RUTH G. MCROY, AMY GRIFFIN, AND HOLLEE MCGINNISTHE U.S. FAMILY IS BECOMING more diverse as parents are choosing more frequently to adopt children not of their same race, through intercountry adoption and domestic transracial adoption (TRA). TRA refers to the legal placement of a child of one racial or ethnic group with adoptive parents of another ethnic group. Often in the United States, these adoptions typically refer to the “placement of children of color either from the U.S. or from another country, with Caucasian families” (Child Welfare Information Gateway, 2013b). According to the findings from the 2007 National Survey of Adoptive Parents, “four out of ten adopted children were in transracial adoptions—that is, their parents reported that both adoptive parents are (or the single adoptive parent is) of a different race, culture, or ethnicity than their child. The majority of adopted children have non-Hispanic white parents, but are not themselves non-Hispanic white” (Vandivere, Malm, & Radel, 2009, pp. 5–6).
Although TRA can apply to both domestic and international adoptions, in this book, TRA refers to domestic adoptions that occur in the United States. Adoptions that occur in international countries are referred to as intercountry adoptions (ICA).
DEMOGRAPHICS
Domestic TRAs have increased since the passage of the Multiethnic Placement Act (MEPA) in 1994 made it illegal for agencies to refuse to place a child based on the race of the child or the family. Since that time, TRAs from the foster care system have grown from a rate of 10.8 percent in 1995 (20,000 total), to a rate of 15 percent in 2001 (50,000 total; National Adoption Information Clearinghouse, 2008, as cited in Malott & Schmidt 2012). Only a relatively small proportion of domestic private infant adoptions involve parents adopting children of different races; those that do are five times more likely to adopt children of other races, such as Asian, than black children (U.S. Government Accountability Office [GAO], 2007, as cited in Zhang & Lee, 2011). Also, Farr & Patterson (2009) found in their research, that “transracial adoptions occurred more often among lesbian and gay couples than among heterosexual couples and that they occurred more often among interracial than among same-race couples” (p. 187).
Who Is Affected by Transracial Adoptions?
TRAs rarely involve the adoption of white children by black or other families of color. In 2007, as part of the National Survey of Children’s Health, the first ever National Survey of Adoptive Parents was conducted with parents who had adopted 2,089 children from foster care, other domestic sources, and other countries (National Survey of Adoptive Parents, 2007). According to the findings,
Adopted children are less likely to be of White or Hispanic origin than children in the general U.S. population, and they are more likely to be Black. The racial distribution of children varies by type of adoption, with children adopted from foster care most likely to be Black (35%) and those adopted internationally least likely to be Black (3%). The majority of children adopted internationally are Asian (59%), and the majority of children adopted privately from the United States are most likely to be White (50%). (Vandivere et al., 2009, p. 13)
The study findings revealed that white parents are likely to be adoptive parents of children from the foster care system (63 percent) compared with black parents (27 percent), even though a disproportionately high number (about 24,000) of black children in foster care are in need of adoption (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [DHHS], 2014; Vandivere et al., 2009). The majority of TRAs occur for those adopting internationally (84 percent), a little more than a quarter of foster care adoptions are transracial (28 percent), and 21 percent of private domestic adoptions are transracial (Vandivere et al., 2009, p. 14).
History of Transracial Adoptions
In many circles, the practice of TRA continues to be controversial, as it tends to challenge what was once considered “traditional” or inracial adoptions. Traditional or inracial adoptive placements attempt to match phenotypic characteristics (including race) of the parents with those of children (Jennings, 2006). For years, it was assumed that such matching would facilitate bonding of parent and child as similar characteristics would make them indistinguishable from families with biological children (McRoy & McRoy, 1974). Moreover, when adoption agencies were first established in the 1920s, their purpose was to assist white childless couples seeking to adopt healthy white infants, which typically had been relinquished by white unmarried mothers. At that time, black children typically were cared for in the public foster care system, and the option of being adopted was rarely made available to them.
Historically Blacks have had to develop their own informal networks for foster care and adoption. While the majority of White children born out-of-wedlock were placed for formal adoption, nine out of every ten Black children born out of wedlock were retained by the extended family and only one-tenth placed with formal adoption agencies. (Hill, 1977, p. iv)
Over time, a number of events led to a shift in focus away from these traditional kinship arrangements and preference for inracial adoptions. Placements of children from other countries in the United States very slowly began to affect sentiment toward TRAs. For example, in the 1950s following the end of the Korean War, 2,300 Korean orphans were brought to the United States for the purpose of adoption. Because many of these children were half Korean and half white, it was assumed that such “mixed-race children” would be considered outcasts in Korea and were brought to the United States for placement with white families (Child Welfare League of America [CWLA], 1960).
