Impact of the Adoption and Safe Families Act (1997) on Families of Color: Workers Share Their Thoughts

Curtis, Carla M

Abstract

Child welfare advocates concerned about the well-being of children of color are waiting to see what impact the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) of 1997 will have on this highly vulnerable group. Workers' perceptions of the impact of ASFA on children and families were the focus of this national survey. The results of the study indicate that children of color and their families may be among the groups who are most affected by the new legislation. Practice and policy implications are offered.

On November 19, 1997, President William Jefferson Clinton signed into law the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA). The stated intent of the legislation is to improve the safety of children, to promote adoption and other permanent outcomes for children who need them, and to support families. Before passing ASFA, Congress convened hearings on barriers to adoption. These hearings highlighted the need to move children more quickly out of foster care and into an adoptive family (Barriers to Adoption, 1996). The enactment of ASFA amended the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act (AACW) of 1980 and placed greater emphasis on permanency planning and adoption.

Researchers have affirmed the extreme vulnerability of children of color once they are brought to the attention of the out-of-home or foster care system. Once removed from their homes, even on a temporary basis, children of color remain in the foster care system for longer periods of time than their White counterparts (American Public Welfare Association, 1994; Barriers to Adoption, 1996; Stevenson, Cheung, & Leung, 1992). They are also less likely to receive preventive services or services intended to reunite the family (Pinderhughes, 1991).

What is known about the well-being of children of color within the out-of-home child welfare system concerns some child welfare advocates and provides the impetus for a close examination of the impact of the ASFA on this group. In this descriptive research project, we examine child welfare workers' perceptions of ASFA and its impact on children and families.

To facilitate this assessment, we provide an overview of the major tenets of the ASFA. A review of related literature highlighting some of the impacts of child welfare policy on children of color is also provided.

Literature Review

For children currently in the out-of-home care system, there has been a shift away from family preservation aimed at supporting, if not reuniting, a child with the custodial parent or parents (Cahn, 1999). Although ASFA reiterates prior law in requiring states to make a reasonable effort to preserve and reunify families, it places new emphasis on permanency planning and adoption (Cahn, 1999). Under the new law, states must file a petition to terminate parental rights if any child, regardless of age, has been in foster care for 15 out of the past 22 months. States are now told to simultaneously plan for adoption (i.e., identify, recruit, process, and approve an adoptive parent on behalf of any child) and make reasonable efforts to reunify a child with the existing family unit (Child Welfare League of America [CWLA], 1998).

Incentive payments are provided for states to increase the number of children adopted or placed out of foster care into a permanent living arrangement. Another major component of the new legislation aimed at making it easier to place children for adoption is the identification of state-defined "aggravated circumstances" that make the termination of parental rights automatic (42 U.S.C. § 671(a)(15)(b), 1997). These major themes in the statute may have significant impact on the well-being of children, particularly children who are the most difficult to place, namely African American children.

From a program management perspective, some child welfare advocates question the logic of simultaneously planning for reunification with the existing family while also planning for adoption as a permanent outcome (Cahn, 1999). Is it feasible to expect workers overwhelmed by large caseloads within a work environment characterized by high staff turnover and low staff morale to simultaneously and effectively plan for two very different outcomes? Close analysis of the statute suggests there is, however, stronger support for the permanency plan as a priority when reunification efforts may be in conflict with the plan for permanency (Cahn, 1999; 42 U.S.C. § 671(a)(15)(c), 1997).

Focusing on a plan for permanency versus preventive services places children at risk for family disruption. A major factor contributing to the number of children in the out of home system, particularly children of color, is poverty and neglect (Karger & Stoesz, 1998; Pelton, 1994). African American children and their families represent a disproportionate number of those who are living in poverty today and are at risk for family disruption due to neglect (American Public Welfare Association, 1994; Morton, 1999). Although incidence data of reported child maltreatment show some correlation between maltreatment and poverty, family disruption is not the only means of assuring health and safety for poor children (Pelton, 1989).

