Each year when the US Department of State issues a report on the previous year’s intercountry adoption figures, the media covers the story of the decline in adoption. From 2008 to 2016, the number of intercountry adoptions declined from 24,000 to about 5000 completed cases. That represents an 80% decline in 8 years. Many people ask (and theorize), “Why the decline?” We think it’s important for adoptive parents to know the answer to this question, and what is not the answer to the question. Below are the top reasons that we have identified as contributing to the decline in international adoption:
Some of the policies in the Hague Adoption Convention have reduced the number of children who could legally be adopted (regardless of whether they need to be adopted). For instance, the convention requires a “paper trail” to establish the identity of children and their history of legal custody. This would require the presence of a birth certificate, and court decrees about custody. But many children who live in developing nations do not have birth certificates or court decrees. While the requirements make sense, they do pose an insurmountable hurdle for some children to be adopted. Another requirement of the Hague Convention is to make every effort for a child to be adopted in their home country. This means that in most countries the length of time a child stays in the orphanage is extended by an entire year! The children are one year older, but almost none of them get adopted in their home country. As a result, children experience the negative effects of sustained institutionalization. And some parents are less likely to adopt since the age of children who are adoptable is increasing as a result of this requirement.
There is a notion among professors and political elites that “children belong in their country of birth.” This notion has affected policy by foreign countries who have restricted the number of adoptions, or put in place requirements that make adoption practically impossible. For instance, in 2016, Uganda enacted a 1 year residency requirement. In order to adopt from Uganda, you must live there for a year. This obviously reduces the number of parents willing or able to adopt. The policy was supposed to be in the best interest of children. But it is hard to see how children are better served by living in orphanages instead of families.
Nationalism or Political Games
The shutdown of adoptions from Russia is the result of a political game. Russia retaliated against the US after congress passed the Magnitsky Act in 2011. The Magnitsky Act implied that Russian officials were human rights violators. In order to save face, or to retaliate, Russia immediately banned adoptions to the United States. This resulted in thousands fewer adoptions each year.
Longer Processing time
If each adoption used to take 1 year, and now it takes 2 years, then rather quickly we will see the number of completed adoptions each year decrease. With the advent of the Hague Convention, and other accreditation requirements (by the Department of State, or by foreign countries), we have seen the length of time it takes to adopt double. As a result, fewer adoptions occur each year.
US Department of State Restrictions
The United States Department of State has identified certain countries that it will not accept adoptions from. These countries include Cambodia, Guatemala, and Nepal. Each of those countries is willing to cooperate in adoption, and for Americans to adopt their orphaned children. The prohibition, therefore, is one-sided. The rationale from the US government is that those countries do not have a sufficient system to ensure that adoption cases are free of corruption. For fear that some cases may be suspect, the Department of State has halted ALL adoptions cases.
Money is sometimes blamed for the decline in adoption. We have not seen this to be the case. The increasing cost of adoption, and the recent recession are both supposed to have affected adoption numbers. But adoption professionals understand that people who have a clear calling to adopt abroad, or who are struggling with infertility, are more concerned about building their family than they are about money. The cost imposes a frustrating or difficult burden, but not an insurmountable one. Families are so driven to adopt, that they make a way. We have not seen a reduction in the number of inquiries or applications we receive throughout the decline of adoption. We have only seen an increase in the length of time that it takes to adopt, which means fewer cases per year.
Not the cost and difficulty of accreditation
The number of accredited agencies has declined by 30% in just the last 5 years. This is a result in a drastic increase in the cost of Hague accreditation, and the increasing difficulty to meet accreditation requirements. While these barriers have put agencies out of business, we do not think that directly affects the number of completed adoptions. It is possible for adoptive families to switch agencies, and that would mean a longer wait time. But ultimately, it is the number of children who meet foreign or US adoption requirements which determines the number of adoptions.
People mistakenly liken adoptions to language involving markets, such as “supply and demand.” But the true answer is policy. The number and trajectory of completed adoptions rises and falls on policy.
Daniel Nehrbass, Ph.D. | President