Comparative Policy Analysis on The Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 - Case Study Example

Comparative Analysis Introduction Adoption and child welfare have always been key issues when it comes to the social setup of any country. America isno different in this regard and there have been continuous changes in the laws as well as the means by which adoption, child welfare and family preservation has been maintained. Two sets of laws which have been passed by the government in this regard are especially important, i.e. the Adoption Assistance & Child Welfare Act (1980) and the Adoption and Safe Families Act (1997). In the year 1980, Congress approved the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act (P.L. 96-272) to become law. The salient features of this Act included the requirement for states to make reasonable efforts towards the prevention of placing children in foster care and to try and keep families together. Various states quickly set up family preservation programs to help children in need and the stress on family preservation was further underlined in the 1993 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act which provided funds for the establishment and running of such programs (Adamec & Pierce, 2000). The same sentiments were continued but a different form was adopted when in 1997 when the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) was passed. It clarified the government’s position on several issues which had come up in the past seventeen years and now the focus of the laws was on having a safe and secure adoption process, finding permanent solutions to children who could be in danger and maintaining a generally safe environment for the children who were in foster homes or had been adopted by other families (Adamec & Pierce, 2000). To better compare the laws, it would be prudent for us to look at the intent of the law in both Acts. Intent of the Acts The Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 provides two major child welfare provisions. The first one is about permanency planning for placement of children in permanent homes rather than moving from them from location to location in foster care drift. The provision mandated that the child would be returned to the natural parents or placed in adoption within eighteen months of their placement in foster care. The second is about the reasonable efforts states must conduct to ensure that children do not drift in foster care and are not placed out of home inappropriately (Gelles, 1998). The intent of the Adoption and Safe Families Act (1997) was much broader since it not only clarified the act of 1980 but also made allowances which let states have more money for the child welfare system. The Act modified the reasonable efforts clause by giving examples of situations where the states are not required to keep children with their parents if the children’s safety is at risk. It further established timelines/conditions under which individual states can file for the termination of parental rights and for the hearings of permanency request cases to determine if a child can be returned home or not (Barbell & Wright. 1999). Additionally, the law is intended to encourage adoption procedures by asking various states to make reasonable efforts and to show that they have specifically worked with each child to get a successful adoption. States can also encourage adoption of children with special need by offering bonuses and using other means to provide for funding and support for the state organized adoption agencies or groups. In effect, improving permanency results and the well being of the children can be considered the most important aspects of ASFA in terms of the intent of the law (Barbell & Wright. 1999). The Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 declares in no uncertain terms that the country’s prime goals for children who are placed in the child welfare system are safety, permanency, and their personal well-being. Normally, every law has a good reason behind its enactment and as individual states have discovered this law is not very easy to comply with. Barbell & Wright (1999) point towards the possible ambiguity created by some of the terms but they also give some very good reasons for why these laws were needed in the first place. Impetus for Change Gelles (1998) reports that the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act was required because in 1980 it was generally understood that far too many children were being taken into foster care per annum while too few children were leaving the foster care system and going towards permanent homes. Barbell & Wright (1999) also discuss the case of the children drifting from foster home to foster home and say that this was the main reason for the passing of the Act in 1980. There were concerns that children were being put in out-of-home care while other services were more appropriate for their needs. They say that children were simply forgotten once they went into an out-of-home care system and reunification with their parents was difficult if not impossible. However, even though the Act was passed by Congress, and despite all the funding given, the child welfare system struggled to provide an acceptable level of services. A large number of cases, untested, unqualified and untrained staff coupled with high turnover rates of workers and foster home