Another reason African American children come to the attention of child welfare authorities is because of substance abuse issues (Beckerman, 1998; Pinderhughes, 1991). The increased speed by which permanency decisions need to be made is troubling because of the lengthy recovery period associated with drug and alcohol addiction that is not accounted for in the time limits imposed by ASFA (Beckerman, 1998). Research suggests that children of color and their families are less likely to receive prevention and support services aimed at maintaining the family unit, particularly for incarcerated or substance-abusing parents (Beckerman, 1998; Close, 1983; National Association of Black Social Workers, 1992; National Black Child Development Institute, 1989; Pinderhughes, 1991; Stehno, 1990).

Some argued successfully against prevention during the hearings that preceded the passage of ASFA, pointing to the increased vulnerability for safe outcomes among young children (Barriers to Adoption, 1996; Bartholet, 1999). Such sentiment places children of color at greater risk for having a temporary placement become a permanent placement. Families not traditionally targeted for services will be even less likely to receive more costly and time-intensive treatment services.

Finally, increased termination of parental rights may free children for adoption when there are no adoptive homes available (Spar, 1993). The disproportionate number of African American children in foster care (Gustavsson & Segal, 1994; Morisey, 1990; National Black Child Development Institute, 1989; Pecora, 1994; Rznepniki, 1994) has given child advocates reason to question whether African American parental rights may be prematurely terminated and replaced with the permanency option of long-term group care as opposed to adoption. The aforementioned concerns fueled our interest in exploring the impact of ASFA on the well-being of children, specifically children of color.

Method

Design

The overall design of our study is descriptive research, utilizing the cross-sectional survey method. Both mail surveys (hard copies) and Internet surveys (electronic copies) were used. The mail survey method as developed by Dillman (1978) guided the design of this study. Dillman's mail-survey technique is described as the Total Design Method (TDM). The TDM consists of two parts: (a) identification of every aspect of the survey process that affects both the quality and quantity of responses and (b) detailed implementation that is guided by a timeline.

This study was an exploratory, descriptive project, and our purpose in it was to examine a national sample of workers to uncover their perceptions of ASFA and its impact on children and families. We chose to survey workers from family-centered programs because significant prevention services are delivered by these programs. Family-centered programs such as family preservation aim to prevent the out-of-home placement of children, reunify children with families, and promote overall child, parental, and family well-being. Despite these goals, some family-centered programs are currently undergoing tremendous change, given the new child protective service, foster care, and adoption regulations produced by ASFA. In examining family-centered programs, we were able to learn the impact of ASFA on valuable prevention services such as family preservation as well as reunification services.

We sought to provide information about the impact of ASFA by posing research questions that would approximate answers and provide an initial understanding of the issue. The intent of the research design was not to seek conclusive answers, but to prompt a beginning dialogue that potentially would lead to more refined research questions and definitive conclusions. To date, there is very little information regarding the impact of ASFA on children of color. This understudied topic contains mostly anecdotal commentary or theoretical conjectures. We sought to use descriptive data to characterize and summarize workers' perceptions of ASFA and its affect on children and families. Given the fact that there are so few studies on ASFA and its relationship to children of color, exploratory, descriptive studies such as the one reported here have some utility at this time. Given the intent of this study, the research direction was to determine the perceived impact of ASFA on children and families of color. This objective was sought through a variety of survey questions.

Although they have great value for breaking new ground, exploratory, descriptive studies are not without their limitations. The major issues of concern in this type of research include the following: tentative and incomplete conclusions, lack of representativeness, quality of descriptions, and generalizability. Cognizant of these limitations, we utilized a probability sampling method, constructed the instrument using the Delphi Technique, and conducted a pretest. Babbie (1992) instructed that exploratory, descriptive studies are valuable when the purpose is to (a) satisfy the intent for a better understanding, (b) test the feasibility of undertaking a more careful study, and (c) develop necessary methods for conducting more careful studies. The intent of the research design employed here was to yield preliminary insight into the topic and to summarize workers' experiences with ASFA so that researchers would be better informed in their attempts to define follow-up variables and research questions. Although there is no attempt to generalize the findings, the use of a structured qualitative data coding and analysis technique allows the findings to be transferable.

Sample

A random probability sampling technique was employed to select 500 agency names from the Child Welfare League of America Directory of Member Agencies (2000). CWLA's directory was used as the sampling frame because it categorizes and codes the services that agencies provide, thus making the selection of family-centered programs easier. Also, CWLA's directory was used because of all the potential sampling frames, it proved to be the most recent.

