|
What
‘Terrible Thing’ Happened in 1997?
Feds Order States to Search for Adoptable Children
By
Nev Moore
January 2002
In
1997 President Clinton promoted the “Adoption and Safe
Families Act.”
It
was presented as a way to help abused and neglected children
who languished in foster care for years. They were often
shuffled among dozens of foster homes, never having a real
home and family.
For every child
that DSS can get adopted, there is a bonus of $4,000 to
$6,000.
|
In
a press release from the U.S. Department of Health & Human
Services dated November 24, 1999, it refers to “President
Clinton’s initiative to double by 2002 the number of
children in foster care who are adopted or otherwise
permanently placed.”
It
all sounded so heartwarming. In the stereotype about kids in
foster care, we’re told to picture a forlorn, hollow-eyed
child, thin and pale, looking up at us beseechingly through a
dirt-streaked face. Unconsciously, we pull up old pictures
from Life magazine of children in Appalachia in the 1930s.
We
think of orphans and children abandoned by parents who look
like Manson family members. We play a nostalgic movie in our
heads of the little fellow shyly walking across an emerald
green, manicured lawn to meet Ward and June Cleaver, his new
adoptive parents, who lead him into their lovely suburban
home.
We
imagine the little tyke’s eyes growing as big as saucers as
the Cleavers show him his very own room, full of toys and
sports gear. And we just feel so gosh darn good about
ourselves.
Wake Up to Reality
Now
it’s time to wake up to the reality of the adoption
business.
Very
few children who supply the adoption market are hollow-eyed
tykes from Appalachia. Very few are crack babies from the
projects.
Very few
children who supply the adoption market are hollow-eyed
tykes from Appalachia. Very few are crack babies from
the projects.
|
When
you are marketing a product, you have to provide a desirable
one that sells. In the adoption business, that is nice kids
with reasonably good genetics who clean up good. An
interesting point is that the Cape Cod & Islands office
leads the state in terms of processing kids into the system
and having them adopted out. More than the inner city areas,
the projects, Mission Hill, Brockton, Lynn, etc. ...
interesting.
With
the implementation of the Adoption and Safe Families Act,
President Clinton tried to make himself look like a
humanitarian who is responsible for saving the abused and
neglected children. The drive of this initiative is to offer
cash “bonuses” to states for every child they have adopted
out of foster care, with the goal of doubling their adoptions
by 2002, and sustaining that for each subsequent year. They
actually call them “adoption incentive bonuses,” to
promote the adoption of children.
Where
to Find Children
A
whole new industry was put into motion. If you have a basket
of apples, and people start giving you $100 per apple, what
are you going to do? Make sure that you have an unlimited
supply of apples, right?
To
accompany the new Act, the President requested, by executive
memorandum, an initiative entitled Adoption 2002, to be
implemented and managed by Health & Human Services. The
initiative not only gives the cash adoption bonuses to the
states, it also provides cash adoption subsidies to adoptive
parents until the children turn eighteen.
Everybody
makes money. If anyone really believes that these people are
doing this out of the goodness of their hearts, then I’ve
got some bad news for you.
The
fact that this program is run by HHS, ordered from the very
top, explains why the citizens who are victims of DSS get no
response from their legislators.
It
explains why no one in the Administration cares about the
abuse and fatalities of children in the “care” of DSS, and
no one wants to hear about the broken arms, verbal abuse, or
rapes. They are just business casualties.
It
explains why the legislators on Beacon Hill I’ve talked to
for the past three years look at me with pity. Because I’m
preaching to the already damned.
The
legislators have forgotten who funds their paychecks and who
they need to account to, as has the Governor. Because it
isn’t the President. It’s us.
How DSS Gets Dollars
|
DSS
Gets $100 Million/Year in Bonuses
Mass.
DSS receives over $100 million/year in bonuses from the
federal government. None of that money goes to the
general state treasury. It all goes directly to the
bureaucrats at DSS. |
The
way that the adoption bonuses work is that each state is given
a baseline number of expected adoptions based on population.
For
every child that DSS can get adopted, there is a bonus of
$4,000 to $6,000.
But
that is just the starting figure in a complex mathematical
formula in which each bonus is multiplied by the percentage
that the state has managed to exceed its baseline adoption
number. The states must maintain this increase in each
successive year. ... Like compound interest.
The
bill reads: “$4,000 to $6,000 will be multiplied by the
amount (if any) by which the number of foster child adoptions
in the State exceeds the base number of foster child adoptions
for the State for the fiscal year.” In the “technical
assistance” section of the bill it states that, “the
Secretary [of HHS] may, directly or through grants or
contracts, provide technical assistance to assist states and
local communities to reach their targets for increased numbers
of adoptions for children in foster care.”
The
assistance is to support “the goal of encouraging more
adoptions out of the foster care system; the development of
best practice guidelines for expediting the termination of
parental rights; the development of special units and
expertise in moving children toward adoption as a permanent
goal; models to encourage the fast tracking of children who
have not attained 1 year of age into pre-adoptive placements;
and the development of programs that place children into
pre-adoptive placements without waiting for termination of
parental rights.”
In
the November press release from HHS it continues, “HHS
awarded the first ever adoption bonuses to States for
increases in the adoption of children from the public foster
care system.” Some of the other incentives offered are
“innovative grants” to reduce barriers to adoption [i.e.,
parents], more State support for adoptive families, making
adoption affordable for families by providing cash subsides
and tax credits.
A
report from a private think tank, the National Center for
Policy Analysis, reads: “The way the federal government
reimburses States rewards a growth in the size of the program
instead of the effective care of children.”