During this period of the fifties, however, most individuals still rejected the practice of TRAs of black children and, in fact, the CWLA, which sets standards for adoption services, “cautioned that children with the same racial characteristics as their adoptive parents could be integrated more easily into the average family” (McRoy, 1989, p. 149). Between 1958 and 1968, the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the CWLA initiated a joint project involving the transracial placement of about 400 Native American children with white families. Families tended to believe that they were “providing homes for deprived children, who held the social status of the first real or pure Americans” (Benet, 1976; McRoy, 1989, p. 149).
In the 1960s, as the nation focused on racial integration and the civil rights movement, more attention was given to the large numbers of African American children languishing in the foster care system and needing permanency through adoption (McRoy, 1989). Attitudes toward TRA began to change during this period and an increasingly larger proportion of white families began to consider this option. Also, a decrease in white infants being born out of wedlock, and subsequently relinquished and placed for adoption, occurred because of the widespread use of contraceptives, liberalized abortion laws, and increased social acceptance of unwed parenthood (McRoy, 1994).
By the 1970s, approximately 119 white families were approved for adoption per 100 white children waiting to be adopted, whereas approximately 50 non-white adoptive homes were approved per 100 non-white children waiting to be adopted (McRoy & Zurcher 1983; Smith, 1972). This resulted in African American children frequently being labeled as “hard to place” and African American families were designated as being “hard to reach.” The “hard-to-reach” label may be a result of the historic discrimination African American families have faced within the child welfare system, which affected the desire of these families to interact with the system. In the past, African American families seeking to adopt children often faced barriers in the approval process of becoming adoptive parents. The lack of African American staff in child welfare agencies, perceived cultural differences, and lack of recruitment strategies, only exacerbated the problem. The growing rate of African American children in need of adoptive homes and the belief that African American families were not interested in adopting, led some agencies to consider transracial placements instead of addressing the barriers that prevented these families from working successfully with the system and examining the reasons African American children were represented disproportionately in the system (Lakin & Whitfield, 1997; McRoy, Oglesby, & Grape, 1997).
In 1968, the CWLA changed its previous position giving preference for inracial placements, and stated that “There are families who have the capacity to adopt a child whose racial background is different from their own and such families should be encouraged to consider such a child” (CWLA 1968, p. 34). This was the first occurrence of the CWLA encouraging TRAs. Additionally, around the same time, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the National Urban League called for consideration of TRAs (Benet, 1976; McRoy, 1989).
This support led to more than 10,000 black children being transracially adopted between 1967 and 1972 (Costin, 1979). This support, however, did incur a backlash from the National Association of Black Social Workers (NABSW) who stated in 1972: “Black children belong physically and psychologically and culturally in black families where they receive the total sense of themselves and develop a sound projection of their future. Only a black family can transmit the emotional and sensitive subtleties of perceptions and reactions essential for a black child’s survival in a racist society” (pp. 2–3).
By 1973, the CWLA reversed its position claiming that children should be in same race placements to help facilitate integration within a new family and community, suggesting that state exchanges should be utilized to find inracial placements before considering a transracial placement (McRoy, 1989). This reversal led to a decline in the number of transracial adoptions. In 1981, the North American Council on Adoptable Children (Gilles & Kroll, 1991) issued a position statement: “Placement of children with a family of like ethnic background is desirable because such families are likely to provide the special needs of minority children with the strengths that counter the ill effects of racism. … NACAC supports inclusion of multiethnic adoption as an option for children” (NACAC 1993, p. 37).
In 1994, as the rates of African American children in need of adoption continued to increase (46 percent) the NABSW modified its position and stated that although same-race adoptions were preferred, TRAs should be considered in certain situations (McRoy, 2004).
POLICIES REGULATING TRANSRACIAL ADOPTIONS
Policies regulating transracial adoptions vary by adoption type and a child’s origins. Two federal laws apply to the adoption of children of color who are involved in the public child welfare system. The Multi-Ethnic Placement Act (MEPA) of 1997, as amended by the Removal of Barriers to Interethnic Adoption Provisions (IEP) of 1996, was designed to
eliminate race-related barriers to adoption by prohibiting foster care and adoption agencies that receive federal funds from delaying or denying placement decisions on the basis of race, color, or national origin of either the adoptive or foster parent or child. The law also requires states to diligently recruit potential foster and adoptive families that reflect the ethnic and racial diversity of children in the state who need foster care and adoptive homes. (GAO 2007, p. 10)
The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) of 1978 governs cases involving the adoption of Native American children. After legislation is passed, the U.S. Congress delegates give rule-making authority to a federal agency that issues administrative regulations, explaining how the law will be put into effect (Bailey & Delavega, 2011). Different federal agencies oversee the implementation of the three federal laws related to TRA: the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), stipulates regulations for the implementation of ICWA; and the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), in conjunction with the Office of Civil Rights (OCR), regulates the implementation of MEPA-IEP. Furthermore, state laws and court cases shape state adoption practices, as well as (1) standards of practice issued by accreditation agencies, (2) best practices issued by child welfare organizations and social work associations, and (3) individual agency policies.
