BID ACCEPTED
Running Head: HUMAN SERVICES POLICY 1
HUMAN SERVICES POLICY 12
Human Services Policy
Ashlynn Brown
Saint Leo University
Abstract
Placement and rise in the population of children in the foster care centers is a clear indication that most families are in trouble and the foster system of the society is in trouble. Foster is purposely designed to offer temporary services to some children and other family members and hence enhance family reconstitution. Children often maintain being under foster care for longer periods than they are expected and hence they end up aging. This has resulted in a drastic rise in the population of children in the foster center. Regarding this dramatic rise in the number of children in these foster centers, this paper is going to examine the policy that can be used in reducing the number of these children. The policy discussed is “Intercountry Adoption Universal Accreditation Act 2012 Policy”. The history of this policy, individuals who advocated for the policy and those who advocated against the policy will be discussed as well in the paper. The paper further discusses alternative strategies that can be used in case this policy fails. The paper also sought to explain the political ideology of this policy and the perceptions of the human, the government and the non-government programs towards the policy. The alternative strategies are the elimination of the out of home placement, reducing the span of sojourn in the foster care and minimizing the racial disproportionality and their disparate outcomes.
Keywords: Foster Care, Universal Accreditation Act
Human Services Policy
Introduction
Foster care, commonly referred to as out-of-home care can be defined as the temporary services offered by nations to children who are unable to stay with their relatives. It is a complex service that services children who have experienced neglect from or abuse from their birth parents and families (Seltzer et al., 2018). Children under foster Care stay with their relatives or unconnected foster parents or even the family members who have plans of adopting them. Foster Care centers also exist in the form of family groups or even residential treatment centers (Brown & Roby, 2016). Because foster care centers are designed to offer temporary services to particular groups, it is expected that members joining them are expected to return to their parents the soonest possible. If not returning to their parents, the children are provided with new homes and families through adoption or placement with relatives.
However, some children remain in the foster care for longer periods until they age out of childhood, become adolescents and eventually adulthood. They end up living on their own. The population of young people and children in out-of-home care has drastically grown over the recent decade. The challenges associated with obtaining permanency have been remained difficult to achieve. As foster care faces increasing novel demands, new policies as well as practices which will ensure that children and young people present in the centers, their caregivers and families receive quality care (Dworsky, 2015). This can be further be facilitated by the reduction of the number of children available in the out-of-home care centers. This paper is going to discuss ways through which the number of children and the adolescents in the foster care can be reduced and ways of supporting foster youth transition into adulthood through the implementation of “Intercountry Adoption Universal Accreditation Act 2012 Policy.”
Historical overview of “Intercountry Adoption Universal Accreditation Act 2012 Policy.”
The number of children adopted by the United States accounts for more than half of the total number of intercountry adoptions in every year. Intercountry adoption developed its institutional inducements in the times of the Korean War. This was later expanded to the Vietnam War. The war was at its peak in the 1990s. During this time, China began permitting adoption of the young girls who were left due to the draconian one-child policy. A cultural preference for son also increased the number of girls who were abandoned. By the year 2004, over 45000 children were adopted across the borders.
During this era, there were no state regulation and policies that were readily available to govern the adoption. Adoption was majorly informal and was facilitated by locally available charity groups. Scarce or no resources were obtainable at that time to manage the mobility of the children between the states. Due to the inadequacy of the resources, fraud and corruption paved its way in when children were exchanged with money. Corruption and fraud became notorious to the point that children themselves were defrauded. This raised a serious concern and Schuster Institute has been working consistently to expose the problems since 2008. They have been pointing out possible solutions towards these challenges regarding the adoption of the children. This discussion prompted high-level stakeholders whom their collaboration led to the passage of this policy Act and put the solutions from the Schuster Institute into effect.
The issues that galvanized the policy included corruption and fraud of the children were being adopted. This act went in effect in the year in July 14th 20114. This is however not applicable if the exception applies.
Goals of this policy
The main goal of the Universal Accreditation Act 2012 is to successfully apply similar rules of safeguards that currently exist in the in place of convention adoption to non-convention adoption. The other common goal of this policy is to ensure that UAA furthers the above through collaboration with approved Adoption Service Providers and the US parents who wish to practice adoption internally. The goal of UAA that emerged recently was that of tumbling the population of children and young youths in foster care centers.