The sample comprises workers, supervisors, and administrators employed in both public and private child welfare agencies that provide family-centered services. Family-centered programs were operationalized as family preservation services, home-based services, intensive family services, or wrap-around services.

Instrumentation

A 22-item, self-administered instrument (i.e., Family-Centered Program Survey) was used. The survey contained three parts: Part I was about the nature of change occurring in family-centered programs in general; Part II was specifically about ASFA and its effect on service delivery; and Part III was about the basic sociodemographic characteristics of the agencies that the respondents represented. This article relates to data derived from Parts II and III of the survey. The instrument was an even mixture of quantitative and qualitative categories. Quantitative sections contained a series of Likert-type items that allowed respondents to register their opinions by utilizing a 5-point scale. Qualitative sections involved several open-ended questions. For example, one question used in Part II of the instrument that generated rich, thick descriptions was, "If the ASFA legislation has produced changes (positive or negative) within your program, please indicate what they are." The questions contained in the survey were derived from a very careful, three-part process that was developed over a 6-month time period. First, variables and research questions were abstracted from a review of the literature. Second, the Delphi Technique, involving three rounds of responses from a panel of 10, was used to frame additional research questions and to construct all three sections of the survey. Finally, a field test of the instrument (including a pretest of the electronic version) was undertaken.

Data Collection

Data collection began in mid-November 2000 and the final cutoff date was determined to be February 28, 2001. Respondents were able to return a hard copy of the survey by U.S. mail, or they could take the survey online by logging into the designated homepage of the research project (approximately 30% of the respondents selected the electronic method). The attempted sample size of 500 was recalculated as a true sample size of 220 on the basis of the following conditions: (a) 77 instruments returned by the post office as "undeliverable," (b) 28 phone calls and/or letters from agencies indicating that they were not service providers, and (c) 175 instruments erroneously mailed to division heads as opposed to local family-centered programs (the incorrect names contained in the initial enumeration produced some frame error). At the end of a three-stage, 4-month data collection period, 118 usable instruments were obtained, resulting in a response rate of 54%.

Data Analysis

Descriptive statistics are used to convey the results of quantitative portions of the survey. However, the focus of this article is the rich, qualitative data that derived from various open-ended probes of the respondents. Qualitative data were handled using Miles and Huberman's (1994) data coding and analysis technique. Specifically, three steps were employed: (a) data reduction, (b) data displays, and (c) conclusion drawing/verification.

Results

Sociodemographic Characteristics

Year program began. Table 1 contains the sociodemographic data derived from the sample. The majority of the respondents (61%) indicated that the family-centered program in which they were employed began service delivery during the 1990s. A third (31%) of the respondents reported that their services began in the decade of 1980. The remaining respondents represented fairly new programs or, in some cases, programs that predated the 1980s.

Type of program. The majority (76%) of the respondents were employed in public child welfare agencies. Private nonprofit agencies composed 22% of the sample. Private, forprofit agencies were represented by only 2% of the respondents, a modest showing.

Region. The Southwest (24%), Midwest (22%), and the North (24%) had near equal representation among the respondents. Only 6% of the sample was from the East Coast. Respondents from southern states composed 11% of the sample. Finally, 13% of the sample was from the Pacific coast.

Treatment model. A third of the respondents (33%) indicated that their agency used mediation models as their choice of treatment. The next highest category, modified homebuilders, was 20% of the sample. In terms of the "pure" homebuilders model, only 4% of the sample used it. Of the agencies surveyed, 13% utilized family systems therapy, and 10% of the respondents reported using solution focused therapy. The remaining respondents used either family group conferencing (2%) or a combination of the aforementioned approaches (10%), or their agency's treatment approach was undefined (8%).

Length of service. One half of the sample reported that they provided services for more than 180 days. Of the remaining half, 26% served cases 61 to 90 days, and 15% of the sample reported that their cases remained open 60 or fewer days. Only 6% of the sample provided services 91 to 180 days.

Number of families served annually. In the sample, 44% of the respondents indicated that their agency served in excess of 301 families per year, and 21% of the sample served 50 or fewer families per year. Next, 19% of the respondents represented agencies that served 51 to 100 families annually, and 10% of the sample reported that 151 to 200 families were given services annually. Of the remaining portion, 2% represented a variety (e.g., 201 to 250 families, 251 to 300 families) of census counts.