Passage of the Multiethnic Placement Act (MEPA)
In 1994, to help alleviate the barriers to African American children being adopted, Congress passed MEPA (PL-103-382). Two years later, the IEP amended MEPA, which removed the word “solely” in the legislation regarding the refusal or rejection of an adoptive placement “solely on the basis of race.” The goals of MEPA were to decrease the length of time a child waits to be adopted; to help prevent discrimination on the basis of race, culture, or national origin; and to identify and recruit foster and adoptive parents that meet the needs of children waiting placement (Chibnall, Dutch, Jones-Harden, Brown & Gourdine, 2003). MEPA-IEP, however, set the policy standard that race could no longer be a factor to deny or delay the placement of the child.
The passage of MEPA resulted from increased attention being given to children aging out of the foster care system without permanent placements and the discrepant rates for minority, especially African American children. By the early 1990s, only 3 percent of white unmarried mothers placed their infants for adoption, compared with 31.7 percent who placed in the sixties. Yet, the desire for couples seeking to adopt children remained: approximately 2 million white couples sought to adopt children (especially infants) by the nineties (McRoy, 1994).
The Indian Child Welfare Act
In direct contrast to MEPA, which promotes colorblindness, another piece of federal legislation, the ICWA of 1978 (PL-95-608), addresses the disproportionately high rates of Native American children in care. At the same time, it attempts to provide permanence for Native American children, while focusing on the issue of race. ICWA sought to “protect the best interests of Indian children and to promote the stability and security of Indian tribes and families.” The ICWA gives Native American communities the ability to make placement decisions of any Native child whose parental rights have been terminated. The Native American courts require higher standards of proof to be provided before a child is removed from their parents. If a removal does happen, however, efforts must be made to place the child with
a member of the Indian child’s extended family first and if not possible, place with an Indian foster home licensed, approved, or specified by the Indian child’s tribe, and, if this is not possible, find an Indian foster home licensed or approved by an authorized non-Indian licensing authority, or an institution for children approved by an Indian tribe or operated by an Indian organization which has a program suitable to meet the Indian child’s needs. (National Indian Child Welfare Association, 2015)
This decision was made to help children maintain connections to their families and tribes. Although ICWA has effectively handled the sovereignty issue for Native American children, there has never been federal legislation with the same aim for African American children (Dixon, 2013).
Some have suggested that based on the lessons of ICWA we should find ways to empower African American communities and give them a role in the provision of services to children and families (Curtis & Denby, 2011). Clearly, much more needs to be done to support, empower, and preserve African American and Native American birth families to enable them to parent their children within their communities.
IMPACT OF MEPA ON AFRICAN AMERICAN ADOPTIONS
Has MEPA solved the problem of the child welfare system finding African American children permanent homes? It is relatively impossible to determine the placement patterns for groups of children, as no official recording of racial heritage exists for private or public adoptions (Samuels, 2009). Statistics for FY 2004 on youth placed with public agency involvement, however, suggest that 28 percent of the children were placed transracially (Child Welfare Information Gateway, 2013a). Additionally, of the 2.5 percent of all households that adopt children, less than 24 percent of these adoptions are transracial (Kreider, 2003). Hansen and Pollack (2007) found that between 1996 and 2003, the proportion of black children who were adopted transracially from foster care rose from 17.2 percent in 1996 to 20.1 percent in 2003.
According to the 2007 National Survey of Adoptive Parents, approximately 28 percent of children adopted from the foster care system are categorized as TRAs. Of all adoptions, approximately 63 percent of the children adopted in 2007 from the child welfare system were white, 27 percent were black, and 5 percent were of Hispanic origin (Vandivere et al., 2009).
Despite the passage of the MEPA in 1994, minority children in care remain overrepresented, and African American children are adopted at significantly lower rates than white children. In 2012, of the 399,546 children in foster care, 26 percent or 101,938 were black, and of the 101,719 children awaiting adoption in the foster care system, 26 percent or 26,117 were black. Yet, black children represent just 13.9 percent of the U.S. child population (DHHS, 2013). Also, black children who have had their parental rights terminated and freed for adoption, still have lower rates of adoption (GAO, 2007). According to the GAO, “over the last five years, African American children as well as Native American children have consistently experienced lower rates of adoption than children of other races and ethnicities” (2007, p. 56). Between 2001 and 2005, the adoption rate for black children was approximately 30 percent compared with other racial and ethnic groups for whom the figures were between 40 and 50 percent (GAO, 2007). African American children in foster care compared with other groups, experience longer waits for permanency, particularly through adoption, than those in other racial and ethnic groups. A number of factors may lead to this outcome, including disproportionate removals of African American children, the need for more successful prevention and family preservation and reunification programs, and insufficient and ineffective recruitment and retention programs for adoptive families for African American children waiting to be adopted.