The Shuster Institute was the first one to show their concern on the adoption of the children and the challenges that were linked to it. They also tried to establish certain solutions through which these challenges can be solved. In this process, high-level stakeholders were prompted. They further advocated for these issues and ended up implementing the solution Schuster Institute have formulated. The following is a summary of what few members who advocated for this policy said (Berger et al., 2015).
Then-U.S. Senator Richard Lugar: the US is the state that adopts the highest number of children, who have extreme medical conditions, and they require costly medical attention. He added that this policy will give the American families certainty that whatever they are doing is in line with the accredited American adoption service provider. “I am pleased to be joined by Senators Mary Landrieu and Jim Inhofe, two of the Senate’s leaders in this field, as well the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, John Kerry.”
U.S. Senator Mary L. Landrieu. She was the founding chair of the Congressional Coalition on Adoption. Mary in her speech quoted that successful accreditation of international accreditation through proper implementation of the UAA policy. She further stated that this policy will offer additional protection towards the adopting family and the child being adopted. Her message was in line with the fact that the legislative policy is the right strategy that can be used to solve the existing problems on adoption.
Other advocates include “U.S. Representative Albio Sires (D-NJ) and Then-U.S. Senator John Kerry (D-MA), Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 2012.”
The individuals who were against this policy were the parents who belonged to the U.S Department of Health and Human Services. These parents more often mentioned a resistance towards this policy because they lacked information on where they can get full information on where to get the services from as well as the cost associated with these services. This made them remain reluctant towards supporting this policy.
The political ideology of this policy
Depending on the state being questioned, adoption may turn out to be a political issue. This later divides the political issue into different political blocs of the country into pro and anti-camps. Some members of parliament in various states are known to be anti-adoption advocates. Such members tend to bring in legislation that restricts this policy. These restrictions are further enhanced by the rhetoric speeches from the parliamentarians. Contrary to some states like the US have introduced moratoria we regard to the families and that become non-compliant to this policy.
Intercountry adoption can become an extremely sensitive issue among the parties present in the host country. This party comprises of the general public and the government. Some host countries view intercountry adoption as a mechanism of lessening the burdens in their country upon the existing overtaxed system. On the other hand, some states treat it as pride in which they have the potential of taking care of the children. This makes them respond negatively to the claims that they should adopt the Hague Adoption Convention (Engel, Phillips & Della, 2015).
The ideological views of this policy by a human organization, governmental and non-governmental programs serve to support it. Although the interpretation may vary from one state to another, they have a common ideology of supporting the policy about the solutions implemented by pioneers of the policy.
Outcomes of this policy
After the implementation of this policy on 14th June 2014, the child corruption and fraud rates have been greatly minimized. The collaboration of this policy with The Hague adoption has yielded better results in ensuring that the adoption of the children follows the right protocol and the interests of the children being exchanged are also put into consideration. The policy has also successfully collaborated with Adoption Service Providers to meet the policy goals. The most notable and expected outcome of this policy was the reduction in the population of children present in the foster care centers (Seltzer et al., 2018). This was achieved a proper understanding of the policies and the following of the right channel when adopting the children. This understanding helped increase the adoption rate and hence reducing the population of children in the foster care centers.
Recent research has revealed that the original goalmouths of plummeting the population of children and enhancing the transition of youths present into early adulthood. This is clearly supported by the increased number adopted by the American Nations.in addition, safeguards of the non-convention adoptions.
Alternative strategies in case the current policy fails
If this policy could give failed to reduce the population in the foster care centers, three alternative strategies can as well be used to ensure that the goals are met. These strategies are the elimination of the out of home placement, reducing the span of stay in the out-of-home care and minimizing the racial disproportionality and their disparate outcomes.
The chief strategy in minimizing the population of children in the out-of-home care centers is preventing the children from entering the care centers as much as possible. Providing the family with enough support and resources, most children will be safe with their families and as well as the communities in which their family belong to (Hanson & Lang, 2016). The main goal of the family support is to strengthen the families that are under crisis or those family that have been involved in the child welfare system. Preservation methods can also assist in ensuring that the families remain intact and safe when children return from foster care. Federal state laws are required to make reasonable efforts towards ensuring that children and the youths are kept within their families. This effort is achieved by reducing the risks and harm that they might encounter. To ensure that this strategy remains considerate, children will be only allowed to join foster care after a successful attempt of containing the situation has failed. In summary, for this strategy to remain successful, two types of services are involved. These are family preservatives and family support (Head & Alford, 2015).