Another
incentive being promoted is the use of the Internet to make
adoption easier. Clinton directed HHS to develop an Internet
site to “link children in foster care with adoptive
families.” So we will be able to window shop for children on
a government web site. If you don’t find anything you like
there, you can surf on over to the “Adopt Shoppe.”
If
you prefer to actually be able to kick tires instead of just
looking at pictures you could attend one of DSS’s quaint
“Adoption Fairs,” where live children are put on display
and you can walk around and browse. Like a flea market to sell
kids.
If
one of them begs you to take him home you can always say,
“Sorry. Just looking.”
The
incentives for government child snatching are so good that
I’m surprised we don’t have government agents breaking
down people’s doors and just shooting the parents in the
heads and grabbing the kids. But then, if you need more apples
you don’t chop down your apple trees.
Dollars for Foster Parents
That
covers the goodies the State gets. Now let’s have a look at
how the Cleavers make out financially after the adoption is
finalized.
After
the adoption is finalized, the State and federal subsidies
continue. The adoptive parents may collect cash subsidies
until the child is 18. If the child stays in school, subsidies
continue to the age of 22. There are State funded subsidies as
well as federal funds through the Title IV-E section of the
Social Security Act.
The
daily rate for State funds is the same as the foster care
payments, which range from $410-$486 per month per child.
Unless the child can be designated “special needs,” which
of course, they all can.
According
to the State Subsidy profile from DSS, “special needs” may
be defined as: “Physical disability, mental disability,
emotional disturbance; a significant emotional tie with the
foster parents where the child has resided with the foster
parents for one or more years and separation would adversely
affect the child’s development if not adopted by them.”
...But
their significant emotional ties with their parents, since
birth, never enter the equation.
Additional
“special needs” designations are: a child twelve years of
age or older; racial or ethnic factors; child having siblings
or half-siblings. In their report on the State of the
Children, Boston’s Institute for Children says: “In part
because the States can garner extra federal funds for special
needs children the designation has been broadened so far as to
become meaningless.” “Special needs” children may also
get an additional Social Security check.
Social Security Money for Foster
Parents
The
adoptive parents also receive Medicaid for the child, a
clothing allowance and reimbursement for adoption costs such
as adoption fees, court and attorney fees, cost of adoption
home study, and “reasonable costs of food and lodging for
the child and adoptive parents when necessary to complete the
adoption process.”
Under
Title XX of the Social Security Act, adoptive parents are also
entitled to post adoption services “that may be helpful in
keeping the family intact,” including “daycare,
specialized daycare, respite care, in-house support services
such as housekeeping, and personal care, counseling, and other
child welfare services”.
...Wow!
Everything short of being knighted by the Queen!]
The
subsidy profile actually states that it does not include money
to remodel the home to accommodate the child. But, as
subsidies can be negotiated, remodeling could possibly be
accomplished under the “innovative incentives to remove
barriers to adoption” section. The subsidy regulations read
that “adoption assistance is based solely on the needs of
the child without regard to the income of the family.”
Mothers Never Get Help
What
an interesting government policy when compared to the welfare
program that the same child’s mother may have been on before
losing her children. She was not allowed to own anything, had
to prove that she had no money in the bank; no boats, real
estate, stocks or bonds; and could not even own a car that is
safe to drive worth over $1000. This is all so she could
collect $539 per month for herself and two children.
The
foster parent who gets her children gets $820 plus. We spit on
the mother on welfare as a parasite who is bleeding the
taxpayers, yet we hold the foster and adoptive parents [who
are bleeding ten times as much from the taxpayers] up as
saints. The adoptive and foster parents aren’t subjected to
psychological evaluations, ink blot tests, MMPI’s, drug
& alcohol evaluations, or urine screens as the parents
are.
Negotiate on Welfare?
Adoption
subsidies may be negotiated on a case by case basis.
...
Anyone ever tried to “negotiate” with the Welfare Dept.?
There
are many e-mail lists and books published to teach adoptive
parents how to negotiate to maximize their subsidies. As one
pro writes on an e-mail list: “We receive a subsidy for our
kids of $1,900 per month plus another $500 from the State of
Florida. We are trying to adopt three more teens and we will
get subsidies for them, too. It sure helps out with the
bills.”
I
can’t help but wonder why we don’t give this same level of
support to the children’s parents in the first place?
According to Cornell University, about 68% of all child
protective cases “do not involve child maltreatment.” The
largest percentage of those cases are for “deprivation of
necessities” due to poverty. So, if the natural parents were
given the incredible incentives and services listed above that
are provided to the adoptive parents, wouldn’t it stand to
reason that the causes for removing children in the first
place would be eliminated?
How
many less children would enter foster care in the first place?
The child protective budget would be reduced from $12 billion
to around $4 billion. Granted, tens of thousands of social
workers, administrators, lawyers, juvenile court personnel,
therapists, and foster parents would be out of business, but
we would have safe, healthy, intact families, which are the
foundation of any society.
That’s
just a fantasy, of course.
May
is national adoption month. To support “Adoption 2002,”
the U.S. Postal Service is issuing special adoption stamps.
Let us hope they don’t feature pictures of kids who are for
sale. I urge everyone to boycott these stamps and register
complaints with the post office.
I
know that I’m feeling pretty smug and superior about being
part of such a socially advanced and compassionate society.
How about you?
This
is a modified version of an article which appeared in our
August 2000 edition.
Massachusetts
News has written many stories about the perils of the 1974 Act of
Sen. Mondale and other problems with DSS. Most of them can be found
on the archives by searching for “Nev Moore” or “Ed Oliver."
|