After a lengthy review of the law’s impact, the 2007 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights report concluded that MEPA thus far has failed to remove barriers toward adoption and achieve equity in finding permanent adoption placements for African American children (Donaldson Adoption Institute, 2008). Not only has MEPA-IEP failed to solve the issue of overrepresentation, but it also fails to reduce the time African American children spend in the child welfare system. Black children remain in foster care on average 9 months longer than white children (GAO, 2007). Additionally, black children that are adopted transracially are typically younger than 4 years old (Maza, 2004). Age plays a significant role in TRAs, as younger children are notably more likely to be placed in TRAs, compared with older children in other racial and ethnic groups (Padilla, Vargas, & Chavez, 2010).
Implementation of federal laws require changes in state laws, regulations, and policies at the county level, although federal law takes precedence if state laws are not in compliance. After the enactment of MEPA in 1994, the OCR reviewed each state’s statutes, regulations, and policies and found that twenty-eight states and the District of Columbia did not conform to the Act, all of which had made changes to comply with the law (GAO, 1998). Furthermore, OCR continued to investigate complaints of discrimination filed with the agency as part of its ongoing efforts to determine whether agency policies and caseworker actions were in compliance with civil rights laws and MEPA. After the enactment of the 1996 IEP amendment, OCR investigated only case-by-case complaints of violations and in 1997 began reviews in selected locations (GAO, 1998).
Although there is no comprehensive list of all cases that have been brought to OCR for violation of MEPA-IEP, a sample of cases from nine states (Alabama, Arizona, California, Florida, Minnesota, Nevada, Ohio, South Carolina, and Washington) are available online (OCR, n.d.). In most cases, states agreed to corrective actions without paying fines. In two cases, Ohio and South Carolina, penalties were imposed of $1.8 million and $107,000 respectively (Smith et al., 2008). In the case of Ohio, OCR began their investigation in response to allegations contained in newspaper reports and a complaint filed in John Doe v. Hamilton County Department of Human Services, Civil Case No. C-1-99-281, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, in which plaintiffs alleged African American foster children were being denied the opportunity to be placed for adoption with their white foster parents (Simeone, 2003). After their investigation, OCR and DHHS affirmed the state had violated MEPA-IEP regulations because it permitted adoption specialists to consider the race of prospective adoptive parents if they were “not of the same cultural heritage” as the child and required adoption workers to evaluate prospective parents’ cultural competency and plan to ensure that a child’s cultural identity was preserved in TRAs.
South Carolina was found to violate MEPA-IEP on several counts. In its violation Letter of Findings, OCR found six systematic violations and numerous individual violations (Freeman, 2005). The six systematic violations included the following: (1) treating racial preference differently from all other prospective parent’s preferences of the child they hoped to adopt; (2) matching children with adoptive parents based on the racial or ethnic preference of the birth parent; (3) assessing the cultural competency of prospective adoptive parents who are racially or ethnically different from the prospective child; and, for adoption specialists; (4) using race to make adoptive placements (i.e., if the number of prospective parents of the same race as the child is sufficient, then preference would be to place a child with such a family); (5) including a description of the parent’s skin color or complexion in the assessment of prospective adoptive parents; and (6) treating a prospective adopted child’s racial preference differently from all preferences when the child is old enough to be involved in a placement decision.
ISSUES AFFECTING TRANSRACIAL ADOPTIONS
Related issues that affect TRAs include disproportionate representation of African American children in foster care and awaiting adoption, the need for effective adoptive parent recruitment strategies, and the need for mandatory training to prepare transracial adoptive families. Each will be discussed in the following sections
Disproportionality
MEPA did not directly address the reasons why African American youth are disproportionately represented within the child welfare system. The percentage of children of a particular race or ethnicity in foster care varies by state. In 2011, African American children were disproportionately represented in care in thirty-two states, Alaska Native/Native American children were disproportionately represented in seventeen states, and children reported as having “two or more races” were disproportionately represented in twenty states. In no state, however, did the percentage of white children in foster care exceed the percentage of these children in the state’s population (DHHS, 2013). Disproportionate poverty is another factor, which often is identified as associated with disproportionate placement in foster care. African Americans are four times more likely to live in poverty and African American children are twice as likely to live in impoverished families compared with white children (GAO, 2007). Poor families will have greater difficulty securing support services compared with nonpoor families (GAO, 2007).