providers made it nearly impossible for children and families to get the help they needed. As a response to the worsening situation, in 1997, Congress passed the Adoption and safe Families Act (Barbell & Wright, 1999). Effectiveness of legislation In terms of overall effectiveness, it would seem that the Adoption and Safe Families Act (1997) has been more effective and well received than the Adoption Assistance & Child Welfare Act (1980). Barbell & Wright (1999) are not very supportive of the older act and report that after the enactment, children were not getting placed in permanent housing quickly enough, the number of children in out-of-home care continued to increase in most states around the country and (diametrically opposed to the intent of the law) an overall significant percentage of children experienced increased stays in foster care. McGowan and Walsh (2000) take a different viewpoint and say that there are several factors for lack of effectiveness in the 1980 Act and these stem from the Child Welfare services having the primary objective of family preservation. First of all they cite the spectacular rise in child maltreatment complaints and say that it can not be ascertained if it was due to an increase in incidents of maltreatment or simply an increase in the ability to report. They give this as the reason for the rise in children entering foster care services and this increase simply could not be handled by many state child welfare authorities. Secondly, the case of Miller v. Youakim [1979] is cited where the U.S. Supreme Court decided that children living in their relatives homes were entitled to the same level of foster care payments as children living with non related foster care givers. This decision let to an increase in kinship foster care which mainly occurred in the 1980s and as the availability of traditional foster homes declined, kinship care also met the increased demand for family foster homes hastened by a dramatic rise in drug or substance related abuse, homelessness, and child abuse reports (McGowan & Walsh, 2000). In fact, there are findings which show that children who are placed in foster care with their kin are more likely to remain in foster care since it gives the foster parents the possibility of obtaining extra money without going through the process of adoption. This has generated enormous public anger and an outcry about the relatives of undeserving parents keeping their nephews or nieces simply to get taxation breaks or extra money from their state governments (McGowan & Walsh 2000). Continuing their apology for the state of affairs after the enactment of the 1998, Adoption Assistance & Child Welfare Act, McGowan and Walsh (2000) say that the general tilt of power in favor of the conservative political viewpoint has also given rise to legitimizing the multiplication of problems for single mothers living in low income households. These women often depend a lot on public benefits and programs like AFDC to support their children. When they are not able to support their children, they have no other option but to surrender them for adoption and this increases the number of children in foster care. Another reason for the lack of effectiveness of the Act is that in the mid-1990s, many long-term family foster care and residential care providers could not promote family preservation programs since significant child welfare dollars were spent in the support of placement institutions. The minds of the decision makers in congress was strongly influenced by the vocal critics of permanent placement who gave Congress accounts of with heartbreaking anecdotes and even distributed several of pictures of children who had been abused. This had a strong effect on the elected officials and when the Family Preservation and Support Services Program was passed in 1993, the funding that came out to permanent placement programs was very little as compared to the money given to the providers of out-of-home care (Blythe & Kelly, 2000). In fact, family preservation is not a popular subject in the Adoption and Safe Families Act since the government in general and the Congress in particular is skeptic about the value of family preservation services. ASFA places a strong emphasis on having a decreased timeframes for terminating the rights of the birth parents and supports the adoption promotion programs which individual states run. This can only serve to decrease the potential for family preservation services working with families to ensure permanent reunification or placement (Blythe & Kelly, 2000). Gelles (1998) also questions the effectiveness of the legislation and points out that it may not be a viable solution for the long terms since it does not guarantee an improvement in the child’s health or safety. Hollingsworth (2000) takes a different approach the argument and suggests that the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 must be examined in context to poverty, single parenthood, and their connection with the mistreatment received by children. The reason given by courts for placing children in foster care is often the treatment the child is expected to receive if they are left where they are. In disagreement, Hollingsworth (2000) suggests that poverty is the main factor behind a child being at risk for maltreatment and he goes on to say that: “Children from families with annual incomes under $15,000 were