Argumentative Research Paper(First draft and final draft)

Coming Out of the Closet: Opening Agencies to Gay and Lesbian Adoptive Parents

Scott D. Ryan, Sue Pearlmutter, and Victor Groza

Cay men and lesbians often encounter barriers when they pursue adoption. Adoption workers are expected to make decisions regarding child placement using the best interest standard. However, this decision-making model does not adequately consider intrapersonal, interpersonal, and organizational factors that affect the use of the standard. This article examines the best interest standard and makes practice recommendations to increase the

accessibility of adoptions for gay and lesbian applicants.

Key words: adoption; child welfare organizations; gay men and lesbians; parents

E mpirical and clinical knowledge of adoption policy and practice has increased greatly in recent years. However, a crisis remains in this

arena, as many more children are available for adoption than there are families to adopt them. As a result of the 1997 enactment of the Adoption and Safe Families Act (P.L. 105-89), which re- quires more expedient termination of birth parent rights than had previously existed, the number of children available for adoption continues to grow. The Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Re- porting System (AFCARS), established as part of the act, estimated that as of September 30, 2001, 126,000 children were waiting to be adopted. These were children for whom the public child welfare agency had a goal of adoption, for whom parental rights had been terminated, or both. During the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001, AFCARS reported that an estimated 46,668 chil- dren were adopted through the public child wel- fare system (AFCARS, 2002).

Defining Suitable Adoptive Families

Child welfare agencies most often seek adoptive families from among traditional heterosexual two-parent or single-parent families. In doing this, they follow state adoption statutes, many

dating to the mid-1900s that favor those families (Appell, 2001; HoUinger, 1999), even though a great deal of evidence exists that family constella- tions have changed significantly in the past three decades. Fields and Casper (cited in the U.S. Cen- sus Bureau, 2001) reported that the traditional two-parent nuclear family (that is, married house- holds with one or more children under the age of 18) constituted 24 percent of all U.S. households in 2000—down from 40 percent in 1970. Al- though the total number of households in the United States is estimated to increase 15.5 percent from 1995 to 2010, the number of traditional families is projected to decline 6.4 percent from 24.6 million to 23.1 million. Such families would then constitute only 20.1 percent of total house- holds (U.S. Census Bureau, 1996).

Creater flexibility in the conceptualization and interpretation of the word "family" (Ricketts & Achtenberg, 1989) would benefit children await- ing adoptive families. The effect of excluding nontraditional placement resources through an overly narrow definition of family is that some children will languish longer in foster care with- out permanence. Brooks and colleagues (1999) have discussed recent federal legislation intended to increase the pool of multiethnic foster and

CCC Code: 0037-8046/04 $3.00 O 2004 National Association of Social Workers, Inc.

85

adoptive families. Their principles for recruitment and adoption placement practice show that com- mitment to considering gay and lesbian singles and couples as potential adoptive families would expand the possibilities for permanent child placement.

Currently there are no uniform standards across states regarding adoption by gay men and lesbians. Florida is the only state that explicitly prohibits single and coupled gay men and lesbians from becoming adoptive parents. Although 49 states allow consideration of a gay or lesbian per- son as an adoptive parent, only four states—Cali- fornia, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Ver- mont—and the District of Columbia explicitly permit joint adoption by lesbian or gay couples (LetHimStay, 2002). All other jurisdictions determine who ^ ^ ^ ^ can and cannot adopt on a case- by-case basis, using local and state statutes (Ricketts & Achtenberg, 1989). Thus, pub- lic child welfare agencies in most states could consider gay men and lesbians as potential adop- tive parents. However, Utah and ^ ^ ^ ^ Arkansas have instituted exclu- sionary administrative policies effectively prohibiting gay men and lesbians from adopting children in either state's custody (Riggs, 1999). Similar measures have been considered in Arizona, Indiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Okla- homa, and Texas (Appell, 2001; Ferrero, Freker, & Foster, 2002; Riggs). These policies and legisla- tive measures ignore evidence that family form does little to ensure success in adoption. Rather, adoption successes depend on the balance of re- sources and stressors that affect the family (Groze, 1996).

Gay men and lesbians have adopted children for many years, despite fear and discrimination. They have adopted as single parents through pub- lic child welfare agencies, private sources, and in- ternational organizations. They have sought older children from various racial and ethnic groups, as well as sibling groups and children with disabili- ties. And, although international adoptions have permitted more fiexibility, they too have become more restrictive, as countries such as China, Thai- land, and Guatemala have prohibited gay and les- bian adoption applications (Brodzinsky, 2002; Chibbaro, 2002).

Adoption successes depend on the balance of resources

and stressors that affect the family.

Homophobia and Heterosexism Prejudice against gay men and lesbians has been socially sanctioned for hundreds of years and, ar- guably, continues today. The mental health com- munity in this country classified homosexuality as a mental disorder until the early 1970s. At ap- proximately the same time, Weinberg (1972) first described homophobia as "the fear by heterosexu- als when in near proximity to homosexuals, and the self-hatred felt by gays because of their homo- sexuality" (p. 4). Others describe homophobia as an "irrational fear and hatred of those who love ... [persons] of the same sex" (Pharr, 1988, p. 1), connected to racism, sexism, and other "isms" (Pharr; Plummer, 1992). Calhoun (2000) viewed it as subordination, a totally sanctioned and sepa-

rate type of oppression. ^ ^ ^ ^ Homophobia is most often

accompanied by heterosex- ism, bias that favors hetero- sexual people as the norm and heterosexual families as supe- rior to other family forms. According to Plummer (1992) and Calhoun (2000), hetero-

^ ^ • ^ ^ sexism is dangerous and per- vasive. It effectively silences gay men and lesbians, placing

them "at the outside of civil society" (Calhoun, p. 76) and privileges heterosexual men and women. It displaces gay men and lesbians from both the public and private spheres, particularly the "sphere of marriage and the family" (Calhoun, p. 76).

Attempts to promote inclusion of gay men and lesbians as part of a pluralistic culture often meet with overt and subtle resistance. This battle is not new, and it is not confined to gay men and lesbi- ans. Farley (2000) claimed, for instance, "much of what is true about relations between African- Americans and Whites, for example, is also true about relations between males and females, gays and straights, and people with and without dis- abilities" (p. 12). Staff in social services organiza- tions routinely struggle with acceptance of differ- ence, particularly difference with regard to the composition of families. In the recent past, inter- est in adoption by single individuals, men, inter- racial and transracial families, and gay men and lesbians has pushed agencies and social workers to weigh their commitment to multiculturalism (Brooks, Goldberg, Berrick, 8c Austin, 1996; Murray, 1996; Rodriguez & Meyer, 1990).

Sociai Worii I Volume 49, Number 1 /January 2004

8 6

Laws and regulations, narrow definitions of family, homophobia, and heterosexism limit the possibility that lesbians and gay men will be con- sidered as adoptive parents. The cumulative ef- fect of actions by states, local jurisdictions, agen- cies, and individual staff members is to prevent or discourage consideration of their availability and interest. Even if child welfare staff members overcome these initial barriers, the decision-mak- ing tool most often available to them may further limit the inclusion of gay and lesbian families as placement candidates. This standard, the "best interest of the child," is used as a measure to guide placement of children in the custody of the child welfare system.

The Best Interest Decision-Mal<ing Standard

AH states allow social workers, judges, and profes- sionals involved in the placement of children with prospective adoptive families to apply the best interest of the child standard for decision making (Ricketts, 1991). This standard requires that child welfare workers base their recommendations and decisions on what is best for the child, not what is best for the potential adoptive parents or the agency and not the worker's personal opinion. Workers must assess the match between short- and long-term needs of the child or children awaiting placement and the resources, strengths, and vulnerabilities of a particular family.

However, the capacity of social workers to fully and objectively assess parenting ability among a range of family types may be limited. Berkman and Zinberg (1997) found that heterosexism is prevalent among social workers. Establishing a preference for specific types of families in the adoption arena, such as those formed by hetero- sexual partners, is not new. Wolins (1959) found, for example, that staff in child placement agencies often used a subjective model of goodness, which he compared to an unwritten continuum, to evaluate the desirability of families. Depending on the need for adoptive homes, specific applicant families might be seen as desirable, merely accept- able, or not at all worthy. Bradley (1967) indicated that adoption workers in her study used a "psy- chosocial appraisal... related to the positive qual- ity of the couple's interaction in their marriage, flexible and outgoing characteristics of both the wife's and husband's personalities, the couple's openness,... motivation for adoption,... marital role performance, and acceptance of their infertil-

ity" (p. 122). Rather than applying objective deci- sion-making criteria, a social worker's values, pre- vious experience, and subjective judgment of par- ticular families appear to drive approval and placement decisions. Such subjective models and unwritten criteria fail to acknowledge the viability of gay and lesbian people and families as place- ments or even accept them as a resource.

Literature suggests that considerations surround- ing gay men and lesbians' suitability as adoptive parents focus first on the applicants themselves. These concerns include the mental health of the applicant (Falk, 1989; Green, Mandel, Hotvedt, Gray, & Smith, 1986), parenting skills (Cramer, 1986; Patterson, 2000a), and his or her relationship quality and stability (Flaks, Ficher, Masterpasqua, & Joseph, 1995; Koepke, Hare, & Moran, 1992). Next, consideration focuses on the effect of gay or lesbian adoption on the child's psychological and psychosexual development (Allen & Burrell, 1996; Falk, 1989; Gibbs, 1988; Green et al.; Knight & Garcia, 1994; Patterson, 1992, 2000a), sexual safety (Cramer, 1986; Falk, 1989; Knight & Garcia), and social stigmatization (Donaldson, 2000). In addi- tion, studies have examined permutations of these subthemes among gay and lesbian biological and adoptive families (Sullivan, 1995). Currently, no empirical evidence demonstrates that living with a gay or lesbian parent has any significant negative effects on children (for an overview of the avail- able research, see Patterson, 2000b).

In using the best interest standard, social work- ers may be infiuenced by peers, supervisors, their organizational context, and the larger sociocul- tural arena, and this may restrict their decision making. To more fully understand these infiu- ences, we use systems theory focusing on the in- trapersonal, interpersonal, and organizational lev- els in our analysis.

Systems Theory: Intrapersonal, Interpersonal, and Organizational Levels

Hall and Fagan (1956), in discussing the interac- tion of people, social issues, and social phenomena, defined a system as "a set of objects together with relationships between the objects and between their attributes... the [systemic] environment is the set of all objects, a change in whose attributes affect the system and also those objects whose at- tributes are changed by the behavior of the sys- tem" (pp. 18-21). A social worker's interpersonal infiuences, such as peers and supervisors, as well

Ryan, Pearlmutter, and Croza / Coming Out of the Closet: Opening Agencies to Gay and Lesbian Adoptive Parents

87

as other factors, including agency policies and leadership, have an effect on the decision-making process within a larger social and political context (Figure 1). There are also confounding effects from the interaction of these factors. Although the proportional influence of each factor on an individual's decision remains unclear, each factor affects the decision-making process to varying degrees (Robbins, Chatterjee, & Canda, 1998). Each area possesses distinctive boundaries and patterns. At the same time, there is interconnect- edness among the factors. Through the permeable boundaries, positive or negative effects can flow in either direction. For instance, an individual can sway a group and change agency policy and vice versa (Robbins et al.).

Environmental and Societal Forces

Although adoption had been viewed for many years as a service available to white middle- and upper-income families, it has come to target a

much broader audience. Single-parent families, people of various racial and ethnic groups, and other nontraditional families are recruited to ob- tain permanent placement for an increasing num- ber of children waiting in the child welfare system (Mallon, 2000).

Intrapersonal Influences

Two empirical studies have explored homophobia among child welfare workers and its effect on adoption placement recommendations (Ryan, 2000; Taylor, 1998). Taylor reported that his sample of 50 child welfare workers in California generally favored allowing adoptions by gay men and lesbians. However, approximately one-third of respondents thought that gay and lesbian adop- tion applicants should not be able to adopt a child younger than five years, and 25 percent believed the child should be older than 15.

Ryan (2000), in a sample of 80 social workers, found that attitudes toward gay men and lesbians

Figurel Interactions between Systems in Decision Making about Cay and Lesbian Adoptive Families

Interpersonal

Intrapersonal

t .y Organizational

Social Wort / Volume 49, Number 1 /January 2004

8 8

as adoptive parents derive from childhood and familial experiences as well as professional indoc- trination. African American workers in his study were more likely to exhibit heterosexist views than workers from other racial or ethnic groups. He reported that these views appear to be re- lated to family and socialization experiences. However, the receipt of special training was highly effective in the formation of positive atti- tudes and behaviors toward deciding the place- ment of children with gay men or lesbians. Ryan's research underscores that values and morals developed through primary socialization provide an important framework within which individuals initially evaluate issues. To the extent that child welfare workers use their own stan- dards for decision-making pur- poses, the best interest of the • • • • child is often clouded in the process. Brooks and Goldberg (2001) noted that biased work- ers can affect placements in a number of ways: by question- ing the parenting abilities of gay and lesbian applicants, leaking information to birth parents, and not seeking out lesbian and gay families.

Social workers who advocate the placement of a child with a gay man or

lesbian may be subjected to ridicule, ostracism, and

other career-limiting reactions.

Supervisor and Peer Influences In practice, a team, supervisory group, or committee often participates in indi- vidual adoption placement recommendations. Although there is no research examining the in- fluence among group members on the placement recommendation, peer and supervisor influences have been studied in other contexts. That research suggests that the infiuence of groups can often promote positive behavior through the use of so- cial control and social learning methods. How- ever, several studies have also demonstrated that negative acts, including child abuse, aggression, and antisocial behavior, can be shaped through the group process (Bandura, 1973; Miller, Handal, Gilner, & Cross, 1991; Robinson & O'Leary-Kelly, 1998). Thus, group infiuence on individual deci- sion making can occur as social workers see the actions of others in the group and the resulting consequences; view the vicarious reinforcements, which may be positive or negative, that serve to infiuence the social worker's future behavior; and

integrate these observational infiuences into their previous experiences.

In addition, when responsibility for action, such as a placement recommendation, is spread throughout a group, workers' attitudes and be- havior may be affected. A social worker might then disengage his or her personal system of moral control and make decisions based on per- ceptions of group reinforcement (Bandura, 1990; Bandura, Barbaranelli, Caprara, & Pastorelli, 1996). Social workers may also be likely to imitate the actions of individuals whom they perceive as prestigious or similar to themselves, including a supervisor, other respected professionals, col- leagues, or peers (Bandura, 1986; Bandura & Walters, 1963).

Such findings suggest that ^ ^ ^ ^ peers or supervisors with

whom an individual social worker associates may have an effect on the placement rec- ommendation. Social workers who advocate the placement of a child with a gay man or lesbian may be subjected to ridicule, ostracism, and other career-limiting reactions. One social worker reported that "[t]here still exists the reality

^ ^ • ^ ^ that a homophobic supervisor will link prospective gay and lesbian parents with a ho-

mophobic worker" (Brooks et al., 1996, p. 28). An unbiased worker may initially recommend place- ment to a lesbian or gay man, only to reconsider his or her decision because of infiuence exerted by a homophobic supervisor or other unit members (Robinson & O'Leary-Kelly, 1998). However, the reverse may also be true. Peers and supervisors can exert positive infiuences and reinforce the use of the best interest standard. Well-informed workers can guide gay men and lesbians through the recruitment and placement processes (Brooks & Goldberg, 2001).

Organizational Influences

Whereas "an agency's attitude toward placement with gay men and lesbians can have profound im- plications for recruitment and placement prac- tices" (Brooks 8c Goldberg, 2001, p. 152) that in- clude gay men and lesbians, organizational practice has been slow to change. Many child

Ryan, Pearlmutter, and Croza / Coming Out of the Closet: Opening Agencies to Cay and Lesbian Adoptive Parents

89

welfare agencies prefer couples to single parents, middle-class to working-class or poorer families, and nonkin to kin. However, such exclusions have worked against the placement of special needs children, including African American children, older children, sibling groups, or gay and lesbian youths. Such special needs children are precisely those whom nontraditional, single-parent, or working-class families and racial and ethnic group families—rather than traditional, white, two-par- ent, middle-class families—are more willing to adopt (Rodriguez & Meyer, 1990).

Agency policy regarding adoptions by gay men and lesbians can also be covert, with no explicitly written guidelines (Reilly, 1996). As a result, adoption workers may erroneously assume that gay or lesbian adoptions are not legal in their state. Ryan (1996) found that 14 percent of the social workers he surveyed would not place a child with a gay man or lesbian because they believed these placements were either against the law or in opposition to agency policy, neither of which was true. Covert exclusion may avoid confrontation with community stakeholders. However, hidden policies provide no uniform guidance to staff and encourage individual interpretations of laws and regulations (Pandukht, 1998; Reilly). In addition, ambiguous policies create misinformation among workers. Many agencies, in an indirect attempt to be inclusive, have instituted a "don't ask, don't tell" approach to avoid conflicts with those in their communities who are opposed to adoptions by gay men and lesbians. Yet, policies to guide professional behavior are obstructed by such se- crecy and informality (Sullivan, 1995). Reilly as- serted that "[t]he failure of... agencies to provide written direction or regulation on the placement of children in gay and lesbian homes is a disser- vice to children" (p. 112).

Child welfare agency managers are often caught in a dilemma when staff members make a determination to place children with gay men or lesbians. Influential stakeholders from outside the agency, as well as within, may hold negative views of gay and lesbian adoptive parents. Although some agency representatives covertly allow adop- tions by gay men and lesbians to occur, such se- crecy helps to maintain the status quo of worker confusion, gay and lesbian exclusion, and waiting children.

Policy statements from professional organiza- tions that include child welfare staff and adminis-

trators could positively influence organizational and individual social worker behavior. The American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and NASW have all adopted official policy statements that explicitly address the place- ment of children with gay men or lesbians (American Academy of Pediatrics, 2002; Ricketts, 1991). The American Psychiatric Association's (1986) policy on adoptions by gay men or lesbians states that "single factors such as homosexuality should not necessarily or automatically rule out the selection of a potential adoptive parent" (p. 1506). The American Psychological Association, in 1974, after removing homosexuality from its list of mental disorders, adopted the following resolution: "Homosexuality per se implies no im- pairment of judgment, stability, reliability, or gen- eral social and vocational capabilities" (1975, p. 1). The organization later adopted the following resolution: "Sex, gender identity, or sexual orien- tation of prospective adoptive parents should not be the sole or primary variable considered in placement" (1976, p. 1). The NASW Code of Ethics (2000) states, "Social workers should not practice, condone, facilitate, or collaborate with any form of discrimination on the basis of... sexual orien- tation" (Section 4.02).

The Child Welfare League of America, the nation's oldest and largest child advocacy group, is more explicit in its assertion that lesbians and gay men seeking to adopt shall be judged by the same standards that apply to heterosexuals: "All applicants should have an equal opportunity to apply for the adoption of children and receive fair and equal treatment and consideration of their qualifications as adoptive parents ... [and that] sexual preference should not be the sole criterion on which the suitability of adoptive ap- plicants is based" (2000, pp. 47-50). However, even with these official policies in place, the ef- fect on individual agencies and their staff is not clear.

Practice Implications

The characteristics and definitions of family change with the realities of demographic shifts in this country. However, application of the best in- terest standard can become more inclusive only if workers, their supervisors, and child welfare orga- nizations begin to consciously accept gay and les- bian people as potential adoptive parents.

Social Wort/Volume 49, Number 1 /January 2004

90

Aligning Personal Attitudes, Beliefs, and Behaviors with Professional Guidelines A primary intervention tool for changing behav- ior is the use of training. Ryan (2000) found that training focused specifically on adoptions by gay men and lesbians was the most significant predic- tor of social worker placement recommendation. Others have also noted the positive effects of gen- eral training on attitudes held toward gay men and lesbians (Ben-Ari, 1998; Christensen & Sorensen, 1994; Serdahely & Ziemba, 1984; Wells, 1991). Trainers should begin this work by helping social workers define their beliefs and attitudes about gay men and lesbians, including attitudes about them as parents. Identifying individual val- ues and beliefs regarding this issue is essential to the growth process (Taylor, 1998).

A strong association exists between Western Judeo-Christian theology and negative attitudes toward gay men and lesbians (Crawford & SoUiday, 1996). Training for individual workers might include information about current inter- pretations of biblical references to help modify attitudes (Boswell, 1980). Finally, training should focus on communication and problem solving around workers' concerns or discomfort in assess- ing and working with gay and lesbian applicants.

Research suggests that interventions directly addressing stereotypes and unfounded beliefs may be most effective in countering negative atti- tudes toward gay men and lesbians as parents (Crawford & SoUiday, 1996). Adoption workers could meet v«th gay and lesbian applicants, birth families, and adoptive families (Berkman & Zinberg, 1997; Herek, 1988; Herek & Glunt, 1993), thereby enlisting collective support. Other strategies for changing attitudes have been sug- gested. For instance, special committees focused on gay and lesbian issues within an agency "in- creased the visibility of gay/lesbian employees and have led to a more tolerant attitude [among staff]" (Brooks et al., 1996, p. 26). Providing social workers with information from relevant research may further help to Uluminate and broaden their perceptions of family. For example, the majority of students in one study attributed their attitude changes to meeting with a gay man and his mother and obtaining additional theoretical and empirical information about gay men and lesbians (Ben-Ari, 1998).

Child welfare workers also need to understand how to apply the best interest standard in ways

that are inclusive. In training, they should be en- couraged to examine applicant information and materials with an awareness of the child's needs and interests, recognizing that their own values may impede that process. Definitions of family could be discussed and broadened in a training or educational setting so that workers begin their consideration of applicants from a larger pool of adoptive candidates.

Conversely, some academics suggest that the long-term effect of training on gay and lesbian issues is negligible (Berkman & Zinberg, 1997). More research is needed to ascertain the veracity of this claim and the potential source of such ero- sion. Continued vigilance appears crucial to maintaining an open dialogue among workers on the issue of gay and lesbian adoption.

Moderating Supervisor and Peer Influences

As noted earlier, homophobic peers or supervisors might negatively infiuence an accepting social worker. Most training focuses on the individual social worker. In this instance, training could ad- dress the effects of agency policy and other em- ployees, providing workers with tools and strate- gies to implement new policies and deal vnth other system constraints. To counter any negative effects of supervisors, peers, or other groups. Brooks and colleagues (1996) described one agency's practice of having representatives of the gay and lesbian community present at the meeting at which placements are considered. This practice humanizes the victims of prejudicial behavior (Bandura, 1990) and reminds decision makers of their responsibility to consider the best interest of the child rather than the sexual orientation of the applicants.

The inclusion of a gay or lesbian community representative, the hiring of gay and lesbian social workers, or both, could shift the power balance within the group, providing more support for consideration of placements with gay and lesbian applicants. Bandura (1977) indicated that because behavior is learned, it can be unlearned as well. Thus, interacting with gay and lesbian coworkers and community members can help social workers become comfortable working with gay and lesbian applicants.

Given that compliance is also possible despite individual personal attitudes, supervisors can serve as positive role models for social workers through their inclusion of diverse family forms in

Ryan, Pearlmutter, and Croza / Coming Out of the Closet: Opening Agencies to Cay and Lesbian Adoptive Parents

91

the placement process. The supervisory process can also help social work staff address overt and covert discrimination through reminders that gay or lesbian people can be considered as adoptive parents (in all states except Florida, Mississippi, and Utah [which prohibit adoption by all unmar- ried couples]), discussion of professional stan- dards and ethics, and creation of a system for monitoring placement recommendations. Last, supervisors can support development of clear, inclusive organizational policies that recognize and incorporate family diversity. Such policies would permit many types of families to be consid- ered as adoptive parents using the best interest standard. These policies would encourage deci- sions "based on the strengths and needs of the child and the perceived ability of the prospective adoptive family to meet those needs and develop those strengths" (Mallon, 2000, p. 14).

Organizational Changes

Only a few laws or policies explicitly require child welfare organizations to consider gay and lesbian applicants equally with heterosexual individuals in child placement decisions. This double standard for placement decisions seems antithetical to a mission of social justice and runs counter to the ethical guidelines of NASW and recommenda- tions from the Child Welfare League of America, the American Psychiatric Association, the Ameri- can Psychological Association, and other organi- zations. The clear positions these professional or- ganizations have taken can provide an agency with support to implement inclusive policies, pro- cedures, and practices.

Although decision makers' lack of guidance may encourage ambiguity and homophobia, these position statements can provide legitimacy for an organization's positive actions in the larger pro- fessional community. In addition, agencies can engage community activists knowledgeable on adoption by gay and lesbian individuals to assist in developing clear policies that help remove this veil of ambiguity.

One important step in presenting an agency's position to the public and potential opposition groups is preparation for public discussions and questions. Such preparation is paramount for two key reasons. First, gay and lesbian issues routinely evoke heated debate, particularly as they relate to family formation. Second, it is impossible to edu- cate through argument without each side becom-

ing further entrenched and polarized in its respec- tive position. To assist in the preparatory process, various scenarios should be role-played by identi- fying and rehearsing potential responses to public and media questions about gay and lesbian adop- tions (Reardon, 1981).

Professionals should begin by emphasizing those things on which all parties agree (Reardon, 1981), including the need for and desire to pro- vide permanent, loving homes for children in fos- ter care. Focusing on this idea would encourage decisions using the best interest standard. Another point to emphasize in the discussion is the cost- benefit of permanency, using data on the costs and effects of keeping children in nonpermanent placements.

When engaging those who criticize recruitment of gay and lesbian adoptive families, social work- ers might impress on them the great need for adoptive homes and seek their assistance in locat- ing families through their churches, neighbor- hoods, organizations, or extended family mem- bers. However, the critics should not define the discussion. Opponents may argue against an agency's actions in biblical terms, accusing the agency, commissioners, council members, and others of condoning homosexuality. Answers to inquiries can instead reframe the focus on areas of agreement, such as the best interest of the child and permanency or constitutionality and civil rights. Forming coalitions around the reframed issue may increase organizational strength (Reardon, 1981; Schneider, 1985).

When organizational staff members engage individuals and groups in a discussion of gay and lesbian adoption, they should identify the affective or cognitive source of the concern first. Affective needs, such as feelings of fear and disgust, should be addressed before other information is given. This provision of empathy lets the other party know that he or she is being heard without neces- sarily acknowledging agreement or acquiescence. The empathic connection should then make room for cognitive information, such as why the fear is not warranted, to be better received and processed (Rogers, 1951).

"Message senders" influence the ways in which an audience receives intended messages (Reardon, 1981). Thus, establishing a cadre of researchers and experts to whom the agency could direct the media for independent comments that support the agency's position or practice would help to

Social Wort/Volume 49, Number 1 /January 2004

92

reframe the question and educate the community. Organizations should project a unified position through all written and verbal correspondence on this issue. Consensus between key internal stake- holders can be achieved through reframing as out- lined earlier—focusing on the waiting children and their need for permanency and away from applicants' sexual orientation.

At the organizational level too, leaders must emerge to create and implement clear and inclu- sive adoption policies that positively influence staffs' decision making and perceptions. They can begin to ensure that the best interest standard is uniformly applied and that it considers both het- erosexual and gay and lesbian families as prospec- tive adoptive families.

Conclusion

Social work professionals have a responsibility to challenge problems that have been socially sanc- tioned and created. Leadership requires doing what is right, not necessarily what is popular or consistent with expressed community standards and values. Working to ensure the best interests of children may require joining the fight against gay and lesbian prejudice. A recognition of struggles in the civil rights movement and the women's movement can help us understand how such nor- mative prejudice has denied large segments of the population full participation in society. These struggles also help identify the significance of any change in values, attitudes, and behaviors that were once perceived as acceptable.

No one has the right to adopt; children do have a right to loving, permanent homes. This article has proposed that one step toward that goal is a critical re-evaluation at the intrapersonal, inter- personal, and organizational levels of the ways in which the best interest of the child standard is de- fmed and applied. •

References

Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997, P.L. 105-89, 111 Stat. 2115. See also http://www.abanet.org/ftp/ pub/child/pl 105-89.txt

AFCARS. (2002). Adoption and foster care analysis and reporting system. Retrieved November 4, 2003, from http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/ afcars/report8.pdf

Allen, M., & Burrell, N. (1996). Comparing the impact of homosexual and heterosexual parents on chil- dren: Meta-analysis of existing research. Journal of Homosexuality, 32(2), 19-35.

American Academy of Pediatrics. (2002). Coparent or second-parent adoption by same-sex parents. Re- trieved February 27, 2003, from http://www.aap. org/policy/020008.html

American Psychiatric Association. (1986). Position statement on discrimination in selection of foster parents. American Journal of Psychiatry, 143, 1506.

American Psychological Association. (1975). Policy statements on lesbian, gay, and bisexual concerns: Discrimination against homosexuals. Retrieved June 2000, from http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbpolicy/ child.html

American Psychological Association. (1976). Policy statements on lesbian, gay, and bisexual concerns: Child custody or placement. Retrieved June 2000, from http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbpolicy/against.html

Appell, A. R. (2001). Lesbian and gay adoption. Adop- tion Quarterly, 4, 75-86.

Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analy- sis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social-cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (1990). Selective activation and disengage- ment of moral control. Journal of Social Issues, 46, 27-46.

Bandura, A., Barbaranelli, C , Caprara, G., & Pastorelli, C. (1996). Mechanisms of moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 364-374.

Bandura, A., & Walter, R. (1963). Social learning and personality development. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Ben-Ari, A. (1998). An experiential attitude change: Social work students and homosexuality. Journal of Homosexuality, 36(2), 59-71.

Berkman, C , & Zinberg, G. (1997). Homophobia and heterosexism in social workers. Social Work, 42, 319-332.

Boswell, J. (1980). Christianity, social tolerance, and homosexuality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Bradley, T. (1967). An exploration of caseworkers' per- ceptions of adoptive applicants. New York: Child Welfare League of America.

Brodzinsky, D. (2002). Adoption agency perspectives on lesbian and gay prospective parents: A national study. Adoption Quarterly, 5(3), 5-23.

Brooks, D., Barth, R., Bussiere, A., & Patterson, G. (1999). Adoption and race: Implementing the Mul- tiethnic Placement Act (MEPA) and the Interethnic Adoption Provisions. Social Work, 44, 167-178.

Brooks, D., & Goldberg, S. (2001). Gay and lesbian adoptive and foster care placements: Can they meet the needs of waiting children? Social Work, 46, 147- 157.

Ryan, Pearlmutter, and Croza / Coming Out of the Closet: Opening Agencies to Cay and Lesbian Adoptive Parents

93

Brooks, D., Goldberg, S., Berrick, J., & Austin, M. (1996). Considerations relating to the placement of children in gay/lesbian foster and adoptive homes. Berkeley, CA: Bay Area Social Services Consortium.

Calhoun, C. (2000). Feminism, the family, and the poli- tics of the closet: Lesbian and gay displacement. New York: Oxford University Press.

Chibbaro, L., Jr. (2002). Most agencies OK gay adop- tions. Retrieved February 27, 2003, from http:// www.hrc.org/familynet/newsstand.asp?ID= 1866

Child Welfare League of America. (2000). Standards for adoption service (rev. ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Christensen, S., & Sorensen, L. (1994). Effects of a multi-factor education program on the attitude of child and youth worker students towards gays and lesbians. Child and Youth Care Forum, 23, 119-133.

Cramer, D. (1986). Gay parents and their children: A review of research and practical implications. Jour- nal of Counseling and Development, 64, 504-507.

Crawford, 1., & SoUiday, E. (1996). The attitudes of undergraduate college students toward gay parenting. Journal of Homosexuality, 30(4), 63-77.

Donaldson, C. (2000). Midlife lesbian parenting. Jour- nal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services: Issues in Prac- tice, Policy, &Research, 11,119-138.

Falk, P. (1989). Lesbian mothers: Psychological as- sumptions in family law. American Psychologist, 44, 941-947.

Farley, J. (2000). Majority-minority relations (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Ferrero, E., Freker, J., & Foster, T., with Coles, M., Cooper, L , & Esseks, J. (2002). Too high a price: The case against restricting gay parenting. New York: American Civil Liberties Union.

Flaks, D. K., Ficher, 1., Masterpasqua, F., & Joseph, G. (1995). Lesbians choosing motherhood: A compara- tive study of lesbian and heterosexual parents and their children. Developmental Psychology, 31, 105- 114.

Gibbs, E. D. (1988). Psychosocial development of chil- dren raised by lesbian mothers: A review of re- search. Women and Therapy, 8, 65-75.

Green, R., Mandel, J., Hotvedt, M., Gray, J., & Smith, L. (1986). Lesbian mothers and their children: A comparison with solo parent heterosexual mothers and their children. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 15, 167-184.

Groze, V. (1996). Successful adoptive families: A longitu- dinal study of special needs adoption. New York: Praeger.

Hall, A., & Fagan, R. (1956). Definition of system. Gen- eral Systems, 1, 18-28.

Herek, G. (1988). Heterosexuals' attitudes toward les- bians and gay men: Correlates and gender differ- ences. Journal of Sex Research, 25,451—477.

Herek, G., & Glunt, E. (1993). Interpersonal contact and heterosexuals' attitudes toward gay men: Re-

sults from a national survey. Journal of Sex Research, 30, 239-244.

HoUinger, J. H. (Ed.). (1999). Adoption law and prac- tice. New York: Matthew Bender.

Knight, R., & Garcia, D. (1994). Homosexual parenting: Bad for children, bad for society. Washington, DC: Family Research Council.

Koepke, L., Hare, J., & Moran, P. B. (1992). Relation- ship quality in a sample of lesbian couples with chil- dren and child-free lesbian couples. Family Rela- tions, 41, 224-229.

LetHimStay. (2002). The big picture: Gay parenting and the law. Retrieved September 20, 2002, from http:// www.lethimstay.com/bigpicture_parenting.html

Mallon, G. P. (2000). Gay men and lesbians as adoptive parents. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, ii(4), 1-22.

Miller, T., Handal, P., Gilner, F., & Cross, J. (1991). The relationship of abuse and witnessing violence on the Child Abuse Potential Inventory with black adolescents. Journal of Family Violence, 6, 351-363.

Murray, S. (1996). "We all love Charles": Men in child care and the social construction of gender. Gender and Society, 10, 368-385.

National Association of Social Workers. (2000). Code of ethics of the National Association of Social Workers (Section 4.02). Retrieved October 30, 2002, from http://www.naswdc.org/pubs/code/default.htm

Pandukht, K. (1998, October). Adoption in the gay and lesbian community: Legal, policy and social issues. Unpublished master's thesis. University of Califor- nia, Irvine. (UMI No. 1390134., MAI 35/05, p. 1275)

Patterson, C. (1992). Children of lesbian and gay par- ents. Child Development, 63,1025-1042.

Patterson, C. (2000a). Family relationships of lesbians and gay men. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 1052-1069.

Patterson, C. (2000b, February 23). Lesbian and gay parenting: A resource for psychologists. Retrieved Oc- tober 2002, from http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html

Pharr, S. (1988). Homophobia: A weapon of sexism. Inverness, CA: Chardon Press.

Plummer, K. (1992). Speaking its name: Inventing les- bian and gay studies. In K. Plummer (Ed.), Modern homosexualities: Fragments of lesbian and gay experi- ences (pp. 3-26). London: Routledge.

Reardon, K. (1981). Persuasion: Theory and context. Beverly HUls, CA: Sage Publications.

Reilly, T. (1996). Gay and lesbian adoptions: A theo- retical examination of policy-making and organiza- tional decision making. Journal of Sociology and So- cial Welfare, 4,99-115.

Ricketts, W. (1991). Lesbians and gay men as foster par- ents. Portland, ME: National Child Welfare Re- source Center for Child and Family Policy.

Ricketts, W., & Achtenberg, R. (1989). Adoption and foster parenting for lesbians and gay men: Creating

Social Work / Volume 49, Number 1 /January 2004

94

Scott D. Ryan, PhD, RPT-S, is assistant professor, School of Social Work, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306-2570; e-mail: sryan@mailer. fsu.edu. Sue Pearlmutter, PhD, is assistant profes- sor, and Victor Groza, PhD, is professor, Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences, Case Western Re- serve University, Cleveland.

Original manuscript received February 4, 2002 Final revision received November 11, 2002 Accepted February 3, 2003

new traditions in family. Marriage and Family Re- view, i4, 8 3 - n 6 .

Riggs, D. (1999, Summer). Two steps forward, one step back: Single and gay adoption in North America. Adoptalk [Online]. Retrieved November 4, 2003, from http://www.nacac.org/adoptalk articles/two steps.html

Robbins, S., Chatterjee, P., & Canda, E. (1998). Con- temporary human behavior theory: A critical perspec- tive for social work. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Robinson, S., & O'Leary-Kelly, A. (1998). Monkey see, monkey do: The influence of work groups on the antisocial behavior of employees. Academy of Man- agement Journal, 41, 658-672.

Rodriguez, P., & Meyer, A. (1990). Minority adoptions and agency practices. Social Work, 35, 528-531.

Rogers, C. (1951). Client-centered therapy: Practice, implications, and theory. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Ryan, S. (1996). Adoption workers' attitudes toward ho- mosexuals as adoptive parents. tJnpublished manu- script.

Ryan, S. (2000). Examining social workers' placement recommendations of children with gay and lesbian adoptive parents. Families in Society, 81, 517-528.

Schneider, J. (1985). Social problems theory: The con- structionist view. Annual Review of Sociology, 11, 209-229.

Serdahely, W., & Ziemba, G. (1984). Changing ho- mophobic attitudes through college sexuality educa- tion. Journal of Homosexuality, 10, 109-116.

Sullivan, A. (1995). Policy issues. In A. Sullivan (Ed.), Issues of gay and lesbian adoption: Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Pierce-Warwick Adoption Symposium (pp. 1-9). Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America.

Taylor, M. (1998, October). Attitudes of social workers toward gay and lesbian adoption. Unpublished master's thesis, California State University, Long Beach. (UMI No. 1390139, MAI 36/05, p. 1276)

U.S. Census Bureau. (1996, May). National households and families projections. Retrieved June 2000, from http://www.census.gov/population/www/projec- tions/nathh.ktml

U.S. Census Bureau. (2001). America's families and living arrangements: March 2000. In J. Fields & L. M. Casper (Eds.), Current population reports (Series P-20, No. 537). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Weinberg, G. (1972). Society and the healthy homo- sexual. New York: St. Martin's Press.

Wells, J. (1991). What makes a difference? Various teaching strategies to reduce homophobia in univer- sity students. Annals of Sex Research, 3, 229-238.

Wolins, M. (1959). The problem of choice in foster home finding. Social Work, 4, 40-48.

Ryan, Pearlmutter, and Croza / Coming Out of the Closet: Opening Agencies to Cay and Lesbian Adoptive Parents

The Department of Veterans Affairs' INTERPROFESSIONAL PALUATIVE CARE FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM in Academic Year 2004-20Q5 for Social Woriiers. The goai of the largest intefprofessional fellowship program is to develop clinicians with the vision, knowledge, and commitment to lead palliative care into the 21st century. You wiil be part of a Medical Center interdisciplinary palliative care team making an impact in a hospice, geriatric, or end-of-iife/pain management setting. Your training will involve hands^n clinical work integrated with quality small-group academic instruction and didactics. Your fellowship can be personally tailored to fit your educationai needs with eiective experiences at participating local medical facilities and university medical school programs to include: Stanford Univ., Mt. SInal, UCLA, Oregon HSU, Univ. of Texas HSC, Univ. of Wisconsin- Madison, Marquette Univ, etc. There are 6 Fellowship Sites: Bronx, NY; Los Angeles. CA; Milwaukee, Wl; Palo Alto, CA; Portland, OR; & San Antonio, TX. All fellowships last for 12 months unless othenwise noted and begin in July, August or September depending on the site and discipline. Ail fellows must have graduated from accredited educationai programs in their respective professions, be a U.S. citizen, have active, unrestricted licenses (depending on the discipline) to practice in the U.S., & show a career interest in palliative care. The Bronx, Los Angeles (two 6-month slots), Milwaukee, San Antonio, & Paio Alto sites accept Master's, post-master's. & doctoral level social work fellow applications. Stipends & Benefits - As a VA Fellow, you are a VA Employee and paid a stipend (depending on your discipline and credentials). Only 1-year fellows are eligible for VA health and life insurance benefits. Opportunities after the Fellowship - We make every effort to support you in your next career step. Fellows are under no obligation to work for the VA after completion of the program. For more information, please contact Mike Ellis at (650) 493-5000, ext. 63631 or Mlchael.Elli82 @ med.va.gov

Please visit us on the worldwide web at: www.hosplce.va.gov

95