Adoption Efforts at the Texas Dept. of Family and Protective Services
Author:
Scott McCown /(512) 320-0222 x 109
March 18, 2004
We applaud the Speaker for his interim charge to this committee to study "ways to increase the adoption of special-needs children through efficiency in the Adoption Assistance Program." Increasing adoptions of special-needs children is of course a subset of a larger question: How do we increase adoptions? But special-needs children do present special challenges.
March 18, 2004 House Human Services Committee 78th Legislature
Adoption Efforts at the Texas Dept. of Family
and Protective Services
and Protective Services
We applaud the Speaker for his interim charge to this committee to study “ways to increase the adoption of special-needs children through efficiency in the Adoption Assistance Program.” Increasing adoptions of special-needs children is of course a subset of a larger question: How do we increase adoptions? But special-needs children do present special challenges.
Since the passage by Congress of the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (ASFA), Texas has significantly increased the number of adoptions. According to a national study conducted by Fostering Results of the Children and Family Research Center at the School of Social Work at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Texas doubled its adoption performance by 1999 with a 163% increase over its baseline average. We attach a copy of this report, which discusses the problem from a national perspective.
While Texas has done well, continuing to improve will be difficult for the following reasons:
Before the big push to implement ASFA, Texas had a backlog of children from which to draw for placements. After the big push, many hard-to-place children remained, and this pool of hard-to-place children will continue to grow. We must address the problem of hard-to-place children. Increasing the amount of the adoption subsidy is part of the solution. Keeping the subsidy low to save dollars is not cost effective because the state must continue to pay for foster care. As long as the amount of the subsidy is no more than the amount of the foster care subsidy, the state at least breaks even.
Before the big push, Texas had an inventory of foster homes ready and willing to adopt. After the big push, many of those foster homes had adopted and were therefore closed to more children. About two-thirds of all adoptions are by a foster family. We must therefore constantly recruit new foster parents to replace those lost to adoption. Additional funds need to be spent on community outreach for adoptive parents.
To continue consummating adoptions, the state must annually increase the amount budgeted for subsidies. As adoptions are consummated, subsidy dollars are then committed until the child turns eighteen. To consummate additional adoptions, we need additional subsidy dollars. Of course, as children turn eighteen, the dollars supporting their adoption become available to support a new adoption, but the number of children turning eighteen in any year will always be much smaller than the growing number of children awaiting placement.
As the chart below shows, the state’s performance with regard to adoptions is improving in terms of raw numbers, but the number of adoptions as a percent of the children awaiting placement is beginning to decline. (For example: the number of consummated adoptions in 2000 divided by number of children awaiting placement at end of 1999 yields 86%.)
|
|
Consummated adoptions |
Children awaiting placement at end of fiscal year |
Consummated adoptions as a percent of children awaiting placement at the end of the previous fiscal year |
|
1992 |
541 |
|
|
|
1993 |
657 |
|
|
|
1994 |
747 |
|
|
|
1995 |
804 |
|
|
|
1996 |
746 |
|
|
|
1997 |
1,091 |
|
|
|
1998 |
1,548 |
|
|
|
1999 |
2,054 |
2,402 |
|
|
2000 |
2,063 |
2,933 |
86% |
|
2001 |
2,261 |
3,183 |
77% |
|
2002 |
2,248 |
3,473 |
71% |
|
2003 |
2,444 |
3,766 |
70% |
Only with significant legislative commitment to funding can Texas maintain its impressive adoption performance.
Respectfully submitted,
F. Scott McCown
mccown@cppp.org
mccown@cppp.org