African American children are also the most likely racial or ethnic group to be referred to protective services (Gryzlak, Wells, & Johnson, 2005). Minority children will enter foster care at disproportionately greater rates and also will remain in care longer, will experience a greater number of placement moves, and will be less likely to reunify with their birth parents or be adopted compared with white children (Hill, 2006; Wulczyn, Chen, & Hislop, 2007). Allegations of abuse and neglect are more likely to be substantiated for African American children (Ards, Chung, & Myers, 2003; Fluke, Yuan, Hedderson, & Curtis, 2003). Such disparities led the Casey–Center for the Study of Social Policy Alliance for Racial Equity to conclude “the disparities … can best be described as a ‘chronic crisis’” (Center for Community Partnerships in Child Welfare, 2006). Because poverty is clearly a causal factor leading to disproportionate out-of-home placements for African American children, ongoing advocacy for policies and practices to address these inequities is needed to improve outcomes for all children and families. It is hoped that increasing our understanding of the root causes and solutions to these disparate outcomes will lead to more culturally specific and data-driven practices and policies to be established.
Parental Recruitment
An important yet often overlooked and under-implemented aspect of MEPA is the requirement of states to actively recruit a diverse population of foster and adoptive parents. The goal of such recruitment is to create a diverse pool of eligible applicant families to meet the diverse needs of children in care. The state agencies’ federal funding is tied directly to their efforts in active recruitment as well as adherence to colorblind policies in placement (Hollinger & ABA Center on Children and the Law, 1998). Noncompliance with MEPA-IEP results in an agency’s violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Noncompliance may result in large financial penalties and lawsuits by individuals who believe that these standards were violated (Howe, 1999).
Because of fear of violating the colorblind policies of MEPA, many child welfare agencies have let the recruitment of diverse families who reflect the racial and ethnic background of children waiting in care to become an afterthought. Such fear may lead to less than perfect placements for children as it could affect jobs and funding for the agency (DHHS, 2003; Smith et al., 2008). However, because of the fact that African American children continue to wait in disproportionately high numbers, there remains a need to push for diligent recruitment of families. Strategies for recruiting and retaining African American prospective adopters need further development. For instance, findings from a study of African American adopters from private African American adoption agencies, revealed that 70 percent of their adopters previously had been unsuccessful in adopting a child through a public adoption agency (Smith-McKeever & McRoy, 2005). Minority-specific placement agencies have had success in recruiting a more diverse pool of adoptive families (e.g., Homes for Black Children; Black Adoption Program and Services; One Church, One Child) and, as such, techniques they use should be modified and followed, including tailoring culturally relevant and specific adoption materials and recruiting and retaining African American families.
Recruitment no longer can be an afterthought for adoption agencies. New ways and techniques should be utilized to reach a greater diversity of people, such as connecting with faith groups and developing better relationships with minority communities as a whole to break down the historic roots of mistrust. Increased postadoption support should be offered in recognition that adoption is a life-long process. These recommendations along with others were made clear in a report focused on MEPA from the Donaldson Adoption Institute (2008) and are supported by a large number of other key stakeholders. The recommendations are based on the belief that acknowledging and addressing the significance of racial and cultural differences with a child will help them to develop and feel more connected to their heritage and identity (Vonk & Angaran, 2003).
Mandatory Training
As a result of fears of violating MEPA, agency-sponsored preparation classes for families planning or thinking about raising a child from a different race or culture often do not occur during the placement process (Smith, et al., 2008). Training on the challenges of TRAs may be offered, according to the law’s provisions, as long as it is made a requirement for all adoptive families, regardless of the race of the child they adopt (McRoy et al., 2007). Conversely, other child-specific trainings (e.g., adopting a child with HIV or a sexually abused child) legally can be offered to families adopting that specific “type” of child. A study of child welfare agencies suggested that many direct practice workers and supervisors are unaware of MEPA and its intended goals, suggesting that a gap exists between policy and practice (Chibnall et al., 2003).
The lack of mandatory classes or sponsored classes for families seeking to transracially adopt tends to run counter to the empirical research findings on the special issues involved in TRAs. Many studies have demonstrated the importance of cultural and racial socialization to aid in the transracially adopted child’s development of positive racial identity, adjustment, and self-esteem (Mohanty, Keokse, & Sales, 2007; Yoon, 2001). There is a need to provide adoptive families with training on racial and ethnic awareness, multiculturalism and coping skills to deal with prejudice (de Haymes & Simon, 2003; Vonk, 2001). Transracially adopted children “must learn how to navigate racialized stigma from parents whose racial status is not stigmatized” (Samuels, 2009, p. 83). Adoptive families should be prepared to handle questions, manage experiences of discrimination, and find connections with other children to address inherent differences. Social workers and those involved in the adoption need to find a way to work within the requirements of MEPA while adequately preparing families to provide cultural and racial socialization skills.