Number of full-time employees. About a third (34%) of the programs represented in the study employed anywhere from 1 to 5 full-time workers. Larger programs (i.e., programs that had more than 20 workers) were 36% of the sample. The remaining third employed anywhere from 6 to 20 workers on a full-time basis.

Caseload size. Of the respondents who were able to answer this question, the majority indicated that the caseload size at their agency was more than six cases per worker. However, nearly 40% did report the caseload size as one to six families per worker.

Respondents' role in program. In this study, 63% of the respondents served as administrators or supervisors, and 37% were direct service workers or therapists.

Table 2 contains rankings of the service populations. These rankings are the reasons why cases are referred to the respondents' agencies. Additionally, Table 2 has a breakdown of the ethnicity of the families served.

Reason for referral. The majority of the respondents (78%) reported that the primary reason that cases were referred for service was child abuse and neglect, and 10% of the sample indicated that child mental health was their primary service population. Another 10% reported that juvenile delinquency was their number one service category. The respondents in this study indicated that cases involving health issues or developmental disabilities were not their agencies' primary referral category.

Ethnic profile of families served. The majority (63%) of the respondents indicated that European American families were the ethnic group most frequently serviced. A smaller group (28%) of the respondents indicated that African American families were the primary service population, and 7% of the respondents expressed that their number one service population largely comprised Latino and Latina children.

Perceptions of ASFA's Impact on Children and Families of Color

The primary question posed to the respondents regarding ASFA's impact on children of color required them to agree or disagree with the statement that follows: "Given the fact that minority groups sometime have multiple service needs that can't be satisfied in the time allotted by ASFA, the legislation adversely impacts them." The vast majority of respondents (73%) agreed with the statement.

Intended, Positive Consequences of ASFA

Following the closed-ended question, respondents were instructed to explain their answer by writing a brief narrative response. Two polar categories resulted from a content analysis of the qualitative responses: intended, positive consequences of ASFA, and unintended, negative consequences of ASFA (see Table 3). Data reductions resulted in three primary themes regarding the intended, positive consequences of ASFA: (a) services delivered to families much earlier, (b) stronger reliance on kinship care, and (c) increase in adoption training and adoption campaigns.

Services delivered to families much earlier. Some respondents felt that if ASFA was having an impact, negative or positive, it was too early to judge. Respondents indicated that change in caseload size, adoption rates, and other service-related outcomes remained to be seen. However, a change in service provision was in evidence at that time. Many respondents felt that the most discernable change that ASFA has produced was the expediency in which services were provided to children and their families. One respondent indicated the following:

As a child welfare agency, all cases are initially served with reunification in mind. Our numbers (referrals to family-centered programs from local child welfare agencies) have neither increased nor decreased. What we have seen however, is more community collaboration with our clients and our clients given priority in services.... Services are begun much sooner.

Related to the issues of service and timing, there were opinions that clients were being encouraged to access services more quickly than before. There appears to be a concerted effort on the part of some workers to empower clients, which may motivate them to "come in a hit quicker to get services."

Stronger reliance on kinship care. Respondents indicated that kinship care was increasingly becoming the placement decision of choice for many children of color. It was the perception of respondents that kinship care represented an effort to remain family centered in the face of mounting pressure to redirect service attention away from biological parents. It was the perception of respondents that ASFA made kinship care even more necessary for certain groups of children for whom permanency was difficult to achieve. For example, relatives were being called upon to assume the care of older children, sibling groups, boys, and to a certain extent, children who failed in previous placements because of behavior problems. One respondent's sentiment represented a number of the other respondents' opinions: "I am trying to create permanency with the utilization of community-based servicing and relative caregiving." Another respondent indicated, "We are using the Family Group Conferencing technique more often now.... This technique involves families and their extended relatives to help find resources for kids and make good decisions."

More adoption training and adoption campaigns. Many respondents indicated that they attributed the increased community focus on adoption to the ASFA legislation. It was expressed that more training and information on adoption have become available. This increased attention on adoption was reported to be occurring throughout communities via events such as community public relations announcements. Within agencies, the focus on adoption was being captured via in-service trainings. Some respondents cited examples of adoption partnerships that have been created and in some instances reinforced among local community groups, faith-based organizations, corporate sponsors, and child welfare agencies. One respondent summed up the increased focus on adoption this way: "The mandate to do more adoptions is clear ... for whatever reason ... the federal rate of reimbursement to the state?... We are constantly involved in workshops and trainings related to adoption."

