I do think an awful lot has to do with where you live.

Amanda asked, “If I am understanding what you’ve said correctly, it sounds like there really is not an “oversupply” of Black or minority babies. Also, it sounds to me like most potential adoptive parents (at least those chosing domestic adoption) place the child’s age and health (wanting a healthy infant) as priority over race (assuming White adoptive parents, wanting a White baby). Have I interpreted the studies and your writing correctly? Please let me know if I have misunderstood.

Assuming no oversupply of Black babies and parents willing to adopt healthy Black infants, why is there still such a discrepancy between the cost to adopt a White vs Black healthy infant?”

You guys know I’m speculating here, right? I could totally have this wrong but I’m always game to speculate!

I’m not sure if “most” wannabe adoptive parents don’t place race above health and age or if “many” would be a better answer. I’m guessing the latter. Also a lot of parents will take a non-black (i.e., Asian, hispanic, etc.) before they will accept a baby who has an African American birth parent. So numbers about transracial adoption are only part of the story.

My argument, though, is that there is a lot of racist reasons why a white parent might not feel comfortable adopting a black baby but there are a lot of non-racist reasons, too.

Agencies sometimes have to network with each other to find homes for babies, especially babies that are in less demand (yes, I know this is offensive terminology but there’s no point in prettying up this conversation, eh?). The issue is not so much that it’s hard to find adoptive parents to take a black baby as it is to find a big enough pool in any given location. So, for example, if a black birth mother wants to keep her baby fairly local but the agency does not have any local waiting families willing to adopt a black baby, they may have to cross state lines. This limits the options of that birth mother to control the placement of her child in a big way.

The differences in cost depend, too, on location. Our agency recently went to a sliding scale fee and no longer base their fees on race. I’m hoping that this speaks to a growing trend but I’m not sure.

I argue though that this is a self-perpetuating issue. The longer we charge less for black babies, the more deeply entrenched we will be in the mistaken ideas that the cost difference is warranted. Those cost differences tell white people that they should be scared of being a parent of a black child. It’s not just that those children are worth less; it’s that there is (I believe) a perceived cost to adopting a black baby. And I gotta wonder how the racism inherent to price differences feels if you’re a seeking to adopt African American wannabe parent. A sliding scale keeps the adoptive parent pool diverse, it surely would seem more welcoming than racially based prices for prospective families of color and it opens adoption up to more people. As Martha would say, it’s a good thing.

We are a country struggling with race and racism. There is a great divide based on color that is most stunningly obvious in black/white issues. I’ve met very lovely people who were and are willing to adopt babies who are white or Asian or Hispanic but not black because the idea terrifies them; they don’t feel up to the task.

I imagine it would be very scary for an agency to change their policies since it might mean fewer parents in their pool, less options for potential birth mothers. But if you look to private (non-agency) adoptions, there seem to be plenty of white people who are open to black babies and in a lawyer-facilitated adoption, there isn’t a price cut the way there can be in agency adoption.

As more people turn to adoption (because infertility rates continue to rise and the number of babies available appears relatively stable) things will get tighter. More people will likely look overseas as the domestic adoption field gets more crowded and more white people are opening themselves up to transracial adoption, specifically African American and biracial babies. Also, the statement by the National Association of Black Social Workers was made in 1972. While transracial (black/white) adoption can still be controversial, it is becoming less so. Just look around the world of adoption — books, web sites, stories — and it’s clear that adoption professionals and run-of-the-mill folks not involved in adoption (around 70% across race but I can’t find the stat now) have positive feelings about transracial adoption.

Says, this article:

The demand for black or mixed-race babies has also grown in the United States, particularly in Washington, Wisconsin, Illinois, Colorado, Michigan and Minnesota.

Adoption agencies place 30 to 40 children a year in those states, accounting for more than half of the infants not adopted from Canada or overseas.

”For whatever reason, those are the choice states,” said Mary Porter, an international adoption recruiter for Shepherd Care.

”White parents are not on a mercy mission,” said Jane Bareman, executive director of Adoption Associates in Jenison, Mich. “They are not saving the world. Beyond anything else, white couples want to adopt a child and raise a family. They need a child in their lives.”

The demand is so high that Adoption Associates has a list of 12 white families waiting for a mixed-race child. In prior years, it has been four or five families.

”This is the highest we have ever had our waiting list,” Bareman said.

Oh and here’s an interesting article about same-race adoption (including adoption from foster care):

For example, 17 agencies “specializing” in the placement of minority children found same race homes for 94 percent of their 341 Black children and 66 percent of their 38 Hispanic children. In contrast, “traditional” private agencies did so only 51 percent of the time with their 806 Black children and 30 percent of the time with their 168 Hispanic children.

While equally as interesting, contrasting private agencies with public ones was more difficult because of poor record-keeping in the public sector. (This should improve within a year when a federal data collection system on foster care and adoption becomes mandatory.) Only eight of 23 public agencies interviewed had statistics enabling same race placement percentages to be computed. In these eight, however, 91 percent of Black children and 41 percent of Hispanic children were placed in same race homes.

When children’s ages at placement are included in the analysis, discrepancies between same race placement rates of specializing and public agencies and those of traditional agencies become even more startling. Minority children placed through public agencies and specializing agencies are often older or have special needs, yet are still placed with same race families at higher rates than healthy infants placed by traditional agencies.

And this was interesting, according to the 200 census 13% of adopted children were foreign born. I wonder if that number is growing?

This is more info than I can handle, plus it’s almost midnight and lord I am tired! (Amber kept me up late last night!) I know I’m talking in circles here and could be coming to wrong-headed conclusions so please consider this a dialogue in progress!

Related posts

• Too much caffeine and now too little (8)
• I hate the “but I’m infertile” excuse (4)
• Brett is 41 (9)
• Back to last week’s questions (0)
• A blog PSA (0)