Practice and Policy Implications
For those who work within child welfare agencies, especially social workers, it is critical that they are knowledgeable and both adoption and are culturally competent. Research suggests that three out of ten parents of adopted children reported not receiving at least one adoption-specific support (including meeting with agency staff, adoption support groups, parent training, and web-based resources; Vandivere et al., 2009). A 2008 nationwide study on the knowledge child welfare social workers had about MEPA and IEP as well as their views on race issues in adoption, revealed that although respondents seemed knowledgeable about the legislation, they “lacked familiarity with the empirical findings on transracial adoptions and specifically on the impact on cultural identity on transracially adopted children” (Mapp, Boutte-Queen, Erich, & Taylor, 2008, p. 383). These authors called for more research on outcomes of TRA as well as the need for social workers to have more training on interpreting the results of empirical studies of TRA and their implications for their work with children and families.
Curtis and Denby (2011) have suggested that a policy reform approach should be taught and modeled under an oppression framework. Curtis and Denby refer to the poor outcomes of African American children as “civilized oppression,” a term coined by Young (1990), who stated that “the vast and deep injustices some groups suffer as a consequence of often unconscious assumptions and reactions of well-meaning people in ordinary interactions that are supported by … structural features of bureaucratic hierarchies and market mechanisms” (p. 41). This framework would help to enable a deeper understanding of the issues and policy at hand. Moreover, social workers should advocate for culturally sensitive prevention, family preservation, recruitment, and retention programs.
TRANSRACIAL ADOPTIONS: CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
The belief that race or cultural heritage is central to a child’s best interests when making an adoption placement decision has been long held in social work theory and practice (Smith, McRoy, Freundlich, & Kroll, 2008). Social work as a profession has set standards that call for respect of a client’s cultural, religious, ethnic identities, and backgrounds. In that respect, the principles of ICWA are consistent with social work values and standards of practice. MEPA-IEP, on the other hand, has been harder to implement in part because the legal principles contradict long-held social work values. A report by the GAO summarized the problem of implementing MEPA-IEP as follows:
The implementation of this amended act predominantly relies on the understanding and willingness of individual caseworkers to eliminate a historically important factor—race—from the placement decisions they make. While agency officials and caseworkers understand that this legislation prohibits them from delaying or denying placements on the basis of race, not all believe that eliminating race will result in placements that are in the best interests of children, which is a basic criterion for placement decisions. (1998, p. 3)
Before the passage of MEPA-IEP, no federal statute restricted the use of race as a criterion for adoption placements and no federal court decisions prohibited social workers’ consideration of race (Banks, 2009). Furthermore, MEPA-IEP’s prohibition on addressing racial issues runs counter to contemporary research on TRA. This research has found that although transracial adoptees as a group have few serious behavioral or emotional problems compared with adoptees placed in same-race families, adolescent and young adult transracial adoptees do struggle with various aspects of their racial and ethnic identity and racial discrimination, a fact masked by earlier research because this aspect of identity becomes more salient with age (for a summary of the literature, see McGinnis, Smith, Ryan, & Howard, 2009). Notably, white families tend to adopt children at younger ages, when children have not experienced as much trauma.
The divergent legal mandates regulating TRAs also put unrealistic demands on adoption agencies and prospective adoptive parents. For instance, a private adoption agency may be involved in both domestic and international adoptions, in which case the training of prospective parents seeking to adopt from overseas would have to provide information about becoming a multicultural family, but such information would be in violation of MEPA-IEP for prospective transracial adoptive parents of a child in foster care (Smith et al., 2008). Social work has long been concerned and involved in shaping adoption practice (Bailey & Delavega, 2011); hence, it is critical that the profession continues to advocate for the best interests of children in adoption and contribute to the formation of policies based on practice and research evidence.
For those who work within child welfare agencies, especially social workers, it is critical that they are knowledgeable and operate from a position of cultural humility, in which they are able to work with populations that are culturally different (Ortega & Faller, 2011). A 2008 nationwide study on the knowledge child welfare social workers have about MEPA and IEP, as well as their views on racial issues in adoption, revealed that although respondents seemed knowledgeable about the legislation, they “lacked familiarity with the empirical findings on transracial adoptions and specifically on the impact on cultural identity on transracially adopted children” (Mapp et al., 2008, p. 383). Clearly, more research is needed on outcomes of TRAs and social workers need more training to interpret the results of empirical studies of TRAs and their implications for their work with children and families.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
1. What were the factors that led to changes in practices around the placement of children transracially?
2. Why do most transracial adoptions involve the placement of African American children with white families?
3. Why are African American and Native American children disproportionately represented in care?
4. What else needs to be done to increase the likelihood of finding permanency for African American children? What other recruitment and retention strategies would you recommend?
