1
Adoption Dissolution and Displacement:
Methodological Issues
National data on adoption, reported by each state to the U.S. Administration for Children and Families, Department of Health and Human Services, show an increase in the number of adoptions from the years prior to the passage of the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) of 1997 to post-ASFA years (Table 1). In 1995, for example, the number of adoptions was 25,693; in 2002, there were 53,000 adoptions (U.S. DHHS, 2003a). The Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System’s (AFCARS) most recent data reports that 88% (44,013) of children adopted from public agencies in FY 2001 received an adoption subsidy (U.S. DHHS, 2003b). Clearly, data on adoption reflects more than increasing numbers of adopted children. The high proportion of subsidized adoptions reflects a large population of children being adopted from the public agencies that are considered, by virtue of their subsidy eligibility, to have special needs.
The achievement of adoptive permanency signals, for the most part, the cessation of supportive services by the adoption agency. According to AFCARS, in FY 2001 the mean age of children adopted from public agencies was 6.9 years old. Forty-six percent of children adopted from the foster care system were between ages one to five years old, and another 34% between six and ten years old. The special needs of children adopted from this population, coupled with their early life experiences, increases substantially their vulnerability for maladjustment at different points in time as they grow older. This raises additional concerns about maintaining permanency after adoption finalization as these children bring histories of trauma and neglect to their adoptions making them at increased risk for parent/child conflicts. Evaluation of post-adoption outcomes is now needed to examine the effects of post-ASFA efforts to rapidly move children from foster care to permanency.
One of the most significant permanency outcome measures is the number of unsuccessful
adoptions—that is, children who have been returned to the foster care system by their adoptive parents. Stolley’s (1993) review of the literature found that there was high variability in the reported rates of adoption failures, from 3-53%, due to the different methodological approaches used in research. In addition to the lack of comparability in the research, the terminology used to define different types of adoption failures has further confused the issue. Terms are used that have both generic and specific meanings, with the term disruption most often misused.
Methodological Issues
Comparability of research studies in the area of adoption is hampered by a number of methodological issues. Foremost among these is the fact that adoption records are sealed, so little can be obtained about pre-adoption history. Researchers, therefore, are precluded from gaining access to the foster care records. Related to this, researchers areunable toobtain matchedsample populations or use research methods with random samples or control groups from which the findings can be generalized.
The major problems in sampling children who experience adoption disengagement are differences in the definitions of special needs. The lack of distinguishing terminology, differing sampling procedures, and small sample sizes have been cited as methodological problems in the literature (Festinger, 2002; Freundlich & Wright, 2003; Westhues & Cohen, 1990). Differences in samples, for example, result in complex methodological issues. Adoption studies reference children adopted through public, private, and independent agencies, each of which focus on different populations of children eligible for adoption. Brooks, Allen, and Barth (2002) explain that public agencies tend to be involved in the adoption of special needs children who have been in the foster care system while private and independent adoptions often involve non-special needs, younger children or infants, inter-country adoptions, or private arrangements. In addition, private and independent adoptions more typically involve Caucasian rather than racial or ethnic minority children. Because public agency children often have histories of abuse and neglect, and because special needs children are over-represented, sampling comparisons become difficult to make.
Although research in the field is limited, most adoption research is based on examining and analyzing various types of survey data. In some cases, researchers have access to entire databases of public-agency children (Barth, 1997), public-agency adopted children and their parents (Festinger, 2002), or entire population databanks (Hjern, Lindblad, & Vinnerljung, 2002). Other research has been done based on public and private agency data (Rosenthal & Groze, 1991; 1994). These databases, and the authorization to contact adoptive parents or children listed on them, are usually restricted in availability to only those individual researchers designated by the holders of the case information. The most frequently used means of examining information based on these types of data are to administer survey instruments via mail or telephone to the population or to a sample of the population, review case or computer records, conduct personal interviews, or do statistical analyses based purely on data provided. Quite often, researchers having access to these types of databases are able to do longitudinal studies (Brooks, Allen, & Barth, 2002; Herrenkohl, Herrenkohl, & Egolf, 2003; Kohler, Grotevant, & McRoy, 2002; Lindblad, Hjern, & Vinnerljung, 2003; Rosenthal & Groze, 1994), adding greatly to the body of knowledge in the field.
The lack of available and specific national data on adoption has been a source of concern to researchers (Barth & Jonson-Reid, 2000; Casey Family Services, 2002; Stolley, 1993). Systemic change in the manner of obtaining and compiling relevant data on adoption, in order to better evaluate factors that lead to positive outcomes, has been urged. Since the passage of ASFA, and the implementation of the AFCARS database, a source of national data has begun to form. AFCARS data, however, does not give the specific information thatwould be of great service to researchers. For instance, AFCARS does not distinguish between hard to place and handicapped subsidies, does not specify length of time in foster care prior to termination of parental rights, and does not report on the number of adopted children returned to the foster care system.