Unintended, Negative Consequences of ASFA

Commensurate with the overwhelming opinion that ASFA has had an adverse impact on children of color, more findings related to unintended, negative consequences emerged from the qualitative data than did positive consequences. The effect of timelines, overburdening of kinship caregivers, less emphasis on reasonable efforts, overuse of group homes, rising rates of termination of parental rights (TPR), and adoption disruptions appear to be the most salient findings.

The effect of timelines. A resounding voice was heard throughout the sample with regard to the perceived adverse impact of timelines on caregivers who are substance abusers. The increased speed in which permanency decisions are required is believed to not factor in the full recovery picture. Several respondents stated that although they were keenly aware of children's need for permanency, agencies, even in the face of ASFA, still maintained their value commitment to reunification whenever possible. Some respondents felt that the agency's value commitment was counter to the ASFA directive, especially with regard to families whose problems required long-term intervention. Although not as pronounced as the substance abuse category, respondents also felt that the timelines negatively impacted poor families, caregivers in need of job training, and the children of incarcerated mothers.

Overburdening of kinship caregivers. Probably the clearest variable to emerge from the content analysis pertains to workers' belief that ASFA has produced an unintended, negative impact on relative caregivers. In the words of one respondent, "Because ASFA calls for permanent placement decisions, relative caregivers who are not willing to adopt are no longer viewed as valuable a resource as they once were." Respondents expressed the opinion that before ASFA, elderly grandmothers, aunts, and other relatives were looked to as a placement resource. However, workers indicated that kinship caregivers are now pressured with the option to become long-term legal guardians or the option to adopt. Kin who were previously licensed as foster parents are now encouraged to discontinue the foster care arrangement and move to adopt or become a legal guardian. Workers in some states felt that a significant number of relatives were not financially able to replace the foster care arrangement with a legal guardianship.

Less emphasis on reasonable efforts. Some respondents indicated that there was a belief in operation that ASFA has ridded the system of the need to demonstrate reasonable efforts in all cases. Workers expressed that the need for reasonable efforts remained. However, reasonable efforts were not always delivered in cases of poor families or those families known previously to the system. One worker expressed this finding in the following manner:

There are conflicts between social workers and attorneys. Timeframes are adhered to, but reasonable efforts have not been enhanced nor emphasized. I believe that with shorter timeframes, agencies' efforts to assess and intervene need improvement; but, I have not seen it and I think that it results in case failure and more permanent deprivations.

Overuse of group homes. Respondents indicated that they have observed an increase in the use of group homes, particularly for African American children. Some respondents indicated that recent referrals have involved work with parents and other relatives whose children were on the verge of a group home placement. Many of the children being placed in group care were older children, children with behavior problems, or children who were being prepared for a transitional living program.

Rising TPR rates. A recurrent theme that emerged from the data pertains to workers' impression that TPR was increasing, but the adoption rate was not commensurate. Interestingly, this finding was made even more clear by an examination of the opinions of those respondents who felt that TPR did not occur fast enough. Although not a resounding voice, there were some workers who felt that judges were still reluctant to terminate parental rights. A more careful examination of these opinions revealed that workers felt that there were cases in which judges were willing to terminate parental rights, but there were those cases in which they were not. It was reported that judges moved to terminate parental rights of parents of African American children who were older but were reluctant to terminate rights of parents of younger children who the workers believed had a greater chance at a successful adoption. In other words, there was a perception that TPR was most evident among parents of older children but not among parents of their younger counterparts.

Adoption disruptions. Family-centered workers involved in reunification and adoption efforts expressed opinions related to adoption disruption. Respondents felt that the expediency with which ASFA is moving, coupled with other legislation like the 1994 Multiethnic Placement Act (MEPA), has placed special needs children in a precarious situation. Workers reported that they were seeing an increase in adoption disruption. The following quote captures one worker's sentiment, which represents the expressions of some of the others: "Removing children with a de-emphasis on preservation spells disaster. The focus on 'quick adoptions' has resulted in poorly handled adoptions and poorly placed children. Adoptions are pushed through too quickly and disruptions seem to be high."