The second strategy that will be implemented to save the situation is minimizing the span of stay in out-of-home care. Reduction in the period spent in foster care implies a reduction in the number of children who will be present there. This strategy can be made effective in two major ways. These are strengthening of the courts and strengthening of the child welfare practice. Strengthening the courts can be achieved through reduction of court delays, implementation of new court models and also enhancing the legal representation of the children and their families. Besides, the participation of the youths in the court hearings that affect them is also vital in strengthening the courts. The major role of the court towards children welfare is a determination of whether the reasonable efforts that need to be incorporated have been implemented so that the need of the children to enter the foster care centers is reduced (Head & Alford, 2015). The courts also decide if the reunification services are needed or not. Strengthening child welfare, on the other hand, involved strengthening the kinship guardianship and care, strengthening adoption and enhancing the actions that serve to promote the timely and safe reunification. These three practices can serve to decrease the population of children in out-of-home care.
The last strategy that can be used is the reduction of racial disproportionality for color children in foster care centers. Research revealed that black children who are still native Americans tend to remain in the foster centers more often. When these black children meet with the native white American children, disparities between them arise when their time to exit comes. This later leads to congestion in the care centers of one racial over the others (Fong & McRoy, 2015). A strategy like this one that can be used to address the racial disproportionality in the foster care center can be promising towards containing this challenge and hence achieving the safe reduction of the number of children present in these centers. Implementation of this policy also involves the implementation of practices that minimize the number of children of color admitted fostering care centers. Another practice involved is ensuring permanent placement of the color children admitted to the foster care centers.
Stakeholders and steps for developing effective social policy
The stakeholders convoluted in the advancement of a social policy include a wide group of patients, the public, researchers, advocacy groups and the state and policymakers. The following are the four steps that can be used towards developing effective social policy.
Identification of the need: an effective social policy can be developed as a result of need anticipation or need a response. Activities need to be fully assessed so that the report on the so that the policy will fully meet the needs.
Gather information: this involves putting together all the requirements of establishing a rule. Guidance and help on the way forward are also handled in this case.
Draft the policy: this step ensures that the length and the wording are to standard.
Consult relevant stakeholders: relevant stakeholders who can impact the policy need to be consulted and their views put into consideration.
Finalize and implement the policy: finalization involves checking if the needs anticipated have been addressed in the policy then later put it in practice.
Importance and requirement of advocacy
Conclusion
In conclusion, the reduction of the population of children in out-of-home care through the implementation of the “Intercountry Adoption Universal Accreditation Act 2012 Policy” is possible. This policy that was initiated by the Schuster Institute stood out to be useful after the problem analysis and possible solution from this institute prompted high-level stakeholders. Its implementation was fueled by corruption and fraud of the children across the borders during the Vietnam wars.
References
Berger, L. M., Cancian, M., Han, E., Noyes, J., & Rios-Salas, V. (2015). Children’s academic achievement and foster care. Pediatrics, 135(1), e109-e116.
Brown, T. W., & Roby, J. (2016). Exploitation of Intercountry Adoption: Toward Common Understanding and Action. Adoption Quarterly, 19(2), 63-80.
Dworsky, A. (2015). Child welfare services involvement among the children of young parents in foster care. Child abuse & neglect, 45, 68-79.
Engel, M. H., Phillips, N. K., & Della Cava, F. A. (2015). Inter-Country Adoption of Children Born in the United States. Sociology Between the Gaps: Forgotten and Neglected Topics, 1(1), 1.
Farrer, L., Marinetti, C., Cavaco, Y. K., & Costongs, C. (2015). Advocacy for health equity: a synthesis review. The Milbank Quarterly, 93(2), 392-437.
Fong, R., & McRoy, R. G. (Eds.). (2016). Transracial and intercountry adoptions: Cultural guidance for professionals. Columbia University Press.
Hanson, R. F., & Lang, J. (2016). A critical look at trauma-informed care among agencies and systems serving maltreated youth and their families. Child Maltreatment, 21(2), 95-100.
Head, B. W., & Alford, J. (2015). Wicked problems: Implications for public policy and management. Administration & Society, 47(6), 711-739.
Seltzer, R. R., Johnson, S., Boss, R., & Minkovitz, C. (2018). Foster Care for Children with Medical Complexity: Rarely a Short-term Solution.