Today’s guest blogger is Steve Schirlbauer

The article I summarized is entitled “Adoption payment hike could get more Minnesota kids in permanent homes” written by Jeremy Olson of the Star Tribune on March 13, 2013.

Description

Minnesota provides monthly compensation to families providing foster care or adopting children whose birth parent’s parental rights have been terminated by the state. However, there is a large disparity between foster care rates and adoption assistance. In the next two years, Mark Dayton’s administration plans on equalizing these rates as an incentive for foster families to adopt children.

Strengths

The article does a very good job identifying the main issue which is “equalizing payments for foster care, relative care and adoption.” The article states that the ultimate goal is to “find permanent adoptive homes for foster children…” In order to do so, “Gov. Mark Dayton has proposed $2.5 million over the next two years to overhaul payments to adoptive families.” In essence, the article does a very good job at describing the problem, how it will be addressed and stating the ultimate goal of governmental and private agencies.

The reasoning behind why the payment disparity exists is well stated: “legislators were more willing to give increases to the counties that manage foster care payments than to the state, which handles adoption payments.”

Additionally, the article cites a “state study from 2005 to 2010 that compared outcomes of children in four counties. Children in a group where payment rates were equalized were more likely to find permanent homes, although that was mostly because relatives stepped up to take advantage of the payment rates and agreed to take in foster children…” It also describes limitations of the study, “it was unclear whether the program encouraged more adoptions.”

Overall, the article does a very good job utilizing factual information as well as interviewing individuals in government and private agencies who are knowledgeable in the area. Finally, the article utilizes a longitudinal research study conducted by the state of Minnesota to describe why this topic is important to permanency and adoption.

Limitations

While the article did a good job stating that there is a disparity between foster care rates and relative/adoption payments, it did not specifically discuss how these rates are set. For example, while relative/adoption payments are income-based, foster care rates are not. For this reason, foster parents may choose not to adopt a child based on the monetary assistance that they would receive from their county. Essentially, it could be deemed more “lucrative” to provide foster care for a child rather than adopt them.

Questions

One thing that struck me was that if rates are equalized, what will the affect be on current foster care providers, or how will it affect recruitment of foster care providers? Another question that arose was the possibility that adoptive parents may not know about the availability of post-adoption services because many child welfare workers are rushed by court timelines and departmental initiatives in order to expedite adoption proceedings, especially when it comes to relative custody situations.

Additionally, the article stated that “the state (Minnesota) has had success at rapidly returning foster children to their birthparents, when that has been deemed safe…has fallen short of federal goals in finding homes for kids who can’t go back” What is ironic about this statement is that although the state has had “success” with reunification, it has also been criticized for the “high number of children who return to foster care after reunification.”

Conclusion

I do not believe this article promoted or dispelled myths about permanency and adoption. However it did answer questions for readers regarding an issue that government agencies are struggling with at local and state levels. As of March 2014, I do not believe any of these rate changes have taken affect. Only time will tell as to whether or not the payment overhaul will have a positive impact on permanency and promoting adoption through foster care.