot1 of grown children. Jomwnl of Marriage and Famll}·. 7 J. 1220·1 233. 

Cluldten•s Hom~ + Aid 125 South \\"'acker Ou\'~. l41h Roo1 Cluc:.go. IL 60606 3 12.424.0200 
99 


89477A.073

~{ovi.ng l1\ thi$ direction re.Oects what many .state$ have lortg recog1\lzed: Unproving tlle rate a.t ""lUch \Ve 

coJUtect children with families who can safely a.nd penn::utently meet thei.r needs outside of foster care should 

be a key outcome iJtcentlvaed by the federal govemmcnt. 

The lllinois Example 

Over tlle last two decades, we'..;•e leacned a. great dea.l about promoting pettnaneocy for childreo who eote.r 

fo$ter care. \Ve>ve Wo teamed tha.t promot.it'lg petm~U'lertcy has been 01'le o f the r·nost effee:tive stdteg;ies for 

reducing the nwnber of children in the nation's foster care srstem-an unde.r:lying goal of feclern.l e.ffort:s 

arou1ld promoting adoption perform;:ulce. Ae:cotdit'lg to data from the Adoption a.od Foster Care Analy.sis 

aod Reporting Syst~.m (AFCARS)> tl1e munber of children itt foster e::are nationally has dropped n'lore than 25 

percent siftoe 200(Pln Illinois duri.ng tltis same period, tlte foster care popul:ttion declined by more tha.n 50 

percent' - twice the t::lle of the national decline. 11Us reduction i_n Illioois foster care numbecs resulted from 

a comprehensive focus oo achievlng pennaoency for children dating back to 1998, where aU permanency 

outcomes were recognized and re\varded, not just adoptions. 

Since passage of the Adoption aod Safe Families Act .in 1997. Illinois and otl1er child welfare jurisdictions 

have well Utlders ood that promoting petm:u1e:ncy on all fro11tS is key to reducing the number of ch.ildteJl U1 

foster care. L1 2000, Jes.s lcDo lll.ld. tl1eo director of dte llliooi! Depa.rtmem of Childteo atld Family 

Services, testified befoce CongressS on the success of lllino.is' Performance-based Contracting model \\·hich 

had dr-amatically increased peona.n~ncy for dtildren i.n care. Unde.r this model, Illinois recogniz~d and 

CC\.\<-at ded contracted agencies snccesshd in securing peonan<:slC)' for ch.i.ldren i.n tOster care through 

reuniGcatioo, adoption a.nd gt~rdianship. \Vh.ile dUs perfOrmance nt.marouod saw IUioojs t\vice cecogo..ized 

(in 1998 atld 1999) for the \Vhite House's Adoption E."Ccelletlce award fol' i.ncreasU1g adoptions. it should be 

noted that llli.nois' succe» i.n reducing the numbec of children i.o foster ca.re was dr.iveo by porstt.ing 

pennanency through guard.ianships and reunifiO\tions as well as adoptiotlS. 

Following U1 lllinoiD x.amP-Ie we ur~ng.ress to e."Cpa.f.d use o t:Yte AdoP-tioo ll'lcentives: eLogr.:un ro mQ.r~ 

broacUy reinforce pe.cmanesl£Y (or child.ren in foster care by recogn.izing states for impco,~ements in dte 

combined outcomes_of reunification, ~doption and guardianship, 

Kinship guardians hip 

Titlnking broadl)r about permanency perfo(mance for a federally f\mded incentives program is espec-ially 

lmportant i.n light of changes ushered iJl with pass<l.ge of the Fostering Connections to Success and 

Increasing Adoptions Act of 2008. Bolstered by compelling evidence g~1e.tated from the first cow1d of Title 

IV -E demons:tmtio1l "'1'1\i'·ers (authorized b)' Co11gress), states 't\.re oow pe.rmitted to use fedeta.l fulaJlc.ial 

participation for providing a kituh.ip guardianship usisra.nce program for a child exit.U'lg foster ca.re. Usi11g 

the incentive program to recognitt: these important commitments of a permanent home for a chjJd exiting 

foster c:ue could do much to encourage more states to exercise the option to o ffer kinship guardianship 

assistance fot qualifying clt.ild.cen aod at regiven. 