Discussion

Paradoxical Themes

Here again is our original research question: "What is the perceived impact of ASFA on children and families of color?" It produced many paradoxical impressions from the respondents. The three main categories that produced the greatest quandary were kinship caregiving, adoption, and service expediency.

Kinship care: Blessing, burden, or both? The value of kinship care is revealed herein, as it has been in other studies (CWLA, 1994; Danzy & Jackson, 1997; Gleeson & Hairston, 1999). Kinship care is reported to account for 23% of national foster care arrangements, and the number is projected even higher in urban areas and among African American families (Spake, 1998). However, we learned from the respondents in this study that ASFA, in a positive fashion, has forced greater reliance on relative caregivers and that the practice of placing children with relatives is a way for programs to remain family centered. However, in the same vein, we learned that ASFA has produced an awesome burden on caregivers as well as those workers who desire to place children in kinship care. The quandary surrounding relative placement appears to be related to the unanswered question of whether this form of care represents permanency for children. Kinship care arrangements that do not lead to adoption or guardianship may violate the ASFA mandate, which requires states to clearly demonstrate permanency and long-term planning for children. At present, it seems that relative caregiving can take the form of one or two types: (a) licensed relative foster placement or (b) nonneedy caretaker. From the standpoint of state officials, neither of the two aforementioned arrangements appears desirable. In licensed relative foster care arrangements, children are still technically "wards of the state" and thus factor into overall foster care totals. In the situation of nonneedy caretakers, children may or may not be wards of the state, but their monetary subsistence is derived from Temporary Assistance to Needy Families budgets. The respondents in this study indicated that more and more, they are being pressured to encourage relative caregivers to pursue one of two options: (a) legal guardianship or (b) adoption. The data reported here seem to raise the question that although the latter options may prove to be financially responsible from a state's point of view, they can prove to be a financial burden to relative caregivers. It has been reported that because of complex family dynamics, kin do not adopt at the same rate as other types of caregivers (Spake, 1998). Some relative caregivers are retired and living on fixed incomes, or their financial situation is as precarious as the children's. The issue of kinship caregivers' limited resources has been raised by others (Omang & Bonk, 1999). Spake reported data that implies that relative caregivers are elderly grandparents and/or individuals whose employment and financial situation may not provide adequate support for additional children.

The monetary issue involved in relative foster care is complex and should not be viewed as the driving force for why relatives provide care. In fact, Gleeson (1999) argued that relative foster parents are not made aware of the full range of permanency options, including adoption and subsidized guardianship, which may prove to be more financially desirable from the standpoint of children and families. Spake (1998) reported that in states with two-tier foster care payment systems, relative caregivers receive far less than do nonrelative caregivers. Clearly, the respondents in this study suggested that relatives were not prompted to provide care for financial reasons, but the absence of financial resources could produce a tremendous strain on some caregivers. The respondents felt that despite ASFA's intent, relatives should be encouraged to discontinue foster care and nonneedy caretaker arrangements only when state resources provide for subsidized guardianship or when an adoption can be classified as special needs and thus qualify for subsidies. Likewise, the respondents expressed the view that in some cases adoption and legal guardianship may not be advantageous for the relative caregiver, nor their desire.

It was interesting to discover that it has been the experience of some respondents that ASFA is producing "legal orphans" who are increasingly being placed in group homes, particularly if they are older children, if they are those for whom previous placements have failed, or if they are not in relative care arrangements. Workers reported that African American boys were most likely to spend time in group or shelter situations. This finding is not surprising when an examination of foster care drift is made. African American children wait longer for adoptive homes and experience more placements than any other ethnic group (Barth et al., 1986). Seemingly, workers in this study view the overuse of group homes (a byproduct of ASFA) as adding to the problem of delayed permanency.

