Lorna Crystal LoeraCalifornia State University, Long Beach

May, 2012

Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 (ASFA)

Major Issues underlying policy: Large numbers of children remaining in foster care for extended

periods of time (Allen & Bissell, 2004) Children in foster care at risk for further maltreatment as a result

of the “reasonable efforts” mandate of the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act (AACWA) of 1980 (Humphrey, Turnbull, & Turnbull, 2006)

Goals of Policy: Promote safety of children in foster care Promote permanency by eliminating long term foster care and

expediting timelines for decision making for children in foster care

Increasing accountability for child welfare agencies by tracking outcomes of children in foster care

Promoting permanency through adoption and placement in kinship care

Social Work Resonance of ASFA

Child welfare issues have long been a focus of social workers (NASW, 2005)

Number of Latino children entering child welfare system continues to grow (Child Information Gateway, 2011)

Latino children and families continue to be an underserved population in need of advocacy and culturally sensitive interventions which social workers can help to create and provide (Church, 2006; Committee for Hispanic Children and Families [CHCF], 2003)

Literature Review Child welfare and income assistance policies related to kinship care:

Miller v. Youakim, Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), AACWA, Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act

Types of kinship care: private/informal kinship care and public kinship care

Over half (52%) of children in kinship care live below the federal poverty level (Murray, Macomber, & Geen, 2004)

Number of Latinos caring for relative children is rising (Minkler, 1999) Although studies have generally found that most relative caregivers

are grandparents, Minkler (1999) found that in the case of Latinos the type of caregiver varies and can include siblings, aunts, uncles and other relatives

Burnette (2000) found that Latino caregivers face a large number of stressors such as high poverty rates, caregiver health problems, and a high level of unmet service need.

Potential barriers faced by Latino caregivers: social, economic, language, lack of culturally appropriate services (CHCF, 2003)

MethodsDavid Gil’s (1992) framework for analyzing social policy was used to analyze ASFA and

its impact on kinship care practices for Latino children and families:SECTION A: ISSUES DEALT WITH BY THE POLICY1. Nature, scope, and distribution of the issues2. Causal theory(ies) or hypothesis(es) concerning the issuesSECTION B: OBJECTIVES, VALUE PREMISES, THEORETICAL

POSITIONS, TARGET SEGMENTS, AND SUBSTANTIVE EFFECTS OF THE POLICY1. Policy objectives: overt objectives and covert objectives2. Value premises and ideological orientations underlying the policy

objectives:explicit and implicit value premises

3. Theory(ies) or hypothesis(es) underlying the strategy and the substantive provisions of the policy

4. Target segment(s) of society- those at whom the policy is aimed:a. Ecological, demographic, biological, psychological, social, economic,

political, and cultural characteristicsb. Numerical size of relevant sub-groups and of entire target segment(s)

projected over time5. Short and long-range effects of the policy on target and non-target

segment(s) of the society in ecological, demographic, biological, psychological, social, economic, political, and cultural spheres

a. Intended effects and extent of attainment of policy objectivesb. Unintended effectsc. Overall economic and social costs and benefits of the policy

Methods continuedSECTION C: IMPLICATIONS OF THE POLICY FOR THE

OPERATING AND OUTCOME VARIABLES OF SOCIAL POLICIES1. Changes concerning reproduction, socialization, and social

control2. Consequences of changes concerning resources, work and

production, rights, governance and legitimization, and reproduction, socialization, and social control, for:

a. Circumstances of living of individuals, groups, and classesb. Power of individuals, group, and classesc. Nature and quality of human relations among individuals,

groups, and classesd. Overall quality of life

Sources used:Federal and state child welfare agency reportsPeer reviewed articlesOnline child welfare databases such as the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis Reporting System (AFCARS)Census data

Policy AnalysisSection ANature, scope, and distribution of issues: ASFA attempts to address problem of foster care drift and child safety by eliminating use of long-term

foster care, shortening timelines for finding permanent placements, and making child safety paramount ASFA promotes use of both kinship care and adoption through the use of incentives for states who

increase number of adoptionsCausal theories or hypothesis concerning the issues: Causes of foster care drift and lack of child safety linked to social, economic, and policy factors

affecting families involved in child welfare system (Pecora, Whittaker, Maluccio, Barth & Plotnick, 2000)

Section BPolicy Objectives Shorten amount of time children spent in foster care, promote safety and well being of children and

increase permanence through adoption of placement with relativesValue premises and ideological orientations underlying policy objectives Importance of providing a safe environment for children in foster care Importance of family connectionsTheories underlying strategy and substantive provisions of policy Expedited timelines, use of concurrent planning, and termination of parental rights used to motivate

parents to comply with court and child welfare agency mandates and services (Golden & Macomber, 2009)

Target segments of society Children in child welfare system who have been in care for extended periods of time, parents, foster

parents, relative and kinship caregivers, child welfare workers and agencies, the courts, and potential adoptive families

Policy Analysis ContinuedEcological, demographic, biological, psychological, social, economic, political, and cultural characteristics Of the 408,425 children in foster care in 2010 41% were white, 29% black, 21% Hispanic/Latino, 2%