Permanency l~ads to cost savings 

Titese cecommendatioo.s .cepresent ao approach to the cuccent incentive pcogram wlUch cetlec:ts d1e right 

policy choices in an environment of growing fisca.l constraints. Perhaps the best rationale fOr cre1ting 

incentives for states that go beyond achievi_ng increases in adoptions is that expanding our succ:e55 in 

achievi.ng permaz'leJJC:Y for c:hild.cen to inch.1dc reuulfications arad 8''a.tdia.nships is a bette.c spend of the pttbl.ic 

) Administtation for Cb kl..r n ~d Families. Health and HurruUl S~n·i<n (2012). Child Wtfarr 0NitWJtts1 2()()1.2010: Rlpqrttt~ Cfi»Jrus. 

Available at http:L/\\"W\ acf hhs go ptQgf2m~ JU l» cwo07- l0 C\lo-o0 7- ~f 

"IU.i.noi~ o~pa tmem of Children and Family Services (201 3), BJ«l~t8ritfitt.t FY14. AYaibble at 

up:LJu'\1."\\·,s~:ue i:l,u"'jdC"fS/ doc1LBudgtt%20Boo)t•'I.20F\' I4%20Fin!ll pdf 

S McDonald. Jeu (2000). 11/i~r".s' Pt!fof'1111t11tl¥ Ct~ntraflinJ ;, Child Wttfa!T, Tl-llimM.J iNfo" tbt <AJ-tl'1ifmtnt MtJIItt§PIIRI. lllfonwa i~, #Rtf Tubn~ 

S~t/J.C()mllltitNfljtiN Ht~Nu CNNmittH M C():'mlmnJI IVfot711. A\"'-.ila.ble ar h.t tp_;.llu"\\~' U:ttul.us dds,lgocs titn :c hrml 

Cluldr<n's Hom<+ Aid 125 South Wacke< Dti,·<, J.1"' Floor Chicago, lL 6~6 3 12.424.0200 

2 
100 

f 


89477A.074

dolbr. Tite cost of a child who leaves foster care for guardia,tship or adoption is less than if th~H child 

remaioed in care. The greatest savings still ate tepcesented by children who e~we fostet ~re and are ren1roed 

home to a parent who has demoostt:.ued theit ability lO safely care for dteir childten. Passing oo this 

important oppottwlity to align tina.ncial i.nce:11t:ives for the smtes with these important outcomes for children 

i.s something we can ill-afford in an cm·ironment which calls on gove.mment to do the same or more with 

less. 

l\1casuring s uccess 

FioaUy, our e~perie.nce ill Illioois i.o using petforma.l.ce to prot0und1y reduce tbe auutber of children in 

foster care taught \1$ something else critical to changing behavior withU:l a very complex system. Meas\lcing 

success ln r:.w ourubets rather duo rear over yea.t chao.ges io petmaoellcy cates hurts consistent performers 

while rewarding child welfare S)"Sletns who del-ay action. In addition co measuring..e~gnanency m.Qre broadly 

b):_includittg_reunific.ttion adoption and guardianship for the Adoption lncet1ti,·es Program_,. Congress is 

loce a more robust methodology for e''aluatitt~ttOrmaoce UnP-to\'ements dll\t relv on rates 

rather -acmru number'$. Usiog rates based upon the COll1bined pernl:Uleal.C)" perforrna.tce levels the 

performaoce eoviconment so that over tUne. coosistent perfonners cao benefit equally with jurisdictions that 

ha,;·e ooc had sllnilat, sustai11ed pecfotmattce O\"er time. 

Conclusion 

\X' e ti.illy recog,tize that there are a anunber of implemeotation challenges related ro these recommeoda.tioos 

wh.ith require more discussio,l and :.ddit.ioalal :tl'talrsis. For example, recogatiz.ing reunificatioo. as a 

pea:maJleacy outcome imruediatel)• necessitates taking a closer look at a) lengdu of stay prior to reunification 

aod b) d\e nabllity of a reu.o.ific:tti.oo o,•et a t~ci.fiffl period of t.i.o:'le so that pet:m,.netlCJ COlUp:tt;.tont ~~~~u 

child welfare jurisdictions are equallr valid when used to determine chaoges in petformaoce over time. \Vhile 

dtis is just ooe example of the kind of challetlgiog questions dtat wiU need to be answeced to move ahead 

with a fr:amework wh.ich more broadly acknowledges the work of child welfare systems in secutiug 

permanency for child reo. these convecsations have significant potential to ad""~utce dialogtte in both d1e 

practice and policy atenas. 