Adoption: Success, disaster, or both? Another paradox that seemed to emerge from the data is the belief that ASFA has simultaneously produced both positive and negative adoption outcomes. Impressions gathered from the workers in this study seem to imply that although communities were launching successful adoption campaigns, some adoptions were being poorly planned, and children were being matched with families who were unable to assume responsibility for their complete care. We learned from the respondents in this study that a great number of children awaiting adoption had special needs that required careful adoption planning. Also, other data show that the child welfare system comprises large numbers of children with special needs. For example, Tatara (1993) found that 72% of the children awaiting adoption had special needs. Others have placed this figure as high as 93% (CWLA, 1997). The findings here seem to suggest that although an effort was being put into adoption recruitment, there was not enough attention given to the appropriateness of the match between child and family, and even less attention surrounded follow-up intervention.

Service expediency: Reasonable, unreasonable, or both? Watchful people have wondered about the effects of ASFA's timeline on children of color. Given the fact that African American children are most likely the child welfare group who has been in care 15 of the past 22 months (Morton, 1999), are the children of substance abusers (whose recovery period often extends 15 months; Carten, 1996), and are often poor (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [USDHHS], 1999; USDHHS, Children's Bureau, 1994; USDHHS, National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect, 1997), the timelines imposed by ASFA are of great concern. The perceptions of the respondents in this study were that as a result of ASFA, clients were being given services much sooner. However, respondents indicated that although services were accessed and made available sooner than they had been in previous years, these services were at times inadequate, given clients' multiple needs. A blended perspective on the effects of timelines indicates that although service expediency is a benefit, the problems produced by poverty and substance abuse require more than quick, accessible service; they also require thoughtful intervention that often extends a 15-month time period.

Implications and Conclusion

The permanency focus of ASFA, including fiscal incentives to states for removing children from foster care and placing them in permanent settings and the provisions that may prompt swifter action by jurists to terminate parental rights, creates an environment in which the well-being of children vulnerable to family disruption is questionable. The findings reported herein should reinforce the importance of critical monitoring and evaluation of statewide placement practices and service delivery protocols. Policies at the state and local level must be evaluated to determine the impact of major policy directives on the well-being of children.

Social workers and advocates should monitor the outcomes of concurrent planning in their state or local service unit. An evaluation of concurrent planning should be pursued to determine its effectiveness and impact on cases moving through the child protective service system. The use of intensive family services, support services, and all interventions aimed at family reunification must also be evaluated, along with the outcomes of these interventions. Likewise, decisions not to engage families in activities aimed at reunification or restructuring must be justified with appropriate documentation.

Workers and advocates interested in the well-being of children of color specifically must monitor and evaluate the procedures and outcomes related to termination of parental rights cases. How do state statistics operationally define "aggravated circumstances"? Are there discernable discrepancies in jurists' interpretations of circumstances that lead to termination of parental rights? Finally, child welfare workers must be advocates for quality assurances in adoption practice. Clinical content should be incorporated in decision making versus a strict adherence to timeframes and stated numerical goals.

References

Adoption and Safe Families Act, 42 U.S.C. § 671(a)(15)(b) (1997).

Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act, 42 U.S.C. § 103 (1980).

American Public Welfare Association. (1994). A comparison of child substitute care exit rates among three different racial/ethnic groups in 12 states, FY84-FY90. VCIS Research Notes, No. 10. Washington, DC: Author.

Babbie, E. (1992). The practice of social research (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Barriers to adoption: Hearing before the Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives. 104th Congress, 2-5 (1996).

Barth, R. P., Snowden, L. R., Ten Broeck, E., Clancy, T., Jordan, C., & Barusch, A. S. (1986). Contributors to reunification or permanent out-of-home care for physically abused children. Journal of Social Service Research, 92(2/3), 31-45.

Bartholet, E. (1999). Nobody's children: Abuse and neglect, foster drift, and the adoption alternative. Boston: Beacon.

Beckerman, A. (1998). Charting a course: Meeting the challenge of permanency planning for children with incarcerated mothers. Child Welfare, 77, 513-529.

Cahn, N. (1999). Children's interests in a familial context: Poverty, foster care and adoption. Ohio State Law Journal, 60, 1189-1223.

Carten, A. J. (1996). Mothers in recovery: Rebuilding families in the aftermath of addiction. Social Work, 41, 214-223.

Child Welfare League of America. (1994). Kinship care: A natural bridge. Washington, DC: Author.

Child Welfare League of America. (1997). Child abuse and neglect: A look at the states. Washington, DC: Author.