Alaska Native/American Indian, and 1% Asian (USDHHS, 2011) 48% of these children were placed in non-relative foster homes and 26% in relative foster homes Children in private and public kinship care have high poverty rates (Swann & Sylvester, 2006)Numerical size of relevant subgroups Since passage of ASFA number of children in foster care has declined from 567,000 in 1999 to

408,000 in 2010 (USDHHS, 2011) Percentage of Latino children in foster care has increased from 15% to 20% between 1998 and 2010

(Child Welfare Information Gateway, 2011)Intended and unintended effects and extent of attainment of policy objectives Increase in number of adoptions of Latino children possibly due to increasing numbers of Latino

children in child welfare system (Golden & Macomber, 2009) Increased use of kinship care for children in child welfare overall, but no data available for Latino

children specifically (Vericker, Macomber, & Geen, 2008) Unintended effects kinship care used as long-term placement for children, licensing requirements

limit amount of financial assistance and support given to relative caregivers (Allen & Davis-Pratt, 2009)

Overall economic and social costs and benefits of the policy State spending on child welfare increased from 5.7 billion in 1996 to 23.3 billion in 2004, a 40%

increase (Scarcella et al., 2006) Social benefits of ASFA: increased permanency via adoption or placement with relatives, increased

connections of children to family through placement with kin Social cost: Increased number of children who become legal orphans due to increased termination of

parental rights (Raimon, Lee, & Genty, 2009)

Strengths & Challenges of ASFAStrengths Increased safety and permanency for children via use of

kinship care and adoptionSome improvement in financial support programs for kinship

caregivers due to increased number of subsidized guardianship programs and improved access to programs like TANF

ChallengesLarge numbers of children remain in foster care in spite of

improvementLarge number of legal orphans and children who age out of

the foster care system without family connectionsMore research needed on how policy impacts specific groups

such as Latinos

ReferencesAllen, M.L., & Bissell, M. (2004). Safety and stability for foster children: The policy context. In R.E. Berman (Ed.),

The future of children: Children, families, andfoster care (pp. 49-73). Retrieved from http://futureofchildren.orgAllen, M.L., & Davis-Pratt, B. (2009). The impact of ASFA on family connections for children. In S. Notkin, K. Weber,

O. Golden, & J. Macomber (Eds.), Intentions and results: A look back at the Adoptions and Safe Families Act (pp. 70-82).Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

Burnette, D. (2000). Latino grandparents rearing grandchildren with special needs. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 33(3), 1-16.

Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2011). Foster care statistics 2009. Retrieved from http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/factsheets/foster.cfm

Church, W.T. (2006). From start to finish: The duration of Hispanic children in out-of home placements. Children and Youth Services Review, 28, 1007-1023.

Committee for Hispanic Children & Families. (2003). Creating a Latino child welfare agenda: A strategic framework for change. New York, NY: The Committee.

Gil, D.G. (1992). Framework for social policy analysis and synthesis. Unravelling social policy: Theory, analysis, and political action towards social equality. Rochester, VT: Schenkman Books. Revised 5th edition.

Golden, O., & Macomber, J. (2009). Framework paper: The Adoptions and Safe Families Act (ASFA). In S. Notkin, K. Weber, O. Golden, & J. Macomber (Eds.), Intentions and results: A look back at the Adoptions and Safe Families Act (pp. 8-34). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

Humphrey, K.R., Turnbull, A.P., & Turnbull III, H.R. (2006). Impact of the Adoption and Safe Families Act on youth and their families: Perspectives of foster care providers, youth with emotional disorders, service providers, and judges. Children and Youth Services Review, 28, 113-132.

Minkler, M. (1999). Intergenerational households headed by grandparents: Contexts,realities, and implications for policy. Journal of Aging Studies, 13, 199-219.

Murray, J., Macomber, J.E., & Geen, R. (2004). Estimating financial support for kinship caregivers. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute. Retrieved from http://www. urban.org/url.cfm?ID=311126

National Association of Social Workers. (2005). NASW: Standards for social work practice in child welfare. Washington, DC: Author.

Pecora, P.J., Whittaker, J.K., Maluccio, A.N., Barth, R.P., & Plotnick, R.D. (2000). The child welfare challenge: Policy, practice, and research. New York, NY: Walter de Gruyter, Inc.

Raimon, M.L., Lee, A.F., & Genty, P. (2009). Sometimes good intentions yield bad results: ASFA’s effect on incarcerated parents and their children. In S. Notkin, K. Weber, O. Golden, & J. Macomber (Eds.), Intentions and results: A look back at the Adoptions and Safe Families Act (pp. 121-129).Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2011b). Trends in foster care and adoption: FY 2002-FY 2010. Retrieved from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ cb/stats_research/index.htm#afcars

Vericker, T., Macomber, J., & Geen, R. (2008). The story behind kinship care caseload dynamics: An analysis of AFCARS data, 2000-2003. Children and Youth Services Review, 30, 437-451.