Tite Adoption Incemive program is a compelling example of how the o.cigioal pu.rpose of the pcogtam has 

been ho11ed ovet time to benet ft.t the performance climate and expecta.tioos of We child welfare system as a 

whole. The Adoption P.comot.ion Act of 2003 both .ceset stace baselines and added a new incentive payment 

categocy foe adoptioos of children age llin~ and older based upon research which showed this category of 

children to bot :u heighte,\ed risk of remaining itt foster care. In 2008, the Foste.tittg Cotlrlectioos to Success 

and Increasing Adoptions Act <'g<tia reset state basc:l.lnes, doubled lncentive payments for special needs 

children undec age n.ine and .all children age tUne and older. aod authotized Utc~nti\•e payments tOr nates 

increasing the rate of chjldren adopted from foster care. TI1ese ch:mgC$ s.ignal an important commitment to 

cns\tre both policy and pt<tccice reflect the best thinkiilg about how to i.mpro,·e permaoency outcomes foe 

ch.ildteat in fost~t care. 

Cluldten's I lome+ ,\id 125 Somh \\"ackee Drive, 14"' Floot Chicago,IL 60606 312.424.0200 
101 


89477A.075

Ill 

NYSCCC 

Information, Support and Advocacy for Foster and Adoptive Families 

"No one understands what we face as adoptive parents. 

We are often ridiculed and treated as the "bad guy" 

rather than our child receiving the much needed help. • 

·Adoptive Parent• 

Thank you for giving the 1'-.'YS Citizens' Coalition for Children the opportunity to submit testimony to the Ways 

and Means Subcommjttee on Hutnan Resources in response to the rec-ent bearing on locreasing Adoptions fi·om 

Foster Care (Febmary 27, 20 13). 

When a little hoy was sent back to Russia by his American adoptive mother last year, many people were 

incredulous and outraged. Although the vast majotity of adoptions (whether private in fant adoptions or through 

the United States or intemational child welfare systems) wotk out well - with parents who enjoy their children 

and children who grow up into happy. fuuclion.ing adults-some adoptive parents nm iJHo overwhelming 

problems parenting their children. 

The research tells us that children who were exposed to dmgs or alcohol in-utero, abuse and neglect, lived in 

orphanages, and were adopted at older ages arc more likely to need help, especially through developmental 

stages in life. Parents tell us that they need help with their children's etnotional challenges, which usually 

manifest themselves as behaviora l problems within home ~ at school or in society. Sometimes parents get so 

overwhelmed by children who, have trouble in. school. lie. steal, abuse dn1gs nndlor nlcohol, act sexuaUy 

inapproptiate or are violent that they reach their breaking point having often exhausted their resources searching 

for help that they feel forced to place their children in or back into foster care. Adoptive parents adopt because 

they want to parem a child -when their family falls apan, it is a tragic loss for au already traumatized child and 

a painful (and humiliating) loss for the parents and remaining siblings as well. 

Placing a child into foster care isn't always a willing choice. In New York State, when a child needs temporaty 

instinuiona l care (at a cost of$80.000/year or more) because they are likely to htu1 themselves or others and a 

parent can't afford the services privately. the Office ofCitildren and Family Services requires the parents to 

place the child in foster care to access the help. This policy is destmctive to keeping families together. This 

fm1her damages the relationship between the parem and child and costs the State even more money as they pay 

for adn1inistrative and com·t costs associated with foster care. 

lu tbe last few decades. we have leamed a lot about bow to help families - specialized therapists can help tbe 

parents and child develop a bood and teach the parents to deal with challenging behaviors in a constmctive, 

healing way. II is time our fedet·al, state, and local govenllllems invest in the practices we know work and 

embed them into widespread improved policy and practice, to improve the lives of these children and families. 