Ards, S., Chung, C., & Myers, S. (1999). The effects of sample selection bias on racial differences in child abuse reporting, Child Abuse & Neglect, 23(12), 1211–1215.
Bailey, J. D., & Delavega, M.E. (2011). Rules on The Hague and Intercountry Adoption Act: Public comments and the State’s responsiveness. Journal of Policy Practice, 10, 35–50. doi:10.1080/15588742.2010.521920
Banks, R. R. (2009). The Multiethnic Placement Act and the troubling persistence of race matching. Capital University Law Review, 38(2), 271–290.
Benet, M. (1976). The politics of adoption, New York: Free Press.
Center for Community Partnerships in Child Welfare. (2006). Places to watch: Promising practices to address racial disproportionality in child welfare. Washington, DC: Center for the Study of Social Policy.
Chibnall, S., Dutch, N. M., Jones-Harden, B., Brown, A., & Gourdine, R. (2003). Children of color in the child welfare system: Perspectives from the child welfare community. Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America.
Child Welfare League of America (CWLA). (1960). Adoption of oriental children by American White families, An interdisciplinary symposium. New York: Child Welfare League of America.
Child Welfare League of America. (1968). Standards for adoption service, New York: CWLA.
Costin, L. (1979). Child welfare: Policies and practice. New York: McGraw Hill.
Curtis, C. M., & Denby, R. W. (2011). African American children in the child welfare system: Requiem or reform. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 5(1), 111–137.
de Haymes, M. V., & Simon, S. (2003). Transracial adoption: Families identify issues and needed support services. Child Welfare, 82(2), 251–272.
Dixon, J. (2013). The African-American child welfare act: A legal redress for African-American disproportionality in child protection cases. Berkeley Journal of African American Law & Policy, 10(2), 109–145.
Farr, R. & Patterson, C. (2009). Transracial adoption by lesbian, gay, and heterosexual couples: Who completes transracial adoptions and with what results? Adoption Quarterly, 12: 187–204.
Fluke, J. D., Yuan, Y. T., Hedderson, J., & Curtis, P. A. (2003). Disproportionate representation of race and ethnicity in child maltreatment: Investigation and victimization. Children and Youth Services Review, 25, 359–373.
Gilles, T., & Kroll, J. (1991). Barriers to same race placement. St. Paul, MN: North American Council on Adoptable Children.
Gryzlak, B. M., Wells, S. J., & Johnson, M. A. (2005). The role of race in child protective services screening decisions. In D. Derezotes, J. Poertner, and M. Testa (Eds.), Race matters in child welfare: The over-representation of African American children in the system. Washington, DC: CWLA.
Hill, R. (1977). Informal adoption among black families. Washington, DC: National Urban League.
Hollinger, J. H., & ABA Center on Children and the Law. (1998). A guide to the Multiethnic Placement Act of 1994 as Amended by the Interethnic Adoption Provisions of 1996. Washington, DC: American Bar Association.
Howe, R. A. (1999). Adoption laws and practices in 2000: Serving whose interests? Family Law Quarterly, 33(3), 677–689.
Jennings, P. (2006). The trouble with the Multiethnic Placement Act: An empirical look at transracial adoption. Sociological Perspectives, 49(4), 559–582.
Kreider, R. M. (2003). Adopted children and stepchildren: 2000. Census 2000 special reports. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.
Lakin, D. S., & Whitfield, L. (1997). Adoption recruitment: Meeting the needs of waiting children. In R. J. Avery (Ed.), Adoption policy and special needs children. Westport, CT: Auburn House
Malott, K. & Schmidt, C. (2012). Counseling families formed by transracial adoption: Bridging the gap in the multicultural counseling competencies. The Family Journal, 20 (4), 384–391.
Mapp, S., Boutte-Queen, N., Erich, S., & Taylor, P. (2008). Evidence-based practice or practice-based evidence: What is happening with MEPA and current adoption practices? Families in Society: Journal of Contemporary Social Services, 89(3), 375–384.
Maza, P. L. (2004). Adoption data update. Presented at the Child Welfare League of America National Conference and NACA Meeting, Washington, DC.
McGinnis, H., Smith, S., Ryan, S., & Howard, J. (2009). Beyond culture camp: Promoting healthy identity formation in adoption. New York: Donaldson Adoption Institute.