Secondary-analysis of an existing datasetis another method used by researchers to examine aspects of particular issues. Large national surveys,such as the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) and the National Survey of Families and Households (NSFH),have gathered data from randomly selected households and are often useful to researchers in identifying specific factors from a non-clinical population. The NSFH, for example, collected a wide array of information, including identification of adopted children, from a random sample of households (n = 13,017) in order to study American families in their structure, functioning and processes, and relationships.
Conclusion
With the passage of ASFA, adoption as an alternate permanency plan to reunification with family has been encouraged and supported. Public agencies have seen increases in the numbers of children adopted, and special needs adoptions, identified by their receipt of adoption subsidies, have become the majority of public-agency adoption cases.
Data regarding adoptive dissolution and displacement is variable, and methodological problems have impacted on researchers’ abilities to ascertain accurate and comparable data. Further research in the field is needed in order to ascertain the effects of ASFA on the target population, and to gather more specific data that relates to the issues and challenges adoptive families must face. Concern over adoptive dissolutions and displacements among the current population of public agency children requires further investigation of causal factors and of solutions that would directly address the needs of this vulnerable population.
Table 1
Adoptions of Children with Public Child Welfare Agency Involvement
Fiscal Year / Adoptions1995 / 25,693
1996 / 27,761
1997 / 31,030
1998 / 37,059
1999 / 46,750
2000 / 50,889
2001 / 50,213
2002 / 50,950
Source: Administration for Children and Families, U.S. DHHS. Data as of October, 2003.
(U.S. DHHS, 2003a)
Table 2
Adoptive Disengagement
Category / DefinitionDisruption / Child leaves adoptive placement prior to legal finalization of adoption.
Displacement / Child leaves adoptive home after legal finalization and adoptive parents retain their parental rights and legal responsibility.
Dissolution / Child leaves adoptive home after legal finalization and adoptive parents relinquish their parental rights returning legal custody and guardianship to agency.
References
Barth, R. (1997). Effects of age and race on the odds of adoption versus remaining in long-term
out-of-home care. Child Welfare, 76(2), 285-262.
Barth, R., & Jonson-Reid, M. (2000). Outcomes after child welfare services: Implications
for the design of performance measures. Children and Youth Services Review,
22(9/10), 763-787.
Brooks, D., Allen, J. & Barth, R. (2002). Adoption services use, helpfulness, and need:
A comparison of public and private agency and independent adoptive families.
Children and Youth Services Review, 24(4), 213-238.
Casey Family Services (2002). An approach to post-adoption services: A white paper.
Retrieved September 14, 2004, from website:
casey_center.html.
Festinger, J. (2002). After adoption: Dissolution or permanence? Child Welfare, 81(3), 515-533.
Freundlich, M. & Wright, L. (2003). Post-permanency services. Casey Family Programs Report
retrieved June 24, 2004, from the NationalResourceCenter for Foster Care and
Permanency Planning at the Hunter College School of Social Work website:
Herrenkohl, E., Herrenkohl, R., & Egolf, B. (2003). The psychosocial consequences of living
environment instability on maltreated children. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,
73(4), 367-380.
Hjern, A., Lindblad, F., & Vinnerljung, B. (2002). Suicide, psychiatric illness, and social
maladjustment in intercountry adoptees in Sweden: A cohort study. Lancet, 360(9331),
443-448.
Kohler, J., Grotevant, H., & McRoy, R. (2002). Adopted adolescents’ preoccupation with
adoption: The impact on adoptive family relationships.Journal of Marriage and
Family, 64(February), 93-104.
Lindblad, F., Hjern, A., & Vinnerljung, B. (2003). Intercountry adopted children as young
adults—A Swedish cohort study. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 73(2), 190-202.
Rosenthal, J., & Groze, V. (1991). Adoption outcomes for children with handicaps. Child
Welfare, 70(6), 623-636.
Rosenthal, J., & Groze, V. (1994). A longitudinal study of special-needs adoptive families.
Child Welfare, 73(6), 689-706.
Stolley, K. (1993). Statistics on adoption in the United States. The Future of Children: Adoption
3(1). Retrieved November 24, 2004, from The Future of Children website:
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families,
Children’s Bureau (2003a). Foster care and adoption statistics current reports: Adoptions of children with public child welfare agency involvement by state FY 1995-2002. Retrieved September 12, 2004, from
tables/index.htm.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families,
Children’s Bureau (2003b). National adoption and foster care statistics: The AFCARS
(Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System) Report: Preliminary FY 2001
estimates as of March 2003(8). Retrieved September 12, 2004, from
dhhs.gov/programs/cb/dis/afcars/publications/afcars.htm.
Westhues, A. & Cohen, J. (1990). Preventing disruption of special-needs adoptions.
Child Welfare, 69(2), 141-155.