Support groups can give parents perspective and advice from parents who have been there. A few states have 

intplemented setvices for families - such as Ohio, which provides $10.000 mmually so that the parents of each 

child who bas been adopted can pay for therapy. Or Comlecticut which bas a statewide hot line munber that 

adoptive parems can call for support, an evaluation of their needs and t•eferrals for services. Others states such 

as New York have yet to provide statewide services. Even though we )mow that hundreds ofNew York 

children cmer foster care each year after adoption for tlle reasons shared above - tom once aga in from a family 

NYS Citizens' Coalition for Children 

107 Prospect Park West UR • Brooklyn, NV 11215 • 607· 272·0034 

www.nysccc.org • Fax 888-482-9112 • info@nysccc.ors 
102 


89477A.076

wilh even more dismal prospects for a happy and functional future. It is estimated that not providing post 

adoption services costs the State millions of dollars and discourages prospective adoptive parents from making 

the conunitment to adopt children who are waiting in foster care because they aren't prepared or well enough 

equipped to do it alone. 

In 20 II, 451 NYS adoptive parents and professionals responded to a NYSCCC survey assessing the needs of 

NYS adoptive families. Significant problems were noted by participants in accessing services, especially 

lherapists who were knowledgeable about adoption and the impact of abuse and neglect on development. Many 

of the parents expressed that they felt abandoned at a time when they were desperate for help. It is a tragedy for 

the child, family and conmtmuty when parents can't keep their children safely at home. It is also an 

intemational embarrassment! 

Post adoption services in New York State alone would save more than $30.000,000 by increasing the numbers 

of children who are adopted', decreasing the numbe.-s of children who enter or re-enter foster cat·e2 and 

decreasing the number of children who enter r esidential treatment' . 

We urge the Subeonunittee to take a close exanunation of fmtding and accessibility of quality post-adoption 

support services offered to children and families nationally, to ensure increased access and adequate funding is 

available for such services post-finalization as a way to increase stable healthy adoptions from foster care. 

Respectfully subnutted, 

Sarah Gerstenzang, Executive Director 

NYSCCC 

I 07 Prospect Park West, # I R 

Brooklyn, NY 112 15 

sgerstenzang@nysccc.org 

718-369-7363 

1 The Bridges to Health progr3Jll (B2H) is a very good example of bow wl~eu services are provided to children and their families the 

rotc of adoption from foster earo to adoption increases. B2H ensures that children with significant medical and psychological uteds 

receive services after au adoption. Data from 82H shows that by providing better supports. the percentage of children with a goal of 

adoption in NYS in<;reases from 26%10 35.S%. If we provided suppoau to fiullilies adoptiug children with fewer challenges aud 

assnmed the same inc.rease in abe percentage of cbildrcn with a goal of adoption (and the achievement oflll.at &Q!ill. $19.593.930 

would be saved each year! 2 Children are e~ue ing foster cafe (fosrer cal'e. imeroatiooal & domestic private adoption) ant a· being adopted because they could not 

be maimained in their f.1.nlilies. The federal child welfare reponing system (AFCARS) now requires states to repon on whether 

children in foster care were previously adopted. Allhoogb 001 all NYS COUilties have complied "'th this reponing requiremem. for the 

5_9. 1% of cases where the data was entered_.....609 children now in foster care were previously_adopted (persona.! conunwlication with 

OCFS 12/12/12). An additiooal. 2050 children NYC tltildren inJoster care were previously..!'!Qpted. 

l One example is the Post Adoption Resource Center (PARC) at Parsons Child and Family Center in Albany serves six stuTotmding 

cotwties.. Based on family reports and conservath•e estimates. 58 families had a child at risk of placement in 2009. However. only six 

of the chHdrenentered a residential rreauuent center. Post a~tion services kept 52 children om Qfresidential care a1 an annual 

saviug.s of more S4 million dollars for onJ_y_6 cotmties..=..aod at a cost of only S22~000..Jo o_J>erate PARC. 

NYS Citizens' Coalition for Children 

107 Prospect Park West #lR • Brooklyn, NY 11215 • 607-272-0034 

www.nysccc.org • Fax 888-482-9112 • info@nysccc.org 
103 

f 


89477A.077

• A quote from an adoptive parent in a recent survey {hup://nysccc.orgladoption/post-adoptionserviceslpostadoptsurvey/) by the NYS Citizens' Coalition of Children of post adoption services needs of 

parents and professionals in New York State. 

