Adoption Bonuses: The Money Behind ...

Adoption Bonuses: The Money Behind the Madness

Posted in the Valley City Forum

Who

Aurora, CO

#1 Feb 25, 2010
DSS and affiliates rewarded for breaking up families By Nev Moore
> Massachusetts News Child "protection" is one of the biggest
> businesses in the country. We spend $12 billion a year on it.
> The money goes to tens of thousands of a) state employees, b)
> collateral professionals, such as lawyers, court personnel, court
> investigators, evaluators and guardians, judges, and c) DSS
> contracted vendors such as counselors, therapists, more
> "evaluators", junk psychologists, residential facilities, foster
> parents, adoptive parents, MSPCC, Big Brothers/Big Sisters, YMCA,
> etc. This newspaper is not big enough to list all of the people in
> this state who have a job, draw a paycheck, or make their profits
> off the kids in DSS custody. In this article I explain the
> financial infrastructure that provides the motivation for DSS to
> take peopleís children Ė and not give them back. In 1974 Walter
> Mondale promoted the Child Abuse and Prevention Act which began
> feeding massive amounts of federal funding to states to set up
> programs to combat child abuse and
> neglect. From that came Child "Protective" Services, as we know
> it today. After the bill passed, Mondale himself expressed concerns
> that it could be misused. He worried that it could lead states to
> create a "business" in dealing with children. Then in 1997
> President Clinton passed the "Adoption and Safe Families Act." The
> public relations campaign promoted it as a way to help abused and
> neglected children who languished in foster care for years, often
> being shuffled among dozens of foster homes, never having a real
> home and family. In a press release from the U.S. Department of
> Health & Human Services dated November 24, 1999, it refers to
> "President Clintonís initiative to double by 2002 the number of
> children in foster care who are adopted or otherwise permanently
> placed." It all sounded so heartwarming. We, the American
> public, are so easily led. We love to buy stereotypes; we just eat
> them up, no questions asked. But, my mother, bless her heart,
> taught me from the
> time I
> was young to "consider the source." In the stereotype that weíve
> been sold about kids in foster care, we 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
> tykeís 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. Now itís time to wake up to the
> reality of the adoption business. Very few children who are
> being used to supply the adoption market are hollow-eyed tykes from
> Appalachia.
> Very few
> are crack babies from the projects.[OhÖ you thought those were
> the children they were saving? Think again]. When you are marketing
> a product you have to provide a desirable product that sells. In
> the adoption business that would be 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
Who

Aurora, CO

#2 Feb 25, 2010
city areas, the projects, Mission Hill, Brockton, Lynn, etc.
> InterestingÖ 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
> the Children A whole new industry was put into motion. A sweet
> marketing scheme that even Bill Gates could envy. Now, 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? The United States Department of Health
> & Human Services administers Child Protective Services. To
> accompany the ASF 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 Iíve 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 Iíve talked to for the past three
> years look at me with pity. Because Iím 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
> isnít the President. Itís us. How DSS Is Helped 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 technical 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
Who

Aurora, CO

#3 Feb 25, 2010
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 donít 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 DSSís 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 Iím surprised we
> donít have government agents breaking down peopleís doors and just
> shooting the parents in the heads and grabbing the kids. But then,
> if you need more apples you donít chop down your apple trees.
> Benefits for Foster Parents That covers the goodies the State
> gets. Now letís 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 NAATRIN
> 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 childís 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, Bostonís 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. 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
Who

Aurora, CO

#4 Mar 2, 2010
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." What an interesting government policy
> when compared to the welfare program that the same childís mother
> may have been on before losing her children, and in which she may
> not own anything, must prove that she has no money in the bank; no
> boats, real estate, stocks or bonds; and cannot even own a car that
> is safe to drive worth over $1000. This is all so she can collect $5
> 39 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 arenít
> subjected to psychological evaluations, ink blot tests, MMPIís,
> drug & alcohol evaluations, or urine screens as the parents are.
> Adoption subsidies may be negotiated on a case by case basis.
> [Anyone ever tried to "negotiate" with the Welfare Department?]
> 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 canít help but
> wonder why we d
> onít
> give this same level of support to the childrenís 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 CPS/DSS 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, wouldnít 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. Thatís just a fantasy, of course. The reality is
> that maybe we will se
> e
> Kathleen Crowleyís children on the government
> home-shopping-for-children web site and some one out there can buy
> them. May is national adoption month. To support "Adoption 2002,"
> the U.S. Postal Service is issuing special adoption stamps. Let us
> hope they donít 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 Iím feeling pretty smug and superior
> about being part of such a socially advanced and compassionate
> society. How about you?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Valley City Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Election Who do you support for U.S. House in North Dako... (Oct '10) Oct 4 Julia 26
Valley City Music Thread (Oct '13) Jun '17 Musikologist 11
Searching (Dec '06) Nov '16 aveselka 13
ATV riding (Nov '15) Nov '15 mwilley8 1
News Carl Casale, president and CEO of CHS Inc. (Jan '15) Jan '15 carl 1
News Wall disagrees with high risk status (Mar '07) Aug '14 Anynomous 5
Coming up to Valley City. (Jan '14) Jan '14 MCD Registry 1

Valley City Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Valley City Mortgages