more than 22 times more likely to experience maltreatment, 18 times more likely to be sexually abused, almost 56 times more likely to be educationally neglected, and more than 22 times more likely to be seriously injured than children from families whose incomes exceeded $30,000.” (Hollingsworth, 2000, Pg. 185) He also gives the example of children with single parents who have “a 77 percent greater risk of harm from physical abuse, an 87 percent greater risk of physical neglect, and an 80 percent greater risk of serious injury or harm from abuse or neglect than children living with both parents” (Hollingsworth, 2000, Pg. 185). With these facts in mind, the relative failure of the 1980 Act to improve the situation for adoption and to provide safe situations for families is certainly given a new viewpoint. Luckily the situation is not all that bad, even if the 1980 Adoption Assistance & Child Welfare Act did not meet expectations, the Adoption and Safe Families Act (1997) has certainly helped in improving matters for child welfare. The primary objective of ASFA i.e. to quickly get children out of foster care and into adoptive homes or back with their families (if possible) seems to have been achieved by the legislative orders and functioning of the state services. Relevant testimony and data was presented at a congressional hearing in 1999 by Joe Kroll who is the Executive Director of the North American Council on Adoptable Children (NACAC) and the data shows that out of the forty-five states which were surveyed regarding the number of finalized adoptions in 1998, the vast majority (forty) reported an increase in adoption numbers. Only five had a decrease in numbers or maintained the same level of adoption (Adamec & Pierce, 2000). The states which showed an increase displayed magnificent numbers in certain cases, e.g. in Illinois, the number of adoptions from the foster care system more than doubled since the enactment of the Adoption and Safe Families Act. Between 1995 and 1997, the average for Illinois was 2,200 adoptions per year but in 1998 the number stood at 4,656. Some other states also gave much improved results; South Carolina increased adoption by 84.4%, Mississippi by 64.9%, and North Dakota by 68.1% (Adamec & Pierce, 2000). Complimentary and Contradictory Both the acts compliment each other in terms of their basic intent. The main idea behind both the acts is to ensure that children who are placed in foster care are not left adrift in the system and are not forgotten by the state. It can not be disputed that the fundamental approach of child welfare and all legislation concerning children has always been to do what was thought at the time to be best for the children. Reunification and permanent placement itself became an essential part of the child welfare process after the 1980 Act but there are still significant ways in which the 1997 Act differs from the earlier laws. The Adoption and Safe Families Act focuses on the safety of the child a lot more than the previous Act. While states are still required by law to make all reasonable efforts for the placement of children in permanent positions, they are not required to try placing the child back with the birth parents. In the past, even if a child was a victim of severe abuse or neglect from a parent, another child in the same family could be returned from foster care to that parent by a judge. The ASFA asks states to close parental rights and find a family willing to adopt the child if the child has been in foster care for fifteen months or longer. Additionally the same termination of parental rights could be applied if a parent assaulted or grievously hurt another child in the family (Karoll & Poertner, 2002). In conclusion, the Adoption Assistance & Child Welfare Act (1980) and the Adoption and Safe Families Act (1997) are both steps on the way towards a final vision of child welfare in America. Between the two, I think that ASFA is more likely to be recorded in the history books as a useful Act since it has already been shown that the Act is working to improve the state of adoption, child welfare and is producing a safe as well as healthy environment for children who have no other option but to live in a foster home. The journey is by no means complete, but it is good to know that our legislative system is getting there. Word Count: 2,645 Works Cited Adamec, C. and Pierce, W. (2000). Adoption and Safe Families Act. Retrieved February 16, 2006. from Adoption.com website: http://encyclopedia.adoption.com/entry/Adoption-and-Safe-Families-Act/17/1.html Barbell, K and Wright, L. (1999). Family foster care in the next century. Child Welfare, 78(1), 3-15. Blythe, B. and Kelly, S. (2000). Family Preservation: A Potential Not Yet Realized. Child Welfare, 79(1), 29-42. Gelles, R. J. (1998). The Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 rightly places child safety first. Brown University Child & Adolescent Behavior Letter, 14(4), 1-3. Hollingsworth, L. D. (2000). Adoption Policy in the United States: A Word of Caution. Social Work, 45(2), 183-186. Karoll, B. R. and Poertner, J. (2002). Judges, Caseworkers, and Substance Abuse Counselors Indicators of Family Reunification with Substance-Affected Parents. Child Welfare, 81(2), 249-270. McGowan, B. G. and Walsh, E. M. (2000). Policy Challenges for Child Welfare in the New Century. Child Welfare, 79(1), 11-28. Read More