NYS Citizens' Coalition for Children 

107 Prospect Park West #lR • Brooklyn, NY 11215 • 607·272-0034 

www.nysccc.ors • Fax 888-482-9112 • info@nvsccc.ors 
104 


89477A.078

Hillside Family of Agencies Legislative Recommendations for Removing Ban·iers to Adoption, 

Statement for the Record 

RE: Increasing Adoptions from Foster Care Hearing, February 27, 2013 

Celebrating its I 75th anruversary in 2012, Hillside Family of Agencies is one oft he oldest family and youth nonprofit human services organizations in the United States. The Ol'gaoization provides adoption, child welfare, mental 

health, youth development, special education, developmental disabilities, and juvenile justice se1vices across central 

and western New York and in Prince George's County. M.D. Last year, Hillside Family of Agencies provided 

services to 12,636 youth and families in need. 

Hillside is committed to the addressing the needs of youth in out of home place.ment throutth our work in therapeutic 

Iosier care and adoption, as well as our new initiative of Family Finding through tlte Hillside Institute for Family 

Connections. Hillside ctuTently opel'ates two child specific recmitment grants, Wendy's Wonde1ful Kids dtrough the 

Dave Titomas Foundation for Adoption and Parent for Eve1y Child, funded by d1e Children's Bureau. These effons 

are paying off in the fonn of youth reconnecting with biological family and in pennanent, safe, loving adoptive 

families for those youth who crumot remm home. 

In FY2010, 27,854 children aged om ofd1e child welfare system wid1outthc pennaucncy and collllection that is so 

critical to development and long term well-being. The future is grim for those youtl1; they experience significant risk 

of educational failure. unplam)ed pregnancy. substance abuse. unetnployment. criminal activity and homelessness. 

These issues are costly to the youth and costly to society. In addition, for eve1y dollar spent on adoption for a child 

from foster care yields d1ree dollars in benefits to society. 

Research shows that a great number of families are interested in adopting a child duough the child welfare system 

but sadly ouly one Ul 28 who contacts a child welfare agency actlmlly adopts a child. Barriers in the system stand in 

the way of increasing adoption of the more than I 00,000 cb.ildren in foster care today, barriers which could be 

eliminated through changes u1 policy and practice. ht our experience, those barriers include inaccurate data 

regarding the whereabouts of children in care, a lack of resources to facilitate visits between youd1 and prospective 

adoptive parents, discrimination against differem kinds of families based on bias and attitude, workforce 

engagement issues, and a lengtl1y and discouraging process in tenus of certification, matching and u·ansition 

pla1ming for youth. 

Hillside Fruruly of Agencies supports measures recommended by leading child advocacy organizations such as 

Voice for Adoption, Nonb American Comtcil on Adoptable Children and New York State Citizen's Coalition for 

Childreoto increase adoption and suppontbe long tenn well-being of youth and families including: 

l. Encouraging interstate adoptions through changes in policy. Institute a policy whereby interstate 

adoptions are eligible for an enhanced incentive payment. requiring tl1at the sendiog and receivu1g 

agencies split the incentive bonuses. \Ve are often fac.ed with the impossible dilenuua ofhaviog a match of 

a family we have CCI'Iified with a child in ruJodte1· state dtcn faced widl payment for services that u1 no way 

cover the costs we incur to supervise the placement tluough adoption fmalization. Additiona lly, 

oftentimes, state agencies are unwilling to coutract for COimnunity-based services d1at could supp011 tl•e 

fa1ruly tltrough the typical challenges associated with adopting an older child. 

2 . Create llOiicies that encourage mental health and developmental disabilities systems to focus on the 

permanency nef'ds of youth in tbeh· systems of care. Many times, lhese systems seek to keep a young 

person safe and transition into aduh care without connection to non-paid professionals. While the care is 

usually adequate, the lack of family denies the youth permanent lifetime collllections tl1at most of us 

benefit from. In some of the residential treatment facilities these youdt become pan of a system, essentially 

a number, with no one on the outside to love them, to suppo11 them, to celebrate or grieve with them. 
105 

Æ 


89477A.079