Child Welfare League of America. (1998). Summary of the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (P. L. 105-89). Washington, DC: Author.

Child Welfare League of America. (2000). Directory of member agencies. Washington, DC: Author.

Close, M. (1983). Child welfare and people of color: Denial of equal access. Social Work Research and Abstracts, 19(4), 13-20.

Danzy, N., & Jackson, S. M. (1997). Family preservation and support services: A missed opportunity for kinship care. Child Welfare, 76, 31-44.

Dillman, D. A. (1978). Mail and telephone surveys: The Total Design Method. New York: Wiley.

42 U.S.C. § 671(a)(15)(b) (1997).

42 U.S.C. § 671(a)(15)(c) (1997).

Gleeson, J. P. (1999). Who decides? Predicting caseworkers' adoption and guardianship discussions with kinship caregivers. In J. P. Gleeson & C. F. Hairston (Eds.), Kinship care: Improving practice through research (pp. 61-84). Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America.

Gleeson, J. P., & Hairston, C. F. (Eds.). (1999). Kinship care: Improving practice through research. Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America.

Gustavsson, N. S., & Segal, E. A. (1994). Critical issues in child welfare. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Karger, H. J., & Stoesz, D. (1998). American social welfare policy: A pluralist approach (3rd ed.). New York: Longman.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Morisey, P. G. (1990). Black children in foster care. In Sadye L. Logan, Edith M. Freeman, & Ruth G. McRoy (Eds.), Social work practice with Black families: A culturally specific perspective (pp. 117-228). White Plains, NY: Longman.

Morton, T. D. (1999). The increasing colorization of America's child welfare system: The overrepresentation of African-American children. Policy and Practice, 57, 23-30.

Multiethnic Placement Act, 42 U.S.C. § 552-554. (1994).

National Association of Black Social Workers. (1992). Preserving African American families: Research and action beyond rhetoric. Detroit, MI: Author.

National Black Child Development Institute. (1989). Who will care when parents can't? A study of Black children in foster care. Washington, DC: Author.

Omang, J., & Bonk, K. (1999). Family to family: Building bridges for child welfare with families, neighborhoods, and communities. Policy and Practice, 57(4), 15-21.

Pecora, P. J. (1994). Are intensive family preservation services ellective? Yes. In E. Gambrill & T. J. Stein (Eds.), Controversial issues in child welfare (pp. 290-303). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Pelton, L. H. (1989). For reasons of poverty: A critical analysis of the public child welfare system in the United States. New York: Praeger.

Pinderhughes, E. E. (1991). The delivery of child welfare services to African American clients. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 61, 599-605.

Rzepnicki, T. L. (1994). Are intensive family preservation services effective? No. In E. Gambril & T. J. Stein (Eds.), Controversial issues in child welfare (pp. 303-309). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Spake, A. (1998, June 22). Adoption gridlock. U.S. News & World Report, 124, p. 30.

Spar, K. (1993). The Family Preservation and Support Program: Background and description. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, The Library of Congress.

Stehno, S. (1990). The elusive continuum of child welfare services: Implications for minority children and youths. Child Welfare, 69, 551-562.

Stevenson, K., Cheung, K., & Leung, P. (1992). A new approach to training child protective services workers for ethnically sensitive practice. Child Welfare, 72, 291-305.

Tatara, T. (1993). Voluntary Cooperative Information System (VCIS): Characteristics of children in substitute and adoptive care. Washington, DC: American Public Welfare Association.

U. S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1999). Blending perspectives and building common ground: A report to Congress on child abuse and child protection. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Children's Bureau. (1994). National study of protective, preventive and reunification services delivered to children and their families. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect. (1997). Child maltreatment 1995: Reports from the states to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Carla M. Curtis, PhD, is associate professor, College of Social Work, The Ohio State University, 1947 College Road, Columbus, Ohio 43210. E-mail: curtis.60@osu.edu. Ramona W. Denby, PhD, is associate professor, College of Urban Affairs, The University of Nevada, 4505 Maryland Parkway, Mail Stop 3007, Las Vegas, NV 89154. E-mail: rdenby@ccmail.nevada.edu.

Manuscript received: May 29, 2002

Revised: February 25, 2003

Accepted: April 17, 2003

Copyright Families in Society Jan-Mar 2004
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved