Adoption Near and Far: A Comparison of American, Romanian and Indian Domestic Adoptions Victor Groza, Ph. D. Professor of Social Work Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences Bellflower Road Case Western Reserve University Cleveland, Ohio (216) 368 ‑ 6682

Key Learning Objectives:  T o provide participants with the necessary background for understanding adoption practice in other countries  To learn about family and child policy and adoption policy and practice in Romania and India, contrasting their system with the American system  To understand the logistics and issues that emerge in conducting adoption research in other countries

Year of Study by Country  United States,  Romania, 1999  India, 2001

Methods—Issues to Consider  Sample –Clinic vs. Community –Random vs. Convenience –Comparison Group  Approach –Single method (quantitative or qualitative) vs. mixed methods –Surveys (In home, in office or via mail) –Observational approaches –Case Studies

Measures—Issues to Consider  What we choose to measure should be informed by theory  We need to balance assessing problems with assessing strengths

Measures—Instruments used in various countries IndiaRomaniaAmerica Child Behavior ChecklistXXX Behavior & Emotional Rating Scale (Strengths) XX Parenting ScaleX Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales (FACES) X Questionnaire items (including placement history, parent-child relationships, handicaps, educational functioning, service use and needs)—individual items are also project specific XXX

Lessons Learned about Research  Involve parents in study design  Involve parents in reviewing results  Deconstruct major trends to look for nuances  Draw from multiple perspective including behavioral genetics, child development, psychology and social work

Across countries—lessons learned about research  Research instruments should be viewed by families and pre-tested in country when possible/practical, particularly for cultural sensitivity/relevance.  Be prepared to make daily modifications in translations for the first week of conducting the study.  With good preparation, families are willing to accept researchers (and foreigners) in their home to talk about their adoptions.  Any researcher must collaborate with in-country adoption workers in deciphering results.

The Child Welfare System Differences  Family vs. Institutional Care  Child-Centered vs. Family-Centered

COMPARISON OF FAMILY FOSTER CARE TO INSTITUTIONAL CARE FAMILY CARE  love  affection  structure  1:1 attention  individual focus  belonging to an extended system of relations  stimulation through relationships INSTITUTIONAL CARE  acceptance/tolerance  distance  routine  1:8-35 attention  group focus  belong/identify to the group  stimulation thru programs

Risks to Children from Early Institutionalization –Health –Development –Attachment –Psychosocial (Emotional and Behavioral) Functioning

Other in Different Countries America  Non-voluntary termination of parental rights  Subsidy  Formal and informal systems of post- placement support Romania  Abandonment  No subsidy  Minimal post-placement support India  Abandonment  Savings accounts  Some post-placement support  Only Hindus can adopt in-country; Moslems and Christians have permanent, legal guardianship

Selected Child and Family Demographics

Parent-Child Relations

Adoption Smoothness*

Adoption Impact

Behavior Problems IndiaRomaniaAmerica Somatic Complaints Anxiety/Depression* Social Problems* Withdrawal Thought Problems* Attention Problems* Aggressiveness*

Across countries—lessons learned about families  Families were more similar than they were different  Children had more similarities than differences  Families had few service needs that went unmet  The service system issues were different by country  Birth family issues were much more prominent a concern in Romania and India than with American families.  Family environment is powerful in shaping adoption outcomes and mitigating the risk children bring to families, but there is still so much to learn