McRoy, R. G. (1989). An organizational dilemma: The case of transracial adoptions. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 25(2), 145–160.
McRoy, R. G. (1994). Attachment and racial identity issues: Implications for child placement decision-making, Journal of Multicultural Social Work, 3(3), 59–74.
McRoy, R. G. (2004). African American adoptions. In J. E. Everett, S. P. Chipungu and B. R. Leashore (Eds.), Child welfare revisited: An Afrocentric perspective. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
McRoy, R., & McRoy, M. (1974). Black homes for black children. Lawrence, KS: Author’s Forum.
McRoy, R., Mica, M., Freundlich, M., & Kroll, J. (2007). Making MEPA-IEP work: Tools for professionals. Child Welfare, 86(2), 49–66.
McRoy, R. G., Oglesby, Z., & Grape, H. (1997). Achieving same-race adoptive placements for African American children: Culturally sensitive practice approaches. Child Welfare, 76(1), 85–104.
McRoy, R. G., & Zurcher, L. A. (1983). Transracial and inracial adoptees. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.
Mohanty, J., Keokse, G., & Sales, E. (2007). Family cultural socialization, ethnic identity, and self-esteem: Web-based survey of international adult adoptees. Journal of Ethnic & Cultural Diversity in Social Work, 15(3/4), 153–172.
National Association of Black Social Workers. (1972). Position statement on transracial adoptions. Paper presented at the National Association of Black Social Workers Conference, Nashville, TN.
National Indian Child Welfare Association. (2015). Indian Child Welfare Act. Retrieved from www.NICWA.org
North American Council on Adoptable Children (NACAC). (1993). NACAC policy statement on race and adoption. St Paul, MN: NACAC.
Ortega, R., & Faller, K. (2011). Training child welfare workers from an intersectional cultural humility perspective: A paradigm shift. Child Welfare, 90(5), 27–37.
Padilla, J. B., Vargas, J. H., & Chavez, L. (2010). Influence of age on transracial foster adoptions and its relation to ethnic identity development. Adoption Quarterly, 13(1), 50–73.
Samuels, G. M. (2009). “Being raised by white people”: Navigating racial difference among adopted multiracial adults. Journal of Marriage and Family, 71(1), 80–94.
Simeone. L. (2003). Letter from Lisa M. Simeone, Reg’l Manager, Office for Civil Rights, Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., to Suzanne A. Burke, Dir., Hamilton County of Job & Family Servs. and Tom Hayes, Dir., Ohio Dep’t of Job & Family Servs. (Oct. 20, 2003), at 7–8, 10, 20, 39. Retrieved from http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/bartholet/HHSOCR.pdf
Smith, M. J. (1972). Adoption in the first half of 1972. Child Welfare, 51(9), 585.
Smith-McKeever, T. C., & McRoy, R. G. (2005). The role of private adoption agencies in facilitating African American adoptions. Families in Society, 86, 533–540.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. (2010). The Multiethnic Placement Act: Minorities in foster care and adoption. A Briefing Before the United States Commission on Civil Rights Washington, DC.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children’s Bureau. (2013). Child welfare outcomes 2008–2011: Report to Congress. Retrieved from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/resource/cwo-08-11
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children’s Bureau. (2013, July). Preliminary estimates for FY 2012 as of July 2013. Retrieved from www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, Children’s Bureau. (2014, July). Preliminary estimates for FY 2013 as of July 2014 (No. 21). Retrieved from www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb
U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). (1998). Foster care: Implementation of the Multiethnic Placement Act poses difficult challenges. (GAO Publication No. HEHS-98-2204). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). (2007, July). African American children in foster care: Additional HHS assistance needed to help states reduce the proportion in care. (GAO Publication No. 07-816). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Vandivere, S., Malm, K., & Radel, L. (2009). Adoption USA: A chartbook based on the 2007 National Survey of Adoptive Parents. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation.
Vonk, M. E. (2001). Cultural competence for transracial adoptive parents. Social Work, 46(3), 246–254.
Vonk, M. E., & Angaran, R. (2003). Training for transracial adoptive parents by public and private adoption agencies. Adoption Quarterly, 6(3), 53–62.
Wulczyn, F., Chen, L., & Hislop, K. (2007). Foster care dynamics 2000–2005: A report from the Multistate Foster Care Data Archive. Chicago: Chapin Hall Center for Children.
Yoon, D. P. (2001). Causal modeling predicting psychological adjustment of Korean-born adolescent adoptees. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 3, 65–82.
Young, M. I. (1990). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press
Zhang, Y., & Lee, G. (2011). Intercountry versus transracial adoption: An analysis of adoptive parents’ motivation and preferences in adoption. Journal of Family Issues, 32, 